Clearly and without a doubt, the process of writing, compiling, copying, and determining what was and was not to be included in the Bible was a human process.
Whoever said it wasn't? What Christians hold is that it was humans who did all of that, with certain men accomplishing the writing and the canonization under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
Wishing/Believing that something is true is far removed from the reality of the existence of that thing. Repeating the misconception a thousand times doesn't add to its credibility.
In his thunderous and brilliant delivery her forgot the MOST IMPORTANT thing. Mark's gospel had NO post-resurrection appearances. None. The long ending of Mark (which included such appearances) HAD to be added much later. Why???? Because they never happened. It was part of the legend. Plain and simple.
Mark's representation of Jesus' last moments on the cross are also DRAMATICALLY different from the Gospels that followed -- especially John. In Mark (and Matthew, which largely copied Mark), he's painfully shouting Psalm 22, expressing a very HUMAN emotion of being abandoned by 'God.' But in John, he's quietly and calmly expressing his acceptance of his divine mission. In fact, if you take Bart's advice and read the earliest gospels like Mark side-by-side with the latest gospel, John, the multitude of differences will be so dramatic you'll begin to wonder if they're even telling the same story.
nonsense. the other 3 gospels already mentioned it anyway. you don't know what mark had or hadn't. that's just speculation on your part. don't be satisfied with just ehrmans stuff, watch his detractors too.
The argument that the manuscript errors don't affect essential doctrine is silly because one of the essential doctrines is that god has apparently preserved his word through Scripture. And if all essential doctrines rest on Scripture, then Christians have a problem.
Well, god is on his third do over. Pretty silly for a supposedly all knowing, seeing, and powerful god, don't you think? They have lots of problems it seems.
Who ever said that bibles is the literal word of God? If that Christians believe then why put names like Mark John Luke etc as the author they should have put God as the author. The fact that Gospels have author names in them proves Christians do not believe they are literal words of God. The Bibles are inspired words of God. So discrepancies are ok as long as the main message is the same
@@antoniussukardi9029 What a ridiculous comment. Where exactly does the Bible say it is "inspired" again? Plus, do you even realize that your supposedly all powerful god is using a really stupid way to communicate? You actually just said he deliberately created a flawed system to communicate to people. Do you even read what you write?
16 дней назад+3
@@antoniussukardi9029 If the bible isn't literally accurate you have to pick and choose which parts are accurate and there is no objective criteria for doing so, just your feels. BTW the bible "messages" are very inconsistent.
So your brilliant analysis is that it would destroy my claim to being an eyewitness for me to witness something as a young man and then write about it as an older man in whatever language I chose to write about it in? This is what passes for critical thought amongst you people?
@ it’s an appeal to what is most likely. The earliest gospel, Mark, is written in schooled Greek and the earliest dating is 50ad, though some date it later. Mark did not claim to be an eyewitness (none of the gospel authors do) and mostly wrote with direct, seemingly intentional allegory to Moses and the other OT prophets, used parable and presented a rather mundane Jesus with no resurrection. Matthew came decades later, borrowed a huge amount from the first gospel and added additional legend such as the birth narrative, which has almost nothing in common with the second birth narrative in Luke, which came later and also contained a huge amount from the original gospel. The gospel of John dates to over a century after the claimed events and presents the most mythic version of Jesus. Is it likely that a person witnessed magical events, waited five decades to record them after going to university (despite being an illiterate peasant) and then miraculously remembered the exact words and actions that occurred those decades past? This in light of our knowledge of the fallibility of memory? We know now that people are mistaken in their memories mere hours after the event to be recalled, yet somehow these exist as “eyewitness” accounts recorded decades later in the author’s non-native language and in a way that indicates a high level of education, despite that only being accessible by the rich elites? You have very great faith. Not evidence, mind you, but a great ability to believe despite the overwhelming evidence against your position.
@@jimnewl Memories are unreliable, and there is plenty of research to back up that statement. But that didn't even happen for the bible. No one who wrote it was an eye witness. Claiming SOMEONE ELSE lacks critical thought is the last thing you should be doing.
@ Thanks, we got so much Trump funk it’s hard to see how bad the rest of the over evolving, ignorant and fearful apes are outside our boarders. I guess a few of us see it, but not enough to stop it.
Bart is such a beast, I’ve studied his work and he has opened my mind. Get his book the lost scriptures, and gospel of Judas. All I can say is WOW. We are at a turning event on the horizon
😂😂Why even bother? We know it's not reliable because, it's not written in Aramaic, the language that the disciples spoke. It was written 2000 miles away in Asia Minor and Greece. With the names of people who are randomly chosen European, rather than Palestinians. Then it said it's inspired by God, but they provide conflicting testimony. Then it has pagan narratives of sacrificing the innocent to appease God, including Greek mythology, God impregnates earth girl, to create a son who also goes to heaven becomes fully God, then you got sun worship practices, including polytheism, couched in monotheism.... It's a Swiss army knife of religions. 😂😂😂😂😂
Having read most of Dr. Ehrman's books and other writings, I believe I can help you understand the nuance of what he is saying. Theology is faith. History is fact. Please do not conflate them.
its a book ... of stories and lies ... written by humans ... with agendas ... and very little technology ... so lets invent god ... lmao. If aliens ever visited and they saw the amount of religious rubbish going on they would disappear very quickly imho.
"god is a concept by which we measure our pain" John Lennon.... makes more sense than anything I ever read in the Bible which I have read from beginning to end 3 times🤔🤔🤔 4:22
Logically correct, though having the original manuscripts would at least create a level playing field, so to speak, so we could see what the actual positions were, being put forward by the largely anonymous authors. It would simplify and resolve a good bit of uncertainty with regard to the accuracy of the text. But yeah, not necessarily a basis for proof, as we understand it.
And we know the autographs are not inerrant either. Not only do they contradict each other, but almost every time the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, it’s using the Greek Septuagint translation. This has the New Testament asserting things about the Old Testament that aren’t true, like Matthew having Jesus ride two animals, or Acts having James quote a verse about conquering Edom as if it meant that the Gentiles would seek God. I suppose it’s possible that a well-meaning scribe added the verses and “fixed” the text, but if that’s the case they did so inconsistently. The two animals example only happens in Matthew even though all four gospels have the story.
For an atheist, Bart has a vast knowledge of Christianity, as I have read one of his books and watched two DVD series from The Great Courses. However, he makes poor conclusions about this material, and this has gotten worse in recent years.
A thought just entered my head, if Jesus died for my 'sins' then I don't have any responsibility for what I do. I could go running around like an idiot because Jesus has paid for and taken all my sins away. That's what the church taught me but the idea removes all responsibility for being a decent human being from me. That idea sounds stupid!
an excellent question: " ... if God has inspired the Bible without error, why hasn't He preserved the Bible with errors?" one good answer, is the inerrancy of the Bible lies in the transcriptional errors do not contradicts the basic theological teachings and claims of Jesus. i believe history has proven this to be true.
There were, indeed, thousands of transcriptional errors, to which Dr. Ehrman agrees. So, how has history proved the premise that errors do not contradict the basic theological teachings and claims? I don't think that hits the mark. Certainly, it is self-serving that Chrisitan religions accept the Bible, in spite of historical contradictions, errors, or problems. Otherwise, there would be no Christianity. So, of course, history "proves" this to be true, because Christianity is still extant. Note that Dr. Ehrman, in fact, pointed out several theological positions in the NT that were added later in variant texts (to say nothing about the additions at the end of Mark. These are not things one runs across in the Bible or in Church sermons, of course. People will believe what they want, unless or until something personal affects them enough to make them reconsider their beliefs. Belief is a powerful force in humans that often disregards facts and contradiction. Still, it is an interesting question to ponder.
I am a big, big believer in Jesus. I have conducted my own personal “Gospel Research” for over 35 years”. --- Although Dr. Ehrman’s arguments have merits, and there is solid reason to call the New Testament “not Reliable”, I respectfully disagree with Dr. Ehrman’s statement, “I don’t know of a way to know (what is accurate), and I’ve never seen a good explanation.” --- What I bring to the Table that Dr. Ehrman does not bring to the Table, is that I am a dyed-in-the-wool “Conspiracy Dude”, starting when I first saw the “Zapruder Film” shown on Nationwide TV in March, 1975. --- I ABSOLUTELY AGREE with Dr. Ehrman, that “There is no doubt, that Jesus was the most important person in the History of Western Civilization.” I call Jesus, “The Greatest and Most Important Messenger in Universe History”. WHAT TO BELIEVE. --- Unlike Dr. Ehrman, I find it EASY to choose “What to Believe” in the Gospels. The “General Rule of Thumb”: When Gospels CONFLICT with each other, the Verse MOST EMBARRASSING to the Church, is the AUTHENTIC Verse. --- On 13 Aug 2024, I published a 65-minute RUclips Video titled, “The Gospels were OFFICIAL REPORTS to COVER-UP the "REAL Jesus Story". --- In my 13 Aug Video, I explain my reasons for CHOOSING what to believe in the so-called “Gospels”. Dr. Ehrman described Christian Apologists as saying, “The New Testament is the best attested Book in Antiquity, and therefore, you can trust it.” --- As a “Conspiracy Dude”, I counter-argue to the Apologists, “The New Testament is the best attested Book in Antiquity, and therefore, you CANNOT trust it.” --- It is my belief, that the three Synoptic Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but were written by COMMITTEES, with Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as respective “Committee Chairmen”. SAME AS TODAY, NUTHIN’ CHANGED. --- The REASON that the Committees were COMMISSIONED, was to “Fact Check” the Jesus story. SAME AS TODAY, NUTHIN’S CHANGED. --- As with ALL “Officially Commissioned Reports”, such as the “Warren Commission Report” and the “9/11 Official Report”, the REAL PURPOSE of the Committees, was to COVER-UP the “REAL Jesus Story”, JUST LIKE the “Warren Commission Report” and the “9/11 Commission Report”. SAME AS TODAY, NUTHIN’S CHANGED. Dr. Ehrman described the story of the Female “Caught in Adultery”, described in John, Ch 8, v1-11. --- John, Ch 8, v1-11, WERE NOT WRITTEN BY JOHN! John, Ch 8, v1-11, were a “KNOWN AUTHENTIC” Story, that Early Church Fathers just plopped in the middle of John, so that the Controversial, so-called “Gospel of John”, would be included in the New Testament Canon. --- In my long-lost RSV, John 8:1-11 were a FOOTNOTE. --- From the Wikipedia Article, “John 8”: “Verses 1-11, along with John 7:53, form a pericope which is missing from some ancient Greek manuscripts…” HOW IS IT POSSIBLE, for John 8:1-11, to be “Known” and “Authentic”????? --- The ONLY WAY for John 8:1-11 to be “Known” and “Authentic”, is that the story HAD TO HAVE ORIGINATED, from “Records of an Official Proceeding”, in other words, “Jesus’ TRIAL”. --- It makes PERFECT SENSE for John 8:1-11 to have originated from “Jesus’ Trial”, when the Jewish Religious Authorities, were attempting to convict Jesus of “heresy”, for REFUSING to obey “Mosaic Law”, by NOT stoning the female to death. --- One of the most profound verses in the Bible is “Let he who without sin cast the first stone,” however, it is my belief that John 8:7, is not EXACTLY what Jesus said, because “he who is without sin” makes ABSOLUTELY ZERO SENSE. --- It is my belief that Jesus said something that DID make sense: “Let he who has not COMMITTED ADULTERY, cast the first stone.” Jesus was divorced and remarried, rendering Jesus to be a “Mosaic Law Adulterer”, in Jesus’ own definition. It is my belief that ALL Jesus talk of “marriage, divorce, and adultery”, HAD TO HAVE OCCURRED during Jesus’ Trial, but the “Gospels” FORGOT to mention that detail. Dr. Ehrman’s scripture about “Snake Handling” is OBVIOUSLY FAKE SCRIPTURE, to be REJECTED. --- All “Bible Scholars” know, that Mark 16:8, is the LAST AUTHENTIC VERSE in Mark, in which the three females “…said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.” --- ALL extant so-called “Endings” to Mark, have to be FAKE, because they CONFLICT with the last AUTHENTIC Ending. Either Mary “said nothing to anyone”, or Mary “went and told those who had been with him (Jesus)”. Both Verses CANNOT be true. --- There WAS an “Authentic Ending” to Mark, AFTER Mark 16:8, but NOBODY KNOWS WHAT IT SAID (Probably a copy in the Vatican Archive.). --- I do not know the General Contents of Mark’s “Authentic Ending”, but if an “Authentic Ending” is ever revealed, I DO KNOW what the very last verse of the “Authentic Ending” will say. --- The very last Verse of the “Authentic Ending” will say, “The END of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.” --- HINT: Mark 1:1 - “The BEGINNING of THE Gospel of Jesus Christ…” If you’re gonna have a POINTER at the beginning of “THE” Gospel (“THE” as in SINGULAR), then you’re gonna have a pointer at the end too.
You researched nothing but stories. It's like saying I researched Hamlet or Harry Potter. What is it you believe about Jesus? That he was the superpowered son of an all-powerful wizard, but he had to die because Adam and Eve ate a fruit?
@@oldpossum57 Hi oldpossum57! Thanks for the Comment! --- oldpossum57, my HIGHLY RESEARCHED “Ignorance”, is also FRIGHTENING. My response to Spiritof_76 already got DELETED! Ain’t nuthin’ new. --- oldpossum57, have a Great Day, and Happy New Year! Rock
I love Dr. Ehrman, and I particularly love him when he's on a tear like this, and not his more conversational giggling self. The giggling is just too distracting! More angry, forceful Ehrman is all I'm saying...🙂
We don,t have to go back far in history to know that they cooked the books . Simply because not long ago they change the prayer that God himself showed us how to pray . Does it not say in the book ( bible ) not to change even one coma of that book . Yes he did !
Fair question: if, as we know, that all the stories of miracles and resurrections HAD to be made up, does it really matter if subsequent story tellers made stuff up? This isn’t a collection of historical accounts. It is a folk tales about an. It is common property. Any one can change it.
@@Bluets023 As I said, the OT and NT are collections of folk history, folk tales, folk wisdom, tribal laws, tales of wonder, tales of prodigies, mystical inventions. Why insist that they be “unchanging”? The people who created and compiled the stories did not have a sense of factual history. In the Marvel Universe, or the DC Universe, you can create new story lines, and even explore story lines that appear to co “contradict” the “Bible” of previously created plots and characters. Why not? It is fiction. Unlike Marvel and DC comics, no one owns copyright over the OT and NT. People wrote new stuff constantly in the early centuries. Joseph Smith doubled the content in the 19th c. No one can lie to you because it is fiction.
does anyone hear dr. bart ehrman's plead for an answer which plagues us all: how do we know that God exist? And if God exist, then we know His writings would have be preserved without errors! who in the right mind could disagree with this statement except for the fact that errancy in the Holy Scriptures is two fold: 1) the errors are translational and 2) although translational, the teachings and claims of Jesus remain consistent. translational errancy proves consistency. one man's account disagrees with an man's account but both accounts agree to Jesus' claim to be The Son of God and God Himself in the flesh.
The errors are more than translational, there is editing and additions. Repeating stories, even if it was the same story, over centuries tells us nothing of the truth.
@@jns8393editing additions? but do these "additions" change the message of the Gospel or the historical evidence of Christ's Resurrection or the founding beliefs that forge the u.s. constitution? please state an addition that changes the basic core belief of the Gospel message to repent of sin and believe Jesus is the Son of God-Resurrected. i do prayer for dr. ehrman's salvation and do respect his accomplishments.
@jd-gw4gr The US constitution is not founded on Christianity, in fact it provides freedom of religion and, theoretically as it turns out, separation of church and state. There are only accounts of the ressurection, not tangible evidence, unless you would like to provide it. I didn't and don't claim any flaws or contradictions change the core belief. Again, that lack of change tells us nothing of the truth. As you yourself suggest, it's simply a belief that belief has been propagated over centuries. Being convinced of something doesn't make it true.
@jd-gw4gr what's with the irrelevant distraction that has nothing to do with the truth of bible content? What is tangentially relevant though is the ten commandments do not form the basis of the Constitution or enshrined in law.
The King James Bible has power.. it's God's word and God magnifies his word above his own name Psalm 132:8 KJV. When you change words, doctrine changes, context changes, you lose cross-references, and you lose the blessing of studying every mention of a word in its context for the full definition. That's called full mention... Also important is first mention and final mention word studies. You're really missing out on God opening up the Bible to you by believing the lie that it has to be dumbed down for you to understand rather than living by faith and asking God to open your eyes to his precious word.
Ehrman is what happens to a fundamentalist when he finds out his original superstitions aren't true, they totally lose it and can't get over it. Then that was before he made a bundle of money off of telling stupid, ignorant people what non-fundamentalists knew from the earliest years of Christianity. The Bible is an idol to people like he was and when it proves not to be one, they lose religion entirely.
Erhman provides a good public service. If he had a profitable chain of burger restaurants-contributing to the obesity and malnutrition of Americans and to the destruction of the climate by increasing GHG-you wouldn’t complain. Living in Canada, it is obvious everyday how ignorant Protestant fundamentalists have been co-opted by the GOP. Told that they get to set social policy, they have happily allowed the GOP to cut taxes on the uber wealthy since 1980, resulting in the worst inequality of wealth in the world’s history. (You really have to hand it to the GOP: they did the ground battle since 1972, never losing sight of their goals.) Today, with the enthusiastic support of white fundamentalist Protestants and extremist Catholics, we have seen the end of abortion and reproductive rights for women, and are about to see the end of public schools, unions, environmental legislation, lgbtq rights, civil rights for black and brown people, gun control laws, public health care (ACA, Medicare , Medicaid), SNAP, the rule of law and likely democratic voting (as Trump promised Florida supporters last summer) And all the while that all this is destroyed, the white Protestant voters will be proud to have preserved their « Freedumb ». Religious people are trained from childhood in tolerance of extreme cognitive dissonance. They are trained to believe nonsense. In trying to show them that what they have been told to believe is nonsense, Erhman performs a good public service.
To manage the reality of life and death or not is the question that should be asked. Abrahamic religions don’t really guide people. They become behavioral excuses and psychological band aids. They require members to believe what makes them feel better and deny the reality that does not.
I was thinking the same thing throughout. I love Bart's thoroughness and professionalism, but he does get carried away sometimes with his vocal register.
First century church leaders appear to have thought that historical precision was not important, at least up to a grey line. Telling stories about Jesus was important. If people told them differently, so what? They relied on the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Prof. Kenneth Bailey has written well about this in his article on informal controlled oral tradition, which JDG Dunn comments positively on.
@@jimmetcalf6408 How do you know that conflicting accounts was acceptable back in those times? The Gospels reveal that conflictng testimonies were not acceptable, if you read the accounts when Jesus was on trial and it makes reference to his accusers having conflicting testimonies
The New Testament says that Yahweh had a son after his Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed for the second time. The son was a sacrifice that removed the curse that Yahweh placed on humanity for their disobedience. Now you only have to believe it to avoid eternal punishment.
People do not die for a lie. If everything is made up then either everyone is a fool in the years after Jesus died, or it is true about Jesus and heaven is real. Yes there are inconsistencies throughout the Bible, yes is doesn’t make sense, but there is something about people dying for a cause or a belief. Yes people die for many stupid reasons, however That messes with my . head - just saying
Plenty of people die for a lie. Ashli Babbitt did. Heaven's Gate cult members did. Military people in the Gulf War did (no nuclear weapons of mass destruction hidden in Iraq.) 9/11 flyers did (72 virgins in heaven, really?) That's just a few instances. "People do not die for a lie" is a weak-ass assertion that should be flushed down the toilet.
First, People do die for lies. They do it all the time. And second, we have no evidence that any of the supposed disciples of jesus died for their beliefs. If some but not all Emperors of Rome later took a violent revenge against cultists who refused to worship the Emperor-cults that included both Christian cults and other cults-that was simply because the christians were fanatics. My argument. First point: a simple example. The G. W. Bush WH made up a story about weapons of mass Destruction to convince Americans and America’s allies to invade Iraq. These WMD did not exist. Staunch USA allies such as France, Germany, Canada, NZ refused to support the invasion because, loathsome and murderous as the Saddam Hussein regime was-the claim of WDM was clearly manufactured. 4500 American military personnel, 1500 American contractors, 200 Allied soldiers, and 600,000 Iraqis civilians were killed. All around the world, including in America, people demanded to see what evidence Bush had. Three million showed up to a protest in France-the biggest anti-war protest in human history. There were protests across America. No one went into this Invasion thinking 100% that the rational was true. Second, according to your own story book, the death of only one disciple is recorded. (It is the only source for this story, which means historians can’t take it as likely to be true.) According to your story book, Herod Agrippa has James the brother of John executed. We are not told WHY in the storybook. The storybook says nothing about the other disciples. We should presume they died of disease-like accessed teeth- or old age. Yes there are stories and legends made up long after the first century about the “martyrdom” of various disciples. These are legends. If there is any truth to them, we could not tell, because there is no way to separate truth from fiction in legends. Did the Christians make stuff up for centuries to “improve” their magical stories? Absolutely! They are still at it today.
They quote him when they need an authority and source for the historicity of Jesus, since he like most scholars accept that Jesus was a historical figure. I'm an atheist and watch a lot of Bart Ehrman, he's good, and is a threat to Christians especially younger ones. Hence why Christians often try to refute him.
Yes, thousands coipies, each having hundreds of mistakes. Most of them misspellings and points of grammar - but many, like the ones Ehrman cited, are crucial to the nature of the religion.
@@flaneur5560the problem is Bart invented the mistake(Contradictions in the 4 gospel) and he ignored the footnotes All Contradictions Bart Ehrman find had been Debunks, they all refute Bart Ehrman argument but he ignores, he favourite is the added verse of the Gospel but it wasn't added is just the earliest manuscript reject the verse The KJV quoted from the oldest Scripture of the Gospel
Any competent attorney should be able to take apart and destroy Erhmann's arguments! To begin with, the premise of his argument is misplaced. His intellectual arrogance gets the most of him!
Which argument does it use? People refuting this stuff almost always use one of 3: 1: Contradictions in the Bible can always be explained by inventing wildly implausible scenarios not in evidence. When in doubt, insist that it must have happened twice. 2: Goal post moving that biblical inerrancy doesn’t mean that there won’t be minor mistakes. Point out that the vast majority of errors are minor spelling/grammar mistakes and pretend that none of them alter meaning. Appeal to the thousands of manuscripts that agree with each other and don’t mention that they’re all from the second millennium and disagree wildly with earlier manuscripts. 3: Point out that none of the textual variants will affect church doctrine, which is true. This is because church doctrine is not Bible-based. Plenty of things the church believes are not in the Bible, and some of those beliefs already contradict the Bible. So what’s one more contradiction?
KJV bible, Proverbs 9:10, wisdom Revelation 2:17, I received a white stone, it just mysteriously appeared in my KJV bible, John 14:26🕊14:6🌹3:3-5💧repent Matthew 10:28, hell Shalom
Dr. Ehrman did not specifically claim that. Instead, he pointed to a variety of theological statements/positions that were added later, over time in various copies that wound up in our current Bible. So his examples are based on the proposition that, if you removed them from the Bible, do they change what the Bible has to say or how we think about the teachings? And if so, to what extent? Dr. Ehrman puts that in as a thought experiment, if you wish.
@johnheaton5058, I think that you have the wrong position here. He is not looking for problems to justify his loss of faith. As he pointed out, it was critical reading of the Bible that helped move him in that direction. Dr. Ehrman is like most all (Biblical) scholars who study ancient texts. It isn't a matter of going in (presuppositionally) to look for errors; it is a matter of and deciding what they mean when you find them, and how they impact the text or relate to other texts. Scholars are trained to analyze, question, and seek answers. They are not pushing a theology and are not priests. So, continue reading the saints. Have you ever read The Golden Legend (Legenda Auria) by Voragine?
No, it is not « easily debunked » by rational means. Can devoted fanatics stand on their heads and do « pretzel logic » to shore up the disintegrated remains of their foundation. Not really…but they can try! Reminds me of the LDS guys who continue to say that the languages of the indigenous peoples of N. America are Semitic, and that somewhere in Central America we will find the evidence of indigenous peoples with Middle eastern genomes. White Dove, when your team gets beaten like a gong, you line up and congratulate the other team, wish them well. Your team just got beaten like a rented mule.
Jesus of Christianity is not a Nature's God, Jesus of Christianity is a Supernatural Superhero, just like Superman, Spiderman, Luke Skywalker, all Supernatural Superheroes. So why can we write that Jesus is not a Nature's God and is a Supernatural Superhero, like other human created story characters?
Story Analogy evidence.
Why do we think that the stories of humans landing on the moon from 1969 to 1972 are true? Because of all the knowledge of flying by the Astronauts, Knowledge of orbital mechanics, rockets and space craft from Scientists and Engineers and all the money spent on it, and the companies to build all the stuff.
For Jesus to come back from the dead 3 days after dying, Jesus would have to have knowledge of blood, skin, the heart, lungs, digestion, immune systems, kidneys, etc.. Then Jesus to be moral would have to tell humans about natural ways to prevent illnesses and diseases. Does Jesus tell us the value of sanitation, cleanliness, sterilization, inoculation and medication? Then have knowledge of Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Physics, etc.. Did Jesus tell us anything about that? Then if Jesus was a God who created everything, that Jesus would have to know Geology, Nuclear Star Fusion, Mathematics, etc. Does Jesus give us any idea that he would know about that? Then look at Jesus's economics. Having poor people give stuff to other poor people. Wouldn't a God know about creating wealth and making stuff? Jesus is just not a God. You could get away with it in the ancient age and the middle age, but the Christianity should be shown to not be true by the modern age.
Just to be accurate, there _is_ historical evidence (scant though it may be) for Jesus, son of Joseph. There is absolutely NO historical evidence whatsoever for Jesus "Christ." Nomenclature is important.
Not much. There are no official records of him. No independent references until 95 CE…and these are dubious! It is not necessary to do so, but it simplifies matters if we assume that there was an intierant preacher of an immanent apocalypse who was called Yeshua, a pretty common name. It is well known that the Romans detested all the Jews and found them hard to rule over. We know that they regularly executed nuisances. To be charitable, if you want your preacher to have been executed, we can give you that. But there is no record of the execution. No secular historian accepts any of the stories about physically impossible miracles or resurrections in your story book, or anyone else’s story book. To treat your story book differently than Quran or Vedic stories would be unprofessional. Since the compositors of your story book present miracles and resurrections as true, we know they are untrustworthy, as they cannot tell fact from fiction. In many cases, they present stories they could not have witnessed: the nativity narratives, the goings on in Pilate’s Palace, etc. These are fiction, but presented as facts. They had no means to accurately record speech, but they have long speeches that subsequent people treat as verbatim, and base theology on. So sorry, but your story book is a collection of historical fantasies. Like Game of Thrones.
Your very smart with mortal opinions about time limitations of imaginations that you lack timelessness the bible stories about another worlds of immortals can't be projected by natural time emontions never can be understood by outside just smoldering eternal spark never born but you need it to. Eccl simple if I AM dreams in time chases vanities of life spans fades away so you will be reborn body flesh blood till light is woke then your God one body one power we all inherit so good luck in time tables crumbs.
I think you're misunderstanding his argument. The reliability he's referring is not reality of its content but documental variability. That means, he didn't argue whether the miracles or events in the NT had actually happened & described correctly, instead the documents in the NT was not what the original authors had written. Also, by reversing his argument, we have criterion to determine the reliability of the text. that is 1) Comparing with Original manuscript. If we have "the very first manuscript", we can determine how the NT have been changed. 2) Comparing with the oldest manuscripts. the olde it gets, the less insertions, alterations, mistakes in document, so we can determine how much the NT had been changed since. 3) Comparing with various documents. When the copyist A altered a particular sentence but copyist B didn't, we have two alternate versions. And if you copy A document, your document contains A's alteration, but if we copy B's, we don't have A's alteration. As these difference is accumulated, we have "the NT version of the tree of evolution". by comparing various documents of these variants, we can estimate the step-by-step sequence of how the NT has been altered through time and, conversely, what has not been changed (very likely portion of the original).
It's always good to remain that we don't know who wrote the Gospels. The authors do not identify themselves at all and wrote in a different language than the one Jesus and his disciples spoke. The older the manuscript the bigger the differences between the copies.
He is wrong, the Assention of Isaiah dates between 75 and 125 ad, it mentions Jesus being born of a virgin, his atonement and resurrection. He sits at the right hand of God while the Holy Spirit sits on the left.
@fordprefect5304 The Assention of Isaiah is an apocryphal text written or dating to between 70 AD to 175 AD. So just 40 years after the death of Christ. Now it may have been written by the small sect of Jews who were following John the Baptist and looking for their Messiah, putting it into the mouth of Isaiah. It could actually be from Isaiah but removed by the Deuteronomist and scribes who killed the prophets. They didn't want to hear anything about a suffering Messiah. They killed John's the Baptist father because he was preaching about the coming Messiah. In any case it mentions Jesus, his virgin birth, his death and resurrection at least within 40 to 70 years after his death.
@@NancyBrown-xw8hg So? 40 years later? Deut was written from the 3rd to 7th centuries. Isiah was written in the 8th century. Are there any eyewitnesses?
16 дней назад
@@NancyBrown-xw8hg " it mentions Jesus" that's a lie
The heart of Christianity is entering into a personal relationship with the risen savior, Jesus Christ. My only questions for Dr Ehrman are: did you ever place your faith in Jesus as your savior, and, if so, what did Jesus do to you that would move you to deny him all these years later?
Sorry, but imaginary friends are not real. 🙄 Bart believed he had a relationship way back when, until he realized it was all based on a fraud, then he could no longer believe. This has happened to MANY people.
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Bart is really cooking here. Respect for reason. Thank you.
Clearly and without a doubt, the process of writing, compiling, copying, and determining what was and was not to be included in the Bible was a human process.
and evolved from previous human created religions
no. read " evidence that demands a verdict" by josh mcdowell and books by lee strobel.
Whoever said it wasn't? What Christians hold is that it was humans who did all of that, with certain men accomplishing the writing and the canonization under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit.
@jimnewl um your last sentence
@@jimnewl And is there any way to objectively test that? Nope.
Bart, you are a genius!
Wishing/Believing that something is true is far removed from the reality of the existence of that thing. Repeating the misconception a thousand times doesn't add to its credibility.
In his thunderous and brilliant delivery her forgot the MOST IMPORTANT thing. Mark's gospel had NO post-resurrection appearances. None. The long ending of Mark (which included such appearances) HAD to be added much later. Why???? Because they never happened. It was part of the legend. Plain and simple.
Mark's representation of Jesus' last moments on the cross are also DRAMATICALLY different from the Gospels that followed -- especially John. In Mark (and Matthew, which largely copied Mark), he's painfully shouting Psalm 22, expressing a very HUMAN emotion of being abandoned by 'God.' But in John, he's quietly and calmly expressing his acceptance of his divine mission.
In fact, if you take Bart's advice and read the earliest gospels like Mark side-by-side with the latest gospel, John, the multitude of differences will be so dramatic you'll begin to wonder if they're even telling the same story.
nonsense. the other 3 gospels already mentioned it anyway. you don't know what mark had or hadn't. that's just speculation on your part. don't be satisfied with just ehrmans stuff, watch his detractors too.
@@racerx4152 The other 3 gospels were written after Mark was written. Matthew and Luke use Mark as their source.
@@racerx4152 You lie. mark is the source for Matthew and Luke, written a decade or more later.
Such nonsense - Mark is the source as others have said.
The argument that the manuscript errors don't affect essential doctrine is silly because one of the essential doctrines is that god has apparently preserved his word through Scripture. And if all essential doctrines rest on Scripture, then Christians have a problem.
Well, god is on his third do over. Pretty silly for a supposedly all knowing, seeing, and powerful god, don't you think? They have lots of problems it seems.
Who ever said that bibles is the literal word of God? If that Christians believe then why put names like Mark John Luke etc as the author they should have put God as the author. The fact that Gospels have author names in them proves Christians do not believe they are literal words of God. The Bibles are inspired words of God. So discrepancies are ok as long as the main message is the same
@@antoniussukardi9029 What a ridiculous comment. Where exactly does the Bible say it is "inspired" again? Plus, do you even realize that your supposedly all powerful god is using a really stupid way to communicate? You actually just said he deliberately created a flawed system to communicate to people. Do you even read what you write?
@@antoniussukardi9029 If the bible isn't literally accurate you have to pick and choose which parts are accurate and there is no objective criteria for doing so, just your feels. BTW the bible "messages" are very inconsistent.
That’s right, simply disregard the manuscripts and original languages the Bible comes from and imprison yourself in your perceived enlightenment.
How is an anonymous author, writing decades after the events, in a language not spoken by those supposedly present an “eyewitness”?
they don't claim to be eyewitnesses, or even identify themselves.
That is correct, but most Christians claim they are. Mostly as a faith statement, not as a knowledge one.
So your brilliant analysis is that it would destroy my claim to being an eyewitness for me to witness something as a young man and then write about it as an older man in whatever language I chose to write about it in? This is what passes for critical thought amongst you people?
@ it’s an appeal to what is most likely. The earliest gospel, Mark, is written in schooled Greek and the earliest dating is 50ad, though some date it later. Mark did not claim to be an eyewitness (none of the gospel authors do) and mostly wrote with direct, seemingly intentional allegory to Moses and the other OT prophets, used parable and presented a rather mundane Jesus with no resurrection. Matthew came decades later, borrowed a huge amount from the first gospel and added additional legend such as the birth narrative, which has almost nothing in common with the second birth narrative in Luke, which came later and also contained a huge amount from the original gospel. The gospel of John dates to over a century after the claimed events and presents the most mythic version of Jesus. Is it likely that a person witnessed magical events, waited five decades to record them after going to university (despite being an illiterate peasant) and then miraculously remembered the exact words and actions that occurred those decades past? This in light of our knowledge of the fallibility of memory? We know now that people are mistaken in their memories mere hours after the event to be recalled, yet somehow these exist as “eyewitness” accounts recorded decades later in the author’s non-native language and in a way that indicates a high level of education, despite that only being accessible by the rich elites? You have very great faith. Not evidence, mind you, but a great ability to believe despite the overwhelming evidence against your position.
@@jimnewl Memories are unreliable, and there is plenty of research to back up that statement. But that didn't even happen for the bible. No one who wrote it was an eye witness. Claiming SOMEONE ELSE lacks critical thought is the last thing you should be doing.
That this explanation is required is in itself a statement of the ignorance in the US.
As an American I disgustedly agree. We are becoming fat and stupid.
@@danielpaulson8838 - As an Australian, I think it applies to us and most of the world unfortunately, not just the US.
@ Thanks, we got so much Trump funk it’s hard to see how bad the rest of the over evolving, ignorant and fearful apes are outside our boarders. I guess a few of us see it, but not enough to stop it.
@@johnferguson4089 Sad to know. So Trumps panty lickers are reaction to over population and is a global phenomena.
@@johnferguson4089 Sad state of humanity. The cart is going to tip because evolution is driving us and most of the world denies evolution.
Dr Bart is a lot more reliable to his peers.
Bart took 30 years of study to come to the same conclusion I did when I was a young person...
Levels of indoctrination when young make a big difference.
You belied it but he proved it
The difference is you had a hunch and this guy Ehrman proved his hunch by doing research
@@Benjamin-jo4rf nah the difference is I learned science while he was learning religion. Science says dead guys don't come back to life.
Then how come nobody comes to you when they need an expert answer? 😊
Bart is such a beast, I’ve studied his work and he has opened my mind. Get his book the lost scriptures, and gospel of Judas. All I can say is WOW. We are at a turning event on the horizon
Lol try to keep it in your pants, please. When Bart is dead and gone, nothing whatsoever will have changed.
"But reliable enough for Bart to glean innumerable historical facts and quotes"
copies of copies of copies of copies
and no copy machine
If you visit Nazareth you can have lunch at the café where Jesus and his disciples had the last supper. The ignorance is strong.
😂😂Why even bother? We know it's not reliable because, it's not written in Aramaic, the language that the disciples spoke. It was written 2000 miles away in Asia Minor and Greece. With the names of people who are randomly chosen European, rather than Palestinians. Then it said it's inspired by God, but they provide conflicting testimony. Then it has pagan narratives of sacrificing the innocent to appease God, including Greek mythology, God impregnates earth girl, to create a son who also goes to heaven becomes fully God, then you got sun worship practices, including polytheism, couched in monotheism.... It's a Swiss army knife of religions.
😂😂😂😂😂
Not only we don’t have the originals, we don’t even know who wrote them! 😂
I like it when Bart Ehrman lets it all out. And I always learn something new from him.
Having read most of Dr. Ehrman's books and other writings, I believe I can help you understand the nuance of what he is saying. Theology is faith. History is fact. Please do not conflate them.
Doesn’t matter. Even if it was 100% accurate, it would still not prove existence of Christian god
read it, pray about it, seek god, then make your decision.
@@racerx4152 The same could be said about any religion if you are gullible. You just talk yourself into believing what you wanted to believe anyway.
its a book ... of stories and lies ... written by humans ... with agendas ... and very little technology ... so lets invent god ... lmao. If aliens ever visited and they saw the amount of religious rubbish going on they would disappear very quickly imho.
"god is a concept by which we measure our pain" John Lennon.... makes more sense than anything I ever read in the Bible which I have read from beginning to end 3 times🤔🤔🤔 4:22
Trying to explain the blindingly obvious an Apologist, is like trying to explain something to a belligerent toddler.
its the same problem with quran.. quran is not any better than the bible
You could have the originals, and you would still have zero proof regarding the miracles performed or Jesus' divinity.
Logically correct, though having the original manuscripts would at least create a level playing field, so to speak, so we could see what the actual positions were, being put forward by the largely anonymous authors. It would simplify and resolve a good bit of uncertainty with regard to the accuracy of the text. But yeah, not necessarily a basis for proof, as we understand it.
And we know the autographs are not inerrant either. Not only do they contradict each other, but almost every time the New Testament quotes the Old Testament, it’s using the Greek Septuagint translation. This has the New Testament asserting things about the Old Testament that aren’t true, like Matthew having Jesus ride two animals, or Acts having James quote a verse about conquering Edom as if it meant that the Gentiles would seek God.
I suppose it’s possible that a well-meaning scribe added the verses and “fixed” the text, but if that’s the case they did so inconsistently. The two animals example only happens in Matthew even though all four gospels have the story.
For an atheist, Bart has a vast knowledge of Christianity, as I have read one of his books and watched two DVD series from The Great Courses. However, he makes poor conclusions about this material, and this has gotten worse in recent years.
A thought just entered my head, if Jesus died for my 'sins' then I don't have any responsibility for what I do. I could go running around like an idiot because Jesus has paid for and taken all my sins away. That's what the church taught me but the idea removes all responsibility for being a decent human being from me. That idea sounds stupid!
an excellent question: " ... if God has inspired the Bible without error, why hasn't He preserved the Bible with errors?" one good answer, is the inerrancy of the Bible lies in the transcriptional errors do not contradicts the basic theological teachings and claims of Jesus. i believe history has proven this to be true.
There were, indeed, thousands of transcriptional errors, to which Dr. Ehrman agrees. So, how has history proved the premise that errors do not contradict the basic theological teachings and claims? I don't think that hits the mark. Certainly, it is self-serving that Chrisitan religions accept the Bible, in spite of historical contradictions, errors, or problems. Otherwise, there would be no Christianity. So, of course, history "proves" this to be true, because Christianity is still extant. Note that Dr. Ehrman, in fact, pointed out several theological positions in the NT that were added later in variant texts (to say nothing about the additions at the end of Mark. These are not things one runs across in the Bible or in Church sermons, of course. People will believe what they want, unless or until something personal affects them enough to make them reconsider their beliefs. Belief is a powerful force in humans that often disregards facts and contradiction. Still, it is an interesting question to ponder.
That be a lot of "harumph" by Bart. Dont think Ive ever seen this clip but he "blew them away".
I am a big, big believer in Jesus. I have conducted my own personal “Gospel Research” for over 35 years”.
--- Although Dr. Ehrman’s arguments have merits, and there is solid reason to call the New Testament “not Reliable”, I respectfully disagree with Dr. Ehrman’s statement, “I don’t know of a way to know (what is accurate), and I’ve never seen a good explanation.”
--- What I bring to the Table that Dr. Ehrman does not bring to the Table, is that I am a dyed-in-the-wool “Conspiracy Dude”, starting when I first saw the “Zapruder Film” shown on Nationwide TV in March, 1975.
--- I ABSOLUTELY AGREE with Dr. Ehrman, that “There is no doubt, that Jesus was the most important person in the History of Western Civilization.” I call Jesus, “The Greatest and Most Important Messenger in Universe History”.
WHAT TO BELIEVE.
--- Unlike Dr. Ehrman, I find it EASY to choose “What to Believe” in the Gospels. The “General Rule of Thumb”: When Gospels CONFLICT with each other, the Verse MOST EMBARRASSING to the Church, is the AUTHENTIC Verse.
--- On 13 Aug 2024, I published a 65-minute RUclips Video titled, “The Gospels were OFFICIAL REPORTS to COVER-UP the "REAL Jesus Story".
--- In my 13 Aug Video, I explain my reasons for CHOOSING what to believe in the so-called “Gospels”.
Dr. Ehrman described Christian Apologists as saying, “The New Testament is the best attested Book in Antiquity, and therefore, you can trust it.”
--- As a “Conspiracy Dude”, I counter-argue to the Apologists, “The New Testament is the best attested Book in Antiquity, and therefore, you CANNOT trust it.”
--- It is my belief, that the three Synoptic Gospels were not written by Matthew, Mark, and Luke, but were written by COMMITTEES, with Matthew, Mark, and Luke, as respective “Committee Chairmen”. SAME AS TODAY, NUTHIN’ CHANGED.
--- The REASON that the Committees were COMMISSIONED, was to “Fact Check” the Jesus story. SAME AS TODAY, NUTHIN’S CHANGED.
--- As with ALL “Officially Commissioned Reports”, such as the “Warren Commission Report” and the “9/11 Official Report”, the REAL PURPOSE of the Committees, was to COVER-UP the “REAL Jesus Story”, JUST LIKE the “Warren Commission Report” and the “9/11 Commission Report”. SAME AS TODAY, NUTHIN’S CHANGED.
Dr. Ehrman described the story of the Female “Caught in Adultery”, described in John, Ch 8, v1-11.
--- John, Ch 8, v1-11, WERE NOT WRITTEN BY JOHN! John, Ch 8, v1-11, were a “KNOWN AUTHENTIC” Story, that Early Church Fathers just plopped in the middle of John, so that the Controversial, so-called “Gospel of John”, would be included in the New Testament Canon.
--- In my long-lost RSV, John 8:1-11 were a FOOTNOTE.
--- From the Wikipedia Article, “John 8”: “Verses 1-11, along with John 7:53, form a pericope which is missing from some ancient Greek manuscripts…”
HOW IS IT POSSIBLE, for John 8:1-11, to be “Known” and “Authentic”?????
--- The ONLY WAY for John 8:1-11 to be “Known” and “Authentic”, is that the story HAD TO HAVE ORIGINATED, from “Records of an Official Proceeding”, in other words, “Jesus’ TRIAL”.
--- It makes PERFECT SENSE for John 8:1-11 to have originated from “Jesus’ Trial”, when the Jewish Religious Authorities, were attempting to convict Jesus of “heresy”, for REFUSING to obey “Mosaic Law”, by NOT stoning the female to death.
--- One of the most profound verses in the Bible is “Let he who without sin cast the first stone,” however, it is my belief that John 8:7, is not EXACTLY what Jesus said, because “he who is without sin” makes ABSOLUTELY ZERO SENSE.
--- It is my belief that Jesus said something that DID make sense: “Let he who has not COMMITTED ADULTERY, cast the first stone.” Jesus was divorced and remarried, rendering Jesus to be a “Mosaic Law Adulterer”, in Jesus’ own definition. It is my belief that ALL Jesus talk of “marriage, divorce, and adultery”, HAD TO HAVE OCCURRED during Jesus’ Trial, but the “Gospels” FORGOT to mention that detail.
Dr. Ehrman’s scripture about “Snake Handling” is OBVIOUSLY FAKE SCRIPTURE, to be REJECTED.
--- All “Bible Scholars” know, that Mark 16:8, is the LAST AUTHENTIC VERSE in Mark, in which the three females “…said nothing to anyone, for they were afraid.”
--- ALL extant so-called “Endings” to Mark, have to be FAKE, because they CONFLICT with the last AUTHENTIC Ending. Either Mary “said nothing to anyone”, or Mary “went and told those who had been with him (Jesus)”. Both Verses CANNOT be true.
--- There WAS an “Authentic Ending” to Mark, AFTER Mark 16:8, but NOBODY KNOWS WHAT IT SAID (Probably a copy in the Vatican Archive.).
--- I do not know the General Contents of Mark’s “Authentic Ending”, but if an “Authentic Ending” is ever revealed, I DO KNOW what the very last verse of the “Authentic Ending” will say.
--- The very last Verse of the “Authentic Ending” will say, “The END of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.”
--- HINT: Mark 1:1 - “The BEGINNING of THE Gospel of Jesus Christ…” If you’re gonna have a POINTER at the beginning of “THE” Gospel (“THE” as in SINGULAR), then you’re gonna have a pointer at the end too.
You researched nothing but stories. It's like saying I researched Hamlet or Harry Potter. What is it you believe about Jesus? That he was the superpowered son of an all-powerful wizard, but he had to die because Adam and Eve ate a fruit?
Your ignorance is sad.
@@oldpossum57
Hi oldpossum57! Thanks for the Comment!
--- oldpossum57, my HIGHLY RESEARCHED “Ignorance”, is also FRIGHTENING. My response to Spiritof_76 already got DELETED! Ain’t nuthin’ new.
--- oldpossum57, have a Great Day, and Happy New Year!
Rock
I love Dr. Ehrman, and I particularly love him when he's on a tear like this, and not his more conversational giggling self. The giggling is just too distracting! More angry, forceful Ehrman is all I'm saying...🙂
why are those 2 dudes standing there looking awkward in the middle of the stage? are they the subs bench?
Because of competing churches trying to get their doctrines and interpretations accepted over other churches?
We don,t have to go back far in history to know that they cooked the books . Simply because not long ago they change the prayer that God himself showed us how to pray . Does it not say in the book ( bible ) not to change even one coma of that book . Yes he did !
Fair question: if, as we know, that all the stories of miracles and resurrections HAD to be made up, does it really matter if subsequent story tellers made stuff up? This isn’t a collection of historical accounts. It is a folk tales about an. It is common property. Any one can change it.
@ Good to know , that I can change the bible , not that I would not interested , but I just don’t,t like being lied to. 🤝🫡👍
@@Bluets023 As I said, the OT and NT are collections of folk history, folk tales, folk wisdom, tribal laws, tales of wonder, tales of prodigies, mystical inventions.
Why insist that they be “unchanging”? The people who created and compiled the stories did not have a sense of factual history.
In the Marvel Universe, or the DC Universe, you can create new story lines, and even explore story lines that appear to co “contradict” the “Bible” of previously created plots and characters. Why not? It is fiction.
Unlike Marvel and DC comics, no one owns copyright over the OT and NT. People wrote new stuff constantly in the early centuries. Joseph Smith doubled the content in the 19th c.
No one can lie to you because it is fiction.
new testament and old testament , both fiction , who cares
does anyone hear dr. bart ehrman's plead for an answer which plagues us all: how do we know that God exist? And if God exist, then we know His writings would have be preserved without errors! who in the right mind could disagree with this statement except for the fact that errancy in the Holy Scriptures is two fold: 1) the errors are translational and 2) although translational, the teachings and claims of Jesus remain consistent. translational errancy proves consistency. one man's account disagrees with an man's account but both accounts agree to Jesus' claim to be The Son of God and God Himself in the flesh.
The errors are more than translational, there is editing and additions. Repeating stories, even if it was the same story, over centuries tells us nothing of the truth.
@@jns8393editing additions? but do these "additions" change the message of the Gospel or the historical evidence of Christ's Resurrection or the founding beliefs that forge the u.s. constitution? please state an addition that changes the basic core belief of the Gospel message to repent of sin and believe Jesus is the Son of God-Resurrected. i do prayer for dr. ehrman's salvation and do respect his accomplishments.
@jd-gw4gr The US constitution is not founded on Christianity, in fact it provides freedom of religion and, theoretically as it turns out, separation of church and state.
There are only accounts of the ressurection, not tangible evidence, unless you would like to provide it.
I didn't and don't claim any flaws or contradictions change the core belief. Again, that lack of change tells us nothing of the truth. As you yourself suggest, it's simply a belief that belief has been propagated over centuries. Being convinced of something doesn't make it true.
@@jns8393 there is no comment on the founding fathers requiring in the law baptism for citizenship?
@jd-gw4gr what's with the irrelevant distraction that has nothing to do with the truth of bible content? What is tangentially relevant though is the ten commandments do not form the basis of the Constitution or enshrined in law.
Very interesting. I wonder what the manuscript ARE together on.
the attestation is not 1000 years later, as Christ's Resurrection was three days later!
The King James Bible has power.. it's God's word and God magnifies his word above his own name Psalm 132:8 KJV. When you change words, doctrine changes, context changes, you lose cross-references, and you lose the blessing of studying every mention of a word in its context for the full definition. That's called full mention... Also important is first mention and final mention word studies. You're really missing out on God opening up the Bible to you by believing the lie that it has to be dumbed down for you to understand rather than living by faith and asking God to open your eyes to his precious word.
Dr. Craig apparently thinks that Jesus wants him to lie to people to get them to believe
Jesus stopped wanting anything over 2000 years ago, if he even existed. Deceased people want nothing.
Ehrman is what happens to a fundamentalist when he finds out his original superstitions aren't true, they totally lose it and can't get over it. Then that was before he made a bundle of money off of telling stupid, ignorant people what non-fundamentalists knew from the earliest years of Christianity. The Bible is an idol to people like he was and when it proves not to be one, they lose religion entirely.
Erhman provides a good public service. If he had a profitable chain of burger restaurants-contributing to the obesity and malnutrition of Americans and to the destruction of the climate by increasing GHG-you wouldn’t complain.
Living in Canada, it is obvious everyday how ignorant Protestant fundamentalists have been co-opted by the GOP. Told that they get to set social policy, they have happily allowed the GOP to cut taxes on the uber wealthy since 1980, resulting in the worst inequality of wealth in the world’s history. (You really have to hand it to the GOP: they did the ground battle since 1972, never losing sight of their goals.) Today, with the enthusiastic support of white fundamentalist Protestants and extremist Catholics, we have seen the end of abortion and reproductive rights for women, and are about to see the end of public schools, unions, environmental legislation, lgbtq rights, civil rights for black and brown people, gun control laws, public health care (ACA, Medicare , Medicaid), SNAP, the rule of law and likely democratic voting (as Trump promised Florida supporters last summer)
And all the while that all this is destroyed, the white Protestant voters will be proud to have preserved their « Freedumb ».
Religious people are trained from childhood in tolerance of extreme cognitive dissonance. They are trained to believe nonsense.
In trying to show them that what they have been told to believe is nonsense, Erhman performs a good public service.
Barts on a rampage here.
Secular fire and brimstone.
To believe or not believe in the Bible is the greatest question in the world for Mankind.
nope. only about a third of humans even believe in the bible. science couldn't care less about the bible.
Christianity is only practiced by 31% of the worlds population. The majority of the planet could care less about the Bible.
@edward - Why?
Couldn't you say the same thing about any "holy" book?
To manage the reality of life and death or not is the question that should be asked. Abrahamic religions don’t really guide people. They become behavioral excuses and psychological band aids. They require members to believe what makes them feel better and deny the reality that does not.
@greglogan7706 Yes, we can say that about any holy book.
Wish Bart did not yell so loudly ...also he needs to lower his octave scale.. way too high.
The Spirit of God had come upon him....
I was thinking the same thing throughout. I love Bart's thoroughness and professionalism, but he does get carried away sometimes with his vocal register.
Yeah. His faith in himself is strong.
@@jimtussing As I hope would be the case for ALL of us, no?
@@roadtoreason3368 Of course. To an extent. He has poor self-control and high self-esteem. Just my opinion. Peace.
God might have made a digital copy and downloaded it to our DNA and we just have not learned to read yet
I hope you're not being serious
First century church leaders appear to have thought that historical precision was not important, at least up to a grey line. Telling stories about Jesus was important. If people told them differently, so what? They relied on the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Prof. Kenneth Bailey has written well about this in his article on informal controlled oral tradition, which JDG Dunn comments positively on.
So the Holy Spirit caused conflicting accounts of the Gospels?
It looks that way, doesn't it? This is most troubling if we expect the authors to use our standards when telling the stories.
@@jimmetcalf6408 How do you know that conflicting accounts was acceptable back in those times?
The Gospels reveal that conflictng testimonies were not acceptable, if you read the accounts when Jesus was on trial and it makes reference to his accusers having conflicting testimonies
“Not reliable”…you mean beyond the obvious?
No, it means made up nonsense!
The New Testament says that Yahweh had a son after his Temple in Jerusalem was destroyed for the second time. The son was a sacrifice that removed the curse that Yahweh placed on humanity for their disobedience. Now you only have to believe it to avoid eternal punishment.
Just remember that the bible has been written and rewritten so many times
No the professors at Moody did not believe that. They changed the Bible and pulled people away from the KJV
People do not die for a lie. If everything is made up then either everyone is a fool in the years after Jesus died, or it is true about Jesus and heaven is real. Yes there are inconsistencies throughout the Bible, yes is doesn’t make sense, but there is something about people dying for a cause or a belief. Yes people die for many stupid reasons, however That messes with my . head - just saying
Plenty of people die for a lie. Ashli Babbitt did. Heaven's Gate cult members did. Military people in the Gulf War did (no nuclear weapons of mass destruction hidden in Iraq.) 9/11 flyers did (72 virgins in heaven, really?) That's just a few instances. "People do not die for a lie" is a weak-ass assertion that should be flushed down the toilet.
Let's ask the trade tower terrorists if people die for lies...
Oh wait!
We can't!
Why is that my fellow ape?
First, People do die for lies. They do it all the time.
And second, we have no evidence that any of the supposed disciples of jesus died for their beliefs. If some but not all Emperors of Rome later took a violent revenge against cultists who refused to worship the Emperor-cults that included both Christian cults and other cults-that was simply because the christians were fanatics.
My argument.
First point: a simple example.
The G. W. Bush WH made up a story about weapons of mass Destruction to convince Americans and America’s allies to invade Iraq. These WMD did not exist. Staunch USA allies such as France, Germany, Canada, NZ refused to support the invasion because, loathsome and murderous as the Saddam Hussein regime was-the claim of WDM was clearly manufactured. 4500 American military personnel, 1500 American contractors, 200 Allied soldiers, and 600,000 Iraqis civilians were killed.
All around the world, including in America, people demanded to see what evidence Bush had. Three million showed up to a protest in France-the biggest anti-war protest in human history. There were protests across America. No one went into this Invasion thinking 100% that the rational was true.
Second, according to your own story book, the death of only one disciple is recorded. (It is the only source for this story, which means historians can’t take it as likely to be true.) According to your story book, Herod Agrippa has James the brother of John executed. We are not told WHY in the storybook. The storybook says nothing about the other disciples. We should presume they died of disease-like accessed teeth- or old age. Yes there are stories and legends made up long after the first century about the “martyrdom” of various disciples. These are legends. If there is any truth to them, we could not tell, because there is no way to separate truth from fiction in legends. Did the Christians make stuff up for centuries to “improve” their magical stories? Absolutely! They are still at it today.
The people who flew the planes into the WTC on 9/11 thought they were dying for the truth
'people die for many stupid reasons' and that includes dying for a lie. What anyone is convinced of does not make it true.
check mate.
This is when you wanna believe something other than the Bible. Give me a break!
The bible is make-believe!
The Bible is a collection folk tales about an imaginary god. It has no purpose, it adds nothing to human understanding.
People quote him all the time in Favour of the reliability of the NT.
"...reliability of the NT."
let's test that assertion, shall we?
who is Joseph the Carpenter's father according to the NT?
@@Model3GenerativeANdroid What is the claim that I made?
They quote him when they need an authority and source for the historicity of Jesus, since he like most scholars accept that Jesus was a historical figure. I'm an atheist and watch a lot of Bart Ehrman, he's good, and is a threat to Christians especially younger ones. Hence why Christians often try to refute him.
What year was Jesus born
Mathew says 4BCE
Luke says 6CE
@@nickydaviesnsdpharms3084 and his arguments for historicity are lame. Tacitus? lol
Hundreds of thousands of mistakes? Really?
Yes, thousands coipies, each having hundreds of mistakes. Most of them misspellings and points of grammar - but many, like the ones Ehrman cited, are crucial to the nature of the religion.
@@flaneur5560the problem is Bart invented the mistake(Contradictions in the 4 gospel) and he ignored the footnotes
All Contradictions Bart Ehrman find had been Debunks, they all refute Bart Ehrman argument but he ignores, he favourite is the added verse of the Gospel but it wasn't added is just the earliest manuscript reject the verse
The KJV quoted from the oldest Scripture of the Gospel
@NailTouze-l2k Where did Mary & Joseph take the baby Jesus after Bethlehem?
Yup.
Dr. Ammon Hilman , He is genius .
Any competent attorney should be able to take apart and destroy Erhmann's arguments! To begin with, the premise of his argument is misplaced. His intellectual arrogance gets the most of him!
read " misquoting truth" ; a guide to the fallacies of bart ehrman's misquoting jesus. by timothy paul jones.
Which argument does it use? People refuting this stuff almost always use one of 3:
1: Contradictions in the Bible can always be explained by inventing wildly implausible scenarios not in evidence. When in doubt, insist that it must have happened twice.
2: Goal post moving that biblical inerrancy doesn’t mean that there won’t be minor mistakes. Point out that the vast majority of errors are minor spelling/grammar mistakes and pretend that none of them alter meaning. Appeal to the thousands of manuscripts that agree with each other and don’t mention that they’re all from the second millennium and disagree wildly with earlier manuscripts.
3: Point out that none of the textual variants will affect church doctrine, which is true. This is because church doctrine is not Bible-based. Plenty of things the church believes are not in the Bible, and some of those beliefs already contradict the Bible. So what’s one more contradiction?
The concept of someone dying for my sins is unique to Christianity - but more than happy to be proven wrong!
The concept of someone dying for my sins is disgusting
Especially since this same god is responsible for the existence of "sin".
That a concept is unique doesn’t demonstrate that it is true
And sin disgusts God!
@@User58747 another claim offered without evidential support
KJV bible, Proverbs 9:10, wisdom
Revelation 2:17, I received a white stone, it just mysteriously appeared in my KJV bible,
John 14:26🕊14:6🌹3:3-5💧repent
Matthew 10:28, hell
Shalom
Can’t quote the Bible to prove the Bible. Can’t quote the Bible to prove Jack shit.
Ehrman is exaggerating, again. The fundamental teachings are not in question, no matter how loudly Ehrman says otherwise.
A religious faith and conception of an imaginary god are not on firm footing if based on sand. Mather 7 will tell you that. There is no rock.
Dr. Ehrman did not specifically claim that. Instead, he pointed to a variety of theological statements/positions that were added later, over time in various copies that wound up in our current Bible. So his examples are based on the proposition that, if you removed them from the Bible, do they change what the Bible has to say or how we think about the teachings? And if so, to what extent? Dr. Ehrman puts that in as a thought experiment, if you wish.
God did it this way as a test, which Bart has failed spendidly.
No god did anything outside of fictional stories.
No, man made it this way for personal gain and attributed it to a fictional god.
Ehrman lost his way with his loss of faith...he now looks for problems in scripture to justify it. I'd rather read the lives of the saints....
Faith is the worst way possible to truth!
@johnheaton5058, I think that you have the wrong position here. He is not looking for problems to justify his loss of faith. As he pointed out, it was critical reading of the Bible that helped move him in that direction. Dr. Ehrman is like most all (Biblical) scholars who study ancient texts. It isn't a matter of going in (presuppositionally) to look for errors; it is a matter of and deciding what they mean when you find them, and how they impact the text or relate to other texts. Scholars are trained to analyze, question, and seek answers. They are not pushing a theology and are not priests. So, continue reading the saints. Have you ever read The Golden Legend (Legenda Auria) by Voragine?
Ehrman is hardly qualified to refute real scholars.
Ha! As if Princeton Theological Seminary isn't "real" enough. Idiotic comment, sorry.
If by hardly qualified, you mean one of the most renowned biblical scholars with proper university degrees behind him then yeah, sure😂
You don't need the originals you have a King James bible. God's holy word. The King James Bible has no mistakes.
LOL! Good one! 🤣
No mistakes compared to what?
This is old and has been easily debunked
Yes, the bible is old and debunked.
No, it is not « easily debunked » by rational means. Can devoted fanatics stand on their heads and do « pretzel logic » to shore up the disintegrated remains of their foundation. Not really…but they can try!
Reminds me of the LDS guys who continue to say that the languages of the indigenous peoples of N. America are Semitic, and that somewhere in Central America we will find the evidence of indigenous peoples with Middle eastern genomes.
White Dove, when your team gets beaten like a gong, you line up and congratulate the other team, wish them well. Your team just got beaten like a rented mule.
There is evidence for a historical JC
But it's very secret evidence. Nobody has ever seen it.
My mistake in keying the comment. There is no historical evidence for JC.
Jesus of Christianity is not a Nature's God, Jesus of Christianity is a Supernatural Superhero, just like Superman, Spiderman, Luke Skywalker, all Supernatural Superheroes.
So why can we write that Jesus is not a Nature's God and is a Supernatural Superhero, like other human created story characters?
Story Analogy evidence.
Why do we think that the stories of humans landing on the moon from 1969 to 1972 are true? Because of all the knowledge of flying by the Astronauts, Knowledge of orbital mechanics, rockets and space craft from Scientists and Engineers and all the money spent on it, and the companies to build all the stuff.
For Jesus to come back from the dead 3 days after dying, Jesus would have to have knowledge of blood, skin, the heart, lungs, digestion, immune systems, kidneys, etc.. Then Jesus to be moral would have to tell humans about natural ways to prevent illnesses and diseases. Does Jesus tell us the value of sanitation, cleanliness, sterilization, inoculation and medication? Then have knowledge of Chemistry, Organic Chemistry, Physics, etc.. Did Jesus tell us anything about that? Then if Jesus was a God who created everything, that Jesus would have to know Geology, Nuclear Star Fusion, Mathematics, etc. Does Jesus give us any idea that he would know about that? Then look at Jesus's economics. Having poor people give stuff to other poor people. Wouldn't a God know about creating wealth and making stuff? Jesus is just not a God. You could get away with it in the ancient age and the middle age, but the Christianity should be shown to not be true by the modern age.
Just to be accurate, there _is_ historical evidence (scant though it may be) for Jesus, son of Joseph. There is absolutely NO historical evidence whatsoever for Jesus "Christ."
Nomenclature is important.
Not much. There are no official records of him. No independent references until 95 CE…and these are dubious!
It is not necessary to do so, but it simplifies matters if we assume that there was an intierant preacher of an immanent apocalypse who was called Yeshua, a pretty common name. It is well known that the Romans detested all the Jews and found them hard to rule over. We know that they regularly executed nuisances. To be charitable, if you want your preacher to have been executed, we can give you that. But there is no record of the execution.
No secular historian accepts any of the stories about physically impossible miracles or resurrections in your story book, or anyone else’s story book. To treat your story book differently than Quran or Vedic stories would be unprofessional.
Since the compositors of your story book present miracles and resurrections as true, we know they are untrustworthy, as they cannot tell fact from fiction.
In many cases, they present stories they could not have witnessed: the nativity narratives, the goings on in Pilate’s Palace, etc. These are fiction, but presented as facts.
They had no means to accurately record speech, but they have long speeches that subsequent people treat as verbatim, and base theology on.
So sorry, but your story book is a collection of historical fantasies. Like Game of Thrones.
Your very smart with mortal opinions about time limitations of imaginations that you lack timelessness the bible stories about another worlds of immortals can't be projected by natural time emontions never can be understood by outside just smoldering eternal spark never born but you need it to. Eccl simple if I AM dreams in time chases vanities of life spans fades away so you will be reborn body flesh blood till light is woke then your God one body one power we all inherit so good luck in time tables crumbs.
What?
So, what flavor dressing do you prefer with your word salad?
Nothing is reliable if you don’t believe it in the first place. You have no idea who the author was or His capabilities. It makes all the difference.
It makes zero difference. we can read the bible for ourselves. it's garbage.
I think you're misunderstanding his argument. The reliability he's referring is not reality of its content but documental variability. That means, he didn't argue whether the miracles or events in the NT had actually happened & described correctly, instead the documents in the NT was not what the original authors had written.
Also, by reversing his argument, we have criterion to determine the reliability of the text. that is
1) Comparing with Original manuscript. If we have "the very first manuscript", we can determine how the NT have been changed.
2) Comparing with the oldest manuscripts. the olde it gets, the less insertions, alterations, mistakes in document, so we can determine how much the NT had been changed since.
3) Comparing with various documents. When the copyist A altered a particular sentence but copyist B didn't, we have two alternate versions. And if you copy A document, your document contains A's alteration, but if we copy B's, we don't have A's alteration. As these difference is accumulated, we have "the NT version of the tree of evolution". by comparing various documents of these variants, we can estimate the step-by-step sequence of how the NT has been altered through time and, conversely, what has not been changed (very likely portion of the original).
It's always good to remain that we don't know who wrote the Gospels. The authors do not identify themselves at all and wrote in a different language than the one Jesus and his disciples spoke. The older the manuscript the bigger the differences between the copies.
He is wrong, the Assention of Isaiah dates between 75 and 125 ad, it mentions Jesus being born of a virgin, his atonement and resurrection. He sits at the right hand of God while the Holy Spirit sits on the left.
Isaiah says nothing about Jesus. The passage refers to Israel not Jesus.
@fordprefect5304
The Assention of Isaiah is an apocryphal text written or dating to between 70 AD to 175 AD. So just 40 years after the death of Christ.
Now it may have been written by the small sect of Jews who were following John the Baptist and looking for their Messiah, putting it into the mouth of Isaiah.
It could actually be from Isaiah but removed by the Deuteronomist and scribes who killed the prophets. They didn't want to hear anything about a suffering Messiah. They killed John's the Baptist father because he was preaching about the coming Messiah.
In any case it mentions Jesus, his virgin birth, his death and resurrection at least within 40 to 70 years after his death.
@@NancyBrown-xw8hg So? 40 years later? Deut was written from the 3rd to 7th centuries.
Isiah was written in the 8th century.
Are there any eyewitnesses?
@@NancyBrown-xw8hg " it mentions Jesus" that's a lie
A non-canonical book written decades after the claimed events makes similar claims to the gospels? And this is evidence for?
The heart of Christianity is entering into a personal relationship with the risen savior, Jesus Christ. My only questions for Dr Ehrman are: did you ever place your faith in Jesus as your savior, and, if so, what did Jesus do to you that would move you to deny him all these years later?
Sorry, but imaginary friends are not real. 🙄 Bart believed he had a relationship way back when, until he realized it was all based on a fraud, then he could no longer believe. This has happened to MANY people.
So you don't care if any of it is real lol.
More like an abusive relationship.
And since Jesus is dead, he couldn't have done anything to "move" Bart.
Why would anyone do that? There's no reason for that.
@@theunknownatheist3815 You’re telling me that Bart was delusional when he professed that he had a relationship with the living Jesus?
He’s a fool