Did Paul Accept the Teachings of Jesus?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 5 фев 2025
- Visit www.bartehrman... to shop from Bart Ehrman’s online courses and get a special discount by using code: MJPODCAST on all courses.
Many people do not realize just how infrequently Paul mentions the sayings of Jesus himself. And scholars can't agree why he doesn't quote Jesus more. Did Paul not know what Jesus taught? How could he not know? Did he think it wasn't important? Wasn't relevant? Was ... misleading? Moreover, if we compare what Jesus taught with what Paul taught -- are we even dealing with the same religion? These are some of most important issues confronting a historical understanding of the New Testament and early Christianity.
In this episode, Megan asks Bart:
--Do we know where Paul would have got information about Jesus from?
-In any of the writings we have, does Paul refer to specific teachings, or talk about what Jesus said in any detail?
-When we manage to line up, thematically, what Jesus and Paul say, how far do they agree, and how often are there divergences of opinion?
-Did Jesus and Paul share a similar mission to the gentiles?
-There's a difference in gentiles converting
-Rather than viewing Paul as breaking with Jesus’ teachings, would it be more realistic to understand his thought as a logical continuation? Jesus anticipated the end of the world and tried to prepare people for it. Paul carried on this mission, preparing the Gentiles for the kingdom of God, and identifying Jesus as the first of many bodily resurrections.
-Is it fair to say that they’re teaching the same basic story, but their characters have some variation?
-Is it that Paul isn’t a direct continuation of Jesus, they’re both just teaching within the same religious worldview?
Don't know how many other people are like this, but I'm an atheist Brit with zero connection to any form of religion or religious studies but I bloody love these podcasts.
They validate your ideas❤
@@crede9427 Exactly 😂
@@GabrielEddy his correct beliefs
Religion as an object of academic study is truly fascinating because religion is this weird mess filled with anthropological nuances. It is always interesting to dissect weird critters, and religion fits the bill to a T.
You live this because this people are atheists that have no clue regarding what religion is about.
See how they talk like if they new what happened 2000 years ago just so their worldview makes sense.
I love how Megan can start talking, stumble on what she's trying to say, and then pick it back up, and pull it off with grace. I would have just lost my train of thought. She's the perfect person to do these interviews.
Yes, I too love how she starts talking.
Yeah, she's intelligent for sure.
Five children AND a scholar with a bunch of students. Takes some grace!
5 kids oh wow I thought she had 2@@jmatrixrenegade1971
The two of them really do make an excellent show.
I'm an alum of UNC-Chapel Hill (1993), and I would have loved to have sat in one of Ehrman's classes. My favorite professor was Cecil Wooten (Classics, Latin), but had I encountered Ehrman, he might have won that title. Thank you for maintaining a RUclips channel, Dr Ehrman... I'm very much enjoying it!
Omg I loved Dr Kaufman
It’s amazing when you look at scripture outside orthodox Christian thinking. My my whole life of Christian indoctrination still molds my interpretation of scripture. My mind still tries to harmonize the teaching of Jesus and Paul. When I hear someone mention the times Jesus said you must keep the commandments, my mind immediately goes to “He’s trying to teach us we can’t be good enough to go to heaven, because we can’t keep the commandments.”
Chapter 1 Romans Paul Hated The Jews,
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
You could check out "Biblical Unitarians" if you'd like. Sir Anthony Buzzard was interviewed on "MythVision" actually. They take a very historical and scholarly approach to Biblical Hermeneutics.
And, if I may, when Jesus says keep the commands, I think Paul would agree. As Ehrman also says, I think, Paul *did* think behavior mattered AND mattered toward salvation, just not specific mosaic "Jewish" behavior (circumcision, Food laws, Holy days, etc). But Paul would have never dreamed of saying "don't murder" doesn't matter because "we can't' keep laws or something.
Also, for the record, and rather interesting, Jesus in the synoptics never mentions the Sabbath when saying "keep the commandments" (he will list the others though). And when mentioning the Sabbath says he is in control of it and what he deems acceptable on it becomes permissable, therefore we can work on it with no antagonism from God.
(Though, I do understand Jesus saying, "Pray your flight not be on the Sabbath" can feel like a point of contension)
@@youngknowledgeseeker Dude the Bible is bullshit. I know it now that I allow myself to objectively look at it.
But if you need it to be “true” to be happy, go for it my man. Whatever twisting and justification it takes for you to be happy. I’d rather be grounded in reality.
Jesus came to clarify the commandments, and to correct the previous false understanding of sacrifice and rules of behavior. It's the state of mind in which Jesus says the kingdom of heaven exists, not some list of rules. Seek this 'within' aka meditation.
👍🏼 good job
In his book "St Paul and Epicurus", Norman DeWitt makes many arguments saying that Paul (or whoever was writing claiming to be Paul) had studied under the Epicureans and was, in part, reacting against Epicureanism in his writings. He argues that many of the ways in which early Christian communities were organized and many of their practices were drawn from ancient Epicurean communities, including communion, confession, the tradition of writing epistles, the systematized dichotomy of vices - virtues, and many other details.
In modern Christianity, it seems Paul is the most important, with Jesus as a reference
Right, but it is called Paulin Christianity. I mean it has from the time of Paul been like this for mainstream Christianity and it is not just the modern version of it.
@@mogbabaI don’t know when “Paul’s time” was, and neither does anyone else. No one had heard of him until Marcion, who was declared a heretic. Yet 200 years later his ideas were canonized. One has to wonder what the point of the apostles was, as they would be completely overshadowed by a guy who never met Jesus. It is even claimed that Paul shouted down Peter (who was with Jesus from 1-3 years) for being completely wrong! People from Thomas Jefferson to the entirety of Islam call Paul the corrupter of Jesus’ message. Look how often the teachings contradict, and how little time Jesus gets in the book. It is not so much Pauline Christianity’s it is Paulism with Christ as a justification.
@@andrewfrennier3494
I agree with your main discussion being Paul's teachings corrupted, or at least differed from those of Jesus. As I mentioned in my previous comment, my main point was that Pauline Christianity is not a modern phenomenon. About Paul, he wrote that he was in Jerusalem and met some of the disciples of Jesus, among them Peter. If so, Jesus' disciples should know him. He has written letters to churches in a vast area. In addition, it is said that Luke was his companion. Luke is considered the writer of around 30 percent of the New Testament. I can imagine that the churches in Rome and in Western Asia Paul communicated with have been the main churches of the small community of Christians. So, I don't think has been an anonymous person in the first century.
@@andrewfrennier3494
You can say you don't know 'Paul's time' but the research doesn't care about it. The research has its own way of learning about phenomena. About the rest of your comments, well, it seems you have been living in that time and not only being there, apparently, but you have also been traveling in that region and have had some strong connection with leaders of every town and village that you are sure, that: "No one had heard of him until Marcion".
Next time, read your opponents' comments and try to stay on topic. Good luck!
I wish Megan would do an Audio book, her voice is so relaxing
I agree with that.
If you want to experience whiplash, listen to Megan, then listen to Krystal Ball.😣😬
Enjoyable and interesting. The way the questions are choreographed is bril.
I don't think Paul knew or cared about the teaching of Jesus.
James the Brother of Jesus knew more than Paul did.
I love these podcasts, Megan and Bart are so interesting to listen to.
It’s crazy that Jesus gives the recipe for getting to heaven which is just so good to others and then post his death the writers create so much unnecessary theology and christologies.
Excellent Bart! Thanks for your calm and scholarly way of presenting all sides of the argument.
How many pairs of glasses do you own Megan? Every week seems to show a new pair! 😂
This week's glass are not the best.
9:07 1. Preexistence and Divine Nature:
• Paul emphasizes the preexistence and divine nature of Jesus, portraying him as the Son of God (Colossians 1:15-17, Philippians 2:5-11).
2. Incarnation:
• While Paul doesn’t delve into the details of Jesus’ birth, he acknowledges the incarnation, stating that Jesus took on human form (Philippians 2:7-8, Galatians 4:4-5).
3. Teachings and Authority:
• Paul refers to Jesus’ teachings, emphasizing the authority of Jesus as a source of guidance for Christian communities (1 Corinthians 7:10, 9:14).
4. Last Supper and Eucharist:
• Paul provides an early Christian tradition related to the Last Supper, emphasizing the significance of Jesus’ sacrifice and the institution of the Eucharist (1 Corinthians 11:23-26).
5. Suffering and Death:
• A central theme in Paul’s letters is the redemptive power of Jesus’ suffering and death on the cross (Romans 3:24-25, 5:8, 8:32; 1 Corinthians 15:3; 2 Corinthians 5:21; Galatians 3:13; Ephesians 1:7).
6. Resurrection:
• Paul emphasizes the resurrection of Jesus as a central tenet of Christian faith, highlighting its significance for believers’ hope and salvation (1 Corinthians 15:12-22).
The central message of Jesus is about the kingdom of God. In contrast, the central message of Paul is salvation on the cross, about the crucified Christ.
Fundamentalists would probably argue that the passages where the man asks “what must I do to receive eternal life” all end with “and come follow me.” That the selling and giving to the poor are secondary, the main thing is to “follow Jesus.”
Personally I don’t agree. I think the latter is secondary. But it’s not as if the selling and giving are all that is quoted to be necessary for salvation.
There is one other means by which Jesus says the forgiveness of sins may be obtained:: by forgiving others. It’s in the Lord’s Prayer, and in many other places.
27:39 ''Paul says believe in death and resurrection of Jesus''---------------------I slightly presume that Paul also meant and be true to Jesus teachings (Not only death & resurrection and discard his teachings??????)
The idea that Jesus had no interests in non-Jews flies in the face of Mark 6:15: "And he said unto them, Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature."
What about Mathew 10:15?
@@qtip6366
Matt 10:15 seems pretty irrelevant: "Truly I tell you, it will be more bearable for Sodom and Gomorrah on the day of judgment than for that town."
@@robinstevenson6690 Jesus’s own words are irrelevant?
Is it not unique that Jesus personally and infatically said; "I was sent ONLY to the lost sheep of Israel . Matt. 15:24 / Also Jesus said to go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. Mk 16:15 Problem & Contradiction here. Even Jesus cannot agree with himself. I definately cannot count on what Jesus says and I do not know how anyone else can unless they are ignoring the words of Jesus and scripture.
I think there is both continuity, and an understandable discontinuity.
Jesus lived and taught substantially in a Jewish context. He would tell his disciples that to enter the kingdom, one needs to repent from sin and live faithfully to God and doing good to others. But in Jesus' context, this was naturally expressed by following the Torah.
Paul may well have started the same way. But Paul faced something that Jesus didn't. He was sent by Jesus to the gentiles. He experienced gentiles coming to faith in God, repenting, and starting to do good to others in response to the message of Jesus without first becoming Jews or knowing the Torah. That forced him to rethink what entering the kingdom of God was about.
3:08: How much did Paul even know about Jesus' teachings?
2 related questions: (i) where does Paul quote Jesus (barely anywhere, it turns out) + (ii) where do his and Jesus' statements agree?
14:16: Where do they agree/disagree?
16:49: The big disagreement: salvation.
17:00: Jesus vs Paul on preaching to Gentiles.
28:00: Is it possible to reconcile the salvation disagreement? "Lines of continuity"
32:09: further discussion on "continuity" that comes to a head at 35:42. There's a loose sense in which all competing Christian sects - "orthodox" and "heretical" - stand in continuity with what the historical Jesus said. Paul doesn't have a privileged position.
Paul was strenuously dichotomizing between “old” and “new” covenants, interpreting Jesus’ death (and resurrection) as necessarily fulfilling the “old” and thereby inaugurating the “new” despite Jesus having never made such a distinction between an “old” and a “new” covenant. This distinction was invented by Paul, hence his being credited with forming a new religion so radically divergent from Jesus’ teachings, and him being labeled an apostate from the Law i.e. from the “old” covenant/testament.
While I am a Deist now, after 40+ years as a Southern Evangelical, the following is basically how more conservative Christians would respond.
Luke 22:20: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood, which is poured out for you.”
Moses & the Law = Old Covenant.
Jesus & the Gospel = the New Covenant.
Contrasted in the NT: John 1:17; 3:13-15; 5:46; 6:32, 51; 8:28; 12:32; 17:1-8.
Jesus’ apostles were understood to be messengers who expounded & expanded upon the basic message & foundation of Jesus - as Jesus, working through the Holy Spirit, allegedly led them to do so, as Jesus said he would do.
Prior to the Cross, the Old Covenant was still in effect, therefore, Jesus spoke in these terms, often discussing obedience to the law with his Jewish brethren who were still under the law.
After Jesus’ death & resurrection, the New Covenant good news was proclaimed as the fulfillment predicted in the Old Testament. Peter’s sermon in Acts 2:14ff. is one elucidation of this.
@@rickowen4410 _Acts_ was written around 100 CE and is not intended as literal history. Whoever wrote _Luke_ was clearly a Pauline acolyte pushing the agenda I mentioned above.
@TheChekas John 10:16 intimates gathering Gentile believers with Jewish believers under the New Covenant.
Jesus on about new wineskins and Sabbath made for man etc
It seems to me that you never read the scriptures where the Lord Jesus introduces the remembrance feast for the disciples and for Christians down through the centuries after Christ's death, burial and resurrection. Catholics make such an emphasis on the Eucharist and the wine being the actual body and blood of Christ. This of course is a total misapplication of what the Lord said. However, if you read what it says, for example in Mark's account chapter 14 v 24 'This is my blood of the new testament (covenant), which is shed for many.' The apostle Paul took this teaching up 'after' the Lord's death and resurrection. The Lord Jesus could hardly make a song and dance about it as He had not died yet. Paul shows in 1 Corinthians ch. 10 then chapter 11 that the bread is broken for the members of Christ's body to share and show their unity in remembrance of the death of their Lord and Head. It has nothing to do with the Lord's actual body being broken, because if you read John chapter 19, it clearly states that none of His bones were broken.
Thank you Dr. I very much enjoy your teaching. You have my admiration.
What was always strange to me is Paul wrote so much theology embedded in his gospel and claimed he received it from Jesus but never says how that happened and never quotes Jesus or says, “…then Jesus told me…”
Um, he does do this a few times though. His 2 Cor. revelations claims to quote Jesus directly. Elsewhere he writes distinguishing where he says Jesus directly commands something and when he himself commands something. He does that in 1 Cor. about marriage for example.
@@drlegendre I’m aware but I was referring to how often he would say “my gospel” in his writings
@@ThisLiberalPopulist do you know specifically where?
Strange perhaps, but nevertheless pretty typical.
@@jonnyw82 E.g. Rom 16:25 "Now to him that is of power to stablish you according to my gospel..."
Jesus addressed the Jews who were under the "law" and Paul addresses the Gentiles who were freed from the law at the council in Jerusalem. That's why preaching sounds different. But one thing is true: Whoever believes in Jesus Christ will keep his commandments, and that is to love God as ourselves, to love one another, and everything we don't want people to do to us, so that we don't do to others. It is so simple to understand.
But many sayings of Jesus being used for non Jews (GENTILE) by nowadays christians though
@@HendroHoo That's true. I do the same😉
The so-called Council of Jerusalem never happened. It's an orthodox myth.
I used to live in ancient Rome shortly after Christianity hit town, and there was this knock on my door and these two guys were there, each one with a scroll in his hand, and the older guy said, "Would you like to be saved?" and I said, "Saved from what?" And he went into this incomprehensible business about dying and rising and the end of the world and Jerusalem, and he kept a straight face all the time, so it wasn't my neighbors playing a joke on April Fool's, and when I said I wasn't interested, they both turned around, took off their sandals, shook off the dust right in my face and walked away.
They did leave a scroll behind but I can't read Latin, never mind Greek, so I tossed it in the fire where I was cooking up a nice pasta sauce, and I hope that's the end of it! 😖
@@MikeJJJJJJJJdoomed to be funny
assume no tomatoes in your pasta sauce ....
@@moodyonroody5313 What the f...?!!! Are you from Jerusalem too? What the hell is a "tomato"? I make my sauce like all my pagan neighbors - cream, cheese, butter, garlic. We call it "Alfred" or "Albert" - I forget, but it's some dead gladiator or emperor. Anyway, as we say here down by the Appian Way, "bonum appetitum"!
The Bible and its sources are a fascinating study. It is worth it for the mental stimulation. First of all, the book has to be thoroughly read and studied.
Use to?
You are still in Rome.
Excellent discussion.
As an Australian atheist listening to Bart for many years I am convinced Paul’s highjacking of Jesus’s apocalyptic teachings and the resultant notion of the trinity is a total perversion of Jesus teachings and surely he and his father must be appalled at the resultant proliferation of the basically evil sects especially that of Peter…….. Roman Catholicism
@27:00 Prof Ehrman says ‘… Nothing about believing in Jesus’.
For Paul, believing in Jesus obviously entails faithship according to Jesus’ pattern.
In Matthew 19.21, Jesus said this to the same young man he had told to give up his posessions that enslaved him:
“…and come, follow me”.
Prof. Ehrman omitted ‘.. and come follow me’ from the words of Jesus.
Why did he omit that?
Paul stressed: ‘Imitate me as I imitate Christ’ - Paul gave up everything he had his pride in and which kept him enslaved - in order that he should be shaped according to Jesus’ pattern.
Paul wrote this to his most mature converts:
“And so, my dear friends, just as you have always obeyed, not only when I was with you but even more now that I am absent, continue to work out your salvation with fear and trembling. For it is God who is producing in you both the desire and the ability to do what pleases him. Do everything without complaining or arguing so that you may be blameless and innocent, God’s children without any faults among a crooked and perverse generation, among whom you shine like stars in the world as you hold firmly to the word of life. Then I will be proud when the Messiah returns that I did not run in vain or work hard in vain.” (Phil 2.12-16 ISV)
This is the fundamental difference between the teaching of Jesus and Paul;
Jesus: you must change your life and do these positive actions in order to be saved.
Paul: All you need to do is identify with my group. You don’t have to change in any way.
One is much easier than the other and flourished. The other is very difficult and is rarely found anywhere.
That’s a pretty big misrepresentation of Paul. He expected converts to change - or be changed - radically.
Jesus said what you should do, Paul says what you shouldn't do. Paraphrased, of course. Muricans are not christians they are paulinians.
@@RB-tc3tw If the only relevant thing to do is believe in one thing, then it's not a misrepresentation.
@@juanausensi499 First, “You don’t have to change in any way” is not an accurate description of Paul’s teaching. Second, “believe in one thing” is not an accurate summary of the Pauline notion of what it means to have faith in Christ.
@@RB-tc3tw Let's test that. Who is saved, according to Paul?
I have only been listening to you for a short time now, my question is, if Paul presecuted early christians, and then converted only a few years after Jesus death, then Jewish christians must have grow quickly?
Great topic for discussion, guys! Thanks for this upload.
I love this series. Much respect for Bart and Megan! Regarding what Bart says (at 31:50) "that there would be no reason for him to have to die"...I would ask if he was killed because he attacked the Pharisees for their hypocrisy on the very matter Bart referred to, and due to his popularity, he was a huge treat to their power.
Is it possible that the “teachings of Jesus” that are consistent with Paul were actually reverse engineered based on Paul’s writings? As in, Jesus did not actually say these things but the writers put it into his mouth to make it consistent with Paul?
It's not even reverse engineering. It's simply a progression. There is a lot of evidence that the author of Mark was aware of at least some of Paul's writings and included this in the first gospel. I haven't seen the reverse (that Paul was aware of the gospels) argued successfully. I think it's likely that neither Paul nor the gospel authors actually had much reliable information about Jesus.
@@travis1240 i said “reverse engineering” because the stories in the Gospels are supposed to take place before Paul ever entered the scene. Therefore they’re placing future sayings or ideas into the past and projecting them on to Jesus, who came earlier than Paul. Thus explaining my use of the term “reverse”.
@@thescoobymikeyeah I understand. Much/most of the Bible describes events far in the past from the perspective of the authors, when the authors had little or no information about the events in question - this is why so little aligns with the historical record. Paul is one of the few writing contemporaneously, and a few of his books are probably even written by a guy named "Paul". So I tend to see it as just stories and not some sort of engineered past.
@@travis1240 well I don’t wanna get lost in semantics, so regardless of our preferred terms I agree with you. The contents of books in the Bible tell us a lot more about the time period in which they were written rather than the time period in which the stories take place.
I don't see it. It's quite possible Jesus didn't say many of those things, but I don't see how you'd get to most of them if you were just trying to come up with stuff that matched Paul's writings.
After the dialogue with the rich young man, Jesus talked about how hard it would be for those with riches to enter heaven. He compared it to a camel going through the eye of a needle, although some scholars said the actual word was a rope, not a camel.
Though this may be a repeat upload, I missed 1st time & glad for this. I see two gospels most definitely. I’ve wondered that if Paul was necessary why Jesus did not inform his disciples of Paul to come. Jesus should be all that’s needed!!!
That's exactly what Paul got wrong IMO. Paul basically said "all that matters is Jesus (and worshipping him)", which is wrong compared to what Jesus said/did. Jesus never intended to be worshipped as God, and always indicated that we are ALL sons of the Father - not just himself. He repeatedly said to seek this truth within, like a child, to enter this 'heaven'.
My opinion is that Jesus never said he was the "son of god", or any of that self-aggrandizing stuff he's associated with now. He was just an apocalyptic preacher who got crucified by the romans for insurrection. He didn't write anything down (or ask that anyone else write anything down) because he thought the world was going to end so soon that it didn't matter. He certainly had no idea that his movement would live well past his death and that several decades later someone would come and usurp his message with a completely different one. At the same time, without Paul, Christianity would have died out a very long time ago.
@@travis1240 I disagree with part of what you said. Jesus was certainly a participant in the Eleusinian mysteries and didn't think the world would end or anything. He for sure didn't try to start a religion about himself, but he was trying to an ultimate truth when he constantly indicated that we are ALL sons of God (not just himself). Aka we are all immortal but experiencing physical death, and that we should not worry about death.
His message is universal and would have continued regardless of Paul. We are seeing this true message continue today with the resurgence of psychedelics.
@@travis1240 There is no evidence that a Jesus ever said anything at all. What Mark claims Jesus said is largely just rephrases of what Paul identifies as his own personal opinions.
@@eulldog Jesus was an Apocalyptic preacher believing the world was soon to end, and you claim he didn't think the world would end...
Following what you lay out here (thank you gain, BTW!), could the conflict back in Jerusalem have been about how the Palestinian followers - who possibly quoted Jesus frequently - saw Paul as teaching a 'Paul-centered' gospel? That would also explain Paul's defensiveness about how he is, in fact, in a line of people who have 'seen Jesus'. This is fascinating! You, Bart, and your colleagues James Tabor, Dom Crossan, Jack Spong, Bob Funk and a few others have taken instincts I had while in Seminary to the highest level of simple accuracy about 'what probably actually happened' back then.
And 'AMEN' about how you, Megan, help these important 'moments' flow and are 'digestable' for us all!
Paul has always struck me as the third wave of Christianity and it is only by luck we see his wrestling with the facts be was observing - that non-jews could and were as good people and christians but not jews and not "needing" circumcision and not needing to become full blown converts to the Jewish faith. For some reason, he"saw" that, and it appears to have been different from the views of Peter, et al.
Maybe he just saw an opportunity to be a religious leader.
Paul’s makes more sense in a way. Perhaps he is the “divine one.” Though we say Jesus, it’s all about “thorn in his flesh,” Paul.
Paul is the _first_ wave. Second wave is inventing a terrestrial Jesus to mouth Paul's opinions (with strategic alterations). Third wave is walking said Jesus around Judea saying them. Fourth is executing everybody who says different, and burning every last scrap of whatever they wrote.
You are forgetting ROMANS CHAPTER 1, Paul HATED The Jews, Paul WANTED The Jews exterminated!!!! PAUL WAS A ANTISEMITE~~~~
18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;
19Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
21Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature:
27And likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.
28And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient;
29Being filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, debate, deceit, malignity; whisperers,
30Backbiters, haters of God, despiteful, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents,
31Without understanding, covenantbreakers, without natural affection, implacable, unmerciful:
32Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death, not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
22:58 If a famous person in our time says those things (Matthew 25:31-46), the whole world condemns that person for being racist. But, those same people praise Jesus even if he has said this and worse than this!
It's almost as if Christians are really Paulites
Evangelicals might be. Catholics are certainly not. For Catholics works are central. Faith without works is dead. Early Protestants did, of course, criticize the Catholic priest caste for its greed and opulent lifestyle in the late Middle Ages and Renaissance. That criticism has entirely reversed itself in the Evangelical subgroup which consists mostly of people with varying degrees of narcissistic/egotistic personality disorder. They want salvation for free and are throwing in some Schadenfreude over everybody else who isn't like them and therefor can not possibly be saved. ;-)
I am thoroughly enjoying this series. The one question that Bert hasn't answered in my opinion is why anyone was interested in the fledgling Christian faith? Presumably most people had some sort of faith - so what was so appealing to people that it made them change to Christianity?
Although I Too Have Problems With Paul Portrayed In False Church Doctrines.
Yeshua Did Say "You Believe In God Believe Also In Me."
So Yeshua Did Command A Belief In Him.
His other commands were to love. Paul encouraged love, too, but many churches who discourage love, quote paul, to contradict what Jesus said.
This frustrates me, no end.
@@Plethorality - Agreed. And Not Everything Written Of The Bible Is The Inerrant Infallible Word Of God Is "Scripture". As Church Religions Proclaim. Paul Is A Good Example Of This Himself. The Only Time Yeshua And His Disciples Spoke Of Scripture Is When They Were Referring To What The Prophets Of God Said. Even The Apostle Peter Attested To This. With His Letter When He Was Stirring Their Minds To Remember What The Prophets Of God Said. Saying That "IN All Paul's Letters" He Speaks Of "These Things" Too. Not That Paul Was Writing Scripture Himself With All His Letters. - 2Pet.3:1-16 The Catholics Leaders Had Professed Peter As Their Patriarch Of Faith To Succession. So The Protestants Not To Be Out Done Reserved Paul As Their Patriarch Of Succession. As So The Protestant Pastors Of Paul Put Him On A Pedestal Of Their Own Accent Over Others As Well.
I was surprised to see a new post on a Sunday, but I quickly realized that this episode had been previously posted, and it's okay.
I know that Prof. Ehrman pushes back when people say ask if Paul was the founder of christianity. However, I feel like a lot of that pushback is sort of semantic in nature, as in, well, what do you mean by "founded," or what do you mean by the term "christianity"? The more I learn about it all though, the more I see Paul as being by far the most influential force that shaped what would become christianity, and the more I see Jesus himself as sort of incidental to it, and the reasons why have a lot to do with what Bart and Megan are talking about in this episode.
Jesus and Paul taught different messages and knew very different things. Jesus didn't know he was going to be crucified, and Paul didn't know what Jesus taught. Consequently, Jesus didn't preach a message about himself. Jesus was a Jew, and his message was to Jews and about Judaism and the Jewish law and prophets. Entrance into the kingdom being based upon hospitality seems to be a direct echo of the parable of Sodom and Gomorrah in Genesis, rather than anything that would come to be thought of as New Testament theology. The Judaism of Jesus would have been a religion of obedience to law, even if his spin on Judaism was unorthordox, and not so much about beliefs, per se.
That's in stark contrast to Paul, who taught a message about Jesus, instead of the message that Jesus himself taught. Paul couldn't have because he didn't know Jesus, and probably knew very little about Jesus or his teachings. The one thing he did know was that Jesus was crucified, and that other christians believed he'd been resurrected. The other thing he knew was uncircumcised non-Jews were not too enthusiastic about becoming circumcised. But still, people had been converting to Judaism for hundreds of years, and they were known as "proselytes." When Paul went to James and Peter, the probably thought he was crazy. If "gentiles" wanted to convert, they could do it the same way it had always been done, by becoming "proselytes." But Paul came up with a novel solution: they didn't have to become "proselytes," they could just become "christians." That's the key innovation. Jesus did not teach this, and the Jerusalem church doesn't seem to have approved either. It appears that the conception of James and Peter was that to be a follower of Jesus was to still be a Jew, most likely because that's who Jesus was and that's what Jesus taught. But Paul replaced that with a teaching about Jesus, about how belief in his death and resurrection, instead of obedience to law, was the key to salvation, and about how it was not necessary to be a Jew at all to be a follower of christ. In fact, if Paul was right, then it wasn't even necessary for Jesus to have taught anything at all. All he needed to do was just simply die and be resurrected, and then later inspire folks like Paul to go raise up churches of people who believed in it. Paul makes Jesus' whole ministry superfluous.
The Jerusalem church could not compete with the "gentile" churches founded by Paul, and eventually went extinct or was subsumed, leaving an increasingly anti-semitic Pauline christanity that bore little resemblance to the religion that Jesus followed and taught. It was founded upon Jesus, but arguably, no longer by him.
Was McDonalds "founded" by Richard and Maurice, or was it "founded" by Roy Crock? It's kinda the same question. You could answer it either way, and either answer could be viewed as being correct, because the restaurant they opened and operated bears no resemblance to Roy Crock's corporation that still bears their name.
The mystery still is how did Galilean Jesus make a name for himself. What attributes captivated scholarly Paul to invest himself. Was it something supernatural OR sinister. Faith is belief without evidence....
From what I understand of Bart's take on this, the theory is that James and Peter already had adopted the theology that faith in Jesus and the meaning of his death and resurrection was key to being right with God. Probably derived from their attempt to find meaning in his execution.
Paul's difference was that if that was the important thing then converting to Judaism and keeping the Law was not necessary. The Jerusalem Church was already halfway to being a new religion. By reaching out to Gentiles, Paul just cut the ties to Judaism entirely.
It's hard to see, because we don't have any documents from James and Peter's version, so we can't see the changes happening.
And the fact that it's hard to tell in many cases what Jesus actually taught because the "gospels" came so late and the earliest one we have (Mark) is such a Pauline retelling of Jesus' life (even the word "gospel" [euangelion] is a Pauline thing), that just muddies the waters that much more.
If I've come across this point you're bringing up before I've forgotten it, but it's entirely possible that's true. But that would just mean that Jesus' ministry was that much more pointless, since even his disciples threw away almost everything he said that much more quickly.
@@Jayzbird16 [Euangelion] is an Augustan, i.e. Roman thing that Paul adopted. (Augustus was announcing salvation from military domination by others.) There is no objective reason to believe that a Jesus taught anything before the gospels were penned. If there was such a one, anything he said is lost, wholly replaced by what was made up after he died. The bulk of what was made up for him to have said is rephrased from Paul's opinions, or later writers' reactions to them: there is no better way to enforce doctrine than to insist your founder said it himself.
@@Jayzbird16
Hi.
You're a reasonable and honest individual. It's your honest search for truth which led you to recognize the opposite teachings when it comes to Jesus and Paul.
Remember, Jesus wa-rn-ed about Fer-oc-1ous w0l-ves in she-ep's clo-thi-ng.
👉 Paul is the answer
The fruits of Paul are that 2 Billion + Christians made a H.E.R.E.T.I.C of Jesus of the Bible. The Bible testifies. On each and every fundamental doctrine, it's Christians Vs Jesus whom the Christians profess to love and honor.
Truth is a bitter pill to swallow.
The fruits of Paul are that the faith called Christianity h-e-a-p-s the gr-ea-te-st I-N-S-U-L-T-S on Jesus of the Bible. The Bible testifies.
I'd love to hear from you. Feel free to try to counter / challenge / refute / reason on.
***QUESTION?*** ... If anyone can answer:
In John 5:31, Jesus stated that if he gave testimony of himself, he should not be listened to. BUT... the spirit bore witness to Jesus by the miracles Jesus performed - hence, there was witness that Jesus was of God.
Based on the above... Paul had no witness to prove what he claimed Jesus told him on the road to Damascus. How do we know that Paul did not make it up? How is one to know, in the absence of a "witness" that Paul was not lying?
John was written 100 to 110 years after crucifixion... I don't know how that would have passed down the line if Jesus said it 🤔💭
Begins 2:35.
Wish you would have posted this sooner. Oh, well, thanks anyway.someone else can make use of it.
@@jeffryphillipsburns It's a reup anway, you could have spared yourself the whole thing :)
Pretty much every episode starts around the 2:30 to 3:00 area just as a heads up for anyone who plans on listening to more of the episodes
@@thescoobymike There have been a few around the 4:00 mark too. It's good not to have to search so much.
@@TheSoteriologist facts
@bartehrman Can you provide some historical insight on ownership/cohabitation of the land of Israel?
@ged9925 - Certainly a timely request.
Paul definitely got the message wrong by concluding all we need is to worship Jesus like a God. This was all made up and assumed in some letters and totally missed the point that Jesus never said he was the only son of God - but that we ALL are.
Unlikely to be have been Paul's idea, but the reaction of the disciples struggling to cope with their Messiah's death - "there must have been some purpose, some meaning behind it, right?"
@@jeffmacdonald9863 I disagree. IMO it doesn't matter who came up with the idea, but Paul perpetuated this false belief that just believing Jesus is 'the christ' is all we need. The disciples knew the truth through the psychedelic wine Jesus made many times for his disciples, and that he will 'return again', and to 'do this in remembrance of me'. The disciples absolutely knew that Jesus (and all of us) don't truly die when we die.
The Isle of Skye does not look like it is easy to get to from the U.S! However, it does look interesting geographically! Worthy of a visit just to enjoy the coastline!
Am I crazy or is this a reupload?
I was thinking the same thing
Yes, if you look episode 31 is from 4 months ago. No explanation for why it is reappearing today.
@@Robert_L_Peters I literally watched this episode one or two days ago. I was so confused 😭
Yep. It is a (strange) repeat
You're not crazy.
What about the 1 billion people before Paul’s presentation of the death and resurrection atonement as well as Paul’s conversion only AFTER God was presented to Paul. Paul had faith after not by belief.
No, Paul always refers to "my gospel".
He made up the principles of Christianity on his own, though he did not intend to create a new religion. He thought the end of the world was imminent.
The gospels are all, ultimately, cribbed from Paul anyway. Mark just turns Paul's personal opinions into straight-up Jesus quotes, so it is meaningless to ask if Paul "accepts" it: he made it up himself. (Of course the later gospels mix things up a bit.)
Many new religions think that the end of the world is imminent .. and they are right!... The world has ended for many of them. Yet life goes on...
This is a re-upload?
It seems so given they were talking about things they’ve already done this summer and then about the course that was released earlier this summer.
Mark 10:45
“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”
I trust "Paul" just as much as I trust "Donald Trump".
You have spent too much time around that nutcase Biden
So, you think men can have babies too, right?
@@The_truth_hurts25 As I quite enjoyed "MAKING BABIES", I would say, YES. I was, indeed, part of the process of MAKING BABIES. Maybe, just MAYBE, you should GO BACK TO SCHOOL and STUDY some HUMAN SEXUALITY before you feel the need to SPEW SOME personal HATE to GROWN-UPS. NOW GO AWAY.
Is this a reupload?
I know I’m not losing my mind, right?
Another excellent episode, and I have to say that dropping the long third party transition/intro/outro parts made a great improvement.
What does “outro” stand for? Outroduction?
@@jeffryphillipsburns It's coined from intro. Pretty well-established term over the last 50+ years in music and video.
Is this a re-upload? There's a lot of banter and anecdotes that sound very familiar
Yes it is. I remember it too. based on what Megan says at the beginning and what Bart says at the end, the video is 4 months old. The episode before it is called Is "Paul the Founder of Christianity?" and the following is "Is the Gospel of John a Forgery?" (interview with Hugo Mendez).Too bad they are not numbered. :(
Speaking as a Christian, this is the highlight of my week. Been waiting for this episode for a long time!
Speaking as a left-handed person, this seems to me essentially a rehashing of something already repeatedly addressed in this series, maybe slightly fleshed out in this episode, but only slightly.
@@jeffryphillipsburns I'm left handed too!
@@DannyPinnt Congratulations! I’m Christian too (though this no more to do with my religious beliefs than my left-handedness)-as far as I can tell, that is..
@@jeffryphillipsburns Hmm I suppose that would depend on whether you obey the commandments… err, fulfill the sacraments… err, say the prayer… lol
@@DannyPinnt I am also left-handed, and this video is worth watching again in the Mirror Universe where I seem to be about half the time anyway.
23:47 Main DIVERGENCE between Paul and Jesus' teaching: being how one attains salvation
28:00 How do you create a successful religion? Tell people they must fund the clergy or be damned, and tell people they must believe your clergy or be damned. To me, a layperson, it seems that Jesus's version of Judaism (which is what he taught) was always doomed to disappear. Whereas Paul taught a commercially viable and self-sustaining Christianity. That does not mean Paul was only interested in profit, but it does mean that Paul came up with a formula that worked commercially for 2,000 years.
I don't expect people to agree with me, but I believe that is reality. Paul lucked out/chanced upon/came up with a formula that would propagate and fund his religion for 2,000 years.
Kudos to Paul for that! In Europe seems like all about Paul & Peter & a lil about Jesus. My aunt (tsp) attended a Pauline church. OT should have mentioned the coming of Paul........
Do you just accept Paul’s persecution of Christians as ‘gospel’ or is there historical evidence? A Pharisee working for a Sadducee makes little sense at the time.
Does anyone consider himself an christian atheist ?
I do. I’m Christian in the same sense that I’m American. The former has nothing whatsoever to do with my personal religious beliefs, and the latter has nothing whatsoever to do with my personal political beliefs. I’m the product of a Christian culture, and nothing I do can change that. Christian mythology will always have a deep resonance for me that it could never have for someone brought up differently.
And thanks for the question, by the way. I appreciate it.
Does a heretical and apostate Nestorian Christian count? :-)
@@jeffryphillipsburns ya i myself am raised in a hindu culture like it or not as u say i am constantly influenced by my hindu myths and stories even when i say i am a liberal person who doesnt believe in gods in the way general people mean it to be. Crucifix , as propounded by slavoj zizek , is very interesting it isnt really clear what death of christ on the cross means , is it the ascension of christ to god or rather the fall of god onto men mirroring the fall of the adam in genesis thereby redeeming the paradise which was lost by bringing the kingdom of god onto the earth. It is kind of like it was rather the death of the Big other ,the man in the sky who is secretly pulling the strings , the abdication of this God precisely from the above and into the community of believers in the form of holy spirit which is the egalitarian community of believers bound by love. It is really very amazing coz its not that we need god but rather god needs us for him to get expressed.
@@arthurmartinson4370 Thats really hilarious actually i didnt knw it could be applied like that 🤣but i was meaning that literal disbelief of the god in the sky brother but as far i could understand christs teaching its about the heart rather than the law. As he says not eveyone who says lord lord will get to the kingdom of god , so yes even if u r a heretic in the mainstream christian tradition, in the spirit of christ you r not as far as i understand christ. This is coming from a guy in india raised in a hindu family but who consides himself christian in the sense that the recognition of a christian is to feel the desertion from God like christ did on the cross when he exclaims o father why have you forsaken me in Mark. That desertion is what i consider a christians boon and a misfortune for one a christian cant say if anything bad happens God will come and help us for our God is already dead and with us in holy spirit and the way to feel his spirit is through loving others as u lovd thyself and helping each other when something bad happens to us without waiting for earthly miracles to come and save us when the actual gift to us in holy spirit is within us waiting to be expressed .
1 Timothy 1:4 mentions a reference to what might be the Gospels, even though today most serious and unbiased scholars consider this pastoral letter to be a forgery.
@jayjaral - In other places, Dr Ehrman has said that that only 6 of the letters are written by the same person. The others are written by others. (There is no concrete evidence that Paul wrote any of them.)
Is it possible that the teachings of Paul informed the later gospels especially the passage you spoke with reference to the goats and sheep.
Bart says the goats-and-sheep bit directly contradicts Paul.
Paul definitely influenced the Gospels, but I think more in the shift from being a Jewish sect to a new Gentile religion. Bart talks in some other videos about Mark showing that the Jews, even the disciples, didn't understand Jesus, but some Gentiles did recognize who he was. That's Paul's mission to the Gentiles, right there.
@@jeffryphillipsburns Bart is not up on current scholarship. Mark is cribbed directly from Paul. Other gospels crib from Mark, inserting inversions and further invention.
Curious how Paul should be read in light of Jude’s letter?
Christianity for me is the synthesis of hebrew religion with hellenistic reason thus both belief and disbelief are embodied in the figure of christ making him complete figure . He is man in history plus myth making him all the more enticing and gripping at the same time
,
@ashishmantri3684 - Per a "Religion for Breakfast" episode I saw, 'What was the REAL name of Jesus?', in the Second Temple Period, Jesus ( as Yeshu' ) was the 6th most common male name. Perhaps the man referred to as Jesus is an compilation of several Yeshu' men. If Jesus really existed, it is a crying shame that neither he nor any of the people he was closest to were literate and left us contemporary writings in their own voices.
@@MossyMozart well it might be scholarly consensus agrees that there was a man who existed and was cruicifed whether he really rose up i doubt and r the gospels reliable when comes to the actual story i think not coz each gospel is very very unique . John is like completely different so yes i believe even someone like krishna existed but not the way mahabharat describes him ,he was gradually adopted and exalted into the supreme god so yes watevrr it is i believe that myths are more real than reality infact much deeper and they express themselves through maybe the unconscious in our psyche like numbers in mathematics do they just exist in the mind or do they have an existence outside our mind ,we donot know but it works for ordering us to understanding the natural order in the same way a myth takes the language of story plus language to put forward something relating to our own nature and capacity to contend with the world , even though it still exists inside us we were not cognizant of its existence until 20 th century so clearly those guys were not all familiar and taught them as literally true where infact they r true not in the sense of literal truth but. For me do i believe in jesus that an average christian wants me to believe in his naivety , hell no ,infact that kind of belief to a historical story and trying impose that is the true gist of christianity otherwise i go to hell, that kind of hypocrisy i avoid coz it will only lead to mischief and hate rather than any genuine effect .
*Resurrected Jesus didn’t appear* to anyone specifically in the earliest available version of Mark, the first gospel.
And from Mark 16:7, I wouldn’t expect that Jesus would appear first to the disciples or Paul, because the women don’t tell anyone, so Cephas and the gang don’t know to meet Jesus there.
Mark’s Jesus had alluded to Resurrection, but they didn't understand and were afraid to ask 8:31-34,9:30-32, (14:24-5?), and he doesn't mention a physical meeting.
This is a Reupload But it is Good
Megan, after doing so many interviews with Bart and integrating deeply the 'big things' he brings to the table, would YOU be willing to write about 'What I Have Learned From Bart Erhman'?
I believe there is an open slot out here for you to tell us how YOU have put all of it together. . . I would welcome it -- along with a bunch of others!
It’s almost like Paul hijacked Christianity for his own belief system.
What's new about that? Paul was a drunk and used car salesman. There was nothing much to hijack, though. Much of what you think of as Christianity today was the work of Paul's feverish mind.
That has frequently been said about Paul, and I do mean *frequently*.
@@schmetterling4477and calvin, the mass murderer... (Over 100 thousand victims, so why he still still honoured as a theologian? )
@@Plethorality I don't even want to talk about the minor figures. A bullshitter is a bullshitter is a bullshitter.
Regarding lack of any written sources of the teachings or biography of Jesus available to Paul, in "The Historical Figure of Jesus," Sanders suggests (if I recall correctly) that there were pericopes (is what I recall him referring to them as--small snippets of individual writings) that were passed around in communities of followers. Is that a suggestion that has fallen out of favor in academic circles?
There was never so much as a hint of evidence for pericopes. Real historians only talk about what there is evidence for, not random speculation. Most of what "new testament scholars" (who are not historians) talk about is exactly such random speculation. Since the early Church assiduously destroyed every document from the time except Paul's letters and a couple of others, everything not directly referring to those is random speculation. "Oral traditions", most of all.
@@NathanMyers-c8y Why do you think the early Church destroyed every document from the time? Why do you think they had such documents to start with?
At the very least, intentionally destroying such documents wasn't necessary. Simply not bothering to copy manuscripts deemed less important would likely lead to their loss as the centuries passed.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 Because later Church heavies boast openly about torching anything they can find that differs from their official opinions. Founding documents would be among the most important to preserve and copy unless they suggested inconvenient facts such as that Jesus never preached, but was only ever seen in visions. You wouldn't need a creed insisting Jesus _"really did"_ this and _"really did"_ that unless there were sects saying he didn't.
@@NathanMyers-c8y Yeah, they boast about it. They boast about the heresies they squash. They never boast about squashing a heresy that claimed there never was a physical Jesus on Earth. That suggests that wasn't a sect that was actually around.
You're inventing documents there isn't any reason to think existed in order to blame the Church for destroying them.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 It is objective fact that whatever was written down in the early Church is lost to us, where it would have been preserved if anyone in later centuries had wanted to preserve it and could do without getting burnt. The odds that nothing was written down at the time except what we have now is nil. The reasonable inference is that early writings were among what later came to be considered heretical. It is _not_ reasonable to infer that nobody at the time cared what the apostles wrote. That Mark had practically nothing to work with except Paul's letters suggests that the torching came very early. Nobody writing second-century shows any hint of knowing anything about what apostles thought, outside what we have in Paul, 1 Peter, and the like. Boasts about burning heresy and heresiarchs are meant to warn others away from currently active heresy; there is no need to mention heresies long since wholly suppressed, and utterly compelling reasons not to.
I highly suspect that Jesus' supposed words in the gospel were built off Paul's letters and not the other way around. We may not have a single actual word Jesus ever said.
Seems unlikely. There isn't anywhere near enough in Paul to work from and most of it wouldn't lead to the Jesus we see in the Gospels anyway. Paul is so focused on the meaning of the death and resurrection, the actual teachings get almost no emphasis.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 Authorial agency - the gospel writers did creative work. But more so they copied from whoever the author of "Mark" happened to be. So with copying, inventing and mimesis, the gospel writers should not be thought of as accurate chroniclers.
@@TheDanEdwards I'd agree not accurate chroniclers - they often disagree with each other (where they're not directly copying earlier ones).
But I don't see how it can be all traced back to Paul. Or at least not to just Paul's letters.
Paul wasn't the only person going around preaching about Jesus and founding churches in those early years. They all clearly would have told stories of Jesus's teachings, miracles and of his death and resurrection while doing so. Those traditions may not be accurate reflections of Jesus himself and the Gospel writers already had different versions and then all put their own theological spin on them.
@@jeffmacdonald9863 Maybe read up on current evidence-based scholarship, then. There is no hint of any stories about a walking, talking Jesus on the ground, before the gospels.
@@NathanMyers-c8y The only evidence before the Gospels is Paul and while Paul does claim to have had a vision of Jesus, he also speaks of Jesus as "born of woman" and as descended from David. As well as mentioning "the Lord's brother". He didn't know him personally (other than his mystical experience), but his letters do not at all conflict with there being a "walking talking Jesus on the ground".
Most of the difference is due to the fact that Jesus taught before the crucifixion (pre-crucifixion) and Paul taught after the crucifixion (post-crucifixion). The gospel, or "good news," that Jesus taught was about the Kingdom of Heaven and the coming Son of Man* and how to live in this new world and how to prepare for it. While Paul taught that the time of resurrection of every one has come and begun with Jesus and everyone dies within Jesus and is born again within the resurrection which happens through baptism because the time was now according to Paul. Furthermore, Paul lived and taught at the era when the Jesus movement was trying to make sense of Jesus' death and crucifixion and find meaning for it. (*According to some scholars, in the Jewish context, the Son of Man was not a heavenly figure during the late second temple era but contrast to the divine and the angels and was used in the sense of "that person," or "myself". It only mutated more into a heavenly figure in the Christian tradition in the same way as what had happened to the titles Messiah and Servant/Man/Son of God too.)
Religion 101: Round and around it goes where it stops nobody knows, you put your money down and takes your chances.
Or you choose not to play. This is the only safe bet.
@@travis1240 Amen Brother! Lol
I have come to the conclusion that Matthew 28:20 "...teaching them all to obey everything I have commanded you..." totally breaks the dispensationalist reliance on the ressurection as the dividing line between Jesus's message and Paul's regarding observance of the law vs. salvation by grace through faith. I am personally coming to believe that 1 and 2 Cor. shows Paul was mostly a grifter who had very little idea of what Jesus actually taught and 1 & 2 Peter and especially James were the psuedoepigraphical response of the Jerusalem christians to Paul's complete revision of the Jesus cult's salvation message.
Paul never met Jesus and claimed to have “a vision” of Jesus and the trinitarian doctrine came as a result. This is modern Christianity.
Joseph smith also never met Jesus and claimed to have “a vision” of Jesus and Mormonism was born.
Why do Christian’s accept Paul but not Joseph smith? Neither met Jesus. Both claimed to have a vision. Paul was not know to be of sound moral character back then.
@@MikeJJJJJJJJ To be fair, Paul certainly had a much closer relation than Smith. Paul personally knew Jesus’s brother and some of Jesus’s closest disciples.
Yeah I think if you're going to accept Paul's words, you need to accept every "vision/hallucination" that anyone has. These days we have mediation for psychosis but back then it was seen as a portal to the gods. It really is mostly about the time period and how ill informed people were then.
Don't think you can really blame trinitarianism on Paul. At least more than you can blame Christianity's spread among the gentiles and thus its growth and dominance on him.
@@jeffryphillipsburns There is no reason to believe that the "brother" Paul knew was any particular person's brother; they were _all_ brothers. Paul does not mention knowing _any_ disciples, never mind hearing from one anything Jesus said to them. The apostles he knew got their doctrine from visions and from old scripture, like him. So we can think of Paul as just like Smith, except perhaps sincere and not an out-and-out fraud and con man.
Why the re-upload?
I don’t think Paul ever met Yeshua.
Sad but true.
He never even claimed to meet him in person. As for his "visions", Paul was either aware he was a con man, or maybe he had a stroke or fell off his horse and hit his head.
Some think he developed an insider position to work with Roman government
@@hollykirby8542 Been reading “Creating Christ”, Valliant, which expresses that point of view. Comparing it to “The Triumph of Christianity”, Ehrman.
Although they are sensibly the same topic they do not agree.
Best evidence we have is that nobody did. Certainly nobody from the time so much as hinted they had.
I like Megan glasses every time she wears a new pair of glasses. Just wondering if Megan is an Agnostics too like Dr. Bart. Second what is the quest they are achieving thru these podcasts?
Maybe Bart wants to promote his books & online classes…and pure presence in the media isn‘t a bad thing for that… people get more interested and curious so they want to learn more about it and buy…
Paul, just like Jesus.... and John the Baptist before him, expected the end of time & the coming of God. He never thought we uys 2000y later would. Read him.
Was Saul persecuting Christians for "what they were saying"? Or did he persecute them for meeting without permission from the empire? That was the salient crime.
The real question: Does it matter?
Considering Paul's huge influence on Christianity as it stands today, I'd say it matters.
Matter for what?
yes yes and heck yes it matters, because an entire religion was built around it, and it has had a huge impact not only in christianity but the entire human history since the death of Jesus.
@@MikeJJJJJJJJ how do you know what will happen a billion years from now?
Lol - if you claim someone is actually god, and then make up your own interpretations on his teachings, sure it's important. For those of us who spent decades in the church, yeah, it's another example of the un-divine humanity of it all.
I think it's reasonable to assume if the letters were written by Paul can be proven beyond reasonable doubt to be correctly dated Paul could be the closest source of information.
It would be much easier if we could just travel back in time. 🙄 😔
But is there already a gnostic element in Paul's teachings??? In which case, he wouldn't have cared much about the physical Jesus???
Bart
What are key teachings in gospels
1.One true God,father of us all
2.jesus,messiah is our lord
3.the Spirit proceeds from God
4.jesus comes from sbove offered himself as a ransom for our sins
5.jesus suffered, crucified,died and rose again from the dead and ascended to hea ven just.
Does that make sense to you? Because to me it just sounds like a waste of time for a loving all-knowing being to even go through, besides Jesus's mother didn't remember nothing about a virgin birth when she came to that house to get Jesus she came with his brothers and sisters...
Does this make sense to you?
Because it doesn't to me. Why would an all loving all-knowing God even have to have a human sacrifice, why would an all-powerful God even need blood? Him in the flesh why would he die how can a God die and if it's so that he follows our laws of physics how the hell did he rise again that's against our laws of physics, unless he was only in a deep medical coma... Yes I've thought about this a lot. I've read the Old testament and believe me I don't see Jesus in there. And then again you can pick out a verse and make it say whatever you want to justify whatever you want to believe I guess 🤷🏼
Hey Bart. Yet again. I believe all of this comes from a lack of an orthodox understanding of Christianity (what Paul would’ve actually believed) due to the fog put over us by modern day Protestant evangelicalism. Paul did NOT believe that salvation was as simple as “believing” in Christ. It is the understanding that god is infinitely holy. There has not been a price paid for his perfect righteousness, that is until Jesus died on the cross. The belief in this is what will allow your good works to be sufficient enough to attain salvation. The difference is, Jesus and the early church fathers preached about the heart. Doing it out of the sheer will of good, rather than doing it simply to attain salvation. That is only attainable through realizing the perfection of the lord Jesus, and recognizing our inevitably sinful nature.
Jesus was talking about how Truth and Charity was given to him by external cultures, a stepfather, and certain friends and how the Jewish culture around him was not there for him throughout his life. And I am bit confused on you guys talking about Kingdom of God and stuff as Objectively seeing reality, filling up with Truth. Paul did too, I think its a cautionary tale of him using Untruth to spread community brotherhood, charity, and hierarchy but with falsehoods... Jesus was speaking of Truth, and Untruth. That's why Paul kept saying he failed him. Eternal Truth and Heaven are Objectively viewing reality and foresight. The death and Resurrection is living life in seeing oneself truthfully, others, and the world, and having that spread kindly. Truth has returned. Being the anointed one, we all have to die with that mentality, because we only have subjective Truth, and then Objective Truth starts filling us. It takes some serious inner reflection... I think.
It's hard to even compelled how anyone knew anything 2000 years ago. If few people could read and write, you only "know" what you've memorized. It seems wild to quote anyone when you can't read or write.
Is this an episode from earlier this year that’s just been uploaded today? The times and other things mentioned sound like it’s from April or so 😅
I think we were lied to. There have never been a condemnation! They sold us that idea, to sell us the salvation!
*Paul talked with Cephas and James?*
He wrote that he did, but the account sounds very suspect to me.
We shouldn’t say they talked, but that Paul claims they talked.
He had reason to want people to believe they talked - so Paul would have “street creds”. It would serve as a comeback to a claim that Paul’s knowledge was inferior to Cephas’ and James’ because those two knew Jesus personally.
Excellent discussion!!!
So some ancient and modern Christians believe that God and Jesus are the same entity, both omniscient and omnipotent, meaning Jesus would have known he was going to be crucified on Good Friday in Jerusalem as early as his infancy? So, being omniscient, Jesus knew about his eventual sacrifice the entire time he was preaching. Hence, no reason for Jesus to not take his crucifixion into account when wording what he was preaching.
He was not omniscient. (Mark 13:32)
He was not omnipotent. (Mark 6:5)
If you analyze it, there is no reason for the drama to take place at all
He emptied himself, remember? While on earth he was human (and oh ya he was god too)..... Get it?
@@hollykirby8542 - No. I don't buy it. "Son of man" = he was one of us.
What teaching is Mr. Ehrman referring to?
I have a question for Dr.Bart
I have always wanted to know. Why is it that mark, matthew, luke and john regardless if they narrated the gospels for scribes to copy or them writing it down their narration themselves or their specific communities writing the narrations themselves why is it that there is nothing regarding the exegesis of the gospels by the authors of the gospels themselves? May i know what evidences we have?
Part of the answer is that there is no evidence the gospels were written by the apostles themselves. They started as verbal stories and eventually written down from a story telling point of view - all by anonymous authors. Many other books of the bible were discarded and not included as well.
@@eulldog thank you bro.
There is no hint of evidence gospels "started as verbal stories", and plenty against. Mark is visibly cribbed from Paul's letters, with such embellishments as putting Paul's opinions in Jesus's mouth, and the other gospels crib from Mark, with their own embellishments.
@@NathanMyers-c8y yes, there is lots of evidence that the gospels started out as verbal stories because they were circulating around many decades sourced through many christian sects, all before the first gospels were written down in the form we know. All of the main gospels were embellished and molded to fit the form of the winning christian sect.
@@NathanMyers-c8y do you say that because the letters of paul are the earliest evidence available?
27:35
Dr. Ehrman puts his finger on the central point, the crucial difference.
Why does Prof Ehrman not seem to know about Sepphoris, a major Roman city an hour's walk from Nazareth?
Romans 1:18-20 says the unreached by the Gospel know what God wants in their heart. No one really knows what that means though, except by speculation. Would Paul agree with the sheep and the goats parable for those people?
What is often lost in these types of conversation is that Jesus was speaking to his own people, the Jewish people. This is especially obvious in Matthew 25. When he says whenever you do this to the least of these my brothers and sisters you do it to me he’s referring to the Jewish people.
“All the nations will be gathered before him.”
Rev 2:9, 3:9
@@David_Brinkerhoff93 completely irrelevant to the original comment.
If Paul's writings precede the gospels, and Paul quotes Jesus at the last supper, then how do we know the 3 synoptic gospels weren't quoting Paul?
Because they don’t quote him 😌
@@personalaccount7534 Many scholars think the Mark gospel writer quotes Paul, or more correctly reflects Paul's teaching indirectly.