Did Paul transform the Jewish religion OF Jesus to the Christian religion ABOUT Jesus? Why does Paul not mention the life of Jesus outside of the death and resurrection? Do Jesus and Paul's teachings on following the Law of God contradict each other? If you're interested in exploring this topic, Bart has a new 8 part lecture in his "How Scholars Read the Bible" series that you'll love! You get 8 30-40 minute lectures, PDF lesson guides, a Q&A, audio downloads, FAQ's and a further reading list to really dig deep, plus discounts on other lectures in the series. Sign up for Bart's course using my affiliate link here! emmathorne--ehrman.thrivecart.com/paul/
"Why does Paul not mention the life of Jesus outside of the death and resurrection" Because he was a nutter making stuff up. I've long said that these people aren't "christians", they are "Paulians". Edit: Bart Ehrman disagrees with me.
The differences between Paul and Jesus teachings is what first led me away from Christianity. Wonderful to hear from a scholar on the subject. Great interview!
The fact that Paul didn't get along with Jesus's top 2 disciples, one of which was Jesus's own brother, is pretty significant as to whether or not he followed the teachings of Jesus.
Considering that Jesus himself called Peter "Satan" at one point might hint to the fact that he wasn't always in accordance with the master either. Hard to say what's fiction and what's history in those texts however. But considering in what bad a light Peter is shown, I'd tend to think it's authentic.
That word meant opposer and not necessarily a literal Satan, and Jesus said it after Peter said he wanted to stop Jesus from being killed. If that was even true and not inserted to make the cross look like an intentional and foretold part of Jesus' life. Jesus also told Peter that he was the rock upon which the church would be built. He was the rightful successor to Jesus' movement.
@@BlondeEyes7thanks for the explanation - I should have mentioned that I studied theology and interreligious studies so I know what the word meant. The whole thing is - Peter was at the beginning more the apostle of the Jews and Paul of the gentiles. There is no true opposition between the two. Having gentile "sympathizers" (Greek, eusebes) of the Jewish religion was already a thing. They followed the same laws as were decided to also be applicable to gentile Christians (the so-called noahide laws, which include eating kosher BTW, something almost no Christian today does). The Pauline "lawless" Judaism was not as new or revolutionary or as distant to the teachings of Jesus or Judaism as people think. (in fact the excellent channel "Esoterica" by Prof. Sledge, made a good argument for Paul being a Jewish mystic of a mystic school of the time.) There are actually jewish scholars who have written about Paul (like Shalom Ben-Chorin or Pinchas Lapide) and never really saw him that far outside of traditional Judaism. He even still called himself a pharisee after becoming a "Christian". This artificial confrontation of "Jesus vs Paul" was very en vogue at a certain time in theories about the first decades of Christianity. After having studied all of this stuff and reading hundreds of books on the matter, I can safely say, each generation will interpret all of if new over time. Many theories have merits, many have flaws. None is or will ever be "proven" above the level of being a more or less clever or consistent interpretation of texts. I often say, "theology is like studying literature but with just one book."
One thing I forgot in my lengthy comment. It's interesting to see that people like Ehrman especially try to convince people that the gospels have been altered and changed basically at will to fit the teachings of the church but suddenly those texts are somehow "proof" that Peter was the rightful successor to Jesus? Ain't that convenient. Goes to show that the critics of the gospels pick and choose as much as any evangelicals which parts of the texts they deem authentic. So either a text is inserted for purpose of doctrine and therefore inauthentic or it's not. And if Ehrman and most other scholars are right, and Paul's letters are the oldest Christian writings, how easy would it have been to insert this thing about Peter being the rock, etc into the gospels, if there had been any conflict in leadership? If one were to believe the theory that those texts were all changed at will.
@@MrSeedi76 It would seem that, if we were to go by what is written in the Acts of the Apostles, when Paul made his post-conversion claim to being a Pharisee, he did so specifically in the context of belief in the resurrection of the dead. (Acts 23:6) Indeed, the Pharisees believed in the resurrection while the Sadducees did not. Furthermore, with reference to the Pharisees, he is quoted as saying: "I have hope toward God, which hope these men themselves also entertain, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous."-Acts 24:15. Incidentally, I remember reading some years ago a summary of the differences between the two parties, the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The writers had the temerity to claim the Pharisees as the "liberal" party and the Sadducees as the "conservative" party. However, that claim rang hollow as both parties were equally insistent upon a literalist interpretation of the Torah. The only divergence between them was on the question of the resurrection of the dead. Otherwise, as I read the summary, both parties were equally conservative. Nonetheless, Paul was ostensibly a member of the Pharisaical party prior to his conversion, and regarding them he is again quoted as saying: "Indeed, as to the manner of life from youth up that I from the beginning among my nation and in Jerusalem, all the Jews that have been previously acquainted with me from the first know, if they but wish to bear witness, that according to the strictest sect of our religion I lived as a Pharisee." (Acts 26:4,5) If even a member of the Pharisaical party could admit to that same party as "the strictest sect", how "liberal" could it actually be? Even by the standards of the first century A.D., it was anything but. Granted, none of this specifically addresses the purported resurrection of Christ specifically. However, that particular claim could be said to be an outgrowth of the Pharisaical belief in a general resurrection. "After all", the thought goes, "if Yahweh could raise humanity from the grave, why would he not do the same for his own Son?" The alleged resurrection of Christ, consequently, becomes the basis for Paul's treatise on the general resurrection in 1 Corinthians chapter 15. In effect, Paul there claims that the resurrection of Christ is the assurance of the general resurrection. He makes the argument: "If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied." (1 Corinthians 15:19) Therein lies the problem. Christians 'hope in Christ' for the prospect of getting life in his kingdom. However, they can not provide evidence that the historical Christ of the Gospels even existed beyond possibly a composite of any number of individuals in the Mid East during the period 2 B.C.-A.D. 33. They certainly can not provide incontrovertible evidence that he was raised from the dead, let alone that he is "seated at the right hand of the Father" and will "come again to judge the living and the dead", as they claim in the Creed they recite during "the memorial of his death and resurrection", the Eucharist, where they claim to partake of his body and blood under the auspices of bread and wine. On the contrary, in view of the lack of incontrovertible evidence, due to their 'hoping in Christ', whether "in this life alone" or in that which is allegedly to come, Christians are of all people "most to be pitied". They are, at best, hoping in someone who has long since died, was buried in a mass grave and has certainly not been raised therefrom.
This discussion made me think of the film The Last Temptation of Christ. Many Christians were extremely offended by the depiction of Jesus as someone who struggled, had doubts, and at one point wanting to choose to marry and have children rather than be crucified. However, I felt that there was a part of the story that (in my opinion) was far more subversive than that, which was that Paul was falsely claiming that the death and resurrection happened. Paul was a charlatan. Seeing this film was the first time that it had occurred to me that so much of the belief system of modern Christianity (at least that I was exposed to) was based on Paul, not Jesus. And with this realization, I found it rather surprising that Christians didn't seem to be bothered by the depiction of Paul as a fraud in that movie. It seemed to me that folks were getting upset over some details that aren't really that important to the religion (such as did Jesus ever have doubts, struggles, or (god forbid) sex but glossed over the implications that the foundation of the modern church could be founded by a liar.
I have not seen the film, but based on your comment I have a pretty good idea as to why Christians were more bothered by the depiction of Jesus. In Christianity, Jesus is the perfect son of God, as well as being God himself. Yes, he was tempted but he never gave in, and he wished that he did not have to die, but he willingly went through with it. The actions of him and Paul in this movie both fundamentally change their character. The major difference is that Paul is a sinful human, while Jesus is a sinless human/God. The idea of him acting against his nature is far more serious than Paul doing so, even if in the end both depictions are very... troubling. Though, again, I have not seen it, so I could be way off base.
@claffert _"at one point wanting to choose to marry and have children rather than be crucified. "_ Just like Christians at large want and like the idea that Jesus getting crucified for theological implication, there is another ethnic group likes and wants Jesus(pbuh) getting killed as well, their ethnicity starts with "Je". I know that you know who they are. This ethnic group and Christians are close friends, whereas Muslims love the notion that God saved Jesus(pbuh) from near death ordeal, just like God saved many prophets before Jesus, these Muslims are considered to be foe by the Christians and Je. One group loves the notion saving Jesus(pbuh) and one who want Jesus(pbuh) getting crucified, whose belief is valid before the God and stands before the God?
@@MetaphorUB No you are incorrect. There is no reason for us to chat. just like I knew I could skip this video because I heard all this guys rhetoric already. Thank you again for your delightful reply you made my day and I hope you are having a fine day today.
Grew up going every Sunday (Methodist.) Baptised, confirmed. Sunday school, youth groups, retreats, choir, etc. Every week with rare exceptions my first 18 years. Hardly attended in college or early 20s but came back because I wanted to be in good standing leading up to my wedding. (Catholic this time for my fiancee.) I trusted what I was told but never read the bible. I never knew that the gospels weren't written by firsthand witnesses. I never knew that most of the new testament was written by one guy who never knew Jesus (I don't think a vision counts.) Never knew that hell as it's always been taught to me is completely absent from the book. I'm not making up my experience, and it's not surprising that a true believer thinks they know me better than I do.
@@russb24sorry to say this but you fell for an anti-apologist who's using tricks on you. He's only telling half of the story. There is no reason to doubt that the gospels were written by the people whose names they carry. There is no single proof that they were ever anonymous. Those are all just theories based on a priori assumptions. Basically Ehrman parrots the stuff he read when he studied theology himself. Especially German theologians who were always super critical. Guess how I know - I'm German and studied theology and religious science. Ehrman is nobody that was ever mentioned when I studied. Probably because US American theologians are utterly unknown in the rest of the world, especially when they don't add anything new to the debate. To really form your own opinion, you need to look at both sides. Ehrman seems to not be interested in regaining the faith he lost. Therefore he only tells you about the stuff that will raise doubts about things to separate people from their faith. His agenda is to destroy the faith by spreading falsehoods and one sided arguments. Never telling you about the problems with these theories and they are many. Just the dating of the gospels alone fills whole libraries if you're getting into it. I looked at all the arguments and I'm no fundamentalist or evangelical. Also studying theology at a German state university is rather liberal. Still the liberal arguments from the 70s, which is what Ehrman bases most of his work on, make not much sense if you look closely. They are completely removed from any historical facts and only based on a priori assumptions like "the people back then were mainly all illiterate" - complete BS as they were Jews who had a long standing literal tradition at that point. Or, "they all expected the end of the world is imminent so they didn't write anything down". Also nonsense as we know that there were older collections of Jesus's teachings. Nobody would have prevented anyone from writing stuff down. We know for a historical fact that many people back then could read and write. Any claim to the contrary is just a plain lie. Don't get fooled by Ehrman and his RUclips fame. Go to a library and see for yourself.
I'd never even considered the question of whether it was in fact Paul who founded Christianity - it makes logical sense. Fascinating topic. Love your channel Emma ❤
Two sides of Christianity. Peter and Paul. The martyr, the regretter, the giver. Paul, the hypocrite, the misogynist, the war monger. Two face, thy name is Christianity.
It doesn't make sense. Paul didn't found anything. Read these verses and the surrounding verses in context. (see comments below) 1 - Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name, among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ; Ro 1:1-6. 2 - Now the Lord spoke to Paul in the night by a vision, “Do not be afraid, but speak, and do not keep silent; for I am with you, and no one will attack you to hurt you; for I have many people in this city.” And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them. Ac 18:9-11. 3 - But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. Ga 1:8-9. 1) Here we see that Paul says that he's a "...bondservant of Jesus Christ...separated to the gospel...". How could Paul be a bondservant to that which he came up with himself? How could he be a bondservant to both Christ AND himself, if Paul's message originated with Paul? 2) Here we see the Lord Jesus talking to Paul by a vision. Paul speaks to these people a "year and six months" the "word of God". Now, what is this word of God? How could Jesus tell Paul to speak that which Paul came up with himself? 3) On what ground and on what kind of authority would Paul have to claim for himself to curse angels in the event on them teaching a different gospel? Paul would have to be God. But Paul is not God. So what Paul speaks must be on the basis of Paul being an ambassador (see 2 Corinthians 5:20) and telling others what God wants. The message then comes from Christ through Paul. Paul didn't invent it or originate it.
Paul is the founder of Christianity, he was an imposter who wanted to deliberately distort the message of Jesus.Its painful that Christian follow Paul and go against what Jesus preached.
@MacTheHuman Just remember that God is not the author of chaos and that's what Paul caused/causes. Then remember the wheat and tares parable and know God can use evil intent for good
I used to be Catholic. After 9 years of Catholic school, I believed that Jesus was preaching a kinder, gentler form of Judaism. Paul's message--which is the one that stuck--was that, no, this is its own new thing.
to me the new testament is the story of a god that rapes a woman and gives the child up to be tortured and killed... they hurry to gloss that over and give full limelight to the character of that child, but why this was necessary in the universe of an all knowing creator... ?
And it became even more of it's own thing after Rebellion in Judea. The Hebrews destroyed decent amount of Roman legions so everyone in Rome was really pissed so Christians had to decide between : We are with Romans. We are with Jews. They chose Romans and this was the begining of anti-semitism in Christianity.
You know the phrase "Jesus, protect me from your followers..." that was definitely about Paul. Paul was an unhinged zealot. His story reminds me of political extremists. I am a socialist, so I am used to interacting with political extremists. The ones that are willing to burn the world down to remake a new one are usually converted to the Left from the Right. I find them to be extremely dangerous, authoritarian, etc. Paul's story reminds me of that. Paul went from persecuting Jesus's followers to the extreme opposite. Zealotry is zealotry at the end of the day.
@@karenholmes6565 In most ideologies, and this includes religions, adult converts are often the most zealous and extreme. Perhaps because the emotional event involved drives them in that direction? If one reads The Communist Manifesto, one can see Marx's emotions coming through very strongly...the same with Paul...it certainly makes one think.
@@karenholmes6565 This seems like a lot of reading into things. For one, we have no idea what Paul meant by "persecute". He never elaborates on it and he could just as easily be lying about it, kinda like all the "former atheist turned believer" stories we see from modern apologists. The story about him from Acts, along with pretty much everything in Acts, is fiction as far as critical scholarship is able to determine. So this claim doesn't really tell us anything about him or his behavior beyond, "Paul claimed to have persecuted christ followers". Meanwhile, the pastoral epistles are all regarded as forgeries and there are some questionable sections in the authentic letters. Beyond that, the letters only survived as fragments which were pieced together after the fact. So it's entirely possible that later people spun up narratives from unrelated fragments. Which tells us that we should be hesitant to make any strong assertions about his personality given that even the bits we do have that we are reasonably certain are his are not necessarily presenting his intent. Paul was an unusual character to be sure. But not that unusual for his time and cultural context. The weirdest thing I can think of about him is his insistence that people not have sex at all unless they really can't keep it in their pants. In which case to only do so dispassionately. Which, not great. But considering the extremely dubious conceptions of consent back then, slavery, women's complete lack of autonomy and the like, "don't have sex at all" is frankly a step up. There's also the whole messianic cult aspect of it. If you thought that you were about to be translated to a new, perfect spiritual body, you'd be worried about possible spiritual contamination too. Remember, everybody believed in demons and assorted malevolent spirits back then. They were as real to them as bacteria and viruses are to us. You should read up on jewish bathroom demons some time. Point being, zealotry is context dependent. Most jews in the 1st century CE were religious extremists by today's standards. Contextually, I'd argue Paul's worst character trait is that he comes off more like a narcissistic grifter than anything else. He dunks on Peter and co. all the time, humble brags about being the last apostle and when someone asked him about where the money from all the groups he spun up is going his response was essentially, "Shut up, don't talk to me about my money."
Isn't this ignoring the way Jesus criticized the Jewish laws? He gave two commandments that encompass everything. Love God, and love what God loves (people). He considered the Jewish laws as a burden that kept people from God, and called those supporting those laws a "pit of vipers". To me it seems that Jesus told us how to live, and the resurrection is important because it shows that Jesus has authority and power over death (otherwise, none of it matters). Paul may have focused on the wrong bit, but saying that Jesus pushed Jewish law seems to cherry pick parts and ignoring most of it.
I can't help but think that Jesus and Paul were very different fellows, and both Emma and Bart alluded to this as one reason Christianity lacks any real consistency. If I was a Christian, I would be even more confused than I am already! 🙂
There is no such thing as Christianity. The reason people buy into Paul is because over the past 200 years or so, people have decided they don't like what Jesus taught. For example, when Jesus told the woman whose daughter had a demon, I've only been sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, He meant it. We don't know God, and until that changes, confusion will reign supreme.
Yeah, even I who follow Jesus sympathise with atheists now. Christianity is false, but trusting in Jesus is real and reliable. I suggest getting a red letter bible. That’s just the words of Jesus. For example, his teaching on old and new wine is really applicable to my life.
Compare these: (JESUS) Matt.24:24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great SINGS and WONDERS to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time. 26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the desert,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it. (PAUL) 2 Cor. 12:12 I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including SIGNS, WONDERS and miracles. Paul claimed Jesus appeared to him at the desert on road to Damascus, and then inside his prison... And Christians can't see anything suspicious on that, eventhough Jesus warned about "Wolf on sheep's clothing"...
Most of the homophobia and misogyny in the New Testament come from Paul. I was reared in a Bible reading home. My parents weren't into brainwashing us to be Christian. They believed it was up to us to decide what our religion would be, but I was raised around parents that heavily researched and read the Bible. I have read that book myself more than once, complete with concordance and different versions. I am not a Christian. What I decided was that Jesus was a cool dude and most of the troubling aspects of Christianity are rooted in Paul. Paul's entire origin story is also disturbing to me. He was a zealot. Before his conversion story he was a zealot against the Jesus movement, and then afterwards he was a zealot for it. And if life has taught me anything is that zealots are problematic in their charisma and their ability to pull people over to their worldview. Perhaps Christianity would never have launched without Paul, but I can't be a Jesus follower because of him.
@@falconeshield Hmm… …I always understood that Peter was crucified with nails, and possibly upside down. And that Paul was beheaded. Am I missing something?
@@danieleyre8913 We don't actually know that about either of them. There are other videos by Bart Ehrman on the lives and deaths of the apostles and the short version of them is: there is no reason to believe that Paul was beheaded or even that he was a Roman citizen. Same goes for Peter or any of the other disciples. The book of acts just isn't a reliable source.
How so?? Most quoted scriptures are usually from the gospel of John. I hear more about the book of Revelation than from Paul's letters. I will say that atheists need to read the book of acts because they always get confused about the dietary laws and ceremony laws.
Hi, Emma,just wanted to thank you for everything that you do, and especially for making me aware of the Greg Locke Witch bit. An excerpt of the sound is gonna be in the intro to my band's concert on sunday!
I've always found it interesting how Buddhism and Christianity have opposite afterlife goals: a Christian's aim is to live forever, and a Buddhist's aim is to stop living forever. Both of them have the same aim of stopping existing with suffering. (Buddhists by stopping existing, and Christians by either going to heaven or God's new kingdom.)
Did Paul and Jesus have the same religion? No. Jesus was Jewish, lived as such, and died as such. Paul created a new religion and institutionalized it.
I was recently on a hospital ward with an English Converted Muslim, an English Mormon and an African Christian. There's a joke in there somewhere but this genuinely happened to me (an atheist).
"An english converted muslim, a mormon, an african christian and an atheist were in the same hospital ward. When they died the same thing happened to all of them"
I really don't know why it is so hard for many Christians to subtract Paul from Christianity. It seems that many former Christians, when they discard Paul, also discard Jesus and God. I find that Paul is the false Apostle of Revelation 2:2 and the figure in Mattew 7:21 who will cast out demons and say "Lord Lord" but Jesus will tell him "I never knew you." His inclusion in the Bible seems to me to be a test at detecting heresies. There are the heresies that not even Paul would accept (like those that deny the bodily resurrection) and there are those heresies that he espoused that smack you un the face (like eating food sacrificed onto Idols). Reject Paul, accept Jesus. For me, it was easy. I hope it is for thee as well.
I remember as a child being dragged to church and being bored so I would look at these things. (I was already a non-believer at this point) But I remember thinking and wondering why Paul's writings were even included in the bible, his entire story seemed like a sham, and he was extremely misogynistic which was when I realized why his writings were included in the bible
Calling Paul a mysoginist clearly shows you neither read nor understood what he wrote. Typical trope of liberal theology of the 1970s. Long since debunked.
I Corinthians I5:20-23 resurrected like Christ as Paul describes or traptured like the pulpit masters teach? Ezekiel I3:20. You know the fake doctrine Elohim warned us about?
I really like the ideas around the development of the 'oral law' of Christianity I'm the century+ between the death of Jesus and his words getting written down. I similarly like the discussion of 'salivation through repentance' vs 'salvation through belief that Jesus is the risen messiah who shall return in glory etc'
I think it's cool you brushed upon this topic. There's definitely two different theologies you get whether you focus on the teachings of Jesus and the gospels, or Paul's writings. You can find similar discrepancies within Buddhism as well. Some Buddhists believe you ought to strive to achieve what the Buddha achieved, enlightenment. There are other sects of Buddhism that believe that you need only believe that Buddha reached enlightenment to escape samsara(reincarnation). When you boil both down its works vs faith.
great video, i wish more christians would got to this point in thought, i know when i did it was the beginning of the end, you start to see churches as a methodology of control...that you yourself are stuck inside with no support
I realised only recently that Paul's writings were written before any of the gospels. In fact Paul died before the first gospel was written. I was shocked to learn that. So if Paul's writings were the first Christian writings, why doesn't he mention the miracles and the parables? Was it because Paul was just writing letters to churches and he had no idea he was writing the future Christian Bible or else he would have added more details about Jesus? Or was it because Paul didn't know about the life of Jesus? But if Paul had received all his knowledge by direct revelation from Jesus, not from men, perhaps that suggests that all of the stories in the gospels didn't happen?
Paul seemed to approach Jesus' teachings in a similar way to how any other cult leader would (funnelling it through his own values and perspective); the only difference being that his temporal proximity Jesus' execution helped guarantee his version more orthodoxy. Otherwise, he's more of a cult leader than Jesus ever was.
Thanks a lot, Emma and Bart. I have been confused about the distinction between Moral Law and Ceremonial Law. Is it that Jesus intended for us to follow the ceremonial laws (minus animal sacrifice) such as observing the Sabbath and not eating pork, but that we just shouldn't be legalistic about it. For example, if our boss calls and tells us that he really needs us to work on Saturday because the person who was to be in the office got very sick. We should then not observe the Sabbath because to be selfless we should sacrifice our day off and help our boss out of a jam. And with respect to pork, if we were starving and all we had to eat was pork, then we should eat pork. Is that your understanding?
@@apjapki Thanks for responding. The distinction between moral and ceremonial law is an interesting topic, and I have been pondering about this a lot. And will probably be pondering about it for some time. 🙂
@@themusespeakstome4467in Judaism there is no distinction. Problem is that what could be called ceremonial would only apply if the temple was still in existence. And for gentile Christians only the noahide laws apply. A convenient solution as "Zadiks" already existed. And the same laws applied.
When I was a Christian, I explained it as the Law having three parts: ceremonial law, civil/conduct law, and purity law. I came to the conclusion that the civil/conduct law must still apply so that we can continue to live in societies, while the purity law no longer applied because salvation is by grace, and the ceremonial law no longer applied because the temple is gone. Of course, this division is completely arbitrary AND it still leaves one picking and choosing, which leads to people emphasizing the parts that it suits them to emphasize. And so the supposedly perfect and objective God-given morale code leaves us with endless arguments and conflicts - just as if it was entirely human-created. And thus I conclude that we are better off to work things out for ourselves in the 21st century, and have our arguments there, rather than try to fit ourselves into the rules invented by a bronze-age pastoral society that no longer exists.
@@njhoepner Nathan, thanks a lot for this detailed response. I did not think of the law in three parts like that. You are right that it looks like an arbitrary situation that leads to a lot of picking and choosing. And endless arguments. If God (not the Judeo-Christian one) does exist, they must be shaking their head at humanity. Thanks again for your response.
When I started going to church seeking to be taught about Christ, the meanings behind what he said, what he did, I began to notice that I was hearing plenty of sermons on Paul and stories from the Old Testament. But, I never heard a sermon on a direct quote from Christ in one of the Gospels. A kind person gave me a red ink bible where Christ's words are printed in red. That is what I have been reading for 18 years. Christ said, "I am the truth, the light, and the way...." Christ said, "Heaven and earth may pass away, but my words will never pass away." He said, "Wherever two or three of you gather I am there also." He said, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand." That was 2,000 years ago. I accept that statement is as true today as it was in the moment Christ said it. But, mankind has yet to enter into the full realization of Christ's teachings. The good news is we still can if we try. "Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness for they shall be filled."
I've always pointed out to people that basically all the conservative and regressive parts of christianity were brought up by Paul. Almost like handing your love and peace religion over to a hyper-conservative authoritarian former religious zealot isnt a great idea.
Honestly it seems to me that many christians don't even bother with Paul, and just say 'in Jesus' name' while jumping straight to the most callous, cruel, judgemental, & bloody parts of the old testament.
@@davidtaylor142 Fair! Thanks for the correction. I was raised Catholic; my experience of evangelicals comes almost exclusively from raging televangelists and Republican rationalizing
@davidtaylor142 They might claim they do but they pick and choose from Paul's letters just as they do from the rest of the Bible. Or how often have you heard them quoting, "the man isn't master over his own body but the woman"?
With respect to the advice of Jesus to give all your wealth to the poor, can we have some discussion of how Christians cannot be against a welfare state? Ecclesiasticus 34:21: "The bread of the needy is their life: he that defraudeth him thereof is a man of blood."
Very much so. As a German I never understood how that can even be a thing. Christians being against helping the poor looks like a contradiction in itself for me.
Christians aren't generally against helping the poor, they are against institutionalizing the helping of the poor. We now LITERALLY see secular governments doing away with poverty altogether.
It's just more of the picking and choosing...the parts that one can weaponize against everyone one hates (the bible Evangelicals read)...the parts that one doesn't want to follow so interprets away as "metaphor" or "allegory" or "covered by grace" (all the parts that would be detriment one's lifestyle)...and the version that Evangelicals actually live by, which is a cobbled together mish-mash of right-wing politics, nationalism, and culture wars "traditional values" that would be exactly the same if they were all to become pagans tomorrow.
This is a great video and introduction to what seems to be a very fascinating course but I would have liked to hear his take on John 14:6 when Jesus says that he is the way. I would have also liked to hear about Peter’s contributions to “the church”
Personally, I have no love for Paul’s teachings. Sadly, he found a way to ‘skew’ Jesus teachings, or his own ends. So many in the church seem to quote Paul all day long, but try and avoid Jesus. (Found this to be done especially by those who are looking for quotes for their personal beliefs. They avoid anything, including Jesus that may contradict them)
Even the gospel that is attributed to Jesus didn’t make the cut to be in the bible.. there’s nothing profound in there except that he objected to male circumcision - as that if males weren’t supposed to have them then they wouldn’t be born with them..
Paul introduced the idea of Gentiles getting in without converting to Judaism? What implications does that have for earlier text that said the other live by their own laws? Others, thought to be Gentiles.
When non-believers spend much of their time, energy--their lives discussing the very thing they don't believe in, any of us, followers of Jesus---Christians, call that progress. God Bless You All In Jesus Name.
Jesus and Paul's teachings did NOT contradict each other. Jesus told Nicodemus when the lattern asked how to be born again, "For God so loved that world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." Jesus also said, "If ye love me keep my commandments." Jesus brother, James, said, "Faith without works is dead." We are not saved by keeping the commandments, we are saved by grace through faith. We keep His commandments because we love Him and want to please Him because He has saved us.
@mooshei8165 How do I know that it is you that wrote the comment that is ascribed to you? Since I didn't actually see you do it, it takes a certain amount of childlike faith for me to accept that it is so. The same faith that is used when reading that "All Scripture is given by inspiration (God-breathed) of God..." If it is not, then the Bible contradicts its self and is therefore a lie.
Paul says that he didn't learn any of his teachings from humans; he learned everything from Revelations from Jesus (Galatians 1). Then, in Galatians 2 he recounts meeting Peter, James, and John, the supposed disciples of Jesus. He calls the "estimable men," but says they have "nothing to add." Now, either Paul is insanely arrogant (certainly possible) or he learned nothing about Jesus' life from the disciples. For Jesus to be real, the former has to be true; for Jesus to be a myth, the latter has to be true.
I once struggled to understand how Paul was able to make Christianity less Commandments orientated and get away with it. Jeebus was all about obeying his dad's rules. Whereas Paul was not. Then I heard that Paul decided to play-down the whole Positive Commandment 216 deal. In other words, Paul found willing participants, provided they could keep their wedding tackle intact.
It's very easy in fact. Ever heard about the tzadiks and the noahide laws? Look it up, you'll be amazed how easy those supposed "riddles" are solved. Paul simply used a long existing tradition to solve the question of how to integrate gentiles into the Christian community mainly made up of Jews. And the solution was pretty obvious in fact. Or read acts, especially the part where the apostles decide that gentile Christians should follow the noahide laws and not the whole 613 commandments.
@@balkanbaroque Yes indeed. I completely agree. We were raised by the Church of England to fear god and to embrace Christ's teachings of love and forgiveness. From the age of four years old, we were taught that god is Jealous, Vengeful, Wrathful, The Creator of Evil, The Lord of War and the Giver of Laws. Be afraid, be very afraid. Jesus taught us Love, Peace and Forgiveness. But Jesus did tell us to obey god's rules. Jesus was specific on this point. He even endorsed Slavery, never once did he condemn it. And Jesus introduced us to Heaven and... Hell. Had the Roman Catholic Church not canonised Saul, would we even need to have this conversation?
You never had faith, you just believed in something taught by men. Understand that faith is not mere belief or acceptance, but rather it is spiritual wisdom and understanding. What they taught you was not truth, it was dogmatic and incongruent with the scriptures. You've always felt things were off, it just took you a while to accept the error of your faith. Proverbs 29:25 Trust in man will prove to be a snare, but whoever fears the LORD is kept safe. In short, don't let mere men tell you what to believe.
My suspicion is that Paul was avoiding talking about the specifics of Jesus because different branches of the church at the time, didn't agree on many things. So Paul was mainly emphasising things that they could all agree on. Like "Well if you all agree that Jesus died and was resurrected, then you all have an automatic ticket to heaven. So lets not fall out over the details."
You don't get an automatic ticket to heaven, you have to pick up your cross and walk in the footsteps of Christ doing the works of faith too. If you live a life of sin even as Christian, you can still go to hell
So why bother to convert if you are an Atheist, because you are going to burn anyway, for your past sins? Or can you live a sinful life, but then truely accept Jesus and repent on your death bed. To get your ticket to Heaven. @@MrSlaternater
@@corringhamdepot4434 no you don't burn for your past sins if you believe and repent, all your past sins are forgiven. You can obtain salvation by believing in Christ, but then it is about living the Christian life of faith and works to assure that salvation. You aren't finished once you are baptised, you are only beginning your journey at baptism. It's not to say you will never suffer with sin afterwards, but you work towards moving away from that and becoming closer to God. Ignore any calvinist views of the Bible because they will just confuse you.
So if Hitler truly repented and accepted Jesus on the day he died, then Hitler would be in Heaven. However if an Atheist lived an otherwise "sinless" life he will burn in Hell for eternity, just because he didn't accept Jesus. @@MrSlaternater
Thank you Emma for having this scholar talk about the Paul/Jesus problem, first I'd heard about it. Even my mother, a multi-religionist, saw Paul for the mysoginist, icky one, he was. Great question; was Paul the founder of the Christian religion, the co-founder? I'll bet it's not a question argued by the American fundies. That would require questioning their fantasy life and would, and has, lead to "war and rumours of war".
The challenge is that we have no way of knowing with certainty what Jesus actually said and did. There is the life of Jesus, there is the crucifixion, there is a claim about a resurrection...the next thing we have is Paul's letters (and we don't have the answers to any of them, which would be hugely interesting), and he basically ignores everything Jesus said and did, for whatever reason...then the gospel accounts begin to emerge, by now a generation and more later, with all the Pauline baggage and who knows what else in between impacting these accounts, not to mention the conventions of standard Greco-Roman literature and its tropes of the time which show up very clearly in all of the gospels...by the time we get to the last gospel account we are more than two generations down the road (at the very least) and we get a very different account from all the others, and there's no way to know if any of it reflects reality.
Interesting considerations that I share. Justin's writings, in my opinion, can help us understand the evolution of nascent Christianity. In the first half of the second century, this Christian seems to have a rather broad picture of the liturgies and writings that influenced the Christian communities of his time.
@@mychannel-sw2rj The evolution becomes clearer the further forward in time one goes. Paul's influence is initially decisive, then whoever wrote the pseudo-Pauline letters. With the early "church fathers" we see the very strong impact of neo-Platonism (and some Stoicism). Then it becomes the state religion, and you can see already in Eusebius and then Augustine a driving concern with earthly power.
Short answer, no, they did not. Paul has a magical experience. His version of Christianity was based upon personal perspective, pure fantasy and projection. Eventually, the Petrine and Pauline elements came together, but they really did not agree. Paul's magical thinking was never accepted by those who adhered to the foundational elements of Christianity. Petrine Christians never fully embraced Paul.
I wish more Christians would get courses like this and really dig deep into their own faith and form their own beliefs, rather than just parrot things they've heard someone (probably an unqualified, bigoted buffoon) say at some point in their lives, act as if they have all the answers to _everything_ and thrash ferociously when confronted with their own ignorance on what they allege is "the most important thing" in their lives.
You will both regret DEEPLY, rejecting Jesus. He claimed to be God, He claimed to die for you, and all He wants in return is for you to understand why, and to believe/trust him! The Gospel! (Good news)✨ [1 Corinthians 15:1-4] Jesus Christ shed his blood for all of our sins, past, present and future. He was buried and rose again on the third day, according to the scriptures. We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ Alone, not of our works, so nobody can boast. It is amazing grace, something we did not and cannot earn, and something we do not deserve. God gave His only begotten (created) son that whosoever (anyone) believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. How do you come to that? 1. Admit your a sinner in need of Jesus Christ. 2. The moment you put your faith and trust in Jesus Christ alone to save you from death, you are sealed until the day of redemption (you cannot lose your salvation) You are protected, justified by the blood of Christ, and rapture ready! (Which is going to happen at any moment) 3. The Holy Spirit will indwell in you, lead you, guide you, minister to you, encourage you, speak to you, teach you, and change you. TODAY is the day of salvation! Trust Jesus Christ today! Amen and God Bless❤️
Also to add this is also why there are Pauline paradoxes within the Messianic Christian movement.. which let me tell you are always fun to talk about :0
Jesus says, Eyes to see! Paul says, Faith without Sight. Jesus says, Beware of Blind Guides. Paul says, Jesus blinded me! Jesus says, 'Are grapes picked from Thorns? You will know them by their fruit.' Paul says, 'I have a Thorn from the Angel of Satan.'
@teodox8 Yes, and "context without text (to support that context), is just a con." Too often, people are getting their context from their man made doctrine which Scripture never teaches. The biggest example I can think of is that so many believers today think that they are spiritual Israel. But Scripture never says that. It causes all the confusion and all the different denominations out there.
The problem with Christianity is the false sense of self which creates the fear of death, for example it is said that we are born in sin and shaped in iniquity so why would doctrine expect us to know what the real truth is ? This must be why Jesus said all sin will be forgiven except blasphemy and that would make sense because we are born blind to the truth so to expect us to use such a mind to navigate or redemption would not be honest, so all men should be saved whether he or she believes. What man should be responsible for is how he treats his fellow man and the things of the world that he is alive in and that is why Chris commands us to love each other.
It seems to me that this rather prescient saying of Jesus needs to really be considered by Christians: But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
Does the course explore any of the cultures and differences of the times? Always wondered if part of the different understanding of these two was who they were addressing. Jesus is a Jewish teacher or prophet. Paul seems to have moved to incorporating Gentiles into his community. Always wondered if who each was addressing flavored the emphasis in teaching?
It definitely does. And one has to keep in mind that Paul always wrote to certain communities addressing very specific issues. As a theologian myself I'd say it's pretty much impossible to come up with a coherent "theology of Paul" in its entirety because he never intended to write such a thing.
@@MrSeedi76 Yeah I think the teaching company has a course just on Paul. As said above, Paul was sort of a moderator of christianity to the gentile world, Jesus wasn't really interested. As another talk said, jesus was an apocalyptic preacher in the jewish world.
Dr Ehrman talking about modern Evangelical Christians that pick and choose which parts of the bible they follow. My brain thinking of all the RUclipsr Evangelical's that are heavily Tattooed saying gay people are going to hell because it says so in the Bible. If I recall correctly the main reason a lot of people think (or used to think) Paul's version of Christianity is so different is because he was the first to write down the stories and teachings of the Philosopher Yahshua (the Historical Jesus) as Yahshua taught them and didn't include the life of Jesus because to him Yahshua (Historical Jesus) and Jesus (Biblical Jesus) where not one and the same. Yahshua was just a man going around teaching a Philosophy and Faith based system in Sermon on the Mount-esc styled lectures for being a good person that included an allegory of a god made flesh. Yahshua likely was a real person that gave the real Sermon on the Mount but he was just a regular guy saying "hey let's all just be nice to each other." Sometime between the time of Paul's writings and the time of Matthew and Mark's writings this became confused and lost in translation so this is why Matthew and Mark both write about Jesus living here on Earth as a god made flesh giving the Sermon on the Mount and performing all these miracles. Paul's original writings where either accompanied by the teachings of Yahshua, or the teachings of Yahshua where so well known and established at the time for followers it was implied that Paul was providing a summary or illuminated text on the teachings of Yahshua with the focus on the birth, death, and resurrection of the son of god (god made flesh). Kind of like "Here is the core of the Religion as per our founder's stories, this is our Faith, this is our Trinity, this is the important part for eternal life. Anything not found here in our other texts are just historical accounts and record of our founder's life, how he went about teaching his philosophy, and examples of his favorite allegories to teach his lessons (likely how we got the miracles.)" Matthew and Mark on the other hand coming onto the scene to write gospels half a century after the fact and being 1 to 2 generations removed from the time of Jesus either saw that the teachings of Yahshua where being lost or altered as two separate books and attempted to condense it into a single text which was then confused later on by future transcriptions in the nearly 250 years of Christianity being mostly Nomadic Cults before the Roman Empire converted. Or they could have been the first to legitimately confused the separation between Yahshua and his son of god/god made flesh (Jesus) character from his allegories/faith and put them directly together as the same person.
Exactly! If eternal life after this earthly life is inevitable, as it is in Christianity, heaven and hell are the same eventually. At most you'd get a couple of thousand years of reprieve from extreme and eternal suffering if you get to heaven instead of hell. In the end, the result is the same...
@@apjapki I dunno, friend: would you really-- truly-- continue to appreciate the most absolutely breathtakingly beautiful sunset in the world... if it lasted all day, every day, for a year? How about for a trillion years? On the trillionth trillion-year anniversary? Maybe you don't agree, but I just happen to think some things are all the more beautiful and worth being treasured because they, and we, are finite 😊
@@johndemeritt3460 Well, consider this timeline: 1. Jesus preaches for 3 years. He states that the covenant has been fulfilled (meaning that the laws of the Old Testament are no longer enforced save for the 10 commandments - this is why Christians say you can eat bacon and oysters without going to hell) 2. Jesus never says anything about homosexuality (despite preaching for 3 years) 3. Paul comes along and writes to the Romans approximately 30 years after the end of Jesus' gospel/time preaching - this is the letter that addresses homosexuality 4. So basically the teaching for 3 decades (plenty of time for quite a few folks to live, fall in love, and die) while it was okay, based on Jesus' teachings, to be gay 5. Christians immediately gravitate to Paul's letter of "no homo" to latch onto a group/lifestyle to hate So basically Jesus taught inclusion and love, while Paul taught discrimination and judgement. We can all see which set of teachings modern Christians gravitated to.
@@Brandon-y1h, I apologize for my failure to communicate clearly. If you're not familiar with him, Paulogia is a Canadian content creator whose tag line is "A former Christian answering the claims of Christians". I meant this as a play on Paulogia's RUclips channel name. So there you go . . . sometimes you try to make a joke and it has people figuratively laughing in the aisles. And sometimes the joke lands on its belly with a loud "THWAP" and a groan from audience members who are concerned that it really hurt itself. I'm afraid my attempt at a joke was the latter, and I apologize if I caused any offense.
@@johndemeritt3460 Oh, not offended at all - I just presumed "Paulogia" was a term for Paul-focused believers that I was unfamiliar with. That'll teach me not to search it first :)
There was a Unitarian form of Christianity that emphasized Jesus' teachings no divinity. It became called Arian (archbishop Arius of Alexandria) many Jews and followers had formed a community in Alexandria. It was the first hub of the new beliefs. With the destruction of the Temple and then the ban from Jerusalem Alexandria became their base. None of these version were ever invited to the Council of Nicea and most were persecuted and wiped out. That's where the real info died allowing the Romans to manufacture their version..
Ehrmagerd! Another video with Dr Ehrman! I'm deep into his _Armageddon_ atm. I've always been fascinated by the difference in Paul v Jesus being all packaged up as Christianity. Make it make sense, Dr!
11:22 this is a somewhat weird argument. The book of Acts doesn’t cover the historical trivia of Jesus’ life anymore than Paul’s letters, but no one would seriously argue that meant the author had no concern for the historic Jesus. Letters of instruction to churches in some kind of crisis aren’t just going to be recitations of the gospel stories.
One of the things not mentioned about Paul's letters is they were primarily addressed to problems in the community. Would he necessarily refer to the Gospel stories in that context. He does talk about communion, so he does know something about Jesus. My reading of Paul is that the Law is only filled through grace, though that raising its own issues. To add to the confusion, Paul isn't the only one creating theology and orthodoxy around Jesus and the place of his teachings. I don't think there was ever a single interpretation of the work of Jesus, or the nature of the Christ, even from the very beginning. Fascinating discussion.
It seems to me that the real division comes when Constantine choose to invite the various Bishops who were gaining political, social and financial power in Greece and Anatolia into the Imperial government. I think that from that point on it ceased to be a Spiritual movement became all about power.
Hi Emma, still watching your videos but loving it ♥ Did not finish this one here but always thought that Paul as the "opposite" of Jesus... Loving your work and have a nice day.
Paul also preached and stressed Faith. He did preach about holiness and obedience, but that was to believers. For salvation, your BELIEF is the main thing.Jesus said be followers of me. Paul said be followers of me. Jesus talked about the kingdom of god and repenance. Paul again, preached faith, faith, faith and faith to the unbelievers.
I don't follow Paul , I follow Yeshua. Revelation 14:12 Here is the patients of the saints, here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith in Yashua. Revelation 12:17 And the dragon was wrath with the woman and went to make war with the remnant of her seed on those who keep the commandments of God and the faith in Yashua. If Paul was right , then why did Yeshua give the revelation to John 35 to 50 years after Paul wrote his letters. I believe the reason he doesn't say much about Yeshua is because he never new him.
Galatians 1:10 For do I now persuade me, or God?or do I seek to please men?for if I please men, I should not be a servant of christ. 1 Corinthians 10:33 Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit but the profit of many, that they may be saved. Colossians 3:9 Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds. Roman's 3:7 For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory than why am I also judged as a sinner.? Definition of a sinner 1)a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion. 2)a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. Acts 9 6-7 And he trembling and astonished said lord what will thou have me to do?and the lord said unto him arise and go into the city and it shall be told thee what thou must do. AND THEN WHICH JOURNEYED WITH HIM STOOD SPEECHLESS HEARING A VOICE BUT SEEING NO MAN. Acts 22:7-9 And I fell unto the ground and heard a voice saying unto me Saul, Saul why persecutest thou me?and I answered who art thou lord?and he said unto me I am Yeshua (Jesus)of Nazareth whom thou persecutest AND THEY THAT WERE WITH ME SAW INDEED THE LIGHT AND WERE AFRAID BUT THEY HEARD NOT THE VOICE OF HIM THAT SPOKE TO ME. ACTS 26:13-14 At midday o king I saw in the way a light from heaven above the brightness of the sun shining around about me and them, which journeyed with me AND WHEN WE WERE ALL FALLEN TO THE EARTH, I HEARD A VOICE SPEAKING UNTO ME, saying in the hebrew tongue Saul why persecutest thou me. Do you see anything strange about Pauls conversion story about what happened to him on the way to Damascus. There are no named witnesses to his covertion store,just (the men). Pauls conversion story also changes every time he tells it. 1 Corinthians 9:20 And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain them that are under the law, as under the law,that I might gain them that are under the law. 1 Corinthians 9:21 To them that are without law being not without law unto God ,but under the law to christ, that I might gain them that are without law. .....Paul claims to have become as under the law and then without the law ,which puts on a false appearance and acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings. Paul is a confessed hypocrite by the very definition of the word. Paul says it himself, he became all things to all men.😮 scripture from the old testament that predicte, prophesied Isaiah 7:14... Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 53 :3-7 Psalm 22:18,Zachariah 12:10 Micah 5:2.........................read your bible
Jewish Christianity, as practiced by the Apostles, who were Jews, was essentially exterminated when the Romans destroyed the Temple and drove the Jews from Palestine (the "Diaspora"). Paul's followers, however, were scattered throughout the Mediterranean, and in Rome. So Christianity is, indeed, "Paulianity."
IIRC in the gospels Jesus emphasized that actions are more important than diet. Jesus definitely teaches a radical form of Judaism. His preachings are not well summed up as "obey the Commandments," although this is also important. Jesus was preaching a reformed Judaism, so different that it cost him his life.
But think about it, simply believing in His death and resurrection alone now saves you? Doesn't' Satan and the Demons also believe that Christ died and was Resurrected? Like James the brother of Christ and the leader of the Church in Jerusalem stated it is "Faith and Works" together that saves. This is consistent with what Jesus told the rich man. He told him to keep the commandments and follow me. The work is being upright and keeping the commandments, the faith is to believe that He is Christ and to follow Him. However, as we can see faith without works is dead because even the devil can believe.
The teachings of Jesus make a lot more sense in the context consciousness quality. The "kingdom of heaven" is a state of mind. "The kingdom of heaven is within you..." "The kingdom is nigh unto you but ye know it not" "If you did it to the least of these, you did it to me" "Love your neighbor as yourself" "That they may be one with you as I am one with you" Repentance or obendience or a rich man selling off his belongings were means to an end, the end being a conversion to/cultivation of a higher state of consciousness.
Does the course address the different Pauline letters? There are two distinct voices in the Epistles. The later letters, possibly not written by Paul at all, are the ones filled with homophobia, misogyny, etc. Curious... [Edit} These questions come from distant Catholic high school religion classes. I remember the distinction (in my words) between the zealous, spreader of the faith Paul vs. the jerkish Paul.
is there really any scholarly doubt as to the pauline authorship of romans?? i ask because id be interested to know, cause ive never heard this before!!
Did Paul transform the Jewish religion OF Jesus to the Christian religion ABOUT Jesus? Why does Paul not mention the life of Jesus outside of the death and resurrection? Do Jesus and Paul's teachings on following the Law of God contradict each other? If you're interested in exploring this topic, Bart has a new 8 part lecture in his "How Scholars Read the Bible" series that you'll love! You get 8 30-40 minute lectures, PDF lesson guides, a Q&A, audio downloads, FAQ's and a further reading list to really dig deep, plus discounts on other lectures in the series.
Sign up for Bart's course using my affiliate link here! emmathorne--ehrman.thrivecart.com/paul/
I was the first comment. I'm proud of myself
"Why does Paul not mention the life of Jesus outside of the death and resurrection"
Because he was a nutter making stuff up.
I've long said that these people aren't "christians", they are "Paulians".
Edit: Bart Ehrman disagrees with me.
@@pineapplepenumbrahaha
Jesus didn't actually exist, so...
Let's get the book of James involved. That'll clear things up. 👀😅 /s
The differences between Paul and Jesus teachings is what first led me away from Christianity. Wonderful to hear from a scholar on the subject. Great interview!
I chose Jesus over Paul any day. Paul should have just shut up
@@jessicayoung3656 I choose either two over the maniac Yahweh.
@@jessicayoung3656you can also choose yourself
@GameTimeWhy I'm an atheist so yes i do. I was just comparing the t
Now imagine coming from a country that arguably became Christian because Paul crashed on your turf, when St Luke would've been enough for the job
The fact that Paul didn't get along with Jesus's top 2 disciples, one of which was Jesus's own brother, is pretty significant as to whether or not he followed the teachings of Jesus.
Considering that Jesus himself called Peter "Satan" at one point might hint to the fact that he wasn't always in accordance with the master either. Hard to say what's fiction and what's history in those texts however. But considering in what bad a light Peter is shown, I'd tend to think it's authentic.
That word meant opposer and not necessarily a literal Satan, and Jesus said it after Peter said he wanted to stop Jesus from being killed. If that was even true and not inserted to make the cross look like an intentional and foretold part of Jesus' life. Jesus also told Peter that he was the rock upon which the church would be built. He was the rightful successor to Jesus' movement.
@@BlondeEyes7thanks for the explanation - I should have mentioned that I studied theology and interreligious studies so I know what the word meant. The whole thing is - Peter was at the beginning more the apostle of the Jews and Paul of the gentiles. There is no true opposition between the two. Having gentile "sympathizers" (Greek, eusebes) of the Jewish religion was already a thing. They followed the same laws as were decided to also be applicable to gentile Christians (the so-called noahide laws, which include eating kosher BTW, something almost no Christian today does). The Pauline "lawless" Judaism was not as new or revolutionary or as distant to the teachings of Jesus or Judaism as people think. (in fact the excellent channel "Esoterica" by Prof. Sledge, made a good argument for Paul being a Jewish mystic of a mystic school of the time.) There are actually jewish scholars who have written about Paul (like Shalom Ben-Chorin or Pinchas Lapide) and never really saw him that far outside of traditional Judaism. He even still called himself a pharisee after becoming a "Christian".
This artificial confrontation of "Jesus vs Paul" was very en vogue at a certain time in theories about the first decades of Christianity.
After having studied all of this stuff and reading hundreds of books on the matter, I can safely say, each generation will interpret all of if new over time. Many theories have merits, many have flaws. None is or will ever be "proven" above the level of being a more or less clever or consistent interpretation of texts.
I often say, "theology is like studying literature but with just one book."
One thing I forgot in my lengthy comment. It's interesting to see that people like Ehrman especially try to convince people that the gospels have been altered and changed basically at will to fit the teachings of the church but suddenly those texts are somehow "proof" that Peter was the rightful successor to Jesus? Ain't that convenient. Goes to show that the critics of the gospels pick and choose as much as any evangelicals which parts of the texts they deem authentic.
So either a text is inserted for purpose of doctrine and therefore inauthentic or it's not. And if Ehrman and most other scholars are right, and Paul's letters are the oldest Christian writings, how easy would it have been to insert this thing about Peter being the rock, etc into the gospels, if there had been any conflict in leadership? If one were to believe the theory that those texts were all changed at will.
@@MrSeedi76 It would seem that, if we were to go by what is written in the Acts of the Apostles, when Paul made his post-conversion claim to being a Pharisee, he did so specifically in the context of belief in the resurrection of the dead. (Acts 23:6) Indeed, the Pharisees believed in the resurrection while the Sadducees did not. Furthermore, with reference to the Pharisees, he is quoted as saying: "I have hope toward God, which hope these men themselves also entertain, that there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and the unrighteous."-Acts 24:15.
Incidentally, I remember reading some years ago a summary of the differences between the two parties, the Pharisees and the Sadducees. The writers had the temerity to claim the Pharisees as the "liberal" party and the Sadducees as the "conservative" party. However, that claim rang hollow as both parties were equally insistent upon a literalist interpretation of the Torah. The only divergence between them was on the question of the resurrection of the dead. Otherwise, as I read the summary, both parties were equally conservative. Nonetheless, Paul was ostensibly a member of the Pharisaical party prior to his conversion, and regarding them he is again quoted as saying: "Indeed, as to the manner of life from youth up that I from the beginning among my nation and in Jerusalem, all the Jews that have been previously acquainted with me from the first know, if they but wish to bear witness, that according to the strictest sect of our religion I lived as a Pharisee." (Acts 26:4,5) If even a member of the Pharisaical party could admit to that same party as "the strictest sect", how "liberal" could it actually be? Even by the standards of the first century A.D., it was anything but.
Granted, none of this specifically addresses the purported resurrection of Christ specifically. However, that particular claim could be said to be an outgrowth of the Pharisaical belief in a general resurrection. "After all", the thought goes, "if Yahweh could raise humanity from the grave, why would he not do the same for his own Son?" The alleged resurrection of Christ, consequently, becomes the basis for Paul's treatise on the general resurrection in 1 Corinthians chapter 15. In effect, Paul there claims that the resurrection of Christ is the assurance of the general resurrection. He makes the argument: "If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all men most to be pitied." (1 Corinthians 15:19) Therein lies the problem. Christians 'hope in Christ' for the prospect of getting life in his kingdom. However, they can not provide evidence that the historical Christ of the Gospels even existed beyond possibly a composite of any number of individuals in the Mid East during the period 2 B.C.-A.D. 33. They certainly can not provide incontrovertible evidence that he was raised from the dead, let alone that he is "seated at the right hand of the Father" and will "come again to judge the living and the dead", as they claim in the Creed they recite during "the memorial of his death and resurrection", the Eucharist, where they claim to partake of his body and blood under the auspices of bread and wine. On the contrary, in view of the lack of incontrovertible evidence, due to their 'hoping in Christ', whether "in this life alone" or in that which is allegedly to come, Christians are of all people "most to be pitied". They are, at best, hoping in someone who has long since died, was buried in a mass grave and has certainly not been raised therefrom.
This discussion made me think of the film The Last Temptation of Christ. Many Christians were extremely offended by the depiction of Jesus as someone who struggled, had doubts, and at one point wanting to choose to marry and have children rather than be crucified. However, I felt that there was a part of the story that (in my opinion) was far more subversive than that, which was that Paul was falsely claiming that the death and resurrection happened. Paul was a charlatan.
Seeing this film was the first time that it had occurred to me that so much of the belief system of modern Christianity (at least that I was exposed to) was based on Paul, not Jesus. And with this realization, I found it rather surprising that Christians didn't seem to be bothered by the depiction of Paul as a fraud in that movie. It seemed to me that folks were getting upset over some details that aren't really that important to the religion (such as did Jesus ever have doubts, struggles, or (god forbid) sex but glossed over the implications that the foundation of the modern church could be founded by a liar.
I was a Christian when I read that book. I remember how controversial it was, but I found it fascinating, just to look at Jesus as an actual human.
Given that Jesus being tempted is actually part of the gospels, it made it even stranger that people got upset by a depiction of Jesus being tempted.
I have not seen the film, but based on your comment I have a pretty good idea as to why Christians were more bothered by the depiction of Jesus. In Christianity, Jesus is the perfect son of God, as well as being God himself. Yes, he was tempted but he never gave in, and he wished that he did not have to die, but he willingly went through with it. The actions of him and Paul in this movie both fundamentally change their character. The major difference is that Paul is a sinful human, while Jesus is a sinless human/God. The idea of him acting against his nature is far more serious than Paul doing so, even if in the end both depictions are very... troubling. Though, again, I have not seen it, so I could be way off base.
@claffert _"at one point wanting to choose to marry and have children rather than be crucified. "_
Just like Christians at large want and like the idea that Jesus getting crucified for theological implication, there is another ethnic group likes and wants Jesus(pbuh) getting killed as well, their ethnicity starts with "Je".
I know that you know who they are.
This ethnic group and Christians are close friends, whereas Muslims love the notion that God saved Jesus(pbuh) from near death ordeal, just like God saved many prophets before Jesus, these Muslims are considered to be foe by the Christians and Je.
One group loves the notion saving Jesus(pbuh) and one who want Jesus(pbuh) getting crucified, whose belief is valid before the God and stands before the God?
@claffert In Islam God saved Jesus(pbuh) from humiliation, torture, nakedness and near death ordeal, just like God saved many prophets before the God.
Two of my most favourite humans talking together. Thanks so much Emma and Bart.
Am I alone in feeling a little burst of pride for our lovely person Emma when Dr Ehrman genuflects on what a good question she just asked?
Ah I did not recognize Mr. Ehrman thank you for your comment I do not need to listen to that man anymore. He is a deceiver.
@@br.m Both uncharitable and untrue, but glad you got something out of it, I guess.
@@MetaphorUB No you are incorrect. There is no reason for us to chat. just like I knew I could skip this video because I heard all this guys rhetoric already.
Thank you again for your delightful reply you made my day and I hope you are having a fine day today.
@@br.m Sounds like you’ve got it all figured out. Have a good one, man.
@@br.m”deceiver” 😂😂😂😂 gtfoh with your bullshit.
I've learned so much more about Christianity since I became an atheist than I was ever taught in 30 years of going to church
😂 Sure you did....
@@rs72098What makes you so sure @russb24 isn't telling the truth?
Grew up going every Sunday (Methodist.) Baptised, confirmed. Sunday school, youth groups, retreats, choir, etc. Every week with rare exceptions my first 18 years. Hardly attended in college or early 20s but came back because I wanted to be in good standing leading up to my wedding. (Catholic this time for my fiancee.) I trusted what I was told but never read the bible. I never knew that the gospels weren't written by firsthand witnesses. I never knew that most of the new testament was written by one guy who never knew Jesus (I don't think a vision counts.) Never knew that hell as it's always been taught to me is completely absent from the book.
I'm not making up my experience, and it's not surprising that a true believer thinks they know me better than I do.
@@russb24sorry to say this but you fell for an anti-apologist who's using tricks on you. He's only telling half of the story. There is no reason to doubt that the gospels were written by the people whose names they carry. There is no single proof that they were ever anonymous. Those are all just theories based on a priori assumptions. Basically Ehrman parrots the stuff he read when he studied theology himself. Especially German theologians who were always super critical. Guess how I know - I'm German and studied theology and religious science. Ehrman is nobody that was ever mentioned when I studied. Probably because US American theologians are utterly unknown in the rest of the world, especially when they don't add anything new to the debate. To really form your own opinion, you need to look at both sides. Ehrman seems to not be interested in regaining the faith he lost. Therefore he only tells you about the stuff that will raise doubts about things to separate people from their faith. His agenda is to destroy the faith by spreading falsehoods and one sided arguments. Never telling you about the problems with these theories and they are many. Just the dating of the gospels alone fills whole libraries if you're getting into it. I looked at all the arguments and I'm no fundamentalist or evangelical. Also studying theology at a German state university is rather liberal. Still the liberal arguments from the 70s, which is what Ehrman bases most of his work on, make not much sense if you look closely. They are completely removed from any historical facts and only based on a priori assumptions like "the people back then were mainly all illiterate" - complete BS as they were Jews who had a long standing literal tradition at that point. Or, "they all expected the end of the world is imminent so they didn't write anything down". Also nonsense as we know that there were older collections of Jesus's teachings. Nobody would have prevented anyone from writing stuff down. We know for a historical fact that many people back then could read and write. Any claim to the contrary is just a plain lie. Don't get fooled by Ehrman and his RUclips fame. Go to a library and see for yourself.
@@MrSeedi76lol, lmao even.
I'd never even considered the question of whether it was in fact Paul who founded Christianity - it makes logical sense. Fascinating topic. Love your channel Emma ❤
Theologists were asked to rank the most important figures in the history of christianity. Paul was number one. Jesus was number five.
Two sides of Christianity. Peter and Paul. The martyr, the regretter, the giver. Paul, the hypocrite, the misogynist, the war monger. Two face, thy name is Christianity.
@@falconeshieldonly people who never read Paul can write so much nonsense about him.
It doesn't make sense. Paul didn't found anything.
Read these verses and the surrounding verses in context. (see comments below)
1 - Paul, a bondservant of Jesus Christ, called to be an apostle, separated to the gospel of God which He promised before through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, concerning His Son Jesus Christ our Lord, who was born of the seed of David according to the flesh, and declared to be the Son of God with power according to the Spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead. Through Him we have received grace and apostleship for obedience to the faith among all nations for His name, among whom you also are the called of Jesus Christ;
Ro 1:1-6.
2 - Now the Lord spoke to Paul in the night by a vision, “Do not be afraid, but speak, and do not keep silent; for I am with you, and no one will attack you to hurt you; for I have many people in this city.” And he continued there a year and six months, teaching the word of God among them.
Ac 18:9-11.
3 - But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so now I say again, if anyone preaches any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed.
Ga 1:8-9.
1) Here we see that Paul says that he's a "...bondservant of Jesus Christ...separated to the gospel...". How could Paul be a bondservant to that which he came up with himself? How could he be a bondservant to both Christ AND himself, if Paul's message originated with Paul?
2) Here we see the Lord Jesus talking to Paul by a vision. Paul speaks to these people a "year and six months" the "word of God". Now, what is this word of God? How could Jesus tell Paul to speak that which Paul came up with himself?
3) On what ground and on what kind of authority would Paul have to claim for himself to curse angels in the event on them teaching a different gospel? Paul would have to be God. But Paul is not God. So what Paul speaks must be on the basis of Paul being an ambassador (see 2 Corinthians 5:20) and telling others what God wants. The message then comes from Christ through Paul. Paul didn't invent it or originate it.
Paul is the founder of Christianity, he was an imposter who wanted to deliberately distort the message of Jesus.Its painful that Christian follow Paul and go against what Jesus preached.
Emma thank you so much for this. It’s a question I have been wrestling with. ❤
youve really been wrestling with this question? it takes 30 seconds to figure out if u really were 100 percent clueless
@MacTheHuman Just remember that God is not the author of chaos and that's what Paul caused/causes. Then remember the wheat and tares parable and know God can use evil intent for good
I used to be Catholic. After 9 years of Catholic school, I believed that Jesus was preaching a kinder, gentler form of Judaism. Paul's message--which is the one that stuck--was that, no, this is its own new thing.
to me the new testament is the story of a god that rapes a woman and gives the child up to be tortured and killed... they hurry to gloss that over and give full limelight to the character of that child, but why this was necessary in the universe of an all knowing creator... ?
And it became even more of it's own thing after Rebellion in Judea.
The Hebrews destroyed decent amount of Roman legions so everyone in Rome was really pissed so Christians had to decide between :
We are with Romans.
We are with Jews.
They chose Romans and this was the begining of anti-semitism in Christianity.
You know the phrase "Jesus, protect me from your followers..." that was definitely about Paul. Paul was an unhinged zealot. His story reminds me of political extremists. I am a socialist, so I am used to interacting with political extremists. The ones that are willing to burn the world down to remake a new one are usually converted to the Left from the Right. I find them to be extremely dangerous, authoritarian, etc. Paul's story reminds me of that. Paul went from persecuting Jesus's followers to the extreme opposite. Zealotry is zealotry at the end of the day.
@@karenholmes6565 In most ideologies, and this includes religions, adult converts are often the most zealous and extreme. Perhaps because the emotional event involved drives them in that direction? If one reads The Communist Manifesto, one can see Marx's emotions coming through very strongly...the same with Paul...it certainly makes one think.
@@karenholmes6565 This seems like a lot of reading into things.
For one, we have no idea what Paul meant by "persecute". He never elaborates on it and he could just as easily be lying about it, kinda like all the "former atheist turned believer" stories we see from modern apologists. The story about him from Acts, along with pretty much everything in Acts, is fiction as far as critical scholarship is able to determine. So this claim doesn't really tell us anything about him or his behavior beyond, "Paul claimed to have persecuted christ followers".
Meanwhile, the pastoral epistles are all regarded as forgeries and there are some questionable sections in the authentic letters. Beyond that, the letters only survived as fragments which were pieced together after the fact. So it's entirely possible that later people spun up narratives from unrelated fragments. Which tells us that we should be hesitant to make any strong assertions about his personality given that even the bits we do have that we are reasonably certain are his are not necessarily presenting his intent.
Paul was an unusual character to be sure. But not that unusual for his time and cultural context. The weirdest thing I can think of about him is his insistence that people not have sex at all unless they really can't keep it in their pants. In which case to only do so dispassionately. Which, not great. But considering the extremely dubious conceptions of consent back then, slavery, women's complete lack of autonomy and the like, "don't have sex at all" is frankly a step up. There's also the whole messianic cult aspect of it. If you thought that you were about to be translated to a new, perfect spiritual body, you'd be worried about possible spiritual contamination too. Remember, everybody believed in demons and assorted malevolent spirits back then. They were as real to them as bacteria and viruses are to us. You should read up on jewish bathroom demons some time.
Point being, zealotry is context dependent. Most jews in the 1st century CE were religious extremists by today's standards. Contextually, I'd argue Paul's worst character trait is that he comes off more like a narcissistic grifter than anything else. He dunks on Peter and co. all the time, humble brags about being the last apostle and when someone asked him about where the money from all the groups he spun up is going his response was essentially, "Shut up, don't talk to me about my money."
Isn't this ignoring the way Jesus criticized the Jewish laws? He gave two commandments that encompass everything. Love God, and love what God loves (people). He considered the Jewish laws as a burden that kept people from God, and called those supporting those laws a "pit of vipers". To me it seems that Jesus told us how to live, and the resurrection is important because it shows that Jesus has authority and power over death (otherwise, none of it matters). Paul may have focused on the wrong bit, but saying that Jesus pushed Jewish law seems to cherry pick parts and ignoring most of it.
I can't help but think that Jesus and Paul were very different fellows, and both Emma and Bart alluded to this as one reason Christianity lacks any real consistency. If I was a Christian, I would be even more confused than I am already! 🙂
There is no such thing as Christianity. The reason people buy into Paul is because over the past 200 years or so, people have decided they don't like what Jesus taught. For example, when Jesus told the woman whose daughter had a demon, I've only been sent to the lost sheep of the house of Israel, He meant it. We don't know God, and until that changes, confusion will reign supreme.
Yeah, even I who follow Jesus sympathise with atheists now. Christianity is false, but trusting in Jesus is real and reliable. I suggest getting a red letter bible. That’s just the words of Jesus. For example, his teaching on old and new wine is really applicable to my life.
These people are deceived and Ehrman is to be ignored. Paul was in line with Jesus. They preach the same gospel.
Compare these: (JESUS) Matt.24:24 For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great SINGS and WONDERS to deceive, if possible, even the elect. 25 See, I have told you ahead of time.
26 “So if anyone tells you, ‘There he is, out in the desert,’ do not go out; or, ‘Here he is, in the inner rooms,’ do not believe it.
(PAUL) 2 Cor. 12:12 I persevered in demonstrating among you the marks of a true apostle, including SIGNS, WONDERS and miracles.
Paul claimed Jesus appeared to him at the desert on road to Damascus, and then inside his prison... And Christians can't see anything suspicious on that, eventhough Jesus warned about "Wolf on sheep's clothing"...
Most of the homophobia and misogyny in the New Testament come from Paul. I was reared in a Bible reading home. My parents weren't into brainwashing us to be Christian. They believed it was up to us to decide what our religion would be, but I was raised around parents that heavily researched and read the Bible. I have read that book myself more than once, complete with concordance and different versions. I am not a Christian. What I decided was that Jesus was a cool dude and most of the troubling aspects of Christianity are rooted in Paul. Paul's entire origin story is also disturbing to me. He was a zealot. Before his conversion story he was a zealot against the Jesus movement, and then afterwards he was a zealot for it. And if life has taught me anything is that zealots are problematic in their charisma and their ability to pull people over to their worldview. Perhaps Christianity would never have launched without Paul, but I can't be a Jesus follower because of him.
As I understand it; the misogyny and homophobia was later interpolated anyway.
As I always say: we all know what happened to Peter. Odd how we don't know what happened to Paul after he dead. 😂
@@falconeshield Hmm… …I always understood that Peter was crucified with nails, and possibly upside down. And that Paul was beheaded.
Am I missing something?
@@danieleyre8913 We don't actually know that about either of them. There are other videos by Bart Ehrman on the lives and deaths of the apostles and the short version of them is: there is no reason to believe that Paul was beheaded or even that he was a Roman citizen. Same goes for Peter or any of the other disciples. The book of acts just isn't a reliable source.
So basically you made up your own religion.
It's noticeable that Fundies rely much more on Paul than the Gospels.
As a former fundie, yes 100%
They don't rely on either. They mainly rely on the old testament. That's why I call evangelicals a Jewish fringe sect.
How so?? Most quoted scriptures are usually from the gospel of John. I hear more about the book of Revelation than from Paul's letters. I will say that atheists need to read the book of acts because they always get confused about the dietary laws and ceremony laws.
Fundies loathe the concept of unconditional love because they worship capitalism above their own god.
A lot of christian bigotry comes from second epistle to the romans
Wow. The Clark Kent Effect is real. I barely recognise Ehrman without his glasses!
Trust me I wear glasses and I litgit had coworkers not recognize me when I walked in without glasses lmao
Thank you, Emma. I really appreciate your interviews.
Hi, Emma,just wanted to thank you for everything that you do, and especially for making me aware of the Greg Locke Witch bit. An excerpt of the sound is gonna be in the intro to my band's concert on sunday!
👍👍 I love these insights, they're so fascinating! Thank you for the upload!
I don’t want eternal life, as a Buddhist, I am trying to end the cycle of rebirth
Do you think rebirth is real? If so, what reasons do you have to believe so?
I've always found it interesting how Buddhism and Christianity have opposite afterlife goals: a Christian's aim is to live forever, and a Buddhist's aim is to stop living forever. Both of them have the same aim of stopping existing with suffering. (Buddhists by stopping existing, and Christians by either going to heaven or God's new kingdom.)
@@danielduvana
I believe in reincarnation, if only of a chemical sort: someday other critters will have the carbon & etc I'm currently built from 😋
@@AMcAFavesFrom the little I know about Buddhism, it’s not about ending existence, it’s about not coming back into a physical body.
@@davidkeller6156 i was thinking the same thing
Did Paul and Jesus have the same religion? No. Jesus was Jewish, lived as such, and died as such. Paul created a new religion and institutionalized it.
Loved this conversation! Thanks for your approach to the topic
I was recently on a hospital ward with an English Converted Muslim, an English Mormon and an African Christian. There's a joke in there somewhere but this genuinely happened to me (an atheist).
"An english converted muslim, a mormon, an african christian and an atheist were in the same hospital ward. When they died the same thing happened to all of them"
👽: jajaja
@@mikearchibald744 But that's not a joke; that's a fact?
@@dlevi67 LOL, good point.
@@mikearchibald744 It actually was a very good ironic joke - given the premise of the OP. Have a good weekend!
I really don't know why it is so hard for many Christians to subtract Paul from Christianity. It seems that many former Christians, when they discard Paul, also discard Jesus and God. I find that Paul is the false Apostle of Revelation 2:2 and the figure in Mattew 7:21 who will cast out demons and say "Lord Lord" but Jesus will tell him "I never knew you." His inclusion in the Bible seems to me to be a test at detecting heresies. There are the heresies that not even Paul would accept (like those that deny the bodily resurrection) and there are those heresies that he espoused that smack you un the face (like eating food sacrificed onto Idols).
Reject Paul, accept Jesus. For me, it was easy. I hope it is for thee as well.
Yay! Nothing better than Bert Herman!
Paul had such a deep dismissal for Peter and James for this exact issue. Letter of James reverses the faith and works order.
TBF - Peter was a bit of a misogynistic ass.
This helped to answer questions that have been at the back of my mind for decades. Thank you.
This is nonsense though and Ehrman is a deceiver.
That was a very fascinating conversation. Thank you
I remember as a child being dragged to church and being bored so I would look at these things. (I was already a non-believer at this point) But I remember thinking and wondering why Paul's writings were even included in the bible, his entire story seemed like a sham, and he was extremely misogynistic which was when I realized why his writings were included in the bible
Calling Paul a mysoginist clearly shows you neither read nor understood what he wrote. Typical trope of liberal theology of the 1970s. Long since debunked.
Yeah you just made that up
Paul: "Keep the commandments? Nah, never mind. Like kicking a dead horse. Do this resurrection thing instead."
There was no infrastructure for Jewish practices outside of Israel, especially after the Temple destruction. So it had to become a spiritual exercise.
I Corinthians I5:20-23 resurrected like Christ as Paul describes or traptured like the pulpit masters teach? Ezekiel I3:20. You know the fake doctrine Elohim warned us about?
I really like the ideas around the development of the 'oral law' of Christianity I'm the century+ between the death of Jesus and his words getting written down. I similarly like the discussion of 'salivation through repentance' vs 'salvation through belief that Jesus is the risen messiah who shall return in glory etc'
I think it's cool you brushed upon this topic. There's definitely two different theologies you get whether you focus on the teachings of Jesus and the gospels, or Paul's writings. You can find similar discrepancies within Buddhism as well. Some Buddhists believe you ought to strive to achieve what the Buddha achieved, enlightenment. There are other sects of Buddhism that believe that you need only believe that Buddha reached enlightenment to escape samsara(reincarnation). When you boil both down its works vs faith.
@YT_EmmaThorne IMPOSTER!!!!
I want reincarnation it's a comfort. The one catch is to forget.
@@falconeshield Samsara is cool. It's fun to think about. I just wonder how that would work with a population that's continuously growing.
great video, i wish more christians would got to this point in thought, i know when i did it was the beginning of the end, you start to see churches as a methodology of control...that you yourself are stuck inside with no support
I realised only recently that Paul's writings were written before any of the gospels. In fact Paul died before the first gospel was written. I was shocked to learn that.
So if Paul's writings were the first Christian writings, why doesn't he mention the miracles and the parables? Was it because Paul was just writing letters to churches and he had no idea he was writing the future Christian Bible or else he would have added more details about Jesus?
Or was it because Paul didn't know about the life of Jesus? But if Paul had received all his knowledge by direct revelation from Jesus, not from men, perhaps that suggests that all of the stories in the gospels didn't happen?
I’m not a Christian but I’m interested in ancient history and literature. This was a fascinating video. Thank you :)
Great video, Emma. Just shows once again how very complicated and contradictory Christianity is when the slightest bit of critical thought is applied.
🧂
@@CHIEF_420🍼
Just too big for your smooth brain
Paul seemed to approach Jesus' teachings in a similar way to how any other cult leader would (funnelling it through his own values and perspective); the only difference being that his temporal proximity Jesus' execution helped guarantee his version more orthodoxy.
Otherwise, he's more of a cult leader than Jesus ever was.
Thanks a lot, Emma and Bart. I have been confused about the distinction between Moral Law and Ceremonial Law. Is it that Jesus intended for us to follow the ceremonial laws (minus animal sacrifice) such as observing the Sabbath and not eating pork, but that we just shouldn't be legalistic about it. For example, if our boss calls and tells us that he really needs us to work on Saturday because the person who was to be in the office got very sick. We should then not observe the Sabbath because to be selfless we should sacrifice our day off and help our boss out of a jam. And with respect to pork, if we were starving and all we had to eat was pork, then we should eat pork. Is that your understanding?
Completely unknowable.
@@apjapki Thanks for responding. The distinction between moral and ceremonial law is an interesting topic, and I have been pondering about this a lot. And will probably be pondering about it for some time. 🙂
@@themusespeakstome4467in Judaism there is no distinction. Problem is that what could be called ceremonial would only apply if the temple was still in existence. And for gentile Christians only the noahide laws apply. A convenient solution as "Zadiks" already existed. And the same laws applied.
When I was a Christian, I explained it as the Law having three parts: ceremonial law, civil/conduct law, and purity law. I came to the conclusion that the civil/conduct law must still apply so that we can continue to live in societies, while the purity law no longer applied because salvation is by grace, and the ceremonial law no longer applied because the temple is gone.
Of course, this division is completely arbitrary AND it still leaves one picking and choosing, which leads to people emphasizing the parts that it suits them to emphasize. And so the supposedly perfect and objective God-given morale code leaves us with endless arguments and conflicts - just as if it was entirely human-created.
And thus I conclude that we are better off to work things out for ourselves in the 21st century, and have our arguments there, rather than try to fit ourselves into the rules invented by a bronze-age pastoral society that no longer exists.
@@njhoepner Nathan, thanks a lot for this detailed response. I did not think of the law in three parts like that. You are right that it looks like an arbitrary situation that leads to a lot of picking and choosing. And endless arguments. If God (not the Judeo-Christian one) does exist, they must be shaking their head at humanity. Thanks again for your response.
Avoid the FALSE Teachings of Paul... Jesus Never said he Needed An Apostle to the Gentiles... that was a LIE from Paul
Agreed
When I started going to church seeking to be taught about Christ, the meanings behind what he said, what he did, I began to notice that I was hearing plenty of sermons on Paul and stories from the Old Testament. But, I never heard a sermon on a direct quote from Christ in one of the Gospels.
A kind person gave me a red ink bible where Christ's words are printed in red. That is what I have been reading for 18 years.
Christ said, "I am the truth, the light, and the way...."
Christ said, "Heaven and earth may pass away, but my words will never pass away."
He said, "Wherever two or three of you gather I am there also."
He said, "The kingdom of heaven is at hand."
That was 2,000 years ago. I accept that statement is as true today as it was in the moment Christ said it. But, mankind has yet to enter into the full realization of Christ's teachings. The good news is we still can if we try.
"Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness for they shall be filled."
i have to start this before i even watch this as i have asked myself the same question time and time again...this is gonna be great, thank you
I've always pointed out to people that basically all the conservative and regressive parts of christianity were brought up by Paul.
Almost like handing your love and peace religion over to a hyper-conservative authoritarian former religious zealot isnt a great idea.
Honestly it seems to me that many christians don't even bother with Paul, and just say 'in Jesus' name' while jumping straight to the most callous, cruel, judgemental, & bloody parts of the old testament.
@@AnotherCraig then you've never sat in on an evangelical sermon. They LOVE Paul.
@@davidtaylor142
Fair! Thanks for the correction. I was raised Catholic; my experience of evangelicals comes almost exclusively from raging televangelists and Republican rationalizing
@davidtaylor142 They might claim they do but they pick and choose from Paul's letters just as they do from the rest of the Bible. Or how often have you heard them quoting, "the man isn't master over his own body but the woman"?
@@MrSeedi76 Another way to blame women again.
Jesus was Marx, Paul was Lenin. There's always a Lenin.
Constantine was Stalin?
Paul was Stalin in that metaphor.
Who was Ringo?
@@AMcAFaves
I dunno, but from now on I'll be calling the gnostics the Pete Best of christianity
@@pattheplanterAbsolutely 🤗
With respect to the advice of Jesus to give all your wealth to the poor, can we have some discussion of how Christians cannot be against a welfare state? Ecclesiasticus 34:21: "The bread of the needy is their life: he that defraudeth him thereof is a man of blood."
I think therein lies the difference between Historical and Biblical Jesus, and Republican Jesus.
Very much so. As a German I never understood how that can even be a thing. Christians being against helping the poor looks like a contradiction in itself for me.
Christians aren't generally against helping the poor, they are against institutionalizing the helping of the poor. We now LITERALLY see secular governments doing away with poverty altogether.
@@AMcAFaves when you mix white supremacy and unmitigated capitalism into biblical literalism, you get Republican Jesus.
It's just more of the picking and choosing...the parts that one can weaponize against everyone one hates (the bible Evangelicals read)...the parts that one doesn't want to follow so interprets away as "metaphor" or "allegory" or "covered by grace" (all the parts that would be detriment one's lifestyle)...and the version that Evangelicals actually live by, which is a cobbled together mish-mash of right-wing politics, nationalism, and culture wars "traditional values" that would be exactly the same if they were all to become pagans tomorrow.
This is fascinating, thank~you!
Dr. Ehrman is a welcome guest 👍
This is SUCH a great video. Thank you for this.
I love that Emma was able to genuinely surprise Bart with her “Paul is just a guy” comment 😸
Paul really does seem like a Joseph Smith that that came along early enough to get in the Bible.
This is a great video and introduction to what seems to be a very fascinating course but I would have liked to hear his take on John 14:6 when Jesus says that he is the way. I would have also liked to hear about Peter’s contributions to “the church”
Personally, I have no love for Paul’s teachings. Sadly, he found a way to ‘skew’ Jesus teachings, or his own ends.
So many in the church seem to quote Paul all day long, but try and avoid Jesus. (Found this to be done especially by those who are looking for quotes for their personal beliefs. They avoid anything, including Jesus that may contradict them)
The useful thing about the bible for Christians is that it is contradictory, so you can derive almost any principle you want from it.
Even the gospel that is attributed to Jesus didn’t make the cut to be in the bible.. there’s nothing profound in there except that he objected to male circumcision - as that if males weren’t supposed to have them then they wouldn’t be born with them..
Excellent discussion about something I hadn't heard before.
Paul introduced the idea of Gentiles getting in without converting to Judaism? What implications does that have for earlier text that said the other live by their own laws? Others, thought to be Gentiles.
When non-believers spend much of their time, energy--their lives discussing the very thing they don't believe in, any of us, followers of Jesus---Christians, call that progress. God Bless You All In Jesus Name.
Maybe believers should discuss it more.
Jesus and Paul's teachings did NOT contradict each other. Jesus told Nicodemus when the lattern asked how to be born again, "For God so loved that world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life." Jesus also said, "If ye love me keep my commandments." Jesus brother, James, said, "Faith without works is dead." We are not saved by keeping the commandments, we are saved by grace through faith. We keep His commandments because we love Him and want to please Him because He has saved us.
We don’t even know who wrote that verse.
@mooshei8165 How do I know that it is you that wrote the comment that is ascribed to you? Since I didn't actually see you do it, it takes a certain amount of childlike faith for me to accept that it is so. The same faith that is used when reading that "All Scripture is given by inspiration (God-breathed) of God..." If it is not, then the Bible contradicts its self and is therefore a lie.
Paul says that he didn't learn any of his teachings from humans; he learned everything from Revelations from Jesus (Galatians 1). Then, in Galatians 2 he recounts meeting Peter, James, and John, the supposed disciples of Jesus. He calls the "estimable men," but says they have "nothing to add."
Now, either Paul is insanely arrogant (certainly possible) or he learned nothing about Jesus' life from the disciples. For Jesus to be real, the former has to be true; for Jesus to be a myth, the latter has to be true.
I once struggled to understand how Paul was able to make Christianity less Commandments orientated and get away with it. Jeebus was all about obeying his dad's rules. Whereas Paul was not. Then I heard that Paul decided to play-down the whole Positive Commandment 216 deal. In other words, Paul found willing participants, provided they could keep their wedding tackle intact.
I'm pretty sure I read one of Paul's letters and he spent a lot of it talking about the importance of circumcision.
@@capitalb5889 And that is why Christians are still being circumcised to this day... Nah, he dropped that idea fairly quick.
It's very easy in fact. Ever heard about the tzadiks and the noahide laws? Look it up, you'll be amazed how easy those supposed "riddles" are solved. Paul simply used a long existing tradition to solve the question of how to integrate gentiles into the Christian community mainly made up of Jews. And the solution was pretty obvious in fact. Or read acts, especially the part where the apostles decide that gentile Christians should follow the noahide laws and not the whole 613 commandments.
He was not all about rules, Jesus mostly preached about unconditional love
@@balkanbaroque Yes indeed. I completely agree. We were raised by the Church of England to fear god and to embrace Christ's teachings of love and forgiveness. From the age of four years old, we were taught that god is Jealous, Vengeful, Wrathful, The Creator of Evil, The Lord of War and the Giver of Laws. Be afraid, be very afraid.
Jesus taught us Love, Peace and Forgiveness.
But Jesus did tell us to obey god's rules. Jesus was specific on this point. He even endorsed Slavery, never once did he condemn it. And Jesus introduced us to Heaven and... Hell.
Had the Roman Catholic Church not canonised Saul, would we even need to have this conversation?
Is it strange that I'm finding the bible much more fascinating after losing my faith?🙂 Great interview!
It's fanfiction about the plight of Jews lasting 2,000 years that had been highjacked by Mohammed and a Roman who was probably gay and hated women
You never had faith, you just believed in something taught by men. Understand that faith is not mere belief or acceptance, but rather it is spiritual wisdom and understanding.
What they taught you was not truth, it was dogmatic and incongruent with the scriptures. You've always felt things were off, it just took you a while to accept the error of your faith.
Proverbs 29:25
Trust in man will prove to be a snare, but whoever fears the LORD is kept safe.
In short, don't let mere men tell you what to believe.
Great interview, very informative and entertaining
My suspicion is that Paul was avoiding talking about the specifics of Jesus because different branches of the church at the time, didn't agree on many things. So Paul was mainly emphasising things that they could all agree on. Like "Well if you all agree that Jesus died and was resurrected, then you all have an automatic ticket to heaven. So lets not fall out over the details."
Weren't Paul's letters in the NT all about squabbling over the other details, though?
You don't get an automatic ticket to heaven, you have to pick up your cross and walk in the footsteps of Christ doing the works of faith too. If you live a life of sin even as Christian, you can still go to hell
So why bother to convert if you are an Atheist, because you are going to burn anyway, for your past sins? Or can you live a sinful life, but then truely accept Jesus and repent on your death bed. To get your ticket to Heaven. @@MrSlaternater
@@corringhamdepot4434 no you don't burn for your past sins if you believe and repent, all your past sins are forgiven. You can obtain salvation by believing in Christ, but then it is about living the Christian life of faith and works to assure that salvation. You aren't finished once you are baptised, you are only beginning your journey at baptism. It's not to say you will never suffer with sin afterwards, but you work towards moving away from that and becoming closer to God.
Ignore any calvinist views of the Bible because they will just confuse you.
So if Hitler truly repented and accepted Jesus on the day he died, then Hitler would be in Heaven. However if an Atheist lived an otherwise "sinless" life he will burn in Hell for eternity, just because he didn't accept Jesus. @@MrSlaternater
Thank you Emma for having this scholar talk about the Paul/Jesus problem, first I'd heard about it. Even my mother, a multi-religionist, saw Paul for the mysoginist, icky one, he was. Great question; was Paul the founder of the Christian religion, the co-founder? I'll bet it's not a question argued by the American fundies. That would require questioning their fantasy life and would, and has, lead to "war and rumours of war".
The challenge is that we have no way of knowing with certainty what Jesus actually said and did. There is the life of Jesus, there is the crucifixion, there is a claim about a resurrection...the next thing we have is Paul's letters (and we don't have the answers to any of them, which would be hugely interesting), and he basically ignores everything Jesus said and did, for whatever reason...then the gospel accounts begin to emerge, by now a generation and more later, with all the Pauline baggage and who knows what else in between impacting these accounts, not to mention the conventions of standard Greco-Roman literature and its tropes of the time which show up very clearly in all of the gospels...by the time we get to the last gospel account we are more than two generations down the road (at the very least) and we get a very different account from all the others, and there's no way to know if any of it reflects reality.
👽: ???
Interesting considerations that I share. Justin's writings, in my opinion, can help us understand the evolution of nascent Christianity. In the first half of the second century, this Christian seems to have a rather broad picture of the liturgies and writings that influenced the Christian communities of his time.
@@mychannel-sw2rj The evolution becomes clearer the further forward in time one goes. Paul's influence is initially decisive, then whoever wrote the pseudo-Pauline letters. With the early "church fathers" we see the very strong impact of neo-Platonism (and some Stoicism). Then it becomes the state religion, and you can see already in Eusebius and then Augustine a driving concern with earthly power.
Interesting. I saw Bart's video on this the other day, and wondered whether you were going to have him on again.
Short answer, no, they did not. Paul has a magical experience. His version of Christianity was based upon personal perspective, pure fantasy and projection. Eventually, the Petrine and Pauline elements came together, but they really did not agree. Paul's magical thinking was never accepted by those who adhered to the foundational elements of Christianity. Petrine Christians never fully embraced Paul.
The spot I got before the video is scary really. As this is a “religious video” it was a spot for a ministry that I never got before
I wish more Christians would get courses like this and really dig deep into their own faith and form their own beliefs, rather than just parrot things they've heard someone (probably an unqualified, bigoted buffoon) say at some point in their lives, act as if they have all the answers to _everything_ and thrash ferociously when confronted with their own ignorance on what they allege is "the most important thing" in their lives.
You will both regret DEEPLY, rejecting Jesus. He claimed to be God, He claimed to die for you, and all He wants in return is for you to understand why, and to believe/trust him!
The Gospel! (Good news)✨
[1 Corinthians 15:1-4]
Jesus Christ shed his blood for all of our sins, past, present and future.
He was buried and rose again on the third day, according to the scriptures.
We are saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ Alone, not of our works, so nobody can boast.
It is amazing grace, something we did not and cannot earn, and something we do not deserve.
God gave His only begotten (created) son that whosoever (anyone) believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
How do you come to that?
1. Admit your a sinner in need of Jesus Christ.
2. The moment you put your faith and trust in Jesus Christ alone to save you from death, you are sealed until the day of redemption (you cannot lose your salvation) You are protected, justified by the blood of Christ, and rapture ready! (Which is going to happen at any moment)
3. The Holy Spirit will indwell in you, lead you, guide you, minister to you, encourage you, speak to you, teach you, and change you.
TODAY is the day of salvation!
Trust Jesus Christ today!
Amen and God Bless❤️
Also to add this is also why there are Pauline paradoxes within the Messianic Christian movement.. which let me tell you are always fun to talk about :0
Jesus says, Eyes to see!
Paul says, Faith without Sight.
Jesus says, Beware of Blind Guides.
Paul says, Jesus blinded me!
Jesus says, 'Are grapes picked from Thorns? You will know them by their fruit.'
Paul says, 'I have a Thorn from the Angel of Satan.'
Yeah, Jesus' ministry was to covenant Israel. Paul was sent to Gentiles who were not in covenant.
Ever heard the saying: “a text without context is a pretext”?
@teodox8 Yes, and "context without text (to support that context), is just a con." Too often, people are getting their context from their man made doctrine which Scripture never teaches. The biggest example I can think of is that so many believers today think that they are spiritual Israel. But Scripture never says that. It causes all the confusion and all the different denominations out there.
The problem with Christianity is the false sense of self which creates the fear of death, for example it is said that we are born in sin and shaped in iniquity so why would doctrine expect us to know what the real truth is ? This must be why Jesus said all sin will be forgiven except blasphemy and that would make sense because we are born blind to the truth so to expect us to use such a mind to navigate or redemption would not be honest, so all men should be saved whether he or she believes.
What man should be responsible for is how he treats his fellow man and the things of the world that he is alive in and that is why Chris commands us to love each other.
It seems to me that this rather prescient saying of Jesus needs to really be considered by Christians:
But if ye had known what this meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice, ye would not have condemned the guiltless.
Jesus: "Call no man your Father..."
Saul: "Have I not been a Father to you?"
On "it's so complicated, how do Christians do it" -- I feel like most Christians wouldn't know who Paul is.
@ZechsMerquise73 He was a self-proclaimed two-faced liar ergo tare amongst the wheat
Jesus is Christianity undead co-pilot. 🤣🤣🤣😈
Does the course explore any of the cultures and differences of the times? Always wondered if part of the different understanding of these two was who they were addressing. Jesus is a Jewish teacher or prophet. Paul seems to have moved to incorporating Gentiles into his community. Always wondered if who each was addressing flavored the emphasis in teaching?
It definitely does. And one has to keep in mind that Paul always wrote to certain communities addressing very specific issues. As a theologian myself I'd say it's pretty much impossible to come up with a coherent "theology of Paul" in its entirety because he never intended to write such a thing.
@@MrSeedi76 Yeah I think the teaching company has a course just on Paul. As said above, Paul was sort of a moderator of christianity to the gentile world, Jesus wasn't really interested. As another talk said, jesus was an apocalyptic preacher in the jewish world.
Dr Ehrman talking about modern Evangelical Christians that pick and choose which parts of the bible they follow.
My brain thinking of all the RUclipsr Evangelical's that are heavily Tattooed saying gay people are going to hell because it says so in the Bible.
If I recall correctly the main reason a lot of people think (or used to think) Paul's version of Christianity is so different is because he was the first to write down the stories and teachings of the Philosopher Yahshua (the Historical Jesus) as Yahshua taught them and didn't include the life of Jesus because to him Yahshua (Historical Jesus) and Jesus (Biblical Jesus) where not one and the same. Yahshua was just a man going around teaching a Philosophy and Faith based system in Sermon on the Mount-esc styled lectures for being a good person that included an allegory of a god made flesh. Yahshua likely was a real person that gave the real Sermon on the Mount but he was just a regular guy saying "hey let's all just be nice to each other." Sometime between the time of Paul's writings and the time of Matthew and Mark's writings this became confused and lost in translation so this is why Matthew and Mark both write about Jesus living here on Earth as a god made flesh giving the Sermon on the Mount and performing all these miracles. Paul's original writings where either accompanied by the teachings of Yahshua, or the teachings of Yahshua where so well known and established at the time for followers it was implied that Paul was providing a summary or illuminated text on the teachings of Yahshua with the focus on the birth, death, and resurrection of the son of god (god made flesh). Kind of like "Here is the core of the Religion as per our founder's stories, this is our Faith, this is our Trinity, this is the important part for eternal life. Anything not found here in our other texts are just historical accounts and record of our founder's life, how he went about teaching his philosophy, and examples of his favorite allegories to teach his lessons (likely how we got the miracles.)" Matthew and Mark on the other hand coming onto the scene to write gospels half a century after the fact and being 1 to 2 generations removed from the time of Jesus either saw that the teachings of Yahshua where being lost or altered as two separate books and attempted to condense it into a single text which was then confused later on by future transcriptions in the nearly 250 years of Christianity being mostly Nomadic Cults before the Roman Empire converted. Or they could have been the first to legitimately confused the separation between Yahshua and his son of god/god made flesh (Jesus) character from his allegories/faith and put them directly together as the same person.
You just wrote a whole nothing burger of a topic of you just making up hypotheticals
In reading the new testament, I always got the hint of an impression that Paul was winging it.
Give into Caesar what is Caesars is absolutely Jesus winging it.
I'm no Buddhist, but the whole idea of eternal life fills me horror. Why? Eternity never ends. There is no escape.
Exactly!
If eternal life after this earthly life is inevitable, as it is in Christianity, heaven and hell are the same eventually. At most you'd get a couple of thousand years of reprieve from extreme and eternal suffering if you get to heaven instead of hell. In the end, the result is the same...
Dude, chill
Nothing would suck all of the meaning out of existence quite like it never ending
@@AnotherCraig Prove it
@@apjapki I dunno, friend: would you really-- truly-- continue to appreciate the most absolutely breathtakingly beautiful sunset in the world... if it lasted all day, every day, for a year? How about for a trillion years? On the trillionth trillion-year anniversary?
Maybe you don't agree, but I just happen to think some things are all the more beautiful and worth being treasured because they, and we, are finite 😊
Emma and Bart - beautiful - thank you.
Most people who claim to be Christians are actually Paulians. Paul diverged a lot from Jesus.
Not as much as is sometimes claimed however.
Wait . . . you mean Paulogia is actually the central figure of the religion we generally think of as Christianity?
@@johndemeritt3460 Well, consider this timeline:
1. Jesus preaches for 3 years. He states that the covenant has been fulfilled (meaning that the laws of the Old Testament are no longer enforced save for the 10 commandments - this is why Christians say you can eat bacon and oysters without going to hell)
2. Jesus never says anything about homosexuality (despite preaching for 3 years)
3. Paul comes along and writes to the Romans approximately 30 years after the end of Jesus' gospel/time preaching - this is the letter that addresses homosexuality
4. So basically the teaching for 3 decades (plenty of time for quite a few folks to live, fall in love, and die) while it was okay, based on Jesus' teachings, to be gay
5. Christians immediately gravitate to Paul's letter of "no homo" to latch onto a group/lifestyle to hate
So basically Jesus taught inclusion and love, while Paul taught discrimination and judgement.
We can all see which set of teachings modern Christians gravitated to.
@@Brandon-y1h, I apologize for my failure to communicate clearly. If you're not familiar with him, Paulogia is a Canadian content creator whose tag line is "A former Christian answering the claims of Christians". I meant this as a play on Paulogia's RUclips channel name.
So there you go . . . sometimes you try to make a joke and it has people figuratively laughing in the aisles. And sometimes the joke lands on its belly with a loud "THWAP" and a groan from audience members who are concerned that it really hurt itself. I'm afraid my attempt at a joke was the latter, and I apologize if I caused any offense.
@@johndemeritt3460 Oh, not offended at all - I just presumed "Paulogia" was a term for Paul-focused believers that I was unfamiliar with.
That'll teach me not to search it first :)
There was a Unitarian form of Christianity that emphasized Jesus' teachings no divinity. It became called Arian (archbishop Arius of Alexandria) many Jews and followers had formed a community in Alexandria. It was the first hub of the new beliefs. With the destruction of the Temple and then the ban from Jerusalem Alexandria became their base. None of these version were ever invited to the Council of Nicea and most were persecuted and wiped out. That's where the real info died allowing the Romans to manufacture their version..
Ehrmagerd! Another video with Dr Ehrman! I'm deep into his _Armageddon_ atm. I've always been fascinated by the difference in Paul v Jesus being all packaged up as Christianity. Make it make sense, Dr!
11:22 this is a somewhat weird argument. The book of Acts doesn’t cover the historical trivia of Jesus’ life anymore than Paul’s letters, but no one would seriously argue that meant the author had no concern for the historic Jesus.
Letters of instruction to churches in some kind of crisis aren’t just going to be recitations of the gospel stories.
One of the things not mentioned about Paul's letters is they were primarily addressed to problems in the community. Would he necessarily refer to the Gospel stories in that context. He does talk about communion, so he does know something about Jesus. My reading of Paul is that the Law is only filled through grace, though that raising its own issues. To add to the confusion, Paul isn't the only one creating theology and orthodoxy around Jesus and the place of his teachings. I don't think there was ever a single interpretation of the work of Jesus, or the nature of the Christ, even from the very beginning. Fascinating discussion.
Paul was the first "pick and chooser".
Emma and Jesus, name a more iconic duo.
It seems to me that the real division comes when Constantine choose to invite the various Bishops who were gaining political, social and financial power in Greece and Anatolia into the Imperial government. I think that from that point on it ceased to be a Spiritual movement became all about power.
Hi Emma, still watching your videos but loving it ♥ Did not finish this one here but always thought that Paul as the "opposite" of Jesus... Loving your work and have a nice day.
Paul really is the opposite
Well if anything is obvious it is that there are many different Christianities, with each one convinced they are the most authentic one. Convinced.
Which is something worth contemplating, especially for those who insist that it all comes by direct inspiration from just one God.
Paul also preached and stressed Faith. He did preach about holiness and obedience, but that was to believers. For salvation, your BELIEF is the main thing.Jesus said be followers of me. Paul said be followers of me. Jesus talked about the kingdom of god and repenance. Paul again, preached faith, faith, faith and faith to the unbelievers.
This was amazing!! Bart was THE reason that I deconverted and I appreciate all the questions you asked. Thank you!!
It's amazing what you can learn about religion when studying on your own.
I don't follow Paul , I follow Yeshua.
Revelation 14:12
Here is the patients of the saints, here are they that keep the commandments of God and the faith in Yashua.
Revelation 12:17
And the dragon was wrath with the woman and went to make war with the remnant of her seed on those who keep the commandments of God and the faith in Yashua.
If Paul was right , then why did Yeshua give the revelation to John 35 to 50 years after Paul wrote his letters. I believe the reason he doesn't say much about Yeshua is because he never new him.
I need to read one of his books.
Galatians 1:10
For do I now persuade me, or God?or do I seek to please men?for if I please men, I should not be a servant of christ.
1 Corinthians 10:33
Even as I please all men in all things, not seeking mine own profit but the profit of many, that they may be saved.
Colossians 3:9
Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have put off the old man with his deeds.
Roman's 3:7
For if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory than why am I also judged as a sinner.?
Definition of a sinner
1)a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion.
2)a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.
Acts 9 6-7
And he trembling and astonished said lord what will thou have me to do?and the lord said unto him arise and go into the city and it shall be told thee what thou must do.
AND THEN WHICH JOURNEYED WITH HIM STOOD SPEECHLESS HEARING A VOICE BUT SEEING NO MAN.
Acts 22:7-9
And I fell unto the ground and heard a voice saying unto me Saul, Saul why persecutest thou me?and I answered who art thou lord?and he said unto me I am Yeshua (Jesus)of Nazareth whom thou persecutest
AND THEY THAT WERE WITH ME SAW INDEED THE LIGHT AND WERE AFRAID BUT THEY HEARD NOT THE VOICE OF HIM THAT SPOKE TO ME.
ACTS 26:13-14
At midday o king I saw in the way a light from heaven above the brightness of the sun shining around about me and them, which journeyed with me AND WHEN WE WERE ALL FALLEN TO THE EARTH, I HEARD A VOICE SPEAKING UNTO ME, saying in the hebrew tongue Saul why persecutest thou me.
Do you see anything strange about Pauls conversion story about what happened to him on the way to Damascus. There are no named witnesses to his covertion store,just (the men).
Pauls conversion story also changes every time he tells it.
1 Corinthians 9:20
And unto the Jews I became as a Jew, that I might gain them that are under the law, as under the law,that I might gain them that are under the law.
1 Corinthians 9:21
To them that are without law being not without law unto God ,but under the law to christ, that I might gain them that are without law.
.....Paul claims to have become as under the law and then without the law ,which puts on a false appearance and acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings.
Paul is a confessed hypocrite by the very definition of the word. Paul says it himself, he became all things to all men.😮 scripture from the old testament that predicte, prophesied Isaiah 7:14...
Isaiah 9:6, Isaiah 53 :3-7
Psalm 22:18,Zachariah 12:10
Micah 5:2.........................read your bible
Jewish Christianity, as practiced by the Apostles, who were Jews, was essentially exterminated when the Romans destroyed the Temple and drove the Jews from Palestine (the "Diaspora"). Paul's followers, however, were scattered throughout the Mediterranean, and in Rome. So Christianity is, indeed, "Paulianity."
And the Word says, I'm the same yesterday today and forever. I think Jesus is the truth.
I start to resent that everytime bart has a course he does an ad campaign across all these channels.
IIRC in the gospels Jesus emphasized that actions are more important than diet. Jesus definitely teaches a radical form of Judaism. His preachings are not well summed up as "obey the Commandments," although this is also important. Jesus was preaching a reformed Judaism, so different that it cost him his life.
It depends on which flavor of Christianity. Many believe Peter was the founder.
4:20 I don't think Jesus would have said acquiring eternal life was contingent on an event that was yet to occur, even if he foretold that event.
But think about it, simply believing in His death and resurrection alone now saves you? Doesn't' Satan and the Demons also believe that Christ died and was Resurrected?
Like James the brother of Christ and the leader of the Church in Jerusalem stated it is "Faith and Works" together that saves. This is consistent with what Jesus told the rich man. He told him to keep the commandments and follow me. The work is being upright and keeping the commandments, the faith is to believe that He is Christ and to follow Him. However, as we can see faith without works is dead because even the devil can believe.
I became a Christian in 2022 but how can people that met jesus agree with someone that never met Jesus.
The teachings of Jesus make a lot more sense in the context consciousness quality.
The "kingdom of heaven" is a state of mind.
"The kingdom of heaven is within you..."
"The kingdom is nigh unto you but ye know it not"
"If you did it to the least of these, you did it to me"
"Love your neighbor as yourself"
"That they may be one with you as I am one with you"
Repentance or obendience or a rich man selling off his belongings were means to an end, the end being a conversion to/cultivation of a higher state of consciousness.
Does the course address the different Pauline letters? There are two distinct voices in the Epistles. The later letters, possibly not written by Paul at all, are the ones filled with homophobia, misogyny, etc. Curious...
[Edit} These questions come from distant Catholic high school religion classes. I remember the distinction (in my words) between the zealous, spreader of the faith Paul vs. the jerkish Paul.
is there really any scholarly doubt as to the pauline authorship of romans?? i ask because id be interested to know, cause ive never heard this before!!