Nice one-liner. But not an accurate or fair representation of Christianity. I know that wasn't your objective but not everyone reading this will. So for those genuinely interested in the correct Christian perspective:- • Human Free Will: Sin originates from humanity’s free will, not God, and the sacrifice addresses this human-initiated separation from God. • Purpose of the Sacrifice: The sacrifice was not “to God” arbitrarily, but to fulfill divine justice and provide a way for humanity to be reconciled with God, addressing sin’s consequences. • God’s Love, Not Arbitrary Action: The sacrifice demonstrates God’s love, not a need for appeasement, as Jesus willingly laid down His life for humanity (John 3:16). • Creation’s Redemption: The focus is on God saving humanity and creation from the effects of sin, not from God Himself. • God’s Nature Misunderstood: Christianity teaches that God is a Trinity-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-distinct persons but one essence. Jesus (God the Son) sacrificed Himself, not “God to God.” The way is clear for anyone who genuinely wants the truth. Take care.
@@DavidKnowles Hi David, I hope you provide me a honest answer for below question. I go to work 9:00 to 5:00PM because I *have to* not because I want to. Do you go to work because you *have to* or you want to?
@@DavidKnowles c1) _"Purpose of the Sacrifice: The sacrifice was not “to God” arbitrarily, but to fulfill divine justice and provide a way for humanity to be reconciled with God, addressing sin’s consequences. "_ If that is the case as per your line c1, then you MUST accept the notion that your 'god' subjected mercy, forgiveness and salvation upon an evil killing blameless prophet of God, can you? Provide answer as " *accepted or declined* ". As you know at the end of the day, what brings you the alleged mercy, forgiveness and salvation is a prophet getting killed and I know and you know if Jesus did not get killed and rising from death there is NO mercy, forgiveness and salvation to anyone according to your faith.
@@YuelSea-sw2rp Funny thing… in the western world people who think that the Bible is literally true and that the stories actually happened are just a small minority. Even in America that number is down to 20%.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 Those same 20% are trying to make entire states into republics of Gilead, and finding success, and will do the same with the whole nation if they can.
This is basic Theology, as Catholics, we are told that Jews expectation of the messiah were very different from what Christ was and how he lived. That's the point. He was the NEW covenant. Any priest could have told him this.
Glad to see this since it confirms my own intellectual biases and makes what Bart thinks explicit. He gets it-- that the Messiah was primarily a political figure (read: a hoped-for ethnoreligious nationalist insurgent who would expel the Romans) and there were competing factions of Jews of varying degrees of Hellenization involved in shaping the narrative.
Ehrman did not teach anyone anything. Christians know, and David knows this well that the Jews did not see the Messiah as Christians did, and that the Jews were and are still looking for a political Messiah, and not a Savior. As for Isaiah 53 not saying the specific word "Messiah" is the same argument that the Bibles does not say the word Trinity. But I can assure you, David Wood already knew all of this.
@@petercollins7730 The Title on the video is misleading, David Wood is not learning anything that he did not already know. Wood never said in the video that he was unaware of what Ehrman said, he simply asked what Ehrman thought about it.
@@darinbracy8433 Wood has repeatedly denied this and made claims that jesus was embraced as the Jewish messiah. He did not say that in this short clip; perhaps you could watch nearly any of his other videos to see him make that exact claim. And no, Wood learned nothing, because he is a cheap charlatan who says whatever gets him donations.
The bible is very clear there are many Messiahs. For example, king cyrus is called my chosen Christ. But translations conveniently translated it as, my chosen anointed one... Which literally means messiah or Christ...
@@angelonzuji2457 The whole idea of using the word Christ in an English translation is strange by itself. Christ is a Greek word, why is it used in an English translation? The English translated bible is a serious mess. Even the first words in the bible "In the beginning" Are wrong. The biblical creation is not the beginning of time according to the bible, both by word choice and simple logic. Before God starts creating anything, it is clear water already exists. Logically if water exists already, you would assume they exist somewhere, not floating in space. But I digress. Thus I have shown that English translation is logically wrong, because it is not the beginning of creation if water already exists. (God only starts creation at verse 3) But then also the actual hebrew word, beresheet, does not mean beginning. It means something like, -- the chief moment-- basically telling us, the 7 days of creation are the most important. Important how? That's a good question, probably in relation to us. Might also, as the most important information in the bible. But being the most important moment does not intitle being the start of everything, the beginning of everything. Even jordan Peterson is unaware of this. Go read NET translation, and look at the foot notes. The translation itself is bad as usual, but the foot notes are the best I've seen.
Bart is a competent scholar. He’s nowhere near being a very consequential scholar in the academy. Bart’s niche is popularizing stuff any PhD in the field knows… but Bart often makes inferences from the data that are way off. People reading his popular level books are wowed by the data then misled by Bart’s construal re the significance of the data. Only people who have very little exposure to biblical scholarship think Bart is extraordinary. Again, this is no knock against Professor Ehrman who is a competent scholar. The real criticism is what he communicates to the uninformed public re what the data mean.
@@jeffryblair6816 You sound like a very uneducated man trying to pretend he is very educated. You criticize Bart as not respected by the academy, yet you provide not a single example of a scholar who agrees with your claims. Considering the number of times that Bart has appeared with other scholars, as an equal, your claim needs more support than just your words. Next time, don't bother trying to use big words that you don't understand, and do spend a little time finding some evidence for your claims.
he actually not he he's very entrenched in older scholarship especially that of his teacher Metzger and doesn't keep up with newer work was 1 of those that used to think he was like a god of biblical scholarship until I took a deeper dive
Bart has his points. Jesus literally spoke to his disciples trying to tell them that the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand and that it's not an earthly thing.
From my understanding the jews weren't expecting a man/god as messiah who'd have nephews nieces cousins and a human genealogy...rather someone like David and others mentionned in the old testament
Apostle Peter states that King David...... (supposedly being a prophet) believed that the messiah would be resurrected ("seeing what was ahead,") and spoke about the messiah being ("resurrected.") Acts 2:30-31 verse's
The exact fact that no jews predicted the messiah being like Jesus shiuld tell you all the more that there was weight behind why so many jews followed him as messiah, and that so many Gentiles later did. Its actually a point in favor of both sides depending on how you argue it. Not to mention that Jesus was and is all of those things for the kingdom of God - not earthly/ethnic Israel. True Israel, according to Jesus and the apostles, are those with faith in Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
The term Messiah (משיח) means "Anointed." Therefore, figures like King Saul, David, and Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1) were all considered Messiahs, as was the High Priest, or Kohen Gadol (הכהן הגדול). However, the title Melekh Mashiach (מלך המשיח), or "King Messiah," is reserved exclusively for the one true Messiah.
@@jasonjenkins7825 De[ending on what you mean exactly, but you may check God's promise to David in 2 Samuel 7:12-16 or for fuller discussion Sanhedrin 98a
Daniel Boyarin (Jewish scholar) states in his book, the Jewish Gospels, that there was a group in the 1st century Israelite religion who were expecting a "divine"/human "redeemer" and that the only radical thing about the "Christians" was that they believed "Jesus" was that person. It seems that and this person and "the Messiah" got conflated, Bart of course totally rejects the Islamic accounts when it come to "Jesus" and the "Messiah", Muslims appealing to Bart Ehrman always amuse me.
@ God: “Thou shalt not kill!” Also God: “Now go out and slaughter me some Canaanites!” ⬆️ just one of the countless contradictions/inconsistencies in that garbage book
In what way is this clip qualified as "shocking" or as an example of "teach[ing] David Wood a lesson"? Nothing Ehrman says in this clip is disputed by Wood, who most certainly knows what popular messianic anticipations in the first century were.
All those views of the messiah that he described is what jesus will do at his second coming. Him dying on for our sins(which is the most important) is described in Isaiah 53 as the suffering servant
The jews today are also not expecting the messiah to be god in flesh despite of what their scriptures tell them. So just they missed the forest for the trees doesnt mean they are right
So you believe God who made this universe at the scale of 150 sextillion lightyears apart subjected mercy, forgiveness and salvation upon Jesus getting killed?
The Jews actually can read their own holy text in its original language. They don't have to rely on mistranslations and misinterpretations. That's why they don't fall for a false messiah like Jesus. Nowhere in the Tanakh does it it say that the messiah will be "God in flesh", that's a pagan idea.
@samael5782 Isaiah 9:6 states that a child will be born and calls him the everlasting father or father of eternity. That is saying that the Messiah will be God in the flesh! And there are other old testament scriptures that state similar things. Us Christians just don't pull these ideas out of thin air
@@JosephMetts Then Jesus is not the messiah, because he was never called any of that, especially not everlasting father. Not only has this verse nothing to do with a messiah but the child is already born at the time of writing. If you put the verb at the correct place which you have to do in biblical Hebrew it actually reads like this: For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace." Now the verse makes sense, doesn't it? It doesn't make any sense in a Christian translation. It is God who calls the child "the prince of peace" because it is Hezekiah, the son of king Ahaz and that's why the authority/government is on his shoulder. Hezekiah became king at the age of 25, was the most righteous king ever and no one could be compared to him (see King 2). Isaiah and Hezekiah lived at the same time. Check this out: And Hezekiah said to Isaiah, "The word of the Lord that you have spoken is good." For he thought, "There will be peace and truth in my days" - 2 Kings 20,19 Now compare that to Jesus: "I have not come to bring peace but the sword". => Hezekiah brought peace, Jesus did not (quite the opposite). The "prince of peace" is Hezekiah, a buddy of the guy who wrote the text. What you think is about Jesus is the result of a poor translation and ignoring that Jesus was never called any of that. Just exactly as I said: The Jews don't have to rely on mistranslations and misinterpretations but Christians HAVE TO.
@samael5782 Ive heard this argument before. It's definitely plausible. As far as as mistranslations, I'm not so sure of. Depending on which Hebrew scholar u listen to, some say that the king James version is very close to the original text. Now as far as Jesus saying he brought a sword not peace. Let's keep things in context when reading any book or story or text. He meant that his words are divisive and they will make people angry. And lo and behold people still get angry at his sayings. Like u have to love me and hate your mother and father. Another saying that gets taking out of context. Or the father and I are one. And I am the only way to the father. And one last question, how would you translate Micah 5:2. Because in the KJV it seems to imply that Messiah is coming from eternity
There is two comings on the messiah is what confused the Jews. The first coming was to deal with mankind’s sin issues The second coming is to initiate the millennium 1000 year reign
So Bart rightly notes second temple Judaism had political expectations for a messiah figure… shocking? Every branch of Christianity already accepts that. The contention is whether their expectations were right or wrong. That requires some theological understanding beyond “Isaiah 53 doesn’t say Messiah.” Bart knows that, but for some reason he still chose to frame it that way.
I would say that it was not Christians who “came up with the idea” of a suffering Messiah and turned to the scriptures to try and find and prove this. I’d say it was Jesus turned to the scripture and opened the eyes of some of the disciples who then in turn told others of what they learned, who told others, and so on. Luke 24:25-27. 25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken: 26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory? 27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
The Gospels were constructed with a bias to support doctrine, weaving together verses from the old Testament to support their argument. Just because it's mentioned in Luke or any other gospel doesn't prove the words were said or the incidents actually happened.
Of course you’d say that, since you’re Christian, lol. The fact remains that the people who lived back then never thought about it like that, and once Jesus died his followers wrote about new things that didn’t fit well with the way things were seen in Judaism.
Your argument falls apart because you’re literally quoting the CHRISTIAN part of the Bible. Show us the OLD TESTAMENT verses that substantiate your claim.
Please play the clip that shows Erhman explaining that Jesus was crucified and did die. 'In A Brief Introduction to the New Testament, Bart Ehrman writes that “the most certain element of the tradition about Jesus is that he was crucified on the orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate.” In other words, this is one element of the story of Jesus in the Gospels that virtually all scholars agree ...' Allah gets history wrong, Muhammad gets history wrong. Turn away from those that get history wrong.
Bart also goes into how the prophecies that Christians use to support the idea of Jesus birth, were either taken out of context, mistranslated, or simply were never messianic prophecies to begin with. As well as how the claims that NT authors wrote about Jesus and the events in his life (Bethlehem, census, virgin birth) were completely fictional and did not happen. This is before we get into how the creation accounts were disproven by science. So Christianity got history wrong, Jesus got history wrong. They also got science wrong, but most theists don't care.
Bart also goes into how the prophecies that Christians use to support the idea of Jesus birth, were either taken out of context, mistranslated, or simply were never messianic prophecies to begin with. As well as how the claims that NT authors wrote about Jesus and the events in his life (Bethlehem, census, virgin birth) were completely fictional and did not happen. This is before we get into how the creation accounts were disproven by science. So Christianity got history wrong, Jesus got history wrong. They also got science wrong, but most theists don't care.
Bart also goes into how the prophecies that Christians use to support the idea of Jesus birth, were either taken out of context, mistranslated, or simply were never messianic prophecies to begin with. As well as how the claims that NT authors wrote about Jesus and the events in his life (Bethlehem, census, virgin birth) were fictional and did not occur. This is before we get into how the creation accounts were disproven by science. So Christianity got history wrong, Jesus got history wrong. They also got science wrong, but most theists don't care.
@brianfergus839 Islam denies that Jesus was crucified or killed. My point is that if a Muslim quotes Erhman here, it's dishonest to not listen when he says that a central fact to all history, something uncontested, is that Jesus did die by crucifixion, and was believed alive three days later.
If there wasn't any Jew during Jesus's time that thought that the messiah was going to die and be resurrected then what is written in Acts 2:29 to Acts 2:31 is a lie
He’s just stating basic facts. The context is pretty clear and what he says isn’t controversial to really anyone. It’s well known early Christians had a novel view of the messiah that was very different from previous Jewish views
The entire new testament talks about this over and over and over... bart is saying what paul says in Ephesians .. Isaiah 53 is clearly about Jesus forr goodness sake, as is genesis 3, psalm 22 and the 600+ other ones
Yeah, that's nothing new to most people who've studied this topic. Doubt that surprised Wood and there's a reason the video stopped when it did. Might be because Wood was about to cite early Rabbis who taught Isaiah 53 was Messianic.
Too bad you cut it off before Bart was corrected. Bart admits that Jesus believed he was the Messiah. And then tries to say that Jesus didn’t believe he was the Messiah, the Christians believe that he was, that is a dine and rising Messiah. However, all one has to do is go to the independent sources of the gospels to read, countless examples where Jesus warns his disciples that he will die! The disciples certainly did not believe that that’s the kind of Messiah that Jesus came to be, and the gospel make it quite clear that they were very confused and troubled at his words about his coming death. So in conclusion, Bart concedes that Jesus believed that he was the Messiah on the Earth, but his unflinching bias prohibits him from taking many passages from the gospels at face value, passages that clearly reveal Jesus’s expectation of his coming crucifixion.
Acts 2: *Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.* When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; *visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism);* Cretans and Arabs-we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?” ... With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” Those who accepted his message were baptized, and *about three thousand were added to their number that day.*
In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it a was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort. It had a perfectly round door like a porthole, painted green, with a shiny yellow brass knob in the exact middle. The door opened on to a tube-shaped hall like a tunnel: a very comfortable tunnel without smoke, with panelled walls, and floors tiled and carpeted, provided with polished chairs, and lots and lots of pegs for hats and coats- the hobbit was fond of visitors. The tunnel wound on and on - going fairly but not quite straight into the side of the hill - The Hill, as all the people for many miles around called it - and many little round doors opened out of it, first on one side and then on another. No going upstairs for the hobbit: bedrooms, bathrooms, cellars, pantries (lots of these), wardrobes (he had whole rooms devoted to clothes), kitchens, dining-rooms, all were on the same floor, and indeed on the same passage. The best rooms were all on the left- hand side (going in), for these were the only ones to have windows, deep-set round windows looking over his garden, and meadows beyond, sloping down to the river. This hobbit was a very well-to-do hobbit, and his name was Baggins. The Bagginses have lived in the neighbourhood of The Hill for time out of mind, and people considered them very respectable, not only because most of them were rich, but also because they never had any adventures or did anything unexpected: you could tell what a Baggins would say on any question without the bother of asking him. This is a story of how a Baggins had an adventure, and found himself doing and saying things altogether unexpected. He may have lost the neighbours’ respect, but he gained- well, you will see whether he gained anything in the end.
@@itomba I believe. There have been four books specifically about his life and activities. There are even movies that show him in real-life, full-colour. Hundreds of millions of people follow his exploits. He has been mentioned in literally thousands of non-Hobbitarian texts. With all of this evidence, Bilbo must be, in fact, absolutely, without a doubt, all entirely real and true.
@@itomba And the History of the World and the Establishment of Societies, Codes of Ethics and Justice, Charitable Organisations and the lives of multiple millions of People from every nation have been built upon inspired and transformed by the of that 1 Baggins. What a marvellous comparison.
It’s not to convince the apologist. I’m sure every apologist has heard these arguments before. It’s to educate the apologists followers. I don’t even think someone like Ehrman does it to make them into atheists - maybe he just wants them to be better educated Christians
bart ehrman just shows how off the wall he is. it doesn't matter what the jews thought about the messiah. the point is that none of the jews got it right at all- until after the resurrection. go and read the gospels again.
@@MrMattSax We did not "Re-invent" anything. Old testament is full of foreshadowing for Jesus , its obvious u are just ignorant. I could say the same, its how non cristians re-invent the idea of Messiah so Jesus isnt on Messiah.
Who cares what bart erhman thinks lol the point is he acknowledges the apostles and various others believed to see jesus risen from grave and it wasnt a made up event
@@abdullahimusa9761 All of them ( Some from Rome had converted to Judaism ) *Acts 2:* Now there were staying in Jerusalem *God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.* When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome *(both Jews and converts to Judaism);* Cretans and Arabs-we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?” ... With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” *Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.* *Acts 3* While the man held on to Peter and John, all the people were astonished and came running to them in the place called Solomon’s Colonnade. When Peter saw this, he said to them: *“Fellow Israelites,* why does this surprise you? Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk? The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. ... *Acts 4* The priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to Peter and John while they were speaking to the people. They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people, proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. They seized Peter and John and, because it was evening, they put them in jail until the next day. *But many who heard the message believed; so the number of men who believed grew to about five thousand.* Reply
@@abdullahimusa9761 All the Apostles who were with Jesus during the 3 and a half years of His earthly ministry were Jews. All of the New Testament was written by Jews who accepted Jesus as their Messiah.
@@abdullahimusa9761 The first Gentiles [ non-Jews] were converted to Christianity roughly 10 to 12 years after Pentecost. [ Peter preaching in Acts 2 ] Prior to Acts 2 all who accepted Jesus as their Messiah were Jews.
To anyone who want's to argue with the theists making claims that have no evidence, or the only evidence being the Bible. There's no point in dealing with them. I learned that now.
Yes, and academics understand as well. That's why the academic consensus supports the conclusion that the Bible was written from 2nd to 3rd hand accounts decades after the alleged events, that many of the events were later creations (trip to Bethlehem, virgin birth, trinity). The OT itself isn't even considered historical, and the exodus isn't supported by the academic consensus. All of this information can be gained from Bart Ehrman, Dan McClellan, Joshua Bowen, Kipp Davis, etc.
@@YuelSea-sw2rp Yes, and academics understand as well. That's why the academic consensus supports the conclusion that the Bible was written from 2nd to 3rd hand accounts decades after the alleged events, that many of the events were later creations (trip to Bethlehem, virgin birth, trinity). The OT itself isn't even considered historical, and the exodus isn't supported by the academic consensus. All of this information can be gained from Bart Ehrman, Dan McClellan, Joshua Bowen, Kipp Davis, etc.
Nothing SHOCKING here at all!! Bart Ehrman didn't teach anything to David Wood that David Wood didn't already know. Jesus Christ is the Messiah, period. The word Messiah doesn't have to be specifically used in the text in order for that to be true. All of scripture testifies to Jesus being the Messiah. And He is.
@@tommac5411 what you don’t realize is that peruse did his studies at the prestigious Dunning-Kruger school of Divinity. He KNOWS what he’s talking about.
When you study history of many other prophets before the Jesus (pbuh), then Islam makes far more sense. When Prophet Jonah was thrown into the ocean, he was supposed to be drown and dead but God saved him from near death. When Joseph was thrown into well, he was supposed to be drown in the well and dead, but God saved him from near death. Likewise Prophet Noah supposed to be drown in the flood water, but God save him from near death. Moses was chased by biggest military ever known to Moses, but God saved Moses from near death. Prophet Lot was forcefully escorted to safety and saved by angels, when wrath of God sent down upon Sodom and Gomorrah. Prophet Daniel supposed to be eaten by lions, but God saved him from near death. Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) was chased by pagan-arabs but God saved him from near death. As per the Qran 4-157, Jesus was not killed nor he was crucified but it was made appeared to the enemies and God saved Jesus (pbuh) from humiliation, torture, nakedness and near death.
However Christians don't like the idea saving Jesus (pbuh) from humiliation, torture, nakedness and near-death ordeal as you know not killing Jesus (pbuh) means there is no-salvation waiting for Christians i.e. theologically speaking, overall not killing Jesus means major a bad news for Christians due to it collapses of Christianity as whole and wanting kill Jesus also puts Christians on the same boat as where Jews are, i.e. Christians and Jews both desire death upon the blameless prophet of God, but both wanting the death of Jesus, with different motives.
@@LogicStandsBeforeGod "The fact of Jesus' crucifixion is as certain as any fact we can know about the past. It is one of the most widely attested events in ancient history." Bart Ehrman
@@YuelSea-sw2rp Dr Ehrman does not believe in miracle of God, whereas my post is about God miraculously saved many prophets from near death danger. Saving a prophet from near death danger is valid before God, whereas human's red-liquid ritual and manslaughter ritual were despicable abomination in OT, Christian's core creed is an abomination.
@@petercollins7730 It is not an insult. Ehrman was raised as a Biblical Perfectionist, he was raised that the Bible was perfect and when he got to college and found out it was not true, he decided to trash the Bible. That's not an insult those are just the facts.
@@darinbracy8433 "he goes out of his way to straw man everything that he can." - that is a cheap and deliberate insult, and patently not true. Just admit you hate the fact that Bart disproves your claims with evidence.
The Lost Gospel of Waraqah Ibn Nawfal dates from @400 BCE about such a ‘Jesus.’ Baer is clueless, shameless wannabe. “Who was Jesus?: a Conspiracy in Jerusalem “, Kamal Salibi,1988, plus his 3 other bible study books and blog for facts not fantasies. So,no.
*Acts 3* While the man held on to Peter and John, all the people were astonished and came running to them in the place called Solomon’s Colonnade. When Peter saw this, he said to them: *“Fellow Israelites,* why does this surprise you? Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk? The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. ... *Acts 4* The priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to Peter and John while they were speaking to the people. They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people, proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. They seized Peter and John and, because it was evening, they put them in jail until the next day. *But many who heard the message believed; so the number of men who believed grew to about five thousand.*
But that’s exactly what we would expect to see if the stories about him were mostly fictional. Coincidentally Jesus failed to fulfill any of the messianic prophecies that can not be faked.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 If Jesus is fictional (which He wasn't) why did people outside the Gospels write about Him? As to what "we" would expect your reasoning is fallacious. Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies..
@@thepierianspring2353 None of the sources outside of the Bible met Jesus or any of the people who knew him. They are simply writing down hearsay. And I don’t say that Jesus didn’t exist, just that the stories in the gospels are mostly fictional and probably based on hearsay and legends about multiple apocalyptic preachers inspired by greek mythology. Like I already said… Jesus only fulfilled the prophecies that don’t leave any verifiable evidence. I mean it’s easy to claim that he was born from a virgin in Bethlehem, but I could claim that about myself and that would be just as much evidence as we have that Jesus was born of a virgin in Bethlehem. But it’s much harder to be a military leader who defeats the Romans and then reigns in Jerusalem.😂
How is it even possible for anyone to be so utterly biblically ignorant so as to not so much as grasp the basics. The Messiah does both. Sacrifices for our sins & returns to fulfil the Jew's wildest dreams. Man Bart, what a charlatan!
@@glenwillson5073 Both. The nonsense about a messiah in the OT cannot POSSIBLY be reconciled with the nonsense about Cheesus being the messiah in the NT. For the reason Bart gave, and several others. If you watch a debate between a priest and a rabbi about the messiah, you'll see the priest get CREAMED. Christians did their best to twist and misinterpret the OT in order to make it fit their cheesus-messiah nonsense, but it only works on ignorant people who just swallow what their priest feeds them. ANY careful investigation of the OT immediately leads to the opposite direction. The OT messiah has certain properties that Cheesus did not have in any way shape or form, plus the OT talks about signs that will mark the coming of the messiah that never happened when Cheesus came along. Basically jewish mythology cannot be reconciled with christian mythology, it's impossible. The jews have every right to reject christianity, it's 100% consistent with their holy book to do so.
@jakobstisen6366 which prophecy are we talking about? There are over 400 prophecies that Jesus fulfilled from the old testament. The problem is Ehrman changes his interpretation of scripture depending on who he is with and talking to.
@johnmulvey7890 umm no I'm talking about Ehrman. He wrote a book with his professor a conservative professor in print he agrees with him but in Ehrman 's public speaking event he contradict what they wrote in joint book. Please tell me Ehrman is a solid Bible interpretation. There are other things too do your research don't just accept what he says.
I love Apostate Prophet but loathe David Wood so it’s frustrating when AP has him on his channel. I can only watch AP when he isn’t accompanied by that man.
Christianity: the belief that god sacrificed god to god to save god’s creation from god.
Nice one-liner.
But not an accurate or fair representation of Christianity. I know that wasn't your objective but not everyone reading this will.
So for those genuinely interested in the correct Christian perspective:-
• Human Free Will: Sin originates from humanity’s free will, not God, and the sacrifice addresses this human-initiated separation from God.
• Purpose of the Sacrifice: The sacrifice was not “to God” arbitrarily, but to fulfill divine justice and provide a way for humanity to be reconciled with God, addressing sin’s consequences.
• God’s Love, Not Arbitrary Action: The sacrifice demonstrates God’s love, not a need for appeasement, as Jesus willingly laid down His life for humanity (John 3:16).
• Creation’s Redemption: The focus is on God saving humanity and creation from the effects of sin, not from God Himself.
• God’s Nature Misunderstood: Christianity teaches that God is a Trinity-Father, Son, and Holy Spirit-distinct persons but one essence. Jesus (God the Son) sacrificed Himself, not “God to God.”
The way is clear for anyone who genuinely wants the truth.
Take care.
@@DavidKnowles Punishing another man and letting perpetrators run free after they confess "justice"? Is killing a man an act of "love"?
@@dertechl6628 I don't quite understand your point. Can you explain further. Perhaps with an example?
@@DavidKnowles Hi David, I hope you provide me a honest answer for below question.
I go to work 9:00 to 5:00PM because I *have to* not because I want to.
Do you go to work because you *have to* or you want to?
@@DavidKnowles c1) _"Purpose of the Sacrifice: The sacrifice was not “to God” arbitrarily, but to fulfill divine justice and provide a way for humanity to be reconciled with God, addressing sin’s consequences. "_
If that is the case as per your line c1, then you MUST accept the notion that your 'god' subjected mercy, forgiveness and salvation upon an evil killing blameless prophet of God, can you? Provide answer as " *accepted or declined* ".
As you know at the end of the day, what brings you the alleged mercy, forgiveness and salvation is a prophet getting killed and I know and you know if Jesus did not get killed and rising from death there is NO mercy, forgiveness and salvation to anyone according to your faith.
my goodness...here we are in the 21st century still debating this nonsense....
@@YuelSea-sw2rp
Funny thing… in the western world people who think that the Bible is literally true and that the stories actually happened are just a small minority.
Even in America that number is down to 20%.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 Those same 20% are trying to make entire states into republics of Gilead, and finding success, and will do the same with the whole nation if they can.
God Is nonsense??? Lol I can't wait to see ur face on judgement day explaining that one to GOD. UR CREATOR.
@@yahwehsaviour9083
Unfortunately you won’t find out that everything you believe in is a lie… because you will be gone.😢
@@yahwehsaviour9083 r u worried about explaining urself to Zeus? Or Marduk? We just feel the same about the Christian god too.
This is basic Theology, as Catholics, we are told that Jews expectation of the messiah were very different from what Christ was and how he lived. That's the point. He was the NEW covenant. Any priest could have told him this.
If people would actually read the Bible, they wouldn't need Bart telling them the obvious.
Plus where Jesus rises?
@@koppite9600 new jersey
Glad to see this since it confirms my own intellectual biases and makes what Bart thinks explicit. He gets it-- that the Messiah was primarily a political figure (read: a hoped-for ethnoreligious nationalist insurgent who would expel the Romans) and there were competing factions of Jews of varying degrees of Hellenization involved in shaping the narrative.
Ehrman did not teach anyone anything. Christians know, and David knows this well that the Jews did not see the Messiah as Christians did, and that the Jews were and are still looking for a political Messiah, and not a Savior. As for Isaiah 53 not saying the specific word "Messiah" is the same argument that the Bibles does not say the word Trinity.
But I can assure you, David Wood already knew all of this.
So he is lying then, and not simply ignorant?
@@petercollins7730 The Title on the video is misleading, David Wood is not learning anything that he did not already know. Wood never said in the video that he was unaware of what Ehrman said, he simply asked what Ehrman thought about it.
@@darinbracy8433 Wood has repeatedly denied this and made claims that jesus was embraced as the Jewish messiah. He did not say that in this short clip; perhaps you could watch nearly any of his other videos to see him make that exact claim.
And no, Wood learned nothing, because he is a cheap charlatan who says whatever gets him donations.
@@petercollins7730 The first 5,000 converts to Christ after His ascension were Jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah.
@@darinbracy8433
Obviously Wood tried to get Ehrman to say things that he already agrees with.
What was the lesson?
Wood is clearly uncomfortable. His only issue is Islam.
As a deconstructed christian, that’s very interesting. 🤔
The bible is very clear there are many Messiahs. For example, king cyrus is called my chosen Christ. But translations conveniently translated it as, my chosen anointed one... Which literally means messiah or Christ...
It’s called apostate.
@ Exactly. You’re right about that.
@ No, it’s not. It’s being honest, objective and reading the bible in his historical context.
@@angelonzuji2457 The whole idea of using the word Christ in an English translation is strange by itself. Christ is a Greek word, why is it used in an English translation? The English translated bible is a serious mess. Even the first words in the bible "In the beginning" Are wrong. The biblical creation is not the beginning of time according to the bible, both by word choice and simple logic.
Before God starts creating anything, it is clear water already exists.
Logically if water exists already, you would assume they exist somewhere, not floating in space. But I digress.
Thus I have shown that English translation is logically wrong, because it is not the beginning of creation if water already exists.
(God only starts creation at verse 3)
But then also the actual hebrew word, beresheet, does not mean beginning. It means something like, -- the chief moment-- basically telling us, the 7 days of creation are the most important.
Important how? That's a good question, probably in relation to us. Might also, as the most important information in the bible. But being the most important moment does not intitle being the start of everything, the beginning of everything.
Even jordan Peterson is unaware of this.
Go read NET translation, and look at the foot notes.
The translation itself is bad as usual, but the foot notes are the best I've seen.
It's difficult to tell whether atheists in the comments section are gaslighting or simply uninformed and undereducated on the topics being discussed.
Dr. Ehrman is an encyclopedia that happens to wear glasses.
Bart is one of the most learned scholars in all of bibical history.
Bart is a competent scholar. He’s nowhere near being a very consequential scholar in the academy. Bart’s niche is popularizing stuff any PhD in the field knows… but Bart often makes inferences from the data that are way off. People reading his popular level books are wowed by the data then misled by Bart’s construal re the significance of the data. Only people who have very little exposure to biblical scholarship think Bart is extraordinary. Again, this is no knock against Professor Ehrman who is a competent scholar. The real criticism is what he communicates to the uninformed public re what the data mean.
@@jeffryblair6816 You sound like a very uneducated man trying to pretend he is very educated. You criticize Bart as not respected by the academy, yet you provide not a single example of a scholar who agrees with your claims. Considering the number of times that Bart has appeared with other scholars, as an equal, your claim needs more support than just your words.
Next time, don't bother trying to use big words that you don't understand, and do spend a little time finding some evidence for your claims.
he actually not he he's very entrenched in older scholarship especially that of his teacher Metzger and doesn't keep up with newer work was 1 of those that used to think he was like a god of biblical scholarship until I took a deeper dive
if that's the case, we are all doomed!
@@jeffryblair6816 Jeffry studied at the Dunning-Kruger school of Divinity. It’s obvious he KNOWS what he’s talking about. 👍
Bart has his points. Jesus literally spoke to his disciples trying to tell them that the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand and that it's not an earthly thing.
From my understanding the jews weren't expecting a man/god as messiah who'd have nephews nieces cousins and a human genealogy...rather someone like David and others mentionned in the old testament
And that's why the different idea shocked them. The real question is what did the Jewish Christians believe not the Jews
Apostle Peter states that King David...... (supposedly being a prophet) believed that the messiah would be resurrected ("seeing what was ahead,") and spoke about the messiah being ("resurrected.") Acts 2:30-31 verse's
BART Ehrman is the Chuck Norris of Biblical Studies. Watch for the left hook.
Apostle Paul also stated the same thing in Acts 13:33-37 verse's too about king David having foretold what happened about Jesus's resurrection
The exact fact that no jews predicted the messiah being like Jesus shiuld tell you all the more that there was weight behind why so many jews followed him as messiah, and that so many Gentiles later did. Its actually a point in favor of both sides depending on how you argue it. Not to mention that Jesus was and is all of those things for the kingdom of God - not earthly/ethnic Israel. True Israel, according to Jesus and the apostles, are those with faith in Jesus and the Holy Spirit.
The term Messiah (משיח) means "Anointed." Therefore, figures like King Saul, David, and Cyrus (Isaiah 45:1) were all considered Messiahs, as was the High Priest, or Kohen Gadol (הכהן הגדול). However, the title Melekh Mashiach (מלך המשיח), or "King Messiah," is reserved exclusively for the one true Messiah.
Messiah and The Messiah are different.
The qualifiers and specifies it.
When and in what text does King Messiah first appear?
@@jasonjenkins7825 De[ending on what you mean exactly, but you may check God's promise to David in 2 Samuel 7:12-16 or for fuller discussion Sanhedrin 98a
Daniel Boyarin (Jewish scholar) states in his book, the Jewish Gospels, that there was a group in the 1st century Israelite religion who were expecting a "divine"/human "redeemer" and that the only radical thing about the "Christians" was that they believed "Jesus" was that person. It seems that and this person and "the Messiah" got conflated, Bart of course totally rejects the Islamic accounts when it come to "Jesus" and the "Messiah", Muslims appealing to Bart Ehrman always amuse me.
I'm confused by why Erhman was even talking to a huckster like Wood.
for money
@@j2shoes288 money
Yes, I agree. I can’t stand Wood.
@@j2shoes288
Sure, Wood probably paid Ehrman 1000 bucks to talk with him for an hour.
But the money goes to Ehrmans charity.😉
Bart sells books & online study courses. He goes on lots of online platforms because it helps drive sales.
The Jew that thought that: 🙃
Ehrman just has the dope at his fingertips; chapter and verse. You can't really argue with him; he's too learned.
Bart makes his speculations sound like facts.
Actually he is an ignorant fool with an axe to grind
David's faith in Christianity cancels out all the contradictions and inconsistencies that fill the pages of the Holy Bible.
If that is the case, then wouldn't a different faith by ANYONE cancel everything else? Or is David so important?
@@johnhamel4662 “Faith” cancels out EVERYTHING
What inconsistencies? There are none !
@
God: “Thou shalt not kill!”
Also God: “Now go out and slaughter me some Canaanites!”
⬆️ just one of the countless contradictions/inconsistencies in that garbage book
Who cares what some Jews thought. Many converted and understood what scripture meant.
In what way is this clip qualified as "shocking" or as an example of "teach[ing] David Wood a lesson"? Nothing Ehrman says in this clip is disputed by Wood, who most certainly knows what popular messianic anticipations in the first century were.
All those views of the messiah that he described is what jesus will do at his second coming. Him dying on for our sins(which is the most important) is described in Isaiah 53 as the suffering servant
The jews today are also not expecting the messiah to be god in flesh despite of what their scriptures tell them. So just they missed the forest for the trees doesnt mean they are right
So you believe God who made this universe at the scale of 150 sextillion lightyears apart subjected mercy, forgiveness and salvation upon Jesus getting killed?
The Jews actually can read their own holy text in its original language. They don't have to rely on mistranslations and misinterpretations. That's why they don't fall for a false messiah like Jesus. Nowhere in the Tanakh does it it say that the messiah will be "God in flesh", that's a pagan idea.
@samael5782 Isaiah 9:6 states that a child will be born and calls him the everlasting father or father of eternity. That is saying that the Messiah will be God in the flesh! And there are other old testament scriptures that state similar things. Us Christians just don't pull these ideas out of thin air
@@JosephMetts Then Jesus is not the messiah, because he was never called any of that, especially not everlasting father. Not only has this verse nothing to do with a messiah but the child is already born at the time of writing. If you put the verb at the correct place which you have to do in biblical Hebrew it actually reads like this:
For a child has been born to us, a son given to us, and the authority is upon his shoulder, and the wondrous adviser, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, called his name, "the prince of peace."
Now the verse makes sense, doesn't it? It doesn't make any sense in a Christian translation. It is God who calls the child "the prince of peace" because it is Hezekiah, the son of king Ahaz and that's why the authority/government is on his shoulder. Hezekiah became king at the age of 25, was the most righteous king ever and no one could be compared to him (see King 2). Isaiah and Hezekiah lived at the same time. Check this out:
And Hezekiah said to Isaiah, "The word of the Lord that you have spoken is good." For he thought, "There will be peace and truth in my days" - 2 Kings 20,19
Now compare that to Jesus: "I have not come to bring peace but the sword".
=> Hezekiah brought peace, Jesus did not (quite the opposite). The "prince of peace" is Hezekiah, a buddy of the guy who wrote the text.
What you think is about Jesus is the result of a poor translation and ignoring that Jesus was never called any of that. Just exactly as I said: The Jews don't have to rely on mistranslations and misinterpretations but Christians HAVE TO.
@samael5782 Ive heard this argument before. It's definitely plausible. As far as as mistranslations, I'm not so sure of. Depending on which Hebrew scholar u listen to, some say that the king James version is very close to the original text. Now as far as Jesus saying he brought a sword not peace. Let's keep things in context when reading any book or story or text. He meant that his words are divisive and they will make people angry. And lo and behold people still get angry at his sayings. Like u have to love me and hate your mother and father. Another saying that gets taking out of context. Or the father and I are one. And I am the only way to the father. And one last question, how would you translate Micah 5:2. Because in the KJV it seems to imply that Messiah is coming from eternity
There is two comings on the messiah is what confused the Jews. The first coming was to deal with mankind’s sin issues
The second coming is to initiate the millennium 1000 year reign
So Bart rightly notes second temple Judaism had political expectations for a messiah figure… shocking? Every branch of Christianity already accepts that. The contention is whether their expectations were right or wrong. That requires some theological understanding beyond “Isaiah 53 doesn’t say Messiah.” Bart knows that, but for some reason he still chose to frame it that way.
I would say that it was not Christians who “came up with the idea” of a suffering Messiah and turned to the scriptures to try and find and prove this. I’d say it was Jesus turned to the scripture and opened the eyes of some of the disciples who then in turn told others of what they learned, who told others, and so on. Luke 24:25-27.
25 Then he said unto them, O fools, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken:
26 Ought not Christ to have suffered these things, and to enter into his glory?
27 And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, he expounded unto them in all the scriptures the things concerning himself.
..and you would have thought a scholar of Bart’s pedigree would understand that. I too thought the same as you.
So.... you're quoting Luke... to show it was NOT Christians, even though Luke is a Christian scripture....
The Gospels were constructed with a bias to support doctrine, weaving together verses from the old Testament to support their argument.
Just because it's mentioned in Luke or any other gospel doesn't prove the words were said or the incidents actually happened.
Of course you’d say that, since you’re Christian, lol. The fact remains that the people who lived back then never thought about it like that, and once Jesus died his followers wrote about new things that didn’t fit well with the way things were seen in Judaism.
Your argument falls apart because you’re literally quoting the CHRISTIAN part of the Bible. Show us the OLD TESTAMENT verses that substantiate your claim.
Please play the clip that shows Erhman explaining that Jesus was crucified and did die.
'In A Brief Introduction to the New Testament, Bart Ehrman writes that “the most certain element of the tradition about Jesus is that he was crucified on the orders of the Roman prefect of Judea, Pontius Pilate.” In other words, this is one element of the story of Jesus in the Gospels that virtually all scholars agree ...'
Allah gets history wrong, Muhammad gets history wrong. Turn away from those that get history wrong.
Bart also goes into how the prophecies that Christians use to support the idea of Jesus birth, were either taken out of context, mistranslated, or simply were never messianic prophecies to begin with. As well as how the claims that NT authors wrote about Jesus and the events in his life (Bethlehem, census, virgin birth) were completely fictional and did not happen.
This is before we get into how the creation accounts were disproven by science.
So Christianity got history wrong, Jesus got history wrong. They also got science wrong, but most theists don't care.
Bart also goes into how the prophecies that Christians use to support the idea of Jesus birth, were either taken out of context, mistranslated, or simply were never messianic prophecies to begin with. As well as how the claims that NT authors wrote about Jesus and the events in his life (Bethlehem, census, virgin birth) were completely fictional and did not happen.
This is before we get into how the creation accounts were disproven by science.
So Christianity got history wrong, Jesus got history wrong. They also got science wrong, but most theists don't care.
Bart also goes into how the prophecies that Christians use to support the idea of Jesus birth, were either taken out of context, mistranslated, or simply were never messianic prophecies to begin with. As well as how the claims that NT authors wrote about Jesus and the events in his life (Bethlehem, census, virgin birth) were fictional and did not occur.
This is before we get into how the creation accounts were disproven by science.
So Christianity got history wrong, Jesus got history wrong. They also got science wrong, but most theists don't care.
The historicity of the death of Jesus of Nazareth is not proof of him being a “messiah”, or “holy” in any way.
@brianfergus839 Islam denies that Jesus was crucified or killed. My point is that if a Muslim quotes Erhman here, it's dishonest to not listen when he says that a central fact to all history, something uncontested, is that Jesus did die by crucifixion, and was believed alive three days later.
If there wasn't any Jew during Jesus's time that thought that the messiah was going to die and be resurrected then what is written in Acts 2:29 to Acts 2:31 is a lie
The Psalm's are prophecies? That's what apostle Peter stated in Acts 2:30-31
Ehrman does not teach anything here. He expresses what he believes. There is no lesson to had in this short, out of context, clip.
He’s just stating basic facts. The context is pretty clear and what he says isn’t controversial to really anyone. It’s well known early Christians had a novel view of the messiah that was very different from previous Jewish views
@@derekj-h8q the point I was making related to his bait and switch title for this short video.
The entire new testament talks about this over and over and over... bart is saying what paul says in Ephesians .. Isaiah 53 is clearly about Jesus forr goodness sake, as is genesis 3, psalm 22 and the 600+ other ones
Yeah, that's nothing new to most people who've studied this topic. Doubt that surprised Wood and there's a reason the video stopped when it did.
Might be because Wood was about to cite early Rabbis who taught Isaiah 53 was Messianic.
Too bad you cut it off before Bart was corrected. Bart admits that Jesus believed he was the Messiah. And then tries to say that Jesus didn’t believe he was the Messiah, the Christians believe that he was, that is a dine and rising Messiah. However, all one has to do is go to the independent sources of the gospels to read, countless examples where Jesus warns his disciples that he will die! The disciples certainly did not believe that that’s the kind of Messiah that Jesus came to be, and the gospel make it quite clear that they were very confused and troubled at his words about his coming death. So in conclusion, Bart concedes that Jesus believed that he was the Messiah on the Earth, but his unflinching bias prohibits him from taking many passages from the gospels at face value, passages that clearly reveal Jesus’s expectation of his coming crucifixion.
Acts 2: *Now there were staying in Jerusalem God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.* When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; *visitors from Rome (both Jews and converts to Judaism);* Cretans and Arabs-we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?” ... With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” Those who accepted his message were baptized, and *about three thousand were added to their number that day.*
As a famous RUclipsr puts it:
"We don't care what your holy book says."
In a hole in the ground there lived a hobbit. Not a nasty, dirty, wet hole, filled with the ends of worms and an oozy smell, nor yet a dry, bare, sandy hole with nothing in it to sit down on or to eat: it a was a hobbit-hole, and that means comfort.
It had a perfectly round door like a porthole, painted green, with a shiny yellow brass knob in the exact middle. The door opened on to a tube-shaped hall like a tunnel: a very comfortable tunnel without smoke, with panelled walls, and floors tiled and carpeted, provided with polished chairs, and lots and lots of pegs for hats and coats- the hobbit was fond of visitors. The tunnel wound on and on - going fairly but not quite straight into the side of the hill - The Hill, as all the people for many miles around called it - and many little round doors opened out of it, first on one side and then on another. No going upstairs for the hobbit: bedrooms, bathrooms, cellars, pantries (lots of these), wardrobes (he had whole rooms devoted to clothes), kitchens, dining-rooms, all were on the same floor, and indeed on the same passage. The best rooms were all on the left- hand side (going in), for these were the only ones to have windows, deep-set round windows looking over his garden, and meadows beyond, sloping down to the river.
This hobbit was a very well-to-do hobbit, and his name was Baggins. The Bagginses have lived in the neighbourhood of The Hill for time out of mind, and people considered them very respectable, not only because most of them were rich, but also because they never had any adventures or did anything unexpected: you could tell what a Baggins would say on any question without the bother of asking him. This is a story of how a Baggins had an adventure, and found himself doing and saying things altogether unexpected. He may have lost the neighbours’ respect, but he gained- well, you will see whether he gained anything in the end.
@@itomba I believe. There have been four books specifically about his life and activities. There are even movies that show him in real-life, full-colour. Hundreds of millions of people follow his exploits. He has been mentioned in literally thousands of non-Hobbitarian texts. With all of this evidence, Bilbo must be, in fact, absolutely, without a doubt, all entirely real and true.
@@itomba And the History of the World and the Establishment of Societies, Codes of Ethics and Justice, Charitable Organisations and the lives of multiple millions of People from every nation have been built upon inspired and transformed by the of that 1 Baggins.
What a marvellous comparison.
@ And spread by the most holy prophet Frodo Baggins. Frodo Lives!
So much time and thought wasted on jesus, a fictional character in cult mythology
Of course the vast majority of Historians disagree with you. Therefore- Quote: [Yours] is a completely empty claim. You have nothin
g.
Why does a scholar like Ehrman even talk to a cheap apologetic like wood?
for money
It’s not to convince the apologist. I’m sure every apologist has heard these arguments before. It’s to educate the apologists followers. I don’t even think someone like Ehrman does it to make them into atheists - maybe he just wants them to be better educated Christians
@@matthewwright2524 The first 5,000 converts to Christ afer His ascension were Jews who accepted Jesus as the Messiah.
@@YuelSea-sw2rp
But no serious historian thinks that Acts is historical.
@@YuelSea-sw2rp so fucking what?
Maybe that’s why they killed Him and the prophets??😂
Yeah he did, cause you cut David's reply 😂
bart ehrman just shows how off the wall he is. it doesn't matter what the jews thought about the messiah. the point is that none of the jews got it right at all- until after the resurrection. go and read the gospels again.
You’re just referencing how Christians reinvented the idea of the messiah and then retrojected in backwards into the old testament
@@MrMattSax We did not "Re-invent" anything. Old testament is full of foreshadowing for Jesus , its obvious u are just ignorant. I could say the same, its how non cristians re-invent the idea of Messiah so Jesus isnt on Messiah.
As they were written hundreds of years later, the gospels shed ZERO light on what Jews were thinking before Jesus of Naz was born.
@@brianfergus839 Yea, thats why we have evidence
@@brianfergus839 What about old testament?
Who cares what bart erhman thinks lol the point is he acknowledges the apostles and various others believed to see jesus risen from grave and it wasnt a made up event
Jesus explained Himself that He was sent to atone for our sins. It’s not something His followers made up later. 🙄
Exactly. His self-sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins was articulated when he instituted the Eucharist, which is probably the most famous example.
The first 5,000 converts after the ascension of Jesus; had no difficulty accepting Him as the Jewish Messiah.
How many of those 5,000 converts were Jews?
@@abdullahimusa9761 All of them ( Some from Rome had converted to Judaism ) *Acts 2:* Now there were staying in Jerusalem *God-fearing Jews from every nation under heaven.* When they heard this sound, a crowd came together in bewilderment, because each one heard their own language being spoken. Utterly amazed, they asked: “Aren’t all these who are speaking Galileans? Then how is it that each of us hears them in our native language? Parthians, Medes and Elamites; residents of Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Libya near Cyrene; visitors from Rome *(both Jews and converts to Judaism);* Cretans and Arabs-we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues!” Amazed and perplexed, they asked one another, “What does this mean?” ... With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, “Save yourselves from this corrupt generation.” *Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.*
*Acts 3* While the man held on to Peter and John, all the people were astonished and came running to them in the place called Solomon’s Colonnade. When Peter saw this, he said to them: *“Fellow Israelites,* why does this surprise you? Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk? The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. ... *Acts 4* The priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to Peter and John while they were speaking to the people. They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people, proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. They seized Peter and John and, because it was evening, they put them in jail until the next day. *But many who heard the message believed; so the number of men who believed grew to about five thousand.*
Reply
@@abdullahimusa9761 All the Apostles who were with Jesus during the 3 and a half years of His earthly ministry were Jews. All of the New Testament was written by Jews who accepted Jesus as their Messiah.
@@abdullahimusa9761 The first Gentiles [ non-Jews] were converted to Christianity roughly 10 to 12 years after Pentecost. [ Peter preaching in Acts 2 ] Prior to Acts 2 all who accepted Jesus as their Messiah were Jews.
@@YuelSea-sw2rp Since no one knows who wrote the majority of the New Testament, including all 4 gospels, that claim is simply ludicrous.
Dude! You are ruining my business!
There are no supreme saviors
Not god nor caesar nor tribune
@ because you can only save yourself. Gods don’t exist, Caesar thinks only of himself, one man cannot change the world.
Pinecreek did a funny vid on a part of this interview.
To anyone who want's to argue with the theists making claims that have no evidence, or the only evidence being the Bible. There's no point in dealing with them. I learned that now.
Yes, and academics understand as well. That's why the academic consensus supports the conclusion that the Bible was written from 2nd to 3rd hand accounts decades after the alleged events, that many of the events were later creations (trip to Bethlehem, virgin birth, trinity). The OT itself isn't even considered historical, and the exodus isn't supported by the academic consensus.
All of this information can be gained from Bart Ehrman, Dan McClellan, Joshua Bowen, Kipp Davis, etc.
@@YuelSea-sw2rp Yes, and academics understand as well. That's why the academic consensus supports the conclusion that the Bible was written from 2nd to 3rd hand accounts decades after the alleged events, that many of the events were later creations (trip to Bethlehem, virgin birth, trinity). The OT itself isn't even considered historical, and the exodus isn't supported by the academic consensus.
All of this information can be gained from Bart Ehrman, Dan McClellan, Joshua Bowen, Kipp Davis, etc.
Aren't you the same guy who made major claims, and when someone asked for proof, you ghosted them?
@@YuelSea-sw2rp Aren't you the same guy who made major claims, and when someone asked for proof, you ghosted them?
Nothing SHOCKING here at all!! Bart Ehrman didn't teach anything to David Wood that David Wood didn't already know. Jesus Christ is the Messiah, period. The word Messiah doesn't have to be specifically used in the text in order for that to be true. All of scripture testifies to Jesus being the Messiah. And He is.
Don’t be stupid.
@@tommac5411 Be quiet. Keep your yap closed.
@@tommac5411 what you don’t realize is that peruse did his studies at the prestigious Dunning-Kruger school of Divinity. He KNOWS what he’s talking about.
I don’t get it.
When you study history of many other prophets before the Jesus (pbuh), then Islam makes far more sense.
When Prophet Jonah was thrown into the ocean, he was supposed to be drown and dead but God saved him from near death.
When Joseph was thrown into well, he was supposed to be drown in the well and dead, but God saved him from near death.
Likewise Prophet Noah supposed to be drown in the flood water, but God save him from near death.
Moses was chased by biggest military ever known to Moses, but God saved Moses from near death.
Prophet Lot was forcefully escorted to safety and saved by angels, when wrath of God sent down upon Sodom and Gomorrah.
Prophet Daniel supposed to be eaten by lions, but God saved him from near death.
Prophet Mohammed (pbuh) was chased by pagan-arabs but God saved him from near death.
As per the Qran 4-157, Jesus was not killed nor he was crucified but it was made appeared to the enemies and God saved Jesus (pbuh) from humiliation, torture, nakedness and near death.
However Christians don't like the idea saving Jesus (pbuh) from humiliation, torture, nakedness and near-death ordeal as you know not killing Jesus (pbuh) means there is no-salvation waiting for Christians i.e. theologically speaking, overall not killing Jesus means major a bad news for Christians due to it collapses of Christianity as whole and wanting kill Jesus also puts Christians on the same boat as where Jews are, i.e. Christians and Jews both desire death upon the blameless prophet of God, but both wanting the death of Jesus, with different motives.
If you studied history you would know that Moses never existed
@@LogicStandsBeforeGod "The fact of Jesus' crucifixion is as certain as any fact we can know about the past. It is one of the most widely attested events in ancient history." Bart Ehrman
@@YuelSea-sw2rp Dr Ehrman does not believe in miracle of God, whereas my post is about God miraculously saved many prophets from near death danger.
Saving a prophet from near death danger is valid before God, whereas human's red-liquid ritual and manslaughter ritual were despicable abomination in OT, Christian's core creed is an abomination.
@@YuelSea-sw2rp Dr Ehrman does not believe in miracle of God, whereas my post is about God miraculously saved many prophets from near death danger.
What's shocking?
Amen.@@YuelSea-sw2rp
Ehrman was raised as a Biblical Perfectionist, so he goes out of his way to straw man everything that he can.
So, you cannot refute anything he says, so you spew childish insults?
@@petercollins7730 It is not an insult. Ehrman was raised as a Biblical Perfectionist, he was raised that the Bible was perfect and when he got to college and found out it was not true, he decided to trash the Bible. That's not an insult those are just the facts.
@@darinbracy8433 "he goes out of his way to straw man everything that he can." - that is a cheap and deliberate insult, and patently not true. Just admit you hate the fact that Bart disproves your claims with evidence.
Why would a Perfectionist need a straw man?
@ you see the word “was” being a verb of past tense.
Barts a fool.
at least he stopped believing in floating zombies
The problem is that the ✝️ apologists keep finding straws to cling and there aren't that many left. That's where the whole thing collapses.
The first 5,000 converts to Christ after the ascension of Jesus were Jews who accepted Jesus as the Jewish Messiah.
Barts arguments have been ripped to shreds by scholars for years. Only RUclipsrs still spout this stuff.
The Lost Gospel of Waraqah Ibn Nawfal dates from @400 BCE about such a ‘Jesus.’ Baer is clueless, shameless wannabe. “Who was Jesus?: a Conspiracy in Jerusalem “, Kamal Salibi,1988, plus his 3 other bible study books and blog for facts not fantasies. So,no.
*Acts 3* While the man held on to Peter and John, all the people were astonished and came running to them in the place called Solomon’s Colonnade. When Peter saw this, he said to them: *“Fellow Israelites,* why does this surprise you? Why do you stare at us as if by our own power or godliness we had made this man walk? The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers, has glorified his servant Jesus. You handed him over to be killed, and you disowned him before Pilate, though he had decided to let him go. ... *Acts 4* The priests and the captain of the temple guard and the Sadducees came up to Peter and John while they were speaking to the people. They were greatly disturbed because the apostles were teaching the people, proclaiming in Jesus the resurrection of the dead. They seized Peter and John and, because it was evening, they put them in jail until the next day. *But many who heard the message believed; so the number of men who believed grew to about five thousand.*
As a famous RUclipsr puts it:
"We don't care what your holy book says."
@@YuelSea-sw2rp
But like every other serious scholar he thinks that the stories in the Bible are mostly fictional.
Ehrman doesn't have a clue. The problem is that he is one of the unsaved and his interpretation of Scripture is miles off.
Bart is not that sharp, almost all of Jesus' followers were Jews, they knew who He was. That the majority of Jews rejected Him is not germane.
But that’s exactly what we would expect to see if the stories about him were mostly fictional.
Coincidentally Jesus failed to fulfill any of the messianic prophecies that can not be faked.😂
@@ramigilneas9274 If Jesus is fictional (which He wasn't) why did people outside the Gospels write about Him? As to what "we" would expect your reasoning is fallacious. Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies..
@@thepierianspring2353
None of the sources outside of the Bible met Jesus or any of the people who knew him.
They are simply writing down hearsay.
And I don’t say that Jesus didn’t exist, just that the stories in the gospels are mostly fictional and probably based on hearsay and legends about multiple apocalyptic preachers inspired by greek mythology.
Like I already said… Jesus only fulfilled the prophecies that don’t leave any verifiable evidence.
I mean it’s easy to claim that he was born from a virgin in Bethlehem, but I could claim that about myself and that would be just as much evidence as we have that Jesus was born of a virgin in Bethlehem.
But it’s much harder to be a military leader who defeats the Romans and then reigns in Jerusalem.😂
@@thepierianspring2353 outside the “gospels”, no one “wrote about him” in any significant way.
@@brianfergus839 Wrong.
How is it even possible for anyone to be so utterly biblically ignorant so as to not so much as grasp the basics. The Messiah does both. Sacrifices for our sins & returns to fulfil the Jew's wildest dreams.
Man Bart, what a charlatan!
You are deluded beyond what words can describe.
@gdevelek
Deluded as to the Bible being true or deluded as to what the Bible (OT & NT combined) says re the Messiah?
@@glenwillson5073 Present an unambiguous text from the Hebrew Bible that expresses the expectation that the Messiah will be a sacrifice for sins
@@glenwillson5073 Both. The nonsense about a messiah in the OT cannot POSSIBLY be reconciled with the nonsense about Cheesus being the messiah in the NT. For the reason Bart gave, and several others. If you watch a debate between a priest and a rabbi about the messiah, you'll see the priest get CREAMED. Christians did their best to twist and misinterpret the OT in order to make it fit their cheesus-messiah nonsense, but it only works on ignorant people who just swallow what their priest feeds them. ANY careful investigation of the OT immediately leads to the opposite direction. The OT messiah has certain properties that Cheesus did not have in any way shape or form, plus the OT talks about signs that will mark the coming of the messiah that never happened when Cheesus came along. Basically jewish mythology cannot be reconciled with christian mythology, it's impossible. The jews have every right to reject christianity, it's 100% consistent with their holy book to do so.
@@glenwillson5073 Both.
Bart Ehrman is a liar. He twists scripture to fit his interpretation, and changes his position for his audience expectations.
Maybe just read the prophecy and then call him a liar. I also have looked it up and it does not say messiah, what the lie?
@jakobstisen6366 which prophecy are we talking about? There are over 400 prophecies that Jesus fulfilled from the old testament. The problem is Ehrman changes his interpretation of scripture depending on who he is with and talking to.
Umm. I think maybe you aren't talking about Erhman but looking in a mirror?
@johnmulvey7890 umm no I'm talking about Ehrman. He wrote a book with his professor a conservative professor in print he agrees with him but in Ehrman 's public speaking event he contradict what they wrote in joint book. Please tell me Ehrman is a solid Bible interpretation. There are other things too do your research don't just accept what he says.
I love Apostate Prophet but loathe David Wood so it’s frustrating when AP has him on his channel. I can only watch AP when he isn’t accompanied by that man.