Christianity One Year After Jesus
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 30 сен 2024
- Visit www.bartehrman... to shop from Bart Ehrman’s online courses and get a special discount by using code: MJPODCAST on all courses.
We start learning about the Christian movement with the letters of Paul, around the year 60, about 30 years after Jesus' death. But what was happening during its very first year? The Book of Acts, written decades after Paul, describes key events, but can we rely on its account as historical? If not, what can we infer from our various sources? What was actually happening in those years? Were thousands of people converting? Was the religion taking over the world? Was it declared illegal by the state? Or... ?
This week, Megan asks Bart about:
-What sources, if any, do we have for the very earliest days of Christianity?
-When was the book of Acts written, and how reliable a witness does it provide for the first year after Jesus’ death?
-Did the disciples stay in Jerusalem following Jesus’ crucifixion, or return to their homes in Galilee?
-Would the conversion of Gentiles have started yet, or would the group have been predominantly Jewish, still?
-Do we know what the followers of Jesus may have said to convert others to their beliefs?
-One year on, how many Christians can we estimate there to have been?
-Do we know how many of the disciples came to believe in his resurrection, and how quickly that belief formed after his death?
-How plausible is it that the disciples would think that the man they had spent the last months or years with, and had watched die, was actually god?
-What do we know about the leadership of the group following Jesus’ death?
-Do we know what their relationship was like with groups of authority - both the Jewish leadership, and the Roman empire? Would they have been seen as a threat?
-How do you explain how a small group of illiterate, rural peasants could lay the groundwork for a religion that would ultimately take over the empire? Had this already started by the end of the first year?
This is why RUclips was invented. These talks are very informative and genuinely engaging. I wish it had been around when I was in University in the seventies
RUclips was invented so that RUclips could make lots of money doing nothing and skirting the law. RUclips encouraged users to post pirated material while disclaiming responsibility itself. Eventually many of the people being pirated,, particularly pop singers, changed their minds and started posting their own content because it had become too difficult (due to pirating) for most of them to make any significant income selling ,in the case of pop singer, recordings. They’re increasingly settling for RUclips crumbs.
@@jeffryphillipsburns good and based
@@jeffryphillipsburnsnonsense
@@user-jq1mg2mz7owhat and what?
@@jeffryphillipsburns
😂got issues there my fellow ape😂
Early Christianity is truly a fascinating subject. It gives us so many questions of "what if"
Ask and ye shall receive! I was endlessly scrolling through YT and I hit refresh and Behold; a new Misquoting Jesus episode! Just what I needed! Love thee show, keep up the good work !
Me to
But he is wrong when he says the NT is the closest thing we will know about Jesus he has to guess what Jesus said in the bible. The Quran is correct since it’s preserved.
@@Truth_Seeker1 Please share the writings of Jesus
The problem with all things Giggles Ehrman is that Pilate composed and dispatched the original euangelion to Tiberius that is cited by Tertullian with in weeks, if not days, after Resurrection, The basic outline of that : Tidings of Joy" is framed by Mark 15:1 - 16:8 and includes the content that has been revealed as the Gospel of Peter, in particular the Talking Cross and the fact that the Roman soldiers were calling the Jesus Followers/People of the Way "Christians: long before Jesus was arrested,
Peter received the contents of Pilate's original euangelion from Cornelius, the centurion featured in Acts 10, during that three day debriefing, Peter's confession in Acts 10: 34 - 43 becomes the arcs of the narrative of the Gospel of Mark, which was composed by Cornelius and forwarded to Theophilus, his direct report, before the death of Caligula in Latin, which is why the Greek translation is so coarse, Which is to say, Mark was in circulation by 40 CE,
, The euangelion Peter employed at the Jerusalem Counsel to vet Paul's version of the euangelion cited 19 times by Paul in his Epistles included his confession to Cornelius in Acts 10 and the Gospel of Peter.
The Gospel of Matthew was written after the Jerusalem Council as a polemic supporting Peter's and James's Judaizing in answer to Galatians by around 50 CE, Both Mark and Matthew were available to Luke when he arrived at Cesarean with Paul in 68 or so.
Luke's eye witness journalism begins in Acts 16:6 - 10, Luke begins Acts as a amicus brief for Paul's defense in Rome but expands it to include what is now the Gospel f Luke after being introduced to Cornelius, who is the curator of what we understand a Quelle with a commission from Theophilus, who is Equestrian responsible for the Judea desk, Luke and Acts are delivered to Theophilus in Rome in time for Paul's defense before the Italian Regiment of the Praetorian Guard. Philippians is an end zone celebration of the success of Paul's defense before Paul's subsequent imprisonment and execution in 46 CE,
Hebrews and Revelation are likewise completed before the Jewish Wars get real traction, which is to say, by 68 CE. The essential connection between Jesus and Josephus is the feeding of the 5000, which creates part of the Jewish force that destroys the 12 Legion in 66 that triggers the Jewish Wars.
The entire Roman legions were converted from Pagan God fearers to Pagan Christians with the Talking Cross, which is the ratification of the covenant between Elohim the One and the authority of the centurion in Matthew 8:9. Matthew 8:10 is the justification by faith of the centurion, who is Cornelius, by Jesus that is the parallel to the justification by faith of Abram in Genesis 15:6.
All this was done before 70 CE The conceit that Mark is derivative of Pauline Theology is pointey-headed college professor fairy tales. .
Another great, thought provoking episode...regardless of what side of the fence you are on, those hardcore Christians really do everything they can, to make it all fit together..regardless of how ridiculous!
great idea.. haven't heard a serious talk on this topic really.. can't wait for the next episode as well.. this is one of the few podcasts that i come back to every week.. keep up the good work!
I recently heard it said that Christianity and Rabbinic Judaism were twin children born out of the catastrophe of the second temple destruction; I had no idea Judaism underwent major changes at the same time as Christianity was establishing itself.
Brilliant episode. Thanks!
BTW, you have the best introduction of any major channel i follow on RUclips; the combination of of the music choice combined with Megan's voice over is superb.
Notice that Bart missed the 120 in Acts 1:15. Moreover, yes, they both sprouted around the same time. With Rabbinic Judaism first since the Pharisees and/or Rabbis (hence Rabbinic Judaism) took over the duties of the Sadducees (spiritual leaders) after the destruction of the second Temple. This gradual change happened since the times of Queen (Of Judea) Alexandra, who favored the Pharisees over the Sadducees. We must remember that Christians are people (like Jesus' disciples) who practiced an Essene/Messianic/Levitical kind of Judaism, and that Christianity is a religion that was formed by Gentiles who were just coming out of paganism and idolatry, and who rejected Moses' law because of Paul's teachings. The vast majority of Gentile church fathers adhered to Paul's teachings rather than Jesus' teachings (under the law).
The fist year after his death was AD 71.
The Temple lay in ruins, and the Jews had all been exiled from Jerusalem.
See ‘Jesus of E.dessa.
R
Do you have any scholar sources on how the destruction of the second temple impacted Christianity?
This is what I think, and it’s just my theory. The gospels image literary works that are really using the Jesus character as a metaphor to talk about first century Messianic Judaism or Fourth Philosophy and its’ survival after the First Jewish-Roman War. Think of the language used in Daniel how it talks about the persecution of the saints. Jesus represents those people, whereas the Pharisees and Temple leaders represent the religious establishment that were politically in bed with the occupying Roman government. Together they brought death to the rebels and their movement, but even after their deaths their ideologies continued. There’s a saying, you can kill the body but not the spirit. In the beginning James the brother of Jesus taught that they were to keep the Law. Paul came around and taught the gentiles that they didn’t have to and used his understanding of philosophical rationalism to create the frame work for the Christianity we know today. While Jesus was the original leader who was probably martyred, his legend continued years after the war and were the inspiration for writing the first gospel. Christianity developed the way it did solely because Paul was writing and his writings survived, whereas James and the original church fell by the side because their teachings used the oral tradition rather than writing things down.
When Rome invaded and "occupied" Israel, they brought freedom of religion along with it. Rome simply did not care either way. Jews however, had never known such a concept, so there were bound to be fractures that threatened the leadership of the church's elite.
Today, those fractures have spread across the globe.
I am not big on religion, but the right to choose is as important as anything could possibly be.
What is faith, if it exists in a room without a door?
I just finished watching an awful episode of the Whatever podcast. My brain needs some real education after watching those panelists. That's why I'm here. Bart always has great insights into the Bible.
Bart's "Great Insight" is always skewed and simply wrong
@@Marabarra94 "assuming without any evidence what so ever..."
Like the Bible?
@@ciri151
Bart Ehrman can only be wrong like Bart Ehrman is.
Why don't you guys use your own brain and read the Bible.
The scholars are reading the same words which are accessible to you.
How can the scholars know more about the word than the one who has had the Bible compiled.
The Bible says this concerning the gospel.
Galatians 3:8
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached the gospel unto Abraham, saying, in thee shall all nations be blessed.
Since the gospel was preached onto Abraham and he believed, believing in God never started with the Jews.
Believing Jesus Christ was never a Jewish sect.
Matthew 8:13
And Jesus said unto the centurion, go thy way; and as thou hast believed; so be it unto thee, and his servant was healed in the same hour.
John 4:39,41
And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.
41 And many more believed because of his own words.
42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world .
John 12:19,20,21
The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? Behold the world is gone after him.
And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast.
21 The same came therefore to Phillip, which was of bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.
● All the believers in the verses above, believed in Jesus, from the word which He spoke: even before he went to the cross.
They are not Jews. Their numbers exceed the 20 or so figure which professor Bart D Ehrman posits, as being the number of the followers of Christ, 40 days after his death and resurrection.
Bart Ehrman tells a story that the Bible does not: with the intent that he be accepted as more knowledgeable.
The Bible tells the world, to check its story: to not accept any additions to it nor any subtractions from it.
Anyone with a different story must therefore produce their source.
Have you ever asked professor Ehrman what or where is his source??
@@METVWETV
and you know this.... because???
@@declankelly9829because it goes against his or her personal belief.
Desciples of Jesus Christ never think that Jesus died for their sins.
Bart really opend my eyes to how little so called Christians actually know about their own religion. In my experience secular people tend to have a deeper understanding of the subject matter. And as an atheist i know more now then i ever did when I was a "believer" thank you you Bart and Megan
Um....so you didnt pay attention while you were a believer?
That's on you, not the church.
That’s because Christianity in the lest century has fostered an anti-intellectual atmosphere. There’s no objectivity when you take scripture at face value.
@@langreeves6419 Where was it said that he didn't pay attention? Maybe wait for a response before jumping to conclusions and writing off his experience.
@@feistypug1 he said so! Read the comment I'm responding to BEFORE responding to my response
@@langreeves641930,000 denominations but which is the Church?
There was no Christianity one year after Jesus, Jesus is not a Christian, nor were his disciples...
Stop conflating Jesus with Christianity.
I submitted this question a month or two ago, but it didn't get selected. I've been wondering for a while: who exactly did Paul persecute before he became a Christian? Paul was in the diaspora outside of Judea, and this happened within a few years of Jesus's death, so it's remarkable that there were even enough Christians there to be worth the effort of persecuting. Perhaps there just happened to be a pocket in the synagogue Paul attended? Regardless, I think there must have been some initial surge of people converting and spreading the gospel within the first few years, though not as dramatic as Acts describes.
We have very little to establish anything historical on the earliest followers & family of Jesus. Paul likely was intent on killing only Jewish Christians, the Ebionites & Nazarenes who totally opposed him & his message before & after his eledged visions.
great question, never thought of this.
I've always wondered this as well. Maybe we read more into his statement than was there in reality.
Maybe part of that statement was to imply that it was more widespread than it really was at that point in order to lend it more legitimacy to those whom Paul had converted.
@@nutyyyy That thought crossed my mind too. It seems like scholars tend to take Paul's version of events as truth simply because he's the earliest Christian author, but I think we need to consider that he may also exaggerate, misremember, or even lie sometimes. One of those options could certainly be the case for what he says about persecuting Christians.
@@montagdpPaul doesn't even get his own "Jesus vision" story to be consistent.
Reminds me of how neither Josh McDowell's or J Warner Wallace's "I used to be an atheist" stories are consistent per retelling, nor are they accurate to reality.
Hi Bart, I enjoy your podcasts immensely. Although not a literal Christian believer, I appreciate the archetypal power, beauty and depth of the gospel stories. In this spirit I've enjoyed watching the TV drama "The Chosen", and wonder what your thoughts are on that program. For one thing, the Romans are ubiquitous throughout the drama, both in Rome and in Galilee. Matthew is collecting taxes in Capernaum on their behalf. I gather from things you say that this is totally wrong. Could you elucidate? "The Chosen" has become such a phenomenon that historical analysis of it might be a good subject for one of your episodes.
Such a good comment, I hope they address this. The problem with The Chosen is that it is an excellent vehicle for political propaganda to western audiences about the middle east. I would watch it with that in mind and ask if the creators have any agenda.
It is not totally wrong. Some of the Jews did collect taxes for the Romans, as clearly seen in the New Testament. And Roman soldiers did keep a watchful eye on the Jews, because of several rebellions.
@@ramieal-hazar2438 The 99 percent of all religious scriptures are the good, that hides that 1 percent that creates space for religious fanatics, and evil to flourish.
We would be better off with no religions at all.
God is not dead, and He is not a weapon.
Church leaders always have an agenda. It is literally their occupation, not unlike a vacuum salesman.
I've wondered if the failure of the Jewish revolt in 66 could have changed the religious landscape and given Christianity a boost
I would go as far as to say that without the revolt/war from 66-70 AD there probably wouldn't have been a Christianity the way we know it today. I think the New Testament should very much be read in the light of the cataclysmic events that unfolded in Judea and Galilee in those years. I just can't fit Paul the Apostle into this story because we know he preached and wrote in the years prior to the revolt.
I've been attending Christian churches ever since I was an infant and I've never once heard a careful, chronological discussion of the events reported in Matthew and Acts, the months immediately following the resurrection of Jesus.
Some things are better left a mystery
Because no such discussion helps the accepted liturgy. That's why the ancients got rid of it (or tried to).
@@mrsatire9475 I just want a discussion of what the New Testament expressly says. Instead on this topics it is always totally ignored in church.
Bart and Megan read the Bible every bit as literally as evangelicals but their use of rationalism (to the exclusion of everything else) to interpret the Bible, leads to rationalism becoming their god instead of the spiritual god the Bible is telling us about. A psychological interpretation avoids this problem of throwing the spirituality out with the bath water. This allowed Carl Jung to accurately critique Christianity as follows:
“Christ, the fulfilment of prophecy, put an end to the fear of God and taught mankind that the true relation to the Godhead is “love”. Thus he destroyed the ceremonial constraint of the Law and gave the example of a personal, loving relationship to God.”
“The highest value bestowing life and meaning has been lost; this process is a typical, i.e., frequently repeated experience, and therefore it found its central expression in the Christian mystery. This death or loss must always repeat itself; Christ forever dies, as he is always born again. For the psychic life of the archetype is beyond time compared with our individual dependence on time.”
“We are living in an age of God’s death and disappearance. The myth says: He will not be found where His body was laid. The “body”means the outer, visible form, the previous but transitory conception of the highest value. The myth says further that the value will arise again in a miraculous manner but be transformed.”
“The descent into hell during the three days of death describes the sinking of the lost value into the unconscious where - through victory over the power of darkness - it brings about a new order, and from whence it rises again to the height of heaven, i.e., to the height of fullest consciousness. Since only a few saw the Resurrected One, it means that the difficulties of again finding and recognising the transformed value are not inconsiderable.”
“But it was of most profound psychological significance when Christianity first discovered, in the orientation towards the future, a redeeming principle for mankind. In the past nothing can be altered, and in the present little, but the future is ours and capable of raising life’s intensity to its highest pitch.”
[End of quotes]
The purely intellectual & historical approach to Christianity is a path leading to a dead end - rationalism, reductionism, relativism, atheism. A psychological approach is a path that leads to God because God is on the other side of the unconscious - waiting for you.
Good grief. First year after Jesus died is all speculation just like Bart's historical Jesus. His account doesn't really try to explain why all these supposed followers would then go on to immediately lie for years about Jesus' miracles, his resurrection and make up a religion about him being God, sacrifice themselves for it. Once again in this talk he just glosses over the issue. Like Robert Price said in their debate, Clark Kent was never going to inspire the legend of Superman. More probable it was either all made up or he really was God. Maybe Bart is going to convert back to being a Christian
Super Ehrman and Lewis as usual. Anyone wd respond to her appeal as a/n host w/o knowing she is professor of Ugaritic, w a charming range of hair color! 😃
I would really like to hear Bart on Sapphira and Ananias and the role of money in the early church (Paul taking gentile funds back to Jerusalem etc. Reason for James to allow gentile conversion? ) . The Sapphira episode is v unnerving, more the god of the OT than NT? Yet it has the hallmarks of truth from what we know of modern day cults and sects and their attitude to adherents cash. Any comment?
Question for Bart. If we hold that the four Gospels and Acts were written after 70 CE, why do none of the authors, whoever they are, not mention the destruction of the Temple? Or am I missing something in the writings that were influenced by the events surrounding the Jewish revolt at the time
Great question.
Matthew 24:2, Jesus "foretells" the destruction of the temple.
I can’t speak for Bart, but from what I’ve gathered whenever an ancient document prophesies an event that is known to have been historically accurate it is viewed with skepticism of the possibility that the document was written after the matter. For the book of Daniel for instance (if I have my information correct) the book prophesied the subsequent empires after Babylon. However the book tried to prophesy a contemporary event and got it wrong by stating that Antiochus would declare war on Egypt and die in Judah but it didn’t happen and he died elsewhere. These books also have anachronisms that give them away as from different time periods. I don’t know if there’s a different approach that academics use to hypothesize the dates of authorship, but maybe this helps understand some of the logic.
In the instance of the gospel there is much allusion to the destruction of the temple as a metaphor of Christ’s body. It may be this is what those academics refer to?
@@randyallen4200 I know he does in Mark and Luke do but not sure on Matthew and John. Catholic Bible apologists argue the point to show that Bart et al are wrong on the dating of the Gospels and Acts their point being they wrote prior to 70 so the Temple still stood. I will accept the post 70 authorship.but love the argument nonetheless Thanks for responding
.
16:54 I can’t recall Josephus writing about the number of converts. Assuming he is an objective source he surely would have mentioned “thousands” of Christian’s pre 70…
This is complete conjecture but I highly doubt Jesus even had 12 disciples. The 12 is meant to represent the 12 tribes of Israel. Its a number that was fabricated by early Christians for symbolic reasons. Thats why we hear absolutely nothing about most of them in Acts and even the gospels really. He may have had less than 12 or possibly more than 12, but I highly doubt it was exactly 12. Regardless of how many disciples he actually had there were probably only a few really close disciples like Peter, James and John who were actually serious. The rest are either just made up or they were less serious followers and are just there in order to make up the number 12
Why don't you guys use your own brain and read the Bible.
The scholars are reading the same words which are accessible to you.
How can the scholars know more about the word than the one who has had the Bible compiled.
The Bible says this concerning the gospel.
Galatians 3:8
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached the gospel unto Abraham, saying, in thee shall all nations be blessed.
Since the gospel was preached onto Abraham and he believed, believing in God never started with the Jews.
Believing Jesus Christ was never a Jewish sect.
Matthew 8:13
And Jesus said unto the centurion, go thy way; and as thou hast believed; so be it unto thee, and his servant was healed in the same hour.
John 4:39,41
And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.
41 And many more believed because of his own words.
42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world .
John 12:19,20,21
The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? Behold the world is gone after him.
And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast.
21 The same came therefore to Phillip, which was of bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.
● All the believers in the verses above, believed in Jesus, from the word which He spoke: even before he went to the cross.
They are not Jews. Their numbers exceed the 20 or so figure which professor Bart D Ehrman posits, as being the number of the followers of Christ, 40 days after his death and resurrection.
Bart Ehrman tells a story that the Bible does not: with the intent that he be accepted as more knowledgeable.
The Bible tells the world, to check its story: to not accept any additions to it nor any subtractions from it.
Anyone with a different story must therefore produce their source.
@@allanwilliams2079 did you miss “This is a complete conjecture”?
@@nameofthegame9664
The point that I am making is why waste time on conjectures.
Put the same energy that you are using for nonsense to the use of something good.
Read what is presented by the Bible.
With regard to the opening remarks: I started college at age 18. Due to financial constraints, I dropped out at 22. Then, at 35, I went back and finished. The difference in my attitude and performance from my teen experience to my mid-30's experience was like night and day. Certainly, students that study through the whole semester will do better than those that do not. But, I think the first group will also more likely have the attitude, interest and work ethic to do better than the second group.
I often think education is wasted on most of the young. They have no interest, no context, and they just want to enjoy life.
So you went 4 years and did not attain any degree??? I can see why you ran into financial
" constraints" although I think most people don't know what they want to do till they are about 25.
@@JamesAgans I did earn a degree. I was not there just to earn a degree. I wanted an education.
Bart imagines that the population of Jerusalem in the 1st century was 40,000 and on that basis ridicules the book of Acts for saying that thousands were converted to Christianity on the day of Pentecost going forward.
Well, it turns out that Bart is a bit free and loose with the facts. During the First Jewish-Roman War (66-73 CE), the population of Jerusalem was estimated at 600,000 persons by Roman historian Tacitus, while Josephus estimated that there were as many as 1,100,000 who were killed in the war-though this number included people who did not belong to the city itself.
There is nothing inherently improbable about several thousand Jews being converted to Christianity.
Bart isn't loose with the facts, but YOU ARE.
Your copy and paste of Wikipedia (which you misrepresented as your own words) selectively quotes and ignores the sentences which follow immediately thereafter: "Modern estimates of Jerusalem's population during the final Roman Siege of Jerusalem in 70 (CE) are variously 70,398 by Wilkinson in 1974,[8] 80,000 by Broshi in 1978,[9] and 60,000-70,000 by Levine in 2002.["
The mathematical approach to Christianity's growth is certainly interesting and valuable. It puts into perspective a number of issues that are otherwise hard to see.
However, the basic assumption here is steady growth and that is most likely wrong. We can assume that towards the end of those 300 years, growth slowed down considerably. This is something we see in a lot of other movements, religious or otherwise. The first adherents are likely to be very ardent proselytizers. Proselytizing actually is a way to deal with cognitive dissonances that arise from one's own sense of importance (I've found the way, I must show it to others/This is the most important thing in the world, everyone must know it...) compared to the relative unimportance of the movement. Convincing others to join in that period is probably the most potent cohesive for the group which would quickly disintegrate otherwise.
After the group has reached a greater size, this becomes less and less important. Now it's more about keeping together what you have, and you get to have your own bureaucracy that's busy with everyday things. With a hierarchy evolving, ordinary members won't be so keen on proselytizing themselves, as they did just did a generation or two ago. They may even be discouraged out of fear that in their ignorance compared to the group's bureaucracy they may come up with new heresies. So, most likely, growth rates will decline significantly over time.
Mind, there will still be growth if the group has overall appeal - Bart frequently argues that early Christians' charitable work gave the religion such an appeal for instance - and in areas where you're already strong and visible, people will come to you on their own, and in significant numbers. But you're more likely to experience a - still impressive - ten per cent growth rate per decade than 40 in that phase.
Which again means that growth must have been far greater early on than the model presented assumes.
Nice comment
Another factor - if the events portrayed in the gospels are based on an actual event and there is one character who can be traced as The Historical Jesus”, then the rumors by regular people not associated with the original followers, the third hand rumors, would mean that, a much larger number of people would be discussing ramifications of a new cult and this would contribute to the original disorganized nature of Christianity, not as a religion, but as a political movement - you don’t have to believe in a deified Christ until after Constantine declares it 400 years later.
Completely oblivious to the role of Jesus' miracles and identification of himself as Son of God. Bart has a big intellectual blind spot. It's eery. I expect him to become a re-born again Christian or else a mythicist when he finally realizes what the vacuousness of his account. .
Haha, no.
The letters of Paul written about the year 60? Upon what evidence is this pronouncement based? I am guessing it's the one reference to Aretas in Corinthians. Meanwhile the many allusions to the punishment of the Jews as a past event in many other places in the Pauline corpus are ignored. This is not scholarship. This is merely pandering to the religion industry which relies so much on the endorsement of academics to perpetuate the standard myth of origin of Christianity.
ruclips.net/video/iRiyqj3gaqA/видео.htmlsi=VIsY-25g_WlJ_PxV
Bart, I would be interested to know if you have any experience with atheist claiming that the consensus opinion amongst experts is that there was no historical Jesus
I was raised agnostic, everyone in my immediate family is atheist (including myself) - however, having watched your videos for years now, I always find it interesting that a large proportion of atheist claim that most historians believe there was no real Jesus behind the story
In my experience, this is the belief of most atheists: that it is obvious to any “real” and “unbiased” historian that Jesus was not a historical figure
It seems to me this is a combination of a lack of interest and confirmation bias - they aren’t interested enough in the topic to really hear what historians believe (even Bob Price acknowledges that mythicism is a fringe position), and the obvious point that they would like for the story to be entirely made up, as in their minds it allows for greater disdain for Christianity
I would never intentionally minimize or downplay the trauma of people who were raised in the church - however, it seems to me that the mythicist argument amplifies the significance of their trauma as they see it, as in their minds their trauma relates to a wholly made up story, conveniently and ironically making them a martyr of sorts - further justifying and igniting the fervor of their anti-Christianity
I can't speak to most atheists, especially these days, but I think it's an idea that's spreading among a lot of new atheists. I've been an atheist for decades and I don't remember even coming across the idea seriously until quite recently.
Carrier's a very enthusiastic advocate and his fanbase is very online. It's now easy for someone deconverting to run into the idea and find it appealing, which I don't think was true even a decade ago.
_["Bart, I would be interested to know if you have any experience with atheist claiming that the consensus opinion amongst experts is that there was no historical Jesus "]_
Bart has stated other places that he is very much not a mythicist and that there are no respected scholars that hold to mythicism. The consensus among experts is that there was a human Jesus at the core of the stories, though the stories are greatly exaggerated.
_["I always find it interesting that a large proportion of atheist claim that most historians believe there was no real Jesus behind the story"]_
There are a loud minority of people making this claim, which is often magnified by apologists because it is a claim that is relatively easy to shoot holes in. If apologists can make it look like most atheists are making a false claim, it is easier to sweep the atheist position under the rug.
The video starts at 3:20...
You're welcome!
I appreciated your effort. Unfortunately I couldn’t find your comment in time. It was immediately buried by too many far less useful comments.
you guys just want to use the brilliant Dr Ehrman and the awesome Megan for their stellar knowledge , but you don’t want to be bothered with hearing them chit chat for a minute or 2 or 3? You don’t deserve their podcast. I would fully understand it if they see these lame comments of yours and decide to cancel the podcast because you don’t deserve it
I deeply admire Dr. Ehrman’s presence, patience, and respectful attitude toward those on the other side of the debate table. Debating true believers can be a flustering experience, but Dr. Ehrman always keeps his cool and his sense of humor.
You should check facts. The Bible is fiction, but Christians never check facts online.
As a self described Christian Rationalist cannot fathom the ignorant discourse around the work of the late Barbara Thiering. Her findings and conclusions are irrefutable and make way for a more truthful intelligent debate around both Christianity and Islam. The world needs to love more and hate less.
1. Is there any manuscript from one year after Jesus "dead"?!
2. Is that true that Jesus was born four years before CE.?
Thank you, Bart.
2 we have no clue when Jesus was born nor have we any idea how old he was. We have a birth date under Herod this was 4BC and earlier. We have a contradicting claim about an empire-wide census which means never as there wasn't any at the time and a modified claim as Quirinius was governor of Syria 6-7 AD. So all too often the Greek unnamed fan fiction authors make claims that are contradicting. So both claims can be false. We just do not know.
1. We have a 150-year gap from which nothing exists. In the late second century, we have 7 words the size of a matchbox. We have no idea what existed in the 150-year gap or was modified or lost. So we have existing greek fan fiction from around the third and fourth century
@@TorianTammas So, there was no census?!
⛔ Could not find **Add a comment** button. Here is the entire summary:
```markdown
🎯 Key Takeaways for quick navigation:
00:00 🎙 *Introduction and Podcast Overview*
- The podcast has been running for a year, exploring topics related to the New Testament, historical Jesus, and the rise of Christianity.
03:37 📚 *Early Christianity Sources and Challenges*
- The main source for the first 30 years of Christianity is the Book of Acts in the New Testament.
- Acts is dated to various periods, with some scholars suggesting a later date around 120 CE, raising questions about its reliability.
- Acts presents challenges with internal contradictions and discrepancies with other historical records.
09:18 🗺 *Disciples' Stay in Jerusalem or Return to Galilee?*
- Acts portrays the disciples staying in Jerusalem after Jesus' death, emphasizing a theological narrative.
- Other gospel accounts, like Matthew, suggest the disciples may have left Jerusalem and returned to Galilee, creating a historical discrepancy.
10:38 🌐 *Gentile Conversion in Early Christianity*
- Early Christianity likely remained a predominantly Jewish sect in its initial phase.
- The mission to Gentiles, as depicted in Acts, seems to have occurred later, with the focus initially on spreading the message within Jerusalem.
13:25 💬 *Early Christian Message to Jews*
- The core message to other Jews was centered around proclaiming Jesus as the Messiah.
- Early followers emphasized Jesus' resurrection as evidence of his Messianic role.
- Attempts to convince others faced challenges, given the conventional Jewish expectations of a triumphant Messiah.
16:05 📈 *Early Christian Community Size*
- Estimating the size of the early Christian community within the first year is challenging due to conflicting accounts and unreliable sources.
- Historical data suggests a small community, possibly 30-50 individuals, steadily converting others in the immediate aftermath of Jesus' death.
17:56 🧑🤝🧑 *Apostles' Belief in Jesus' Resurrection*
- While the New Testament suggests all disciples believed in Jesus' resurrection, the lack of detailed accounts raises questions about individual conversions.
- The apostles likely came to believe in Jesus' exaltation and divinity shortly after his death.
19:30 🤔 *Plausibility of Disciples' Belief in Jesus' Divinity*
- The disciples' belief in Jesus' divinity stems from the immediate implications of his resurrection.
- Their understanding of Jesus as a Divine being likely emerged shortly after the resurrection, shaping the early Christian theology.
21:14 👥 *Leadership and Splintering in Early Christianity*
- Contrary to the perception of early Christian unity, there were likely diverse interpretations and groups within the first years.
- The Book of Acts presents a harmonized view, but historical evidence suggests the emergence of various Christian factions and non-orthodox groups over time.
21:28 🕊 *Early Unity and Divisions in the Jesus Movement*
- The early Jesus movement appears to have had a degree of unity, but divisions may have existed from the beginning.
- Hints suggest divisions among followers, and it's unclear how unified they were.
- Peter initially portrayed as the spokesperson, but James, Jesus' brother, later takes a leadership role.
22:52 🌐 *Dynamics Between Peter and James, and Splinter Groups*
- Shift in leadership from Peter to James, Jesus' brother, creates uncertainty about early dynamics.
- The gospels portray James as initially unsupportive of Jesus during his ministry, raising questions about tensions.
- Early indications of splinter groups or diverse views within the Jesus movement.
23:48 ⚖ *Jesus Movement's Interaction with Jewish Leadership and Roman Empire*
- In the book of Acts, the Jesus movement faces opposition from Jewish leaders similar to those who opposed Jesus.
- Initially, the small size of the movement likely kept them off the radar of both Jewish and Roman authorities.
- Paul's later experiences reveal opposition from both Jewish and Roman authorities.
26:32 🤝 *Formation of the Ragtag Jesus Movement*
- The early Jesus movement comprised illiterate, rural peasants, not influential or educated elites.
- Despite their humble beginnings, they managed to convert people and lay the groundwork for a significant religion.
- Success may have come from talking with other Jews initially, with the real shift occurring when the mission extended to Gentiles.
28:22 📚 *Bart's Weekly Update - Scribal Corruption of Scripture Course*
- Upcoming course on the scribal corruption of scripture, focusing on changes made by Christian scribes.
- Bart discusses the fascinating nature of manuscript differences and their impact on interpreting biblical texts.
- The course aims to provide new examples and explanations beyond what is covered in Bart's book, "Misquoting Jesus."
30:36 💬 *Motivations Behind Producing Gospels and Religious Materials*
- Early gospel authors likely wrote to convey their message rather than for personal gain.
- Later gospels attributed to well-known figures may have aimed to gain readership by associating with famous names.
- The complexity of human motivations involves a mix of faith, sincerity, and, in some cases, personal gain.
38:24 💡 *Impact of New Testament Manuscripts on Textual Criticism*
- Textual critics consider patterns in New Testament copying as a reference for understanding copyist errors in other ancient texts.
- While New Testament manuscripts are abundant, scholars don't privilege them over others but recognize commonalities in copying challenges.
- The proliferation of New Testament copies is due to medieval monks copying as a religious practice, influencing the manuscript landscape.
43:27 📜 *Intentional Changes in Manuscripts*
- Manuscripts copied for personal reasons may undergo intentional changes to align with the copier's views.
- Copyists of texts like Plato or Greek novels, with no personal stake, are less prone to intentional alterations.
44:38 🌐 *Summary and Availability*
- Discussion on the challenges of understanding the first year after Jesus' crucifixion with limited evidence.
- Suggestions to explore annotated Bibles, particularly those discussing the book of Acts, for more insights.
46:42 🎙 *Next Episode Preview: Fear of Death*
- The upcoming episode will delve into the universal theme of the fear of death and its impact on Christianity and beyond.
Made with HARPA AI
```
Good Job both of you and thanks. Your work Doc and others have helped me very much, because the old saying will always be true and that is "knowledge is power." For awhile now I've known with absolute certainty, that book couldn't be trusted the most simplest things. Consequentially I could never trust the extraordinary.
Thank you so much for covering a period in history few are willing to touch. Yet this period was vital to the creation of Christianity. Thanks for posting this video on RUclips.
You should read Joe Atwill, David Doninib and Ralph Ellis who aminf others are now coming to the inevitable conclusion that the Jesus story took place 40 years later than we have been told and relates to the Jewish uprisings in 70AD after Nero died and there was an opportunity forna Jewish leader to free Judea from Roman rule.
Wasn't there 120 people in the UPPER ROOM,
Who received The PROMISED HOLY SPIRIT?
*GOD HIMSELF DWELLING WITHIN US.*
There is a story about Philip in Acts--the one where he shares the Gospel with the Ethiopian Eunuch.
How did Peter and John write what they wrote if they were illiterate?
Or DID they write those books?
They weren’t! The New Interpreter’s Bible comments: “These terms are probably not to be taken literally as though Peter [and John] were unschooled and could not write or read. They simply recognize the profound difference in social class between those sitting in judgment and the apostles.”
The fist year after his death was AD 71.
The Temple lay in ruins, and the Jews had all been exiled from Jerusalem.
See ‘Jesus if E.dessa.
R
The Bible actually contradicts some of the figures Bart is giving here. Acts 2 says that there were about 120 believers remaining after the resurrection, not just "11 disciples and a few women". Also, in Acts 4, the number of believers in total rose to 5000, it does not say that an extra 5000 were added to the previous 3000 (largely temporary visitors who had come for the festival) who were converted at Pentecost.
There is something about these explanations that I can not grasp. if Jews did have have a doctrine of salvation of their soul, and the korbanot were only for certain kinds of transgrations and not for intentional sin, and there was no doctrine of original sin, how is it possible that the first followers of Jesus got to think that he was a different kind of Messiah chosen to expiate for the sins of the nations? Even worse, if the male goat who recieved the sins of the nation during Yom Kippur, was taken to de desert for Azazel, and it was not cruxified, where this idea of attonement of the Messiah comes from?
Jesus wasn’t crucified. The early church fathers Ignatius, Pollycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Hippolyta and Justin all wrote that there were Christian groups who rejected the concept of the crucifixion, the Basilideans said Simon of Cyrene was crucified instead of Jesus they said they got this from Glaucus who was the translator for Simon Peter one of the disciple, dosatists believed Jesus didn’t have a psyical body therefore he couldn’t be crucified, the NT so called apocryphal books writings say Jesus wasn’t crucified like the Apocalypse of Peter(3rd century), Acts of John (1st half of the 2nd century), Second Treatise of the great Seth (2nd century), Talmud says Jesus was stoned to death.
Great lecture and great host .... thank you to both 😂❤
Given that the Apostles were probably similar in age to Jesus, about how long does Bart think that the Apostles lived (based on the life expectancies at the time). Could any of them have lived to 70 when Mark was written, or even as late as the 90s? Such an apostle could be a source for Josephus or for other Gospels?
European Christianity stared when Alexander the Great invaded Egypt, Ptolemy the 1st was made Pharaoh, the first European Pharaoh ever, he had a statue made Serapis Christus 325 B.C., he later became Jesus Christ.. the African Trinity Father-Mother and child, Greeks took the woman out of the Trinity because they would say the women were Evil. so you got Father- Son and Holy Ghost, but how did the child come, by woman. Read the Egyptian Resurrection, where the Europeans STOLE the story and then started to rewrite in their version. The Pyramids built in BC times already have the stories inside on tablets, before paper existed.
I believe in the New Testament. I believe translations has changed some of the wording because I see it in translations today, but I don’t dismiss the New Testament to be untrue. This is said outside of my experience with Jesus. The Bible doesn’t validate my experience with Jesus. I know he exists.
Thanks guys, of course in those days people becoming gods was quite common. Emperors, pharoahs, minor kings and queens were all potential 'gods'.
It was then (as now) part of the political scene and the capacity to exercise power and control, particularly unquestioning control, over credulous believers, over communities, and in the ultimate form, nations.
Bart Ehrman,
This account is wrong. Saul was converted 4 years after Savior was resurrected. The term Christian appeared in Acts 11:26. Do you know that Saul did not meet the apostles before him until after 3 years further?
I think it was still Judahism 1 year after Jesus..Christianity came much later
It was a Jewish sect
@@thorpeaaron1110 Judaism with the belief in Messiah Jesus (peace be upon him)
Why don't you guys use your own brain and read the Bible.
The scholars are reading the same words which are accessible to you.
How can the scholars know more about the word than the one who has had the Bible compiled.
The Bible says this concerning the gospel.
Galatians 3:8
And the scripture, foreseeing that God would justify the heathen through faith, preached the gospel unto Abraham, saying, in thee shall all nations be blessed.
Since the gospel was preached onto Abraham and he believed, believing in God never started with the Jews.
Believing Jesus Christ was never a Jewish sect.
Matthew 8:13
And Jesus said unto the centurion, go thy way; and as thou hast believed; so be it unto thee, and his servant was healed in the same hour.
John 4:39,41
And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.
41 And many more believed because of his own words.
42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world .
John 12:19,20,21
The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? Behold the world is gone after him.
And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast.
21 The same came therefore to Phillip, which was of bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.
● All the believers in the verses above, believed in Jesus, from the word which He spoke: even before he went to the cross.
They are not Jews. Their numbers exceed the 20 or so figure which professor Bart D Ehrman posits, as being the number of the followers of Christ, 40 days after his death and resurrection.
Bart Ehrman tells a story that the Bible does not: with the intent that he be accepted as more knowledgeable.
The Bible tells the world, to check its story: to not accept any additions to it nor any subtractions from it.
Anyone with a different story must therefore produce their source.
@Bart D Ehrman
Are you saying that all who lived in the area which included Judea, which was ruled by the Romans during the time in which Jesus lived, who did not know the Jewish Law, were illiterate??
The high priest and his cohorts stated that the disciples were not learned in the Jewish Law: they never stated that they were illiterate.
You speak of only a few converts/believers:
Believing Jesus Christ was never a Jewish sect.
Matthew 8:13
And Jesus said unto the centurion, go thy way; and as thou hast believed; so be it unto thee, and his servant was healed in the same hour.
John 4:39,41
And many of the Samaritans of that city believed on him for the saying of the woman, which testified, He told me all that ever I did.
41 And many more believed because of his own words.
42 And said unto the woman, Now we believe, not because of thy saying: for we have heard him ourselves, and know that this is indeed the Christ, the Saviour of the world .
John 12:19,20,21
The Pharisees therefore said among themselves, Perceive ye how ye prevail nothing? Behold the world is gone after him.
And there were certain Greeks among them that came up to worship at the feast.
21 The same came therefore to Phillip, which was of bethsaida of Galilee, and desired him, saying, Sir, we would see Jesus.
● All the believers in the verses above, believed in Jesus, from the word which He spoke: even before he went to the cross.
They are not Jews. Their numbers exceed the 20 or so figure which is posited by you, professor Bart D Ehrman, as being the number of the followers of Christ, 40 days after his death and resurrection.
Bart Ehrman tells a story that the Bible does not: with the intent that he be accepted as more knowledgeable.
The Bible tells the world, to check its story: to not accept any additions to it nor any subtractions from it.
Anyone with a different story must therefore produce their source.
What is your source professor Ehrman??
Begins 3:07.
One word. "Why has God Reviled Me?" Jesus exxperiences being human, His creation. When events go wrong that is a common feeiling. Jesus must feel the same. So the two alternate translations are valid. Coupled with the Resurection and promised Second Coming it gives all hope.
Ehrman, “The Bible”, 2nd Ed., p 176, box 12.4
“It is safe to say that as Jewish traditions developed after the period of the Hebrew Bible, there was no one concept of who or what the messiah would be but a range of ideas held by different Jews anticipating a future anointed one to come and save the people from their distress and rule them in a good age to come.”
Agreed. There is a long (very long) list of scholars who support the idea that some Jews were already expecting a dying messiah prior to the advent of Christianity.
Jesus was teaching a path to enlightenment. To "enter the kingdom of heaven" means to experience enlightenment. To "have everlasting life" means to know absolutely, that you came from the infinite world, to which you will eventually return, to know you are infinity.
Unless you experience enlightenment, you can't possibly understand Christianity.
Incidentally, Jerusalem was a capital for Jews. If Palestine had a Roman capital, it was Caesaraea. Palestine was included in a Roman province whose capital was Antioch, and eventually Peter moved there before finally moving to Rome.
It's quite remarkable to state that Christianity wasn't very succesfull in the beginning.
Ehrman didn't gave any reason for that to be true. None.
Based on what we do know from non-biblical sources it's clear that the statement can't be true.
According Flavius Jospehus the followeres of Jesus were bussy telling the story of the resurrection right after the events and apparently with sufficiënt impact for Flavius to note this fact 70 years later. He also mentioned Jacob the brother of Jesus as leader of a kind of congragation who draw the attention in Jerusalem a decade or two after the events.
According Tacitus Chistianity had already arrived in Rome before the great fire of Rome during the reign of Nero.
Those facts can't be explained without the assumption that the story had gone viral from start. Without internet, without television, without the Gospels being written.
To paraphrase: _"Ehrman_ _is_ _familiar_ _with_ _these_ _things,_ _and_ _I_ _can_ _speak_ _freely_ _to_ _him._ _I_ _am_ _convinced_ _that_ _none_ _of_ _this_ _has_ _escaped_ _his_ _notice,_ _because_ _it_ _was_ _not_ _done_ _in_ _a_ _corner."_
If Jesus only had about 25 followers after his death, who hardly anyone took seriously and who only talked about their Messiah in the temple, - why had the Jewish priestly elite previously made such a fuss about the leader of these meaningless religious "weirdos", especially during the great gathering of the Passover festival, and even alerted the Roman procurator?
Who promptly couldn't do anything with the accusation and therefore wanted to release Jesus?
And no Romans in Jerusalem - wasn't there Roman kohort barracks right next to the temple area?
Megan changes her hair color and eyeglasses more often than I change my underwear :)
Washing those cosmetics chemicals down the sink is not good for the environment. They are not as biodegradable as detergents.
@Bart D Ehrman
Why do you write these books, which you are claiming, presents more insight, into the Bible, than the Bible does into itself??
Since based upon your responses, the biblical information is unreliable; what is the source of information, which allows you, to come to these judgments that you are presenting, as it concerns the biblical information??
I barely graduated high school, lord knows I flunked out of college damn near immediately but bart is a great teacher! If I had had teachers like him I may have made it farther than a semester lol
It is remarkable how much Mr Ehrmann supports the claims made about Chiritians in the Quran...
If you really think the end is coming SOON, what is the point of "selling everything"? I could understand stop working, and selling a car or some furniture say, to get a little money to buy food for the short time before the end. But everything? Why you need a lot of money, if the end is coming soon?
10:20 remains a Jewish apocalyptic prroject. _JC
dumb question. I know he says "my god, my god, why have you forsaken me?" (or whatever the other translations are). could it be that he's talking about humanity forsaking him? like a, "my god what have you done" when you see what the dog did while you were away? It would show how disconnected the people were if they thought he was talking about God as opposed to them. Also... for those that think that would be a sin... I don't think it would be "in vain" in that scenario.
I think the usage of “oh my god” or “my god” as an exclamation of surprise, shock or disbelief is a fairly modern form of speech.
Edit: Fixed some spelling errors.
I find it hard to understand how Prof. Ehrman can believe that Acts is reliable in any substantial respect. It is chock full of fictional malarky, is inconsistent and inaccurate in numerous respects we know of and is obviously an apologetic for the Christian Neverland.
When it was realized that Jesus was the suffering servant, teacher of righteousness, they had been awaiting who would show them the way when he died, he became in their mind, their savior god and protector. This wasn't a unique viewpoint as the Essenes had already prepared them to accept this idea. After accepting his death and resurrection, disagreement arose over what the second coming of the messiah would look like and what it would accomplish. That is when the group began to splinter and bickered amongst themselves about the sort of things Jews and Christians still argue about.
It seems mormonism gained followers much much quicker than christianity in its infancy.
@Bart D Ehrman
@Megan
When was Christianity an apocalyptic Jewish sect
A crowd of 3 or 5 thousand people would have had a Romans kicking their arses. Pilate had no problem sending in the heavy mob.
I think it's likely that there was a split of the desciples right after Jesus' death. There would have been some staying in Jerusalem, some going to Galilee, and some just quiting the group.
Being written by the Jerusalem branch, Acts would have done anything to surpress this split but if the followings in Jerusalem and Galilee reunited later, we might see fragments in the gospels hinting at this second group.
I guess the religious bosses had to say Jesus was God, otherwise its some guy who was crucified and died....,,the Messiah...really?
Ninety years later lol
Why didn't a single person write a single word down? Mark talks about thousands of people following him yet not a word written.
I really appreciate all the work yall do to put this on. Personally, I only listen to the first half or so. I want to hear the content but don't really care about the "weekly schedule" stuff . But keep up the great work
bro, you’re being rude. I actually love the “weekly” stuff, since you mentioned it
Ugh I hate the “hello how are you doings” lol sorry, I’m cranky 😅
you know you're a 90s child when you base your writing on Josephus
There is something so silly about looking for histoyical accuracy in myth making writings
So who came up with the idea that Jesus was the messiah after his death? The whole thing seems super contrived. The Disciples genuinely believe they saw Jesus after his death that coincidentally allows to continue to claim he is the Messiah despite his death and Jewish belief
?
When Christianity "took over" the Roman Empire, Rome also overtook Christianity. Rome was christianized, but Christianity was also Romanized.
Of course, that's exactly why polytheism weaved into Christianity. Much of it done through governance councils as if this was a pure political matter.
Why is the first account of what happened after Jesus died 90 years later? All the players would have been dead
It seems to me that a great deal more could have been said about 1st century Christianity, such as: (1) What the Didache suggests about earliest Christianity, (2) The 1st C. schism between Jewish followers of the 12 Apostles and the numerous gentile followers of Paul, and (3) A description of the proto-Orthodox movement in the late first c., using works such as 1 Clement and the early "apostolic fathers."
Almost like you teach a whole course and write several books about early Christianity.
@@pauldaigle2344 I intended this to be constructive criticism, and didn't make an ad hominem attack. The 3 things I listed are considered standard topics in the study of 1st c. Christianity.
@@robinstevenson6690actually we know very little about 1st century Christianity outside of the NT so it’s hard to say/write anything beyond conjecture.
@@robinstevenson6690 I certainly agree with your first 2 points. The Didache is all too often ignored yet it might be the earliest remaining document we have. Jesus was a Jew & so were all his early followers, most striking is how the Orthodox dealt with these followers of the Way, declaring them heretics & by the 4th century banishment was deemed no longer sufficient, all non trinitarian elders along with their versions of gospel were burned at the stake. By the 6th century all the early Jewish sects in the Roman Empire were extinct, the early church fathers totally promoted their execution, a fact successfully hidden from history & never seemingly brought up in scholarly debate.
I agree with you on this, completely, and as a result of what the Orthodox did, we largely ended up with the "faith" of Paul, rather than that of Jesus (i.e., a faith "about Jesus," rather than of Jesus).@@some_old_guy1976
the whole accending to heven thing - how does that make any sense? where did the body go - does jesus need food? O_o;??
That's what I'm saying.
8 minutes of commercial time before it begins !!! use time to read comments !
One question: how many were the christians prosecuted by Nero in Rome?
Josephus says Jesus gained many followers jews & Greeks.
If love an episode about why jesus was killed
it is amazing how thr is always more to know. _JC
One of the best uses of YT for sure!
As long as Jesus life and one year after Jesus death, Are the followers known Jesus as a God..??
When Bart talks about becoming a divine being does that mean along the lines of Elijah and Moses? What was the view at the time of the role of a divine being? It must have been a special role since everyone else I gather was supposed to go to Sheol.
Bart (I’m using his first name because my IPad keeps miscorrecting the spelling of his surname-artificial stupidity) has discussed this question on RUclips extensively- not necessarily in this series. I can’t remember exactly where, but if you google a bit you should be able to find it.
search up ehrman's lectures on here regarding his book "How Jesus Became God", he discusses a lot on the different strains of ideas on how mortals become deified in this time period. Suffice to say though, the likely evolution of how early christians saw jesus' divinity (as traced through the IRL development from Mark, Matthew, Luke, John) mirrors the three main ways ehrman identifies that era of people saw mortal->divinity transformations (at first they said he was revived and brought up to heaven, then they say that he was the son of a divine being, then they said he was always a divine being)
If you believe you don't care about truth. Yet if you know the truth you may have belief but faith and belief and knowledge and experience don't always coincide.. I think...
That itself isn't true. Does that mean you don't "care about the truth"?
Your statement isn't true because the believers may "care about the truth" but (i) value other ideals higher, (ii) possess the truth and you just don't know it yet, or (iii) care about the truth but not have adequate epistemic standards for acquiring it effectively through an understanding of basic evidentiary principles, laws and fallacies in logic, and skepticism.
Believing and not knowing, OR, not believing and knowing aren't the only two possible positions. They aren't the only two exclusive options as your statement implies.
Can we please take a moment to appreciate how much hard work bart has put in to uncover the myth of christianity and how it is mostly man made nonsense. Without him we would probably have not known any of it. And would just have blind faith.
Now, the question we all need to ask is why would we believe in a bunch of nonsense that people wrote 2000 years ago when people were mostly superstitious and highly ignorant of science and the world we live in, and just made things up according to thier limited knowledge and intelligence, and according to the myths and legends that were around at the time ?
Can you see how ridiculous that is.
Now , christians may argue and say - what about the power that we get from jesus , what about the healing etc.
Well, i have seen people get power and healing in hinduism, islam and many other religions. So its not exclusive to christianity.
In that sense, you can pray to any powerful spirit in the spiritual world such as a demon, and get power and healing through that. Because you connect to that spirit .
Btw jesus is not god. Hope you all realise that now. Its all man made.
Finding lots of inconsistencies and problems doesn't disprove it all.
There is no logical principle you could point to where your argument is necessarily true.
There are many other possible explanations.
Islam gives a clear perspective on what happened ie Jesus pbuh was a prophet and the nonsense re his supposed divinity was formulated later.
WHY would the English celebrate Heloween?
The leader of the movement was James the brother of Jesus. But he rejected Paul completely and called him out to repent. Acts 21:24 That's why Christianity is problematic. Jesus and Paul don't have the same theology. And Paul never met Jesus and was in open conflict with James and Peter who lived with Jesus.
No way... Adult Santa stuff is problematic because they can't agree on the details of Adult Santa? I thought it was problematic because it's a scam. OK, it's not always the same scam. ;-)
Zionsim God was a Jewish Man whom prayed and Worshiped God lol😅
We do not know who invented the fairy tales called gospels!
.
Why bother executing a rebel who only has twenty followers? 🤔
Within the first five minutes of small talk Bart’s citing Paul’s epistles as a possible source for the historicity of the church immediately after Jesus’ ascension, which I find quite surprising, given the previous video stating that Paul didn’t know Christ. Now, they’re suddenly connected in both time and place. So, Paul may even have seen Christ in Jerusalem?
@preacherno - People misunderstand the collection of Paul's letter of which half are fraud with the apostle story. The apostle story with all its fantasy stories and miracles is just another fan fiction account. It is made up.
James the brother....that was never acknowledged by Catholic church
You mean the same way they do not acknowledge sexual abuse by priests?
The more I learn about the early church and the origins of the NT, the less “Christian” I become.
"The more I learn......"
That's fantastic. 👍
It's demonstrates that you're an honest seeker of truth, however bitter that may be. Of course truth is a bitter pill to swallow. Please read through with and open heart and mind. Feel free to try to counter / challenge / refute / reason on the matter.
*Do YOU realize that the ONLY people on the face of the earth who practice and uphold and preach and defend the doctrine and honor of Jesus OF THE BIBLE are the Muslim* ?????
It's an amazing situation really. On each and every fundamental doctrine, Christianity (overwhelming) is AGAINST Jesus of their very own scriptures BUT the Muslim is calling the Christians to go by what Jesus precticed and preached. 🤗
👉 Jesus gave the Trinity-DESTROYING testimony that THE FATHER (SINGLE PERSON) IS THE ONLY TRUE GOD but the Christians (overwhelming) testify that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (The Trinity) is the true God.
👉 John 4:21-22
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, *WORSHIP THE FATHER* .
Ye worship ye know not what: *WE* know what *WE WORSHIP* : for salvation is of the Jews.
Have another look:
*WE WORSHIP*
(The J-E-W nation INCLUDING ME - Jesus)
👉 “And this is life eternal, that they might know *YOU THE ONLY TRUE GOD* , and Jesus Christ, whom *YOU* have sent.”
John 17:3
👉 John 20:17: “Jesus saith unto her, ...I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and TO MY GOD, AND YOUR GOD.”
Have another look!
".... *TO MY GOD and YOUR GOD* "
ME and YOU 👉 *WE*
*WE WORSHIP*
THE ONLY TRUE GOD - THE FATHER who is THE GOD OF ME (Jesus) and YOU 👉 *OUR GOD*
👉 And Jesus answered him, THE FIRST OF ALL the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord *OUR GOD* is one Lord
Mark 12:29
👉 Jesus teaches: “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and *HIM ONLY* shalt thou serve” Luke 4:8. Notice the words: “HIM ONLY.” Jesus did not say “US only,” or “Him and I only.” How could he possibly i it more clear than that? Jesus told to worship ONLY THE FATHER - who is THE GOD of Jesus too.
👉 NEVER preached about Original Sin
👉 NEVER preached that for salvation, people needed to believe that Jesus died (will die) for their sins
👉 NEVER preached that the wages of sins is death
👉 PREACHED that for the forgiveness - NO payment needed, NO sacrifice of Jesus, NO Jesus paid for us
👉 PREACHED that just turn away in sincere repentance and the Merciful God forgives
👉 PREACHED adherence to the comprehensive Law Code as the path to salvation
👉 PREACHED that for certain transgression (like mur-der) on the Law Code, CAPITAL punishment - PUTTING the transgressors to DE ATH - needed to be administered
👉 PREACHED that his followers SHALL IN NO WAY ENTER THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN if they do not keep the comprehensive Law Code even better and moreso than the Scribes and the Pharisees
👉 DID NOT eat p.i.g
👉 FASTED and PREACHED FASTING
👉 Greeted with the phrase "peace be with you"
👉 Jesus was CIRCUMCISED. AN EVERLASTING COVENANT IN FLESH for the believers till the end of times
👉 PREACHED that his followers follow the comprehensive Law Code which the Scribes and the Pharisees tell people to follow - that includes oblution / washing of the hands and feet before worship or entering a place of worship
Of course the term the Father in the Jewish context. NOT that God has a Son.
One of the names of The Q-u-r-a-n is The Reminder. It calls the people of the previous scriptures BACK to the straight path - the path which they have abandoned / forgotten / c0rrupted / no knowledge of.