Check out Bart's upcoming online lecture: Virgin Births in Antiquity! You can get the early bird special of $9.95 through December 16th. The live recording will be on December 14th, 8-9.30pm ET, join live to take part in the Q&A :) After the 16th the price will return to $14.95, still a great deal for a fascinating lecture! If you're interested in this seminar, check it out via my affiliate link to help me out as a creator: emmathorne--ehrman.thrivecart.com/other-virgin-births/
@@davidjanbaz7728 There is a question if one could even _talk_ of virgin births in those cases. And I mean, assuming the stories are roughly speaking historical, before we look at theology. Zeus (or whatever it really was) basically raping Semele is sth very different from God (or an angel purporting to be from Him) waiting for the yes of Mary.
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, the slave woman Schmi gave birth to her son Anakin Skywalker without male intervention. The Force was very strong with her.
My friend is a druid who lent me some books that claimed when Christianity started taking over Rome the Druids claimed to have converted because Druidry was being routed out and because they could write many became scribes and used the dressings of Christianity to write down their oral stories since it would be illegal to continue speaking them. I never looked into it any deeper but am interested to hear what people more informed than me and that single source have to say.
@@trifonTAF we know quite specifically (from roman texts but from several authors, I think) that they didn't write anything related to their religion and knowledge. Druidism was forbidden under the roman empire as early as the 1st century BC, so I would say it is unlikely that actual druids lived up to see christianity rise and disguise their myths into christian ones. They could have done it under the roman pantheon, but I don't think there are known accounts of that. If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.
@@nessa-parmentier True The most evidence we have of the Druids is that the Romans slaughtered them. "The Massacre of the Druids After Emperor Claudius declared Druidic practices illegal in AD 54, the Druids' future in Roman Britain became increasingly uncertain. In AD 61, the Romans planned a massacre of the defiant Druids at Anglesey, the centre of their culture, and their last stronghold in consolidated Britain."
Any time you do a video like this Emma, it’s time to click, watch and learn!! As a Christian myself who does question things these videos are awesome x You and Dr Bart are Gold Emma. Keep up the excellent work 4:28
This is a reoccurring motif in ancient literature and mythology. Sargon the Great also has a very similar story dating back to almost 2000 before Remus and Romulus.
Great interview. I remember in seminary when we were being taught that one needs to actively bring various tools of critical thinking to bear on scripture, there were always a few students who stubbornly claimed the Bible to be 'the Word of God' and therefore not subject to critical interpretation. This interview shows why that critical lens is vital. The bible was written by hundreds of people over thousands of years reflecting oral traditions from different regions. Trying to reconcile it into one 'correct' version is nonsense. A group of scholars studied the gospels to try to determine which things in the Gospel Jesus probably actually said. There isn't much left of the Gospels by the end of it, but the saying which are left as 'probably original' are all about justice, equality and treating people fairly in this life.
Woah! Impressive to see this interview! As a Hindu I sadly see people claim a lot that Krishna is an example of a virgin birth with other similarities but that is absolutely not true. Krishna’s mother was imprisoned with her husband and they had many children in captivity
I remember being exposed to these ideas in the early 2000s via the conspiracy film Zeitgeist. Unfortunately, there was lots of other framing around it that was less believable, but the idea that these myths had so many shared components such that a truly Christian origin for the myths was absurd stuck with me since then.
it's genuinely so cute seeing a guy so so excited to talk about something he's studied so long that he stumbles all over himself with hyper giggles, you can see the gears working overtime 🥰
Is it just me or is Dr. Ehrman the real-life equivalent of that guy from Get Smart who everybody intuitively likes? He just strikes me as such a lovely guy 😅
There’s a lot about him to like. His infectious laugh. The fact that you can tell he gets legit excited about history and mythology. It makes you excited too, haha. How calming and soft his voice is.
The weird thing about insisting on the virgin birth is that they also insist that Jesus was descended from David through Joseph. But if Jesus was really son of God then he can't be son of Joseph and this can't be descended from David. one or the other ain't so!
Highly recommend Mikel Del Rosario and Mary Jo Sharp pertaining to this topic. Reading the ancient accounts for yourself as well as the scriptures is important
You’re so right about that. Just a made up story maybe based on an actual person, but in no way a magic god-man, so entirely irrelevant, especially today.
Wow, fastest I’ve clicked on a video. As for the issue of the virgin birth, it was not as big of an issue as the whole belief of Jesus dying for my sins, but it was required as part of the whole Jesus as part of the trinity.
Why would whether Mary has ever been physically intimate with anyone, have any bearing on Jesus being part of the trinity? Jesus could have been fathered by God or the Holy Spirit or however that goes, even if Mary was not a virgin.
@@blueredingreen It’s God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, so Jesus had to come from God, to literally be his son and of his seed. That is the belief in a nutshell and put as blunt as I could. Beyond that the belief needs to have a son and the idea of adoption is not as legitimate as a biological son in this line of thinking. This is not a belief I hold, but one that was taught to me.
The creed that I had to repeat every Sunday said “conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary” and I had to say I believed this at my confirmation.
@@Mantuamaker I mean, it can be true both that Mary wasn't a virgin and that Jesus was literally God's son. That would just mean the person she had intercourse with (possibly years earlier) wasn't the father. I don't think it would be as compelling of a story, but Mary being a virgin certainly isn't a requirement.
@@blueredingreen if the timing and story worked out you could be right. Yes, but to those who follow all the traditions it follows that one part of the story connects to the next. It’s a chain of beliefs. It is trying to see things through the eyes and belief structure that I don’t follow or get now and try and walk the fine line to share why “years” wouldn’t, or at least shouldn’t be possible.
Someone asked what Isaiah 9:6 was about... here is the verse - with explanation below. Isaiah 9:6 (NIV) For to us a child is born, to us a son is given, and the government will be on his shoulders. And he will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. Explaination: INSIDE of a person is a 'woman' - the 'one flesh' that God 'created' (NOT the 'man' that LORD GOD 'formed', then separated, and advised should be joined BACK together again, as what GOD has 'joined together' let man not separate). As GOD created man as MALE AND FEMALE, created them 'he' - and called their name... 'Adam'. God's creation of man was 'androgynous' or 'male AND female'. And thus... it is what COMES OUT of a MAN that defiles him. Thus... one should be able to see 'the WOMAN' of Revelation 12. IF this 'woman' inside of you does what is GOOD in the eyes of GOD, the FRUIT of that choice is then 'male' - and acceptable to GOD and taken into HEAVEN. BUT... if the 'woman' inside of you does what is EVIL in the eyes of GOD, the FRUIT is then a 'female', 'daughter of man', and another 'woman' or 'seed bearer'... which is then another 'opportunity' for something to come of it, but then it is NOT a 'first fruit' and NOT ACCEPTABLE to GOD. THIS is also (spiritually)... the 'VIRGIN BIRTH' as it DOES NOT require 'physical union' to produce FRUIT, or to say... THE WORD MADE (into) FLESH. This is what Jesus was referring to when He spoke with Nicodemus... or being BORN of WATER & SPIRIT, and also what is referred to with Mary (Jesus mother) AND ALSO, why Jesus is called - 'the Word', as it is the COMMAND of GOD through which everything that has been made or will ever BE MADE... is made. Note that the daughters of man, became 'evil' spirits upon the earth... and thus 'spirit give birth to spirt' is then true. Flesh gives birth to flesh is simple to understand - as this is an 'earthly thing' vs. and lacks the complexities of 'heavenly things'.
That exercise Ehrman tells about around 10 minutes into the video and the reactions by his Christian students is fascinating, especially as I have actually heard this "foreshadowing" argument about similar stories in other religions myself. Funny how they draw the obvious conclusion (which is that, if you want to assume that one copied from the other, it was the later ones that did the copying) but then go into apologetic mode when it turns out that this obvious conclusion is at odds with their preconceived notion. A good example how faith and religion rots the mind of some believers.
I love the implication that the omniscient, all-powerful creator went through several "beta tests" before getting the Messiah right. Like He had to iron all the bugs out. Addendum: would that make Mohammed and Joseph Smith DLC?
It's a trope I feel. It was the christian version of the moses story. They needed an impossible origin even. They flat out stole the 'King killing male babies' thing from Moses' story, added the virgin birth element to make it more impossible since they couldn't also steal the basket in the river bit. Then a brief moment of the kid being shown to be intelligent, for jesus this was being found in the temple after his incompetent lying parents left him behind when they left town, for moses it was being raised/educated by the royal tutors. Then vanish for decades only to return a leader. Do a few side show magic trick miracles and then leave the world without leaving a corpse. it's the moses story, just reworked for the jewish rebels (christians).
@@blueredingreen No, the christian storyline begins just like the jewish storyline, moses and all. But, and this is the part I am suggesting, they needed their own savior, their own deliverer from their old situation. Moses was that character as he saved them from egyptian slavery. Jesus, in a similar fashion, delivered his followers from the sin imposed on them by the jewish storyline. Is it true? I have no good way to say, But it seemed to fit what I see in the bible and the historical process that evolved the religious texts that became the bible we have now very well in my view.
@@blueredingreen Also, one more element in this I had missed, the people building the jesus story had made an effort to get their story to fulfill as many messiah prophecies as possible, one of which was the virgin birth.
@@alanthompson8515 Do you mean they created the fulfillment of the prophecies? Or the prophecies themselves? I thought the whole issue with the jews of the time was that the prophecies existed and these guys were claiming jesus fulfilled them.
I wonder how many Christians have a Bible with annotations. Do they know that the texts in the Bible were not written in English, so therefore anything they read has been translated and interpreted, and is filtered? How can you not be curious about the original text? If the Bible is the word of God, then why trust anyone to interpret it for you instead of trying to get closer to the source? I know that being an historian isn't for everyone, but people seem to talk about the Bible with the certainty and authority of scholars when they've done literally no investigation of their own. Re-reading the same translated text is not investigation.
@@G-L-O-R-I-A which then in turn eliminates the possible justifications for contradictions, no longer being able to claim that those contradictions are errors by mere mortals when copying or translating.
My grandfather (a vicar) was an expert in Latin and Ancient Greek, and had a smattering of Hebrew. One time, he tried conversing with Greeks, but there was quite a language barrier!
@@archivist17 I bet there was! It would be like using the language of Beowulf while shopping in Tescos or WalMart. If I remember correctly, Louis De Bernieres takes the mickey out of an English spy speaking Ancient Greek in 'Captain Corelli's Mandolin'.
3:23 The "great scholar" just dropped back a bit. Helvidius challenged that She remained Virgin, St. Jerome wrote Contra Helvidium, and the Catholic Church has the _Perpetual_ Virginity as a dogma. So have _all_ the non-Protestant Churches, which apart from Catholics are: * Eastern Orthodox * Copts * Armenians * Assyrian Church of the East. It can be noted that unlike most Protestants today, Luther, Calvin and I presume also Cranmer actually believed in the _Perpetual_ Virginity and explicitly took a distance from the "error of Helvidius" that being that She had children with Joseph later on. There are two Catholic views on Our Lord's siblings (mentioned in the Gospels). * they were _cousins_ of Jesus (on Joseph's side, presumably), and as such authorised in absence of _siblings_ to do the levirate duty; * they were children of St. Joseph _from a previous marriage,_ he was an old widower when marrying the Virgin Mother of God.
Hi Emma. If you're interested in this kind of analysis, you might want to check out a RUclips channel named "Crecganford". It focuses mainly on the spread and evolution of myths and folklore and is run by a researcher from the University of the Arts London (Jon F White). If the academic thinking is correct, a lot of the sources for these stories (from whatever culture or religion you're looking at) go a hell of a lot farther back than just the iron or bronze ages. That's not to try and rain on Dr. Ehrman's lecture. White and Ehrman just seem to approach the subject from different perspectives. Ehrman seems specifically focused on Christian themes while White zooms out a little farther to try and describe the whole mythological landscape. There are far more connections there than I ever realized.
Competition is the key. There were many prophets in first century Palestine. Mostly pagan, but Jesus was not the only Jewish prophet. Few people know about them today because they were boring. In a world where gods and goddesses dominated thought, it makes perfect sense to make the birth story of Jesus miraculous. The fact that is most likely contrived by authors promoting a prophet they believe in does not take away from his teachings, sacrifice, or his status as a man imbued with the holy spirit.
Yo, to the commenters that either didn't watch the video, or don't understand the context of the question: They are discussing mythology. Not IVF, not biology, not insects or other animals. Whether the myth of Jesus' birth in the New Testament has roots or connections to earlier, similar stories.
@@stephenholland4441 Ancient stories about divine births. Mythology. Even if you consider the Bible scripture instead of myth, surely you don't think so about Pagan stories?
@@josephcowan6779 It's not "mythology", it was a real birth, and unless you repent and surrender your life to Jesus Christ, you're going to find out the hard way that it's not mythology, because it's a historical part of reality! Also, paganism is Satanic.
8:40 _"where are you getting December 25th from?"_ .... especially if there were any Mithraic shrines before Julius Caesar in the non-Roman world ... Wiki: _"According to the archaeologist Maarten Vermaseren, 1st century BCE evidence from Commagene demonstrates the "reverence paid to Mithras" but does not refer to "the mysteries".[q] In the colossal statuary erected by King Antiochus I (69-34 BCE) at Mount Nemrut, Mithras is shown beardless, wearing a Phrygian cap[3][80] (or the similar headdress, Persian tiara), in Iranian (Parthian) clothing,[78] and was originally seated on a throne alongside other deities and the king himself.[81] On the back of the thrones there is an inscription in Greek, which includes the name Apollo Mithras Helios in the genitive case (Ἀπόλλωνος Μίθρου Ἡλίου).[82] Vermaseren also reports about a Mithras cult in 3rd century BCE. Fayum.[83] R.D. Barnett has argued that the royal seal of King Saussatar of Mitanni from c. 1450 BCE. depicts a tauroctonous Mithras.[84]"_
Another great source you should get on some is The Bible Geek (Robert Price). I know no one more educated or as well spoken on the topic of all these things, really anything biblical and the historical context. I find it so ironic that the best biblical scholars are not Christians. Well, maybe that makes sense.
It is profoundly incorrect to assert that the "best" Biblical scholars are not Christians. Not being part of something and being a critic does not qualify anyone being "the best" scholar. They just have a divergent opinion. It has nothing to do with them being correct in their assessment.
"Only the most perverted of men will deny that there is a God, the Creator and Governor of all things. Such men would prefer to deny the existence of God than to face the just chastisement of their own misdeads." St. Alphonsus Liguori
What I find interesting is how much emphasis the bible puts on Joseph's bloodline - only then to say that he's not even related to Jesus at all. Any thoughts on that? :-)
Emma's done two videos about the her Star Trek activities, a shorter one (15 mins) some 6 months ago and a longer one (45 mins) just two weeks ago. Maybe there were others in the past, would have to scroll through her channel but if you watch the fan films you might be interested in these. 🙂
3:55 _"19th C. sometime"_ Bart is really much better on Protestant Church history than on the Catholic one before it. In the Catholic Church, you do have to believe all of the Nicene Creed (some divergences on whether Greeks not believing the filioque can normally be saved), and it includes: *Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto* *ex Maria Virgine, et homo factus est.* To a Catholic, Apostolic, Nicene, possibly Athanasian Creed are the major dogmas, and other dogmas are reasoned as being dogma for these dogmas as premisses to the conclusion of such other dogmas. Even a thing which is in the Bible and which wouldn't be a dogma for other reasons, it would still be dogmatic in the light of: *Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem:* *qui ex Patre Filioque procedit.* *Qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur:* *_qui locutus est per prophetas._* In this context specifically involving the hagiographers.
My take of Bart watching him with Emma, Religion For Breakfast, and Holy Kool Aid is that he just has opinions like everyone else. He has no idea wtf is going on. He just knows what he knows and sticks to that. He seems indecisive himself on what to think.
Funny how all 4 gospels don't match on Christ's birth or death, the two biggest aspects of the religion. Also what happened to the gold that was given by one of the Wise Men?
Oh boy I am glad Dr Bart isn't wearing that rug anymore, aging gracefully is the art of embracing change. Thank you for the interview, I take a mythicist position when it comes to the life of Jesus so I may watch the lectures to pad out my knowledge in that respect. Cheers!
Apparently in Jesus's language, Aramaic, 'virgin' means unwed woman. Of course the Gospels were written in Greek but Bart is certainly the Prof to explain all.
The ancient Romans (BCE) had the tradition of absorbing deities of newly conquered cultures, so I wouldn't be surprised if they just continued the practice by adopting multiple beliefs (myths) and claiming them as their own, then discredit or remove the original story tellers. There are riches and power to be gained from followers. As L. Ron Hubbard himself said, “You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.”
L. Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer who created his religion from inside his head. Hence the quote. Christians pre the takeover by the "Catholics" were poor. there is no logic to make one a believer in Christ. One either accepts or does not. It is either fact or fiction. If fact many of those here may be in trouble. If not fact, then why engage in anything that even smacks of moral activity; where does the authority for that arise from?
@@youaregodspursuit With enough people, you conquer nations. Ignorance prevents critical thought and if you've been fed lies since birth, you'll believe them. As Steven Weinberg said, “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”
I am overwhelmed when I encounter such a large group of people who are non-believers. Ehrman talks to itchy ears offering anything he can to deny God and His Son. All of his so-called scholarship is ill conceived and vacuous. In this short interview he comes off as an ill-informed presenter. "I guess it was around the beginning of the 19th century??? He counts on people hearing his talks and accepting his pronouncements as fact because it fits their paradigm. It seems somehow that they do not have time to actually do a little critical thinking, deductive reasoning or reading of scripture. Here is a statement made by Jesus that if it is true condemns all non-believers, " I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. " John 14:6 Again, he is either telling the truth or a liar. You must decide. I would caution you to not treat this as a small consideration. Everyone dies, even Christ died. He arose from death. You can too. It is an easy thing to succumb to our sense of self-importance while being arrogant. There is no middle ground on this. I dare you to challenge God to reveal himself to you. Be sincere, step up, be the rebel you claim be. Get in God's face and challenge him. Dare you, have you the real nerve to take God on? Do your talking walking.
No! However there’s a difference between virgin births vs. Divine impregnation. Zeus was fond of impregnating mortal women. However some early Christians critics did believe Virgo/ Parthenos just meant maiden, young woman. And his dad was a Roman soldier called Pantera. Some Christian sects did believe Jesus was born like any other person and was “son of God” in a titular sense. However, there were legends of females giving birth without any male input whether mortal or deity. Even in the historical period there were cultures who didn’t realise that sexual intercourse and pregnancy were connected.
1:36 I _am_ thankful that Bart is more honest than my Greek professor. I'd have gone by the fact that "parthenos" has "virgin" as default translation and considered some other attested uses in antiquity as stretching the range of meaning. A "baby" usually doesn't mean a girl of 14-15, but the guys who prefer calling Charlie Chaplin a "cradle robber" over "polygamist" when being critical about his sexual mores are obviously stretching the meaning of the word "baby" and equally by inserting "cradle" showing they clearly know the original meaning. Just to explain what a "stretching of the range of meaning" means.
12:19 A very good analysis of most stories of people who were claimed as sons of Zeus. Unless Minos, Radamanthys and Sarpedon were indeed sons of the Cretan king of that name. But this is in Hebrew context very unheard of. Hence not a good explanation for any kind of miraculous birth in a Hebrew book, even if Luke (uniquely) is only second hand Hebrew.
Fascinating guy and interesting discussion - I have to ask though, is it just me or is there a whole of Penn Jillette in his mannerisms and delivery? It might be influenced that I have been bingeing (sp?) on Fool Us recently (other amazing magic talent related shows are available)
5:22 And the god getting a woman pregnant was in these alleged cases also not an immaterial god, and did not allow the woman to remain virgin, if she was so up to the fact. By the way, in the case of Hercules, a married woman was it seem pregnant _both_ by her husband, _and_ "by Zeus" which pretty much makes me think it was a semi-cursed but otherwise normal twin pregnancy. In case you think Hercules wasn't cursed, look at his life.
Part of the wedding ceremony in those days was making sure the wedding was 'consummated' on the night or very shortly after to complete the wedding rite. I'm wondering how Joseph and Mary were considered married at the time if they had presumably been married for over 9 months yet never had sex.
Mary may have been married as a child. There are cultures today that conduct such marriages but sex is not permitted until girl is a little older. Regardless;the entire story is bizarre. Firstly, under Hebrew law Mary should have been put on trial for her life. If Joseph had asserted he was father that would prevent that. But the story says he does dispute his fatherhood.
Per Matthew 1:18, they were “pledged in marriage” i.e. engaged/betrothed. That’s why when Joseph receives his own visit from Gabriel in 1:20, the angel tells him “go ahead and marry her”-because they weren’t yet when God knocked her up
They weren't married when Mary got pregnant, hence why the angel had to convince Joseph not to stone Mary to death, which was the custom for brides who were not virgins
Thankyou for replies, clears a few things up as usually during these debates they are refered to as husband and wife but not usually when that occurred.
The virginhood of Mary seems to follow somewhat trivially from Christianity, given that sexual purity is such a big topic in Christianity. Although this would only make sense if purity was a big topic at the time those books were written, which I'm not sure about. I would imagine the modern interpretation of purity culture is very new, but there are definitely at least a handful of sections in the Bible about purity. But also, if you have a woman who has been sexually active, that makes a natural impregnation more plausible. So if I were going to make up a story of supernatural impregnation, virginity seems like an obvious addition.
Purity was a pretty big deal in Jewish society. Unwed pregnancies could result in death for the woman. If a man were to marry both a mother and her daughter, all three would be burned to death. (Leviticus 20 14) And Leviticus 21 9 says “If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.” Deuteronomy 22 20 states that If a woman could not prove she was a virgin when married she could be stoned to death - and on her father's doorstep no less! Mind you, a man could pay some money to the father of a woman he raped and keep her as his wife, so it wasn't always lethal. Yay /s Just for giggles: Deuteronomy 22 11-12 also tells us not to wear "cloth of wool and linen mixed together" and to make "tassels on the four corners of the garment with which you cover yourself." And in verse 5 it says "A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God." Wonderful stuff!
The centre of ancient Israel's religion through most of the monarchic period was the worship of a god named Yahweh, and for this reason the religion of Israel is often referred to as Yahwism. Yahweh, however, was not the 'original' god of Israel; it is El, the head of the Canaanite pantheon, whose name forms the basis of the name "Israel", and none of the Old Testament patriarchs, the tribes of Israel, the Judges, or the earliest monarchs, have a Yahwistic theophoric name (i.e., one incorporating the name of Yahweh). It is unclear how, where, or why Yahweh appeared in the Levant; even his name is a point of confusion. The exact date of this occurrence is also ambiguous: the term Israel first enters historical records in the 13th century BCE with the Egyptian Merneptah Stele, and while the worship of Yahweh is circumstantially attested to as early as the 12th century BCE, there is no attestation or record of even Yahweh's name, let alone his origin or character, in the Levant until some four hundred years later, with the Mesha Stele (9th century BCE). Nevertheless, many scholars believe that the shared worship of Yahweh played a role in the emergence of Israel in the Late Bronze Age (circa 1200 BCE). Compare these two verses: 2 Samuel 24: 1 Again the anger of the Yahweh burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.” Compare to: 1 Chronicles 21:1 Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel. 🤔 📖
The reason why we have the virgin birth is because of the winter solstice, the sun is born again in Virgo. That's the real esoteric knowledge for what the phrase means, the sun stops for three days and raises again during the zodiac sign of Virgo the virgin.
Emma: Did not hear you or Dr. Ehrman mention the Egyptian birth stories of Horus and others. There appear to be striking similarities; but perhaps this will be included in his lecture.
I did not know that was the adjective form of the Mithras cult, and I didn’t know the test of honour was not only whether my dad can beat up your dad but if your dad has bottomed for my dad. Wild idea, does ao3 have a tag for that??
Single mums for the win!! Who do you think raised these great men? (and told this story first!) Also.. shout out to the dads who believed the story...TOP BLOKES EVERYONE!
I don't consider the virgin birth as being prevalent, the dogma of the virgin birth is prevalent. The supposed divinity of Jesus was enough to enable a concept like, 'salvation.'
4:45 Noting you said "miraculous" and not "virgin" - there is more than one difference. In the Bible, the births of Samuel and of John the Baptist as well as Isaac, perhaps (I might recall wrong) of Samson as well, are miraculous. But not by virgins.
4:22 No, that's not how Biblical inerrancy works. A fact is not Biblically attested because _all_ 27 books of the New or _all_ 46 books of the Old or _all_ 73 books of both Testaments mention it, it is absolutely sufficient that even _one_ book does so.
In the syriac sinnatic it says Josph begot Jesus or Yahshua is the son of Joseph then every word he spoke came from Joseph thus Joseph is the True Messiah. Leading you back to the elohim of Abraham issac Jacob "I will be"
Hello Emma. 🙋🏻♀️As you are now touching on this topic, it might be of interest to also contextualise the virgin birth of Jesus. So, if Jesus was a parthenogenetically born child of Mary, he must have had a female genotype. And if so appearing as male, was by definition a transgender male. Given that Jesus had a relationship with the “beloved disciple", which the bible identifies as John, Jesus would also be a gay transgender man. This might be of interest to the true believers in the Christian faith, who accept the bible as correct and also a indication of how true believers need to live their lives. A case of "what would Jesus do". Or at least, what would Jesus say. I trust this is of value to the true believers and can serve as a instrument to identify those who present themselves as followers of the light, but instead serves the darkness.
Axial tilt is "the reason for the season," both literally and figuratively. Solstice celebrations have been occurring since humans first learned to "map" the seasons astronomically and celebrated the return of the sun. The Gospel of Luke, however, includes the stuff about shepherds with their flocks. But you don't pasture your livestock in the dead of winter. There's no fresh forage. So by Luke's calculation, Jesus (if he existed at all) must have been born in late spring at the earliest.
@@RandomGuy-sn3ne The area around Stone Henge is one example. New Year celebrations in Scotland moved due to their original 'clash' with the 'Christian' celebrations, there is no 'feasting' or 'party' element to the biblical celebration, then there is the practical need to reduce the burden on grazing land between January and March, give or take in the Northern hemisphere.
11:16 First, none of the "miraculous births" I know of in the Greco-Roman paganism are "virgin births" because whether they started out as virgins or not, they certainly didn't remain virgins after a "god" had been there. Second, none of the ascensions to heaven are put after a bodily resurrection or what could even remotely look like one. This involves both Krishna and Hercules. Not to mention Perseus and Andromeda. None really involve men as physically observing any "take-off" (in Krisha's case I think it is a poet having a dream). When it comes to raising dead, I carefully checked that Hercules wrestling with Thanatos over Alcestis the earliest sources are _after_ Elijah raised a boy. _After_ Elisha post mortem raised a corpse meant to be buried close by. When it comes to casting out demons I'd like to know how many sources are after the times of Tobit. Not when scholars believe the book is written (whether progressives or just Protestants) but when they lived. *When he was made captive in the days of Salmanasar king of the Assyrians, even in his captivity, forsook not the way of truth,* Plus if some Babylonian actually believed Nebo was the one true God, God could have considered his orthodoxy sufficient to allow him a real successful exorcism. The parallels in how the possessed behave before exorcisms would be due to demonic possession being a real phenomenon. My docent in Latin, at reading Aeneid VI with us, pointed out that the Sibyl's trance (at Cumae) begins in ways that realistically parallel the trances of voodoo mediums even today.
Note, the boy raised by Elijah lived among Baal worshippers, and while Hercules was a real man, the stories about him may owe some to stories about Baal in Phoenicia. And the neighbours of the raised boy were hardly likely to credit the true God, even apart from Elijah _not_ posing as Baal worshipper, unlike how Coello mistreats the story in "The Fifth Mountain" ....
First your have to prove that this particular Jesus even existed outside of the biblical text, and that is a huge problem. That's before you even get into the myths of his tale. Extraordinary claims need a,extraordinary evidence to support them of which none is available.
Jesus had to be born of a virgin, conceived by the Holy Spirit, because if he was conceived by man, that means he would have been born under the curse of Adam's sin. In order to become our sacrifice for sin, he had to be sinless and spotless. The comments show how people don't understand the spiritual side, but rather only look at the natural. You can't look at the conception and birth of Jesus in the natural light, because it was supernatural, and spiritual.
It gets weird when the Christian defense of Hell is that God is just respecting your wishes and not making you spend eternity with Him, in which case it makes no sense that He would worry about any of the details of what you believe, it should just be if you want to be saved, you are.
According to the Bible itself ... Mary was not a virgin, neither was God Jesus' "biological" father. It's strange how theists completely ignore these rather important details.
Hold the phone. Joseph and Mary were married. If they never consummated the marriage, isn't that a violation against the whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing?
Check out Bart's upcoming online lecture: Virgin Births in Antiquity! You can get the early bird special of $9.95 through December 16th. The live recording will be on December 14th, 8-9.30pm ET, join live to take part in the Q&A :) After the 16th the price will return to $14.95, still a great deal for a fascinating lecture!
If you're interested in this seminar, check it out via my affiliate link to help me out as a creator: emmathorne--ehrman.thrivecart.com/other-virgin-births/
🎉 you just passed 10,000,000 views! Awesome 👍😎
Ah, Bart already made his lecture ...
Jesus was the only incarnation in history: the other stories of virgin births have no equivalence to The visible YHWH becoming Jesus the Christ.
Interview Rebecca McLaughlin PhD on her book Confronting Jesus !
@@davidjanbaz7728 There is a question if one could even _talk_ of virgin births in those cases.
And I mean, assuming the stories are roughly speaking historical, before we look at theology.
Zeus (or whatever it really was) basically raping Semele is sth very different from God (or an angel purporting to be from Him) waiting for the yes of Mary.
A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, the slave woman Schmi gave birth to her son Anakin Skywalker without male intervention. The Force was very strong with her.
My friend is a druid who lent me some books that claimed when Christianity started taking over Rome the Druids claimed to have converted because Druidry was being routed out and because they could write many became scribes and used the dressings of Christianity to write down their oral stories since it would be illegal to continue speaking them. I never looked into it any deeper but am interested to hear what people more informed than me and that single source have to say.
I'm very doubtful we can find evidence of this. We know very little of ancient druids, so I don't think they had many texts
Sounds like an excuse to do Christianity but rebrand it as druidry.
Chuck the whole thing out!
@@trifonTAF we know quite specifically (from roman texts but from several authors, I think) that they didn't write anything related to their religion and knowledge.
Druidism was forbidden under the roman empire as early as the 1st century BC, so I would say it is unlikely that actual druids lived up to see christianity rise and disguise their myths into christian ones. They could have done it under the roman pantheon, but I don't think there are known accounts of that.
If I'm wrong, feel free to correct me.
@@nessa-parmentier True
The most evidence we have of the Druids is that the Romans slaughtered them.
"The Massacre of the Druids After Emperor Claudius declared Druidic practices illegal in AD 54, the Druids' future in Roman Britain became increasingly uncertain. In AD 61, the Romans planned a massacre of the defiant Druids at Anglesey, the centre of their culture, and their last stronghold in consolidated Britain."
@@trifonTAF Nobody knows who they were, or what they were doing, but their legacy lives on!
Love Bart Ehrman. Awesome seeing you interview him and I'm also looking forward to that lecture!
I never thought I'd hear Bart Ehrman described as someone's "top lad" but I'm here for it lmao 😆
Any time you do a video like this Emma, it’s time to click, watch and learn!!
As a Christian myself who does question things these videos are awesome x
You and Dr Bart are Gold Emma. Keep up the excellent work 4:28
The story of Romulus and Remus always sounded similar to the story of Moses.
This is a reoccurring motif in ancient literature and mythology. Sargon the Great also has a very similar story dating back to almost 2000 before Remus and Romulus.
I really like when he comes on. It would be great if more scholars could get interviewed by Emma.
I love your interviews with Dr. Ehrman, Emma.
Me, too!
I loved that your first question was about potential errors in translation.
Great interview. I remember in seminary when we were being taught that one needs to actively bring various tools of critical thinking to bear on scripture, there were always a few students who stubbornly claimed the Bible to be 'the Word of God' and therefore not subject to critical interpretation. This interview shows why that critical lens is vital. The bible was written by hundreds of people over thousands of years reflecting oral traditions from different regions. Trying to reconcile it into one 'correct' version is nonsense.
A group of scholars studied the gospels to try to determine which things in the Gospel Jesus probably actually said. There isn't much left of the Gospels by the end of it, but the saying which are left as 'probably original' are all about justice, equality and treating people fairly in this life.
Dr. Erhman is such a delight! I love hearing him talk, so glad you're interviewing him more!
New video from Emma. Time to drop everything and watch!
i love bart ehrman back when i still believed i went to a church familiar with his work in a positive way and i learned about him there
I'm always fascinated to hear more about the mythology of human religions and the alleged virgin or half divine births are some of the best.
I click so fast when you have Bart on :') I completely simp for this man
Woah! Impressive to see this interview! As a Hindu I sadly see people claim a lot that Krishna is an example of a virgin birth with other similarities but that is absolutely not true. Krishna’s mother was imprisoned with her husband and they had many children in captivity
Great interview, as ever.
Thanks, and Merry Christmas
Bart is awesome! 😊
I remember being exposed to these ideas in the early 2000s via the conspiracy film Zeitgeist. Unfortunately, there was lots of other framing around it that was less believable, but the idea that these myths had so many shared components such that a truly Christian origin for the myths was absurd stuck with me since then.
it's genuinely so cute seeing a guy so so excited to talk about something he's studied so long that he stumbles all over himself with hyper giggles, you can see the gears working overtime 🥰
Is it just me or is Dr. Ehrman the real-life equivalent of that guy from Get Smart who everybody intuitively likes? He just strikes me as such a lovely guy 😅
There’s a lot about him to like. His infectious laugh. The fact that you can tell he gets legit excited about history and mythology. It makes you excited too, haha. How calming and soft his voice is.
The weird thing about insisting on the virgin birth is that they also insist that Jesus was descended from David through Joseph. But if Jesus was really son of God then he can't be son of Joseph and this can't be descended from David. one or the other ain't so!
I've heard that before as well, and as I recall there are some pretty mind-bending explanations for how it can still work. I may have to look it up.
You don’t know what you’re talking about.
It's Dr Ehrman and Emma again, so I'll listen whilst waiting for my laundry to finish. Yay!
The Reason for the Season is Axial Tilt!
Highly recommend Mikel Del Rosario and Mary Jo Sharp pertaining to this topic. Reading the ancient accounts for yourself as well as the scriptures is important
Thank you, Emma! You are awesome!
great content as always, interviews like this really help improve awareness and knowledge on the topic.
Great show. Emma never fails to inform and entertain. She’s also getting more gorgeous by the day, for some reason.
Great interview, Bart seems like a fun person to learn more about the history from.
Two lovely clever people talking sense about nonsense
You’re so right about that. Just a made up story maybe based on an actual person, but in no way a magic god-man, so entirely irrelevant, especially today.
Wow, fastest I’ve clicked on a video. As for the issue of the virgin birth, it was not as big of an issue as the whole belief of Jesus dying for my sins, but it was required as part of the whole Jesus as part of the trinity.
Why would whether Mary has ever been physically intimate with anyone, have any bearing on Jesus being part of the trinity?
Jesus could have been fathered by God or the Holy Spirit or however that goes, even if Mary was not a virgin.
@@blueredingreen It’s God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, so Jesus had to come from God, to literally be his son and of his seed. That is the belief in a nutshell and put as blunt as I could. Beyond that the belief needs to have a son and the idea of adoption is not as legitimate as a biological son in this line of thinking. This is not a belief I hold, but one that was taught to me.
The creed that I had to repeat every Sunday said “conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary” and I had to say I believed this at my confirmation.
@@Mantuamaker I mean, it can be true both that Mary wasn't a virgin and that Jesus was literally God's son. That would just mean the person she had intercourse with (possibly years earlier) wasn't the father.
I don't think it would be as compelling of a story, but Mary being a virgin certainly isn't a requirement.
@@blueredingreen if the timing and story worked out you could be right. Yes, but to those who follow all the traditions it follows that one part of the story connects to the next. It’s a chain of beliefs. It is trying to see things through the eyes and belief structure that I don’t follow or get now and try and walk the fine line to share why “years” wouldn’t, or at least shouldn’t be possible.
This might as well be a discuss of the MCU universe!
You look very well with Megan Lewis, the host interview on he's youtube channel. :)
I don't like that this became a sales pitch for Erhman's product Emma!
Someone asked what Isaiah 9:6 was about... here is the verse - with explanation below.
Isaiah 9:6 (NIV)
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
Explaination:
INSIDE of a person is a 'woman' - the 'one flesh' that God 'created' (NOT the 'man' that LORD GOD 'formed', then separated, and advised should be joined BACK together again, as what GOD has 'joined together' let man not separate).
As GOD created man as MALE AND FEMALE, created them 'he' - and called their name... 'Adam'. God's creation of man was 'androgynous' or 'male AND female'. And thus... it is what COMES OUT of a MAN that defiles him.
Thus... one should be able to see 'the WOMAN' of Revelation 12. IF this 'woman' inside of you does what is GOOD in the eyes of GOD, the FRUIT of that choice is then 'male' - and acceptable to GOD and taken into HEAVEN.
BUT... if the 'woman' inside of you does what is EVIL in the eyes of GOD, the FRUIT is then a 'female', 'daughter of man', and another 'woman' or 'seed bearer'... which is then another 'opportunity' for something to come of it, but then it is NOT a 'first fruit' and NOT ACCEPTABLE to GOD.
THIS is also (spiritually)... the 'VIRGIN BIRTH' as it DOES NOT require 'physical union' to produce FRUIT, or to say... THE WORD MADE (into) FLESH. This is what Jesus was referring to when He spoke with Nicodemus... or being BORN of WATER & SPIRIT, and also what is referred to with Mary (Jesus mother) AND ALSO, why Jesus is called - 'the Word', as it is the COMMAND of GOD through which everything that has been made or will ever BE MADE... is made.
Note that the daughters of man, became 'evil' spirits upon the earth... and thus 'spirit give birth to spirt' is then true.
Flesh gives birth to flesh is simple to understand - as this is an 'earthly thing' vs. and lacks the complexities of 'heavenly things'.
Very interesting and fun, Emma. Thank you!
And god damn it, Connla!
That exercise Ehrman tells about around 10 minutes into the video and the reactions by his Christian students is fascinating, especially as I have actually heard this "foreshadowing" argument about similar stories in other religions myself.
Funny how they draw the obvious conclusion (which is that, if you want to assume that one copied from the other, it was the later ones that did the copying) but then go into apologetic mode when it turns out that this obvious conclusion is at odds with their preconceived notion.
A good example how faith and religion rots the mind of some believers.
I love the implication that the omniscient, all-powerful creator went through several "beta tests" before getting the Messiah right. Like He had to iron all the bugs out.
Addendum: would that make Mohammed and Joseph Smith DLC?
I love both of you guys.
Another great video.
It's a trope I feel. It was the christian version of the moses story. They needed an impossible origin even. They flat out stole the 'King killing male babies' thing from Moses' story, added the virgin birth element to make it more impossible since they couldn't also steal the basket in the river bit. Then a brief moment of the kid being shown to be intelligent, for jesus this was being found in the temple after his incompetent lying parents left him behind when they left town, for moses it was being raised/educated by the royal tutors. Then vanish for decades only to return a leader. Do a few side show magic trick miracles and then leave the world without leaving a corpse. it's the moses story, just reworked for the jewish rebels (christians).
Isn't the Christian version of the Moses story ... the Moses story?
It's Moses 2.0, maybe.
@@blueredingreen No, the christian storyline begins just like the jewish storyline, moses and all. But, and this is the part I am suggesting, they needed their own savior, their own deliverer from their old situation. Moses was that character as he saved them from egyptian slavery. Jesus, in a similar fashion, delivered his followers from the sin imposed on them by the jewish storyline.
Is it true? I have no good way to say, But it seemed to fit what I see in the bible and the historical process that evolved the religious texts that became the bible we have now very well in my view.
@@blueredingreen Also, one more element in this I had missed, the people building the jesus story had made an effort to get their story to fulfill as many messiah prophecies as possible, one of which was the virgin birth.
@@avi8r66 Not quite IMO. The evangelists, especially "Matthew", actually quote mined the Tanakh and CREATED these Messiah prophecies.
@@alanthompson8515 Do you mean they created the fulfillment of the prophecies? Or the prophecies themselves? I thought the whole issue with the jews of the time was that the prophecies existed and these guys were claiming jesus fulfilled them.
I wonder how many Christians have a Bible with annotations. Do they know that the texts in the Bible were not written in English, so therefore anything they read has been translated and interpreted, and is filtered? How can you not be curious about the original text? If the Bible is the word of God, then why trust anyone to interpret it for you instead of trying to get closer to the source?
I know that being an historian isn't for everyone, but people seem to talk about the Bible with the certainty and authority of scholars when they've done literally no investigation of their own. Re-reading the same translated text is not investigation.
They want to believe for the sake of believing
I know some sects believe in divine intervention in translation, printing, etc., of their bibles.
@@G-L-O-R-I-A which then in turn eliminates the possible justifications for contradictions, no longer being able to claim that those contradictions are errors by mere mortals when copying or translating.
My grandfather (a vicar) was an expert in Latin and Ancient Greek, and had a smattering of Hebrew. One time, he tried conversing with Greeks, but there was quite a language barrier!
@@archivist17 I bet there was! It would be like using the language of Beowulf while shopping in Tescos or WalMart.
If I remember correctly, Louis De Bernieres takes the mickey out of an English spy speaking Ancient Greek in 'Captain Corelli's Mandolin'.
3:23 The "great scholar" just dropped back a bit.
Helvidius challenged that She remained Virgin, St. Jerome wrote Contra Helvidium, and the Catholic Church has the _Perpetual_ Virginity as a dogma. So have _all_ the non-Protestant Churches, which apart from Catholics are:
* Eastern Orthodox
* Copts
* Armenians
* Assyrian Church of the East.
It can be noted that unlike most Protestants today, Luther, Calvin and I presume also Cranmer actually believed in the _Perpetual_ Virginity and explicitly took a distance from the "error of Helvidius" that being that She had children with Joseph later on.
There are two Catholic views on Our Lord's siblings (mentioned in the Gospels).
* they were _cousins_ of Jesus (on Joseph's side, presumably), and as such authorised in absence of _siblings_ to do the levirate duty;
* they were children of St. Joseph _from a previous marriage,_ he was an old widower when marrying the Virgin Mother of God.
Hi Emma. If you're interested in this kind of analysis, you might want to check out a RUclips channel named "Crecganford". It focuses mainly on the spread and evolution of myths and folklore and is run by a researcher from the University of the Arts London (Jon F White). If the academic thinking is correct, a lot of the sources for these stories (from whatever culture or religion you're looking at) go a hell of a lot farther back than just the iron or bronze ages.
That's not to try and rain on Dr. Ehrman's lecture. White and Ehrman just seem to approach the subject from different perspectives. Ehrman seems specifically focused on Christian themes while White zooms out a little farther to try and describe the whole mythological landscape. There are far more connections there than I ever realized.
Competition is the key. There were many prophets in first century Palestine. Mostly pagan, but Jesus was not the only Jewish prophet. Few people know about them today because they were boring. In a world where gods and goddesses dominated thought, it makes perfect sense to make the birth story of Jesus miraculous. The fact that is most likely contrived by authors promoting a prophet they believe in does not take away from his teachings, sacrifice, or his status as a man imbued with the holy spirit.
Yo, to the commenters that either didn't watch the video, or don't understand the context of the question: They are discussing mythology. Not IVF, not biology, not insects or other animals. Whether the myth of Jesus' birth in the New Testament has roots or connections to earlier, similar stories.
Indeed. It would be nice to think your comment will head off some stupidity here eh.
I think we both know that's unlikely though,🤦♂.
It's not "mythology".
@@stephenholland4441 Ancient stories about divine births. Mythology. Even if you consider the Bible scripture instead of myth, surely you don't think so about Pagan stories?
@@stephenholland4441 lol, it absolutely is.
@@josephcowan6779 It's not "mythology", it was a real birth, and unless you repent and surrender your life to Jesus Christ, you're going to find out the hard way that it's not mythology, because it's a historical part of reality!
Also, paganism is Satanic.
5:46 Ah, Pythagoras ... some have denied him him existence, I shouldn't wonder. Even if Bart isn't among them.
Thanks!
8:40 _"where are you getting December 25th from?"_
.... especially if there were any Mithraic shrines before Julius Caesar in the non-Roman world ...
Wiki: _"According to the archaeologist Maarten Vermaseren, 1st century BCE evidence from Commagene demonstrates the "reverence paid to Mithras" but does not refer to "the mysteries".[q] In the colossal statuary erected by King Antiochus I (69-34 BCE) at Mount Nemrut, Mithras is shown beardless, wearing a Phrygian cap[3][80] (or the similar headdress, Persian tiara), in Iranian (Parthian) clothing,[78] and was originally seated on a throne alongside other deities and the king himself.[81] On the back of the thrones there is an inscription in Greek, which includes the name Apollo Mithras Helios in the genitive case (Ἀπόλλωνος Μίθρου Ἡλίου).[82] Vermaseren also reports about a Mithras cult in 3rd century BCE. Fayum.[83] R.D. Barnett has argued that the royal seal of King Saussatar of Mitanni from c. 1450 BCE. depicts a tauroctonous Mithras.[84]"_
Another great source you should get on some is The Bible Geek (Robert Price). I know no one more educated or as well spoken on the topic of all these things, really anything biblical and the historical context.
I find it so ironic that the best biblical scholars are not Christians. Well, maybe that makes sense.
I find it fascinating how many _used_ to be Christians, before they got really into the scholarship
It is profoundly incorrect to assert that the "best" Biblical scholars are not Christians. Not being part of something and being a critic does not qualify anyone being "the best" scholar. They just have a divergent opinion. It has nothing to do with them being correct in their assessment.
"Only the most perverted of men will deny that there is a God, the Creator and Governor of all things. Such men would prefer to deny the existence of God than to face the just chastisement of their own misdeads." St. Alphonsus Liguori
Love bart
A large amount of my Biblical/textual knowledge come from Bart.
What I find interesting is how much emphasis the bible puts on Joseph's bloodline - only then to say that he's not even related to Jesus at all. Any thoughts on that? :-)
Just had a surprise. I watch ST fan films and who did i see in 'Chaos at the Neutral Zone'? ell done Emma you were great.
Emma's done two videos about the her Star Trek activities, a shorter one (15 mins) some 6 months ago and a longer one (45 mins) just two weeks ago. Maybe there were others in the past, would have to scroll through her channel but if you watch the fan films you might be interested in these. 🙂
3:55 _"19th C. sometime"_
Bart is really much better on Protestant Church history than on the Catholic one before it.
In the Catholic Church, you do have to believe all of the Nicene Creed (some divergences on whether Greeks not believing the filioque can normally be saved), and it includes:
*Et incarnatus est de Spiritu Sancto*
*ex Maria Virgine, et homo factus est.*
To a Catholic, Apostolic, Nicene, possibly Athanasian Creed are the major dogmas, and other dogmas are reasoned as being dogma for these dogmas as premisses to the conclusion of such other dogmas. Even a thing which is in the Bible and which wouldn't be a dogma for other reasons, it would still be dogmatic in the light of:
*Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivificantem:*
*qui ex Patre Filioque procedit.*
*Qui cum Patre et Filio simul adoratur et conglorificatur:*
*_qui locutus est per prophetas._*
In this context specifically involving the hagiographers.
My take of Bart watching him with Emma, Religion For Breakfast, and Holy Kool Aid is that he just has opinions like everyone else. He has no idea wtf is going on. He just knows what he knows and sticks to that. He seems indecisive himself on what to think.
Thank you for this video.
Funny how all 4 gospels don't match on Christ's birth or death, the two biggest aspects of the religion.
Also what happened to the gold that was given by one of the Wise Men?
It barely covered the cost of a flight to Egypt, even on RyanAir.
Oh boy I am glad Dr Bart isn't wearing that rug anymore, aging gracefully is the art of embracing change. Thank you for the interview, I take a mythicist position when it comes to the life of Jesus so I may watch the lectures to pad out my knowledge in that respect. Cheers!
Apparently in Jesus's language, Aramaic, 'virgin' means unwed woman. Of course the Gospels were written in Greek but Bart is certainly the Prof to explain all.
BART!
The ancient Romans (BCE) had the tradition of absorbing deities of newly conquered cultures, so I wouldn't be surprised if they just continued the practice by adopting multiple beliefs (myths) and claiming them as their own, then discredit or remove the original story tellers.
There are riches and power to be gained from followers. As L. Ron Hubbard himself said, “You don't get rich writing science fiction. If you want to get rich, you start a religion.”
L. Ron Hubbard was a science fiction writer who created his religion from inside his head. Hence the quote. Christians pre the takeover by the "Catholics" were poor. there is no logic to make one a believer in Christ. One either accepts or does not. It is either fact or fiction. If fact many of those here may be in trouble. If not fact, then why engage in anything that even smacks of moral activity; where does the authority for that arise from?
@@youaregodspursuit With enough people, you conquer nations. Ignorance prevents critical thought and if you've been fed lies since birth, you'll believe them.
As Steven Weinberg said, “With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil - that takes religion.”
I am overwhelmed when I encounter such a large group of people who are non-believers. Ehrman talks to itchy ears offering anything he can to deny God and His Son. All of his so-called scholarship is ill conceived and vacuous. In this short interview he comes off as an ill-informed presenter. "I guess it was around the beginning of the 19th century??? He counts on people hearing his talks and accepting his pronouncements as fact because it fits their paradigm. It seems somehow that they do not have time to actually do a little critical thinking, deductive reasoning or reading of scripture.
Here is a statement made by Jesus that if it is true condemns all non-believers, " I am the way, the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. " John 14:6 Again, he is either telling the truth or a liar. You must decide. I would caution you to not treat this as a small consideration. Everyone dies, even Christ died. He arose from death. You can too. It is an easy thing to succumb to our sense of self-importance while being arrogant. There is no middle ground on this. I dare you to challenge God to reveal himself to you. Be sincere, step up, be the rebel you claim be. Get in God's face and challenge him. Dare you, have you the real nerve to take God on? Do your talking walking.
[fart]
No! However there’s a difference between virgin births vs. Divine impregnation. Zeus was fond of impregnating mortal women. However some early Christians critics did believe Virgo/ Parthenos just meant maiden, young woman. And his dad was a Roman soldier called Pantera. Some Christian sects did believe Jesus was born like any other person and was “son of God” in a titular sense. However, there were legends of females giving birth without any male input whether mortal or deity. Even in the historical period there were cultures who didn’t realise that sexual intercourse and pregnancy were connected.
Thank you.
1:36 I _am_ thankful that Bart is more honest than my Greek professor. I'd have gone by the fact that "parthenos" has "virgin" as default translation and considered some other attested uses in antiquity as stretching the range of meaning.
A "baby" usually doesn't mean a girl of 14-15, but the guys who prefer calling Charlie Chaplin a "cradle robber" over "polygamist" when being critical about his sexual mores are obviously stretching the meaning of the word "baby" and equally by inserting "cradle" showing they clearly know the original meaning. Just to explain what a "stretching of the range of meaning" means.
Than my Greek professor - i e, back then.
Only just noticed that Emma has the streamer headphones
12:19 A very good analysis of most stories of people who were claimed as sons of Zeus. Unless Minos, Radamanthys and Sarpedon were indeed sons of the Cretan king of that name.
But this is in Hebrew context very unheard of. Hence not a good explanation for any kind of miraculous birth in a Hebrew book, even if Luke (uniquely) is only second hand Hebrew.
Outstanding!
Fascinating guy and interesting discussion - I have to ask though, is it just me or is there a whole of Penn Jillette in his mannerisms and delivery? It might be influenced that I have been bingeing (sp?) on Fool Us recently (other amazing magic talent related shows are available)
5:22 And the god getting a woman pregnant was in these alleged cases also not an immaterial god, and did not allow the woman to remain virgin, if she was so up to the fact.
By the way, in the case of Hercules, a married woman was it seem pregnant _both_ by her husband, _and_ "by Zeus" which pretty much makes me think it was a semi-cursed but otherwise normal twin pregnancy. In case you think Hercules wasn't cursed, look at his life.
Part of the wedding ceremony in those days was making sure the wedding was 'consummated' on the night or very shortly after to complete the wedding rite. I'm wondering how Joseph and Mary were considered married at the time if they had presumably been married for over 9 months yet never had sex.
Mary may have been married as a child. There are cultures today that conduct such marriages but sex is not permitted until girl is a little older.
Regardless;the entire story is bizarre. Firstly, under Hebrew law Mary should have been put on trial for her life. If Joseph had asserted he was father that would prevent that. But the story says he does dispute his fatherhood.
Per Matthew 1:18, they were “pledged in marriage” i.e. engaged/betrothed. That’s why when Joseph receives his own visit from Gabriel in 1:20, the angel tells him “go ahead and marry her”-because they weren’t yet when God knocked her up
They weren't married when Mary got pregnant, hence why the angel had to convince Joseph not to stone Mary to death, which was the custom for brides who were not virgins
Thankyou for replies, clears a few things up as usually during these debates they are refered to as husband and wife but not usually when that occurred.
The virginhood of Mary seems to follow somewhat trivially from Christianity, given that sexual purity is such a big topic in Christianity.
Although this would only make sense if purity was a big topic at the time those books were written, which I'm not sure about. I would imagine the modern interpretation of purity culture is very new, but there are definitely at least a handful of sections in the Bible about purity.
But also, if you have a woman who has been sexually active, that makes a natural impregnation more plausible. So if I were going to make up a story of supernatural impregnation, virginity seems like an obvious addition.
Purity was a pretty big deal in Jewish society. Unwed pregnancies could result in death for the woman.
If a man were to marry both a mother and her daughter, all three would be burned to death. (Leviticus 20 14) And Leviticus 21 9 says “If a priest’s daughter defiles herself by becoming a prostitute, she disgraces her father; she must be burned in the fire.”
Deuteronomy 22 20 states that If a woman could not prove she was a virgin when married she could be stoned to death - and on her father's doorstep no less! Mind you, a man could pay some money to the father of a woman he raped and keep her as his wife, so it wasn't always lethal. Yay /s
Just for giggles: Deuteronomy 22 11-12 also tells us not to wear "cloth of wool and linen mixed together" and to make "tassels on the four corners of the garment with which you cover yourself." And in verse 5 it says "A woman shall not wear a man's garment, nor shall a man put on a woman's cloak, for whoever does these things is an abomination to the Lord your God." Wonderful stuff!
According to my mother, I was born of a virgin, too.
The centre of ancient Israel's religion through most of the monarchic period was the worship of a god named Yahweh, and for this reason the religion of Israel is often referred to as Yahwism.
Yahweh, however, was not the 'original' god of Israel; it is El, the head of the Canaanite pantheon, whose name forms the basis of the name "Israel", and none of the Old Testament patriarchs, the tribes of Israel, the Judges, or the earliest monarchs, have a Yahwistic theophoric name (i.e., one incorporating the name of Yahweh). It is unclear how, where, or why Yahweh appeared in the Levant; even his name is a point of confusion.
The exact date of this occurrence is also ambiguous: the term Israel first enters historical records in the 13th century BCE with the Egyptian Merneptah Stele, and while the worship of Yahweh is circumstantially attested to as early as the 12th century BCE, there is no attestation or record of even Yahweh's name, let alone his origin or character, in the Levant until some four hundred years later, with the Mesha Stele (9th century BCE).
Nevertheless, many scholars believe that the shared worship of Yahweh played a role in the emergence of Israel in the Late Bronze Age (circa 1200 BCE).
Compare these two verses:
2 Samuel 24: 1
Again the anger of the Yahweh burned against Israel, and he incited David against them, saying, “Go and take a census of Israel and Judah.”
Compare to:
1 Chronicles 21:1
Satan rose up against Israel and incited David to take a census of Israel.
🤔 📖
The reason why we have the virgin birth is because of the winter solstice, the sun is born again in Virgo. That's the real esoteric knowledge for what the phrase means, the sun stops for three days and raises again during the zodiac sign of Virgo the virgin.
3:44
Emma: Did not hear you or Dr. Ehrman mention the Egyptian birth stories of Horus and others. There appear to be striking similarities; but perhaps this will be included in his lecture.
Interesting
13:13 _That's_ a blooper.
Only Luke was non-Jewish, only Luke lived most of his life prior to involvement in Christianity outside Palestine.
13:35 Luke as a physician would have been very careful to avoid that kind of allegation, unless he heard it from what he considered good authority.
I did not know that was the adjective form of the Mithras cult, and I didn’t know the test of honour was not only whether my dad can beat up your dad but if your dad has bottomed for my dad. Wild idea, does ao3 have a tag for that??
Single mums for the win!! Who do you think raised these great men? (and told this story first!) Also.. shout out to the dads who believed the story...TOP BLOKES EVERYONE!
Enjoyed
I don't consider the virgin birth as being prevalent, the dogma of the virgin birth is prevalent. The supposed divinity of Jesus was enough to enable a concept like, 'salvation.'
4:45 Noting you said "miraculous" and not "virgin" - there is more than one difference.
In the Bible, the births of Samuel and of John the Baptist as well as Isaac, perhaps (I might recall wrong) of Samson as well, are miraculous. But not by virgins.
Bread was "born" during the age of Virgo ... 11 to 13 thousand years ago .
Tale as old as time
Word as old as rhyme
Virgin and the god
4:22 No, that's not how Biblical inerrancy works.
A fact is not Biblically attested because _all_ 27 books of the New or _all_ 46 books of the Old or _all_ 73 books of both Testaments mention it, it is absolutely sufficient that even _one_ book does so.
In the syriac sinnatic it says Josph begot Jesus or Yahshua is the son of Joseph then every word he spoke came from Joseph thus Joseph is the True Messiah.
Leading you back to the elohim of Abraham issac Jacob "I will be"
Hello Emma. 🙋🏻♀️As you are now touching on this topic, it might be of interest to also contextualise the virgin birth of Jesus. So, if Jesus was a parthenogenetically born child of Mary, he must have had a female genotype. And if so appearing as male, was by definition a transgender male. Given that Jesus had a relationship with the “beloved disciple", which the bible identifies as John, Jesus would also be a gay transgender man. This might be of interest to the true believers in the Christian faith, who accept the bible as correct and also a indication of how true believers need to live their lives. A case of "what would Jesus do". Or at least, what would Jesus say. I trust this is of value to the true believers and can serve as a instrument to identify those who present themselves as followers of the light, but instead serves the darkness.
It would appear that the Christmas celebrations actually coopted pre-existing seasonal celebrations.
Axial tilt is "the reason for the season," both literally and figuratively. Solstice celebrations have been occurring since humans first learned to "map" the seasons astronomically and celebrated the return of the sun. The Gospel of Luke, however, includes the stuff about shepherds with their flocks. But you don't pasture your livestock in the dead of winter. There's no fresh forage. So by Luke's calculation, Jesus (if he existed at all) must have been born in late spring at the earliest.
There isn't any real evidence of that though.
@@RandomGuy-sn3ne The area around Stone Henge is one example. New Year celebrations in Scotland moved due to their original 'clash' with the 'Christian' celebrations, there is no 'feasting' or 'party' element to the biblical celebration, then there is the practical need to reduce the burden on grazing land between January and March, give or take in the Northern hemisphere.
11:16 First, none of the "miraculous births" I know of in the Greco-Roman paganism are "virgin births" because whether they started out as virgins or not, they certainly didn't remain virgins after a "god" had been there.
Second, none of the ascensions to heaven are put after a bodily resurrection or what could even remotely look like one. This involves both Krishna and Hercules. Not to mention Perseus and Andromeda. None really involve men as physically observing any "take-off" (in Krisha's case I think it is a poet having a dream).
When it comes to raising dead, I carefully checked that Hercules wrestling with Thanatos over Alcestis the earliest sources are _after_ Elijah raised a boy. _After_ Elisha post mortem raised a corpse meant to be buried close by.
When it comes to casting out demons I'd like to know how many sources are after the times of Tobit. Not when scholars believe the book is written (whether progressives or just Protestants) but when they lived. *When he was made captive in the days of Salmanasar king of the Assyrians, even in his captivity, forsook not the way of truth,* Plus if some Babylonian actually believed Nebo was the one true God, God could have considered his orthodoxy sufficient to allow him a real successful exorcism.
The parallels in how the possessed behave before exorcisms would be due to demonic possession being a real phenomenon. My docent in Latin, at reading Aeneid VI with us, pointed out that the Sibyl's trance (at Cumae) begins in ways that realistically parallel the trances of voodoo mediums even today.
Note, the boy raised by Elijah lived among Baal worshippers, and while Hercules was a real man, the stories about him may owe some to stories about Baal in Phoenicia.
And the neighbours of the raised boy were hardly likely to credit the true God, even apart from Elijah _not_ posing as Baal worshipper, unlike how Coello mistreats the story in "The Fifth Mountain" ....
First your have to prove that this particular Jesus even existed outside of the biblical text, and that is a huge problem.
That's before you even get into the myths of his tale.
Extraordinary claims need a,extraordinary evidence to support them of which none is available.
Jesus had to be born of a virgin, conceived by the Holy Spirit, because if he was conceived by man, that means he would have been born under the curse of Adam's sin.
In order to become our sacrifice for sin, he had to be sinless and spotless.
The comments show how people don't understand the spiritual side, but rather only look at the natural.
You can't look at the conception and birth of Jesus in the natural light, because it was supernatural, and spiritual.
It gets weird when the Christian defense of Hell is that God is just respecting your wishes and not making you spend eternity with Him, in which case it makes no sense that He would worry about any of the details of what you believe, it should just be if you want to be saved, you are.
I'm over here celebrating Krampus lol
Is Emma Thorn the real Tinkerbell?
According to the Bible itself ... Mary was not a virgin, neither was God Jesus' "biological" father.
It's strange how theists completely ignore these rather important details.
Hold the phone. Joseph and Mary were married. If they never consummated the marriage, isn't that a violation against the whole "be fruitful and multiply" thing?
I am disappointed I can't read the book titles on his shelves.