Do you guys upload mp3 versions of your episodes anywhere? I have been listening to your videos on my commute which has been so fun, But it is taking a lot of data from my phone haha...
One of your weaknesses is to not look at the theme of the Bible from cover to cover. Without that anslysis you lose out on many of the historical intricacies. But other than that good job just a bit myopic
I’m a Civil War historian, consider myself nominally Christian leaning towards agnostic, but I find this channel absolutely fascinating. Religion For Breakfast is one of my favorite channels. I would be interested to see a video on the role Christianity and Religion played in the American Civil War. Of course, the war occurred shortly after or arguably during the Second Great Awakening and the soldiers were almost universally Christian. Would love to hear religious scholars take on that topic!
How did Union Christians view the Confederate Christians. Did they think they were hypocrites for wanting to own slaves and thinking that Africans were inferior?
@@randomango2789 it varied. Certainly most black Christians in the US would have thought so! In terms of white Christians, several denominations argued and split over slavery. I’ve read prewar and postwar texts from southern Christians who casually said absolutely vile and abusive things about slaves and black people in general. In the North, many churches mourned John Brown and there were several strains of abolitionism/anti-slavery. All too many northern Christians though still harbored racist views regardless of their stance-many (including Lincoln I think) by my reading had a very white-centric view of even the ‘sin of slavery’. Certainly people like Frederick Douglas noted that. Much like today, the oppressed, ‘allies’, and oppressors had a spectrum of beliefs and rhetoric about slavery & black Americans. I know there are some books that either partially discuss it (Battle Cry of Freedom, especially the prewar chapters) or are dedicated to the theological aspect (I believe there’s one called ‘The Civil War as a Theological Crisis’, though I haven’t read it recently and can’t vouch for its quality)
@@randomango2789 unfortunately Northern views were not as progressive as we would like. Only a radical few saw issue with the idea of white supremacy. They did however see the hypocrisy in the institution of slavery. Both sides firmly believed that God was on their side. Antebellum Southern religion is a fascinating topic as there were a multitude of theological defenses of slavery that developed.
This is a fascinating topic. I've been reading some Albert Barnes lately. He was a minister and abolitionist. It's crazy how controversial abolitionism was, even in the north. I'd love to see some research on that, if you've done it, Dan.
Andrew, it's amazing how you've built this channel up and how important it is to so many people. This is a great use of your PhD. It's great that you're able to connect so many people to scholars like Bart Ehrman, who also cares about public scholarship. Great interview.
I know Dr. Ehrman does _a lot_ of interviews and speaking engagements when he has something coming up to promote, but I hope RFB continues to be high up on the list of platforms he engages with. Andrew (I should say Dr. Henry) is uniquely qualified to interview Ehrman in a way that covers the subject on a meaningful level, while still being accessible and reaching a relatively wide audience.
Agreed. My favourite Ehrman interview was with three Catholic guys who looked like they needed a lie down by the time all their preconceptions had been shredded, they had good questions but weren't prepared for the answers. I think Ehrman has some issues when asked questions regarding Jesus' existence, but other than that he's great.
It is the year 2022, and we still have professors (!) who believe in the Bible. Imagine a geography professor who believes that the Earth is flat ... I think people like Ehrman must be absolutely baffled about this. How could someone who studied theology or history still believe that the supernatural elements of the Bible are fact?
@@ricksimon9867 I don't really care what they believe as long as they keep a clear distinction between their faith and scholarship and don't try to assert their beliefs as fact. I think, for example, you can be a fine scholar even if you believe Jesus raised from the dead, but the minute someone claims the resurrection is supported by the available evidence, they're no longer practicing legitimate methods. To your point though, I do think it's pretty much impossible to be an honest scholar while holding a belief in complete Biblical literalism and inerrancy. Some things in the Bible are demonstrably untrue, and it would seem that becomes even clearer the more you familiarize yourself with the scholarship.
Regarding similar figures/stories in the literature, I once worked with a Jewish lady who said that one of the reasons Jews didn't accept Jesus as the Messiah was that there were other miracle workers in their history. Jesus wasn't seen as more special or unique than the others.
@Sarah Hodgins many people still expect that. So many criticisms of Christianity revolve around the perceived weakness of being a forgiving person. It just shows how small minded we all are and reinforces to me why we need Christ.
The following quote from Stephen L. Harris, Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State University- Sacramento, completes this point with a devastating argument. *Jesus did not accomplish what Israel’s prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do:* He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf.Isa. 9:6-7; 11:7-12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God’s ancient promises-for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing- *Jesus died a “shameful” death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome.* Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel’s savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, *making Jesus’ crucifixion a “stumbling block” to scripturally literate Jews.* (1 Cor.1:23)
@@justforplaylists this is a core argument in Gibbons decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Many have argued that Christianity weakened the glory of Rome. As to your comment about unchristian Christians, that’s the kind of the whole point of christianity isn’t it? If we were perfect we wouldn’t need God and we wouldn’t need to be forgiven would we?
The original ending of mark was perfect During the book of mark frequently Jesus would tell somebody don't tell anybody about the miracle I just did And the person would go tell people about the miracle anyway And then at the end of the book Jesus tells the women go tell everybody And they're scared and they don't tell anybody We the reader are left with this information about the resurrected Jesus and it's up to us to go tell everybody that we've read the story and Jesus has been resurrected I heard a theologian point that out and it's fascinating to me that I've never heard any other theologian point that out The abrupt ending was on purpose it served a purpose
Bart Ehrman is intellectually dishonest and deceptive. in his presentations he makes it seems like Christianities original teachings have been corrupted and so has the bible, but in his debates, he admits that he believes that all of Christianities core teachings are the same as they originally were, obviosuly meaning the deity of Christ, literal resurrection (e.g he admitted this at the very end of his debate with Dan Wallace which is on youtube). Why doesnt he mention this in his presentations and books? then he titles his books "misquoting Jesus" "forged", "How Jesus became God" and makes it seem Christianity has been corrupted. Then he says things like "we must go wherever the evidence leads" and stuff like that to come across as "someone who wasn't trying to fit the ideas into a prefabricated narrative and to actually explore them with academic sincerity". an Well he definitely gets the sales on his books from this and he likely wants to deconvert people, its one of the two likely.
@@hamis490 Huh? I don't get that from what he's said and written. Certainly, he puts a spotlight on how things like soteriology and other systematic theology shifted in the first couple centuries of the church, but there's a difference between evolution of thought and "corruption".
@@pnwmeditations Ive watched his online lectures only, from that, he leaves out specific information that makes the Christian position more convincing such as how he believes all major teachings remain the same, which is very bias. Also just the way he presents things. But all good
@@pnwmeditations - @harris490 is a troll that 1) does not know what she is talking about and 2) has copy-pasted the same screed multiple times here without seeming to realize that will NOT make it true.
The kind of eschatology of the resurrection which St. Paul has in 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians is considerably different than the personal eschatology of the intermediate state in 2 Corinthians and Philippians. One thing a lot of Christians either do not understand or refuse to accept is how Paul’s views of the afterlife considerably developed through the course of his ministry to near the end of his life. The Apostle has a very basic, second temple Jewish view of an “age to come” (עוֹלָם הַבָּא) in 1 Thess. 4:13-5:11 and 1 Cor. 15, in contrast with 2 Cor. 5:6-10 and Phil. 1:21-6 and 3:17-21 which is more Platonic in its understanding of the soul and where it goes following bodily death. No real contradiction, per se. These passages simply talk about two different aspects relating to the Christian Parousia.
Man I was just hurtin for a new RFB video AND I’ve been on a Bart Ehrman kick too! Looks like other people feel the same haha. Perfect to listen to while I workout.
Bart Ehrman and Elaine Pagels were the two people who got me interested in all this, decades ago, with their first major selling books. What 30 years ago??? I follow it as a hobby, but I've bought and read a dozen books in total by one or the other over the decades. It is amazing how dull topics like religious history and textural analysis can become fascinating when properly presented!
@@aramesh428 - I think you’d enjoy any of her books, she isn’t a fundamentalist nut nor an atheist with an agenda type, she’s a true scholar like Bart Ehrman and I believe she was trained at Harvard University. Three I’ve read and enjoyed are The Gnostic Gospels (her early bestseller, the one that made her name so to speak), and perhaps even better than that one, The Origin of Satan, and Revelations. The Origin of Satan was a real eye-opener for someone like me who just assumed Satan/Lucifer/The Devil was part of Judeo-Christian beliefs all along. Not so! I’m sure your local bookstore will have all three of these books, and if not then of course Amazon will. Have fun!
I am a philosophy, ethics and Christian studies student - starting college to study philosophy and theology in the next coming months so this was really enlightening to watch!
Nice. You are living my dream but my parents (who helped me pay for university) did not approve of the philosophy degree. I now work in a bank... good luck!
Dr. Ehrman mentioned Greco-Roman texts pre-dating the Gospels that depicted figures that healed the sick, cast out demons, and ascended into heaven. What are some of these texts? I’d be interested in reading and a Google search was not forthcoming Edit: dang I should’ve finished the video before posting this instead of pausing since he immediately names two examples
@@jayventura7387 18:00 Livy's account of Romulus and a story about Julius Cesar (he doesn't mention by who). And the Hebrew Bible as far back as the Book of Daniel? His examples are a little chaotically presented.
Dr. Ehrman has also mentioned in some of his books that Philostratus’s “Life of Apollonius of Tyana” offers some excellent parallels with the gospels as well!
If you want a good example, you can check Asklepios' rod which is usually depicted with a Snake rolled into it with the biblical tale of the bronze serpent, which is also a staff with a Snake rolled in it. In both myths anyone who touched the staff gets healed of any diseases they suffered.
I want to thank you for bringing my attention to the discipline (is that the right term) of Methodological Agnosticism. I both like it and love how you explained it. Even as a super devout Catholic, I think being able to remove my biases and commitments helps me to really dig into interesting facets and movements in ancient peoples more. To have it so succinctly phrased is wonderful. Best of luck on your path to 1M viewers!
Both in Luke and John’s accounts, the resurrected Jesus is both the same physically, with his real body, but also different: the two guys going at Emmaus didn’t recognize him, although he was physically there and they seem to know Him personally, enough to recognize His gestures, habits and appearance, but they did understood who He was afterwards. When Jesus appeared in the room to the Apostles, he appeared in the room without entering from the door (like he passed through the wall or materialized there, but he was tangible, with the marks of torture and crucifixion still visible. So, Paul and the gospels agree between them, but they use slightly different language and aimed at different audience.
Those are great points, but I think there are still reasons for thinking that they had different conceptions of Jesus's resurrected body. For one, Jesus appearing among the apostles without coming through the door doesn't imply a special kind of body, anymore than Philip disappearing from the view of the Ethiopian convert in the book of Acts implies anything about Philip's body. The short answer in both cases could be "God made them appear/disappear." But also, it seems difficult to reconcile Paul's concept of a "spiritual body" with the presence of wounds in Jesus's resurrected body in John's Gospel; it doesn't seem like much of a "glorified" spiritual body if one still bears the marks, scars, and deformities of their old body. Other scholars have argued that John (and Luke) want to especially emphasize that Jesus had a physical body (even down to the scars from the crucifixion) in order to combat the Gnostic doctrine of docetism, which argued that Jesus was a spirit and didn't possess a material body. Therefore, they had to introduce a different understanding of Jesus's resurrected body aimed at rebutting the Gnostics. So just like the Greco-Roman view of the resurrection among the Corinthians was the impetus for Paul's teaching about "spiritual bodies," the conflict with the Gnostics was the reason behind the Gospels' account of Jesus's resuscitated body. They both had their own reasons for teaching what they did, and I think it's best to acknowledge their unique purposes than attempt to harmonize their differences.
@Nietzsche's Ghost the resurrection physical body of the Lord is the same one and of the same nature as what was executed, and it does fly in the face of how many people want to interpret Paul's spiritual resurrection body. Paul's resurrection body in 1 cor 15 is singular. With what kind of body [singular] do they [plural] come? Paul asks. Ehrman badly misinterpreted Paul and backed it up by misquoting Paul as referring to resurrection bodies, plural. Paul in 1 cor 15 is talking about the dead ones, plural, who some denied were, present tense, being raised. Paul is talking about the resurrection of the dead ones of Israel, I.e. the Old Testament dead, Israel as a body, from Ez. 37, for example. This body was supposed to rise as a new body, under the New Covenant. Some were denying this, while still insisting on Christ's resurrection and their own. Paul argues that the dead ones were indeed rising, and identified their resurrection with that of Christ and his audience. This prompted the question, with what kind of body [singular] do they [plural, I.e. the dead ones] come? How are the old Testament dead rising with Christ and his people at that contemporary time? Paul explains that the old Testament dead die like a seed and rise in a new body, the spiritual body, the body of Christ. Paul is not talking about individuals physical bodies. Christ was raised physically yes, but the dead ones and his audience were identified with that death and resurrection spirituality by baptism. The resurrection was a present reality and a current process which was to be perfected when Christ's enemies (the Jews, the Old Israel who killed him) would be judged and totally shattered (Dan. 12:7).
@@nietzschesghost8529 I was raised with the belief that Philip left the Ethiopian in some weird way, but further study seemed to indicate that he simply got off the chariot at someplace, and went a different direction. I emphasize "seemed". Not to split hairs, but isn't G-d a "spirit" and yet possesses/animates physical bodies (all of ours, I'm assuming)? I have enjoyed studying the New Testament from a Jewish perspective--there is so much info out there that I was never told about in church.
@@riffraftmusic8669 I always thought of the Transfiguration story as a sort of prefiguring of the bodily resurrection with Moses and Elijah also showing up with radiant bodies like that of Jesus post-resurrection and during that event.
Thanks for this one. I'm really glad you keep the discussion open with questions that rotate the focus to include so much understanding. Good work. Good service. Good on ya.
I know this is an older video, but Dr. Ehrman's remarks at the end about the academic mindset and methods reminded me of something Justin Sledge over at the Esoterica channel said: "If you let your faith dictate your history, you've really just betrayed them both."
4:42 Omg yes! I paused right when you mentioned 1 Corinthians 15! This section is actually my specific bar where I personally feel that I'd have to literally believe it in order to consider myself "Christian." As I stand currently, my belief system is a weird mix of apatheism and Christian modernism, which I don't personally count as "real" Christian. While I understand the symbolic meaning behind the resurrection, I currently disagree with Paul that everything Christians do would be in vain if there wasn't a literal resurrection.
I, at times, used to think very similarly to you and then I read Tolstoy's _The Gospel in Brief_ online. It pretty much fully convinced me that belief or non-belief in the resurrection/miracles has almost nothing to do with the core Ideas behind the Christian teaching. I'd recommend it to pretty much anyone who is interested in it but has little to no interest in dogmatic churches. The preface outlines it quickly and precisely, it is a brilliant work of distillation though.
@@Epiousios18 Im months late, but I would say your right, IF, and only if Christianity and it’s whole premise was solely moral ethics. The resurrection is important, dating to its Jewish roots as Judaism and Christianity speaks both of the life to come- meaning not necessarily heaven, but what is called the Messianic Age, when Yeshua, [Jesus] according to those who believe in Him, or some other “Messiah” figure [concerning the Jews who reject Him] would sit on the Davidic throne and execute perfect order, justice and peace from Jerusalem. This is considered at the time, according to both Jewish and Christian understandings, when Messiah will judge between the nations and bring order in the age to come- again not heaven, but on established on earth. I bring this up to say, when we remove the narrative from the Tanakh [Hebrew Bible] and the New Covenant writings [New Testament], we’re left with a moral teaching, and defining “the goal” or “pursuit” of Christianity is a high moral and ethical life. But when we keep in step with the narrative the Scriptures present, we get a a complete prophetic account, immersed in the past present and future that’s to come concerning God and His interaction with mankind. The resurrection is very important, because of Yeshua was raised, then He’s vindicated as Messiah who is to sit on David’s throne forever who not only brings the true meaning of Passover through a sacrificial system that’s for all peoples, but a Kingdom, a Reign, and a reuniting in the age to come of what is Eden in the Genesis account that was lost to men. The resurrection my friends, vindicate Yeshua’s point on the meaning of life, death, this age, and the age to come and what His “Father”, as He would say, is doing now. He didn’t just say things like “love your neighbor” to reveal moral codes to people who needed it, rather in keeping in step with the narrative and how it closes in the Hebrew Bible in Malachi, He was returning the hearts back to God, and causing those who was first ready to receive these understandings [which is the Jews because they received Torah, or the Law from Moses] to turn back to their God and live in a way that reunites Eden- because although Eden is literal, it also represents divine and connected relationship between God and man, man and man, God and creation and creation and creation. At the fall [in the beginning of the narrative] this is lost which is the Tanakhs account for the brokenness in mankind. It’s not saying no one can do good at all, since man was accounted to be created in Gods image, rather its saying that we rather choose to act corruptly for our gain, rather than in divine synergy with each other and the Creator- this is what Yeshua was redeeming with His death and resurrection [which if it didn’t happen, there’s no redemption and we all stand guilty now and in the age to come] and this, in His Teachings, is what He was restoring in, through and to those whose hearts are committed to Him. Because anyone can act on His moral teachings, but the divine help and motivation to truly live in this way at the cost of your suffering for another’s good is the restorative part He was revealing. It’s not about morals or ethics, or living a better life now for the sake of human flourishing. His life, death and resurrection was about restoring and renewing covenant faithfulness with His creation, while justice acting on behalf of all of our affairs as the cosmic king of the universe who subjects all divine order under His will.
@@deandreross235 I got the notification of your response. My thoughts on the matter have changed since my original post, and I do think what you said is correct. The resurrection clearly is central, but what I would still maintain is that even if it _weren't_ true Christianity wouldn't be in vain, for as Tolstoy I believe correctly pointed out Christianity also works, "as a teaching which gives us the meaning of life." It goes beyond morals or ethics, Christ's teaching allows you to properly understand and orient your perspective on Life itself. So, even if events like the resurrection didn't literally happen, the teaching is still valid. To be clear I am not saying that is the case.If anything my point is that it makes the case for Christianity even stronger, for it presents humans with the "Truth" regardless if it is "historical."
Fortunately, you are wrong, just because scholars say that they don't believe in the ressurection as real, doesn't mean it isn't real, Jews knew about Jesus christ and they saw his miracles and they still didn't believe him, What I know for a fact that Jesus christ really died physically and he rose again physically, Just by the fact that they are attacking Jesus christ all over human history, And the hatred towards anyone who follows Jesus christ, I've seen demons in people who really didn't like the truth of the gospel and that made them angry and vengeful and started screaming, When you see spiritual warfare into someone physical, You can never again say that the ressurection is a metaphor, The resurrection of Jesus christ is real and is physical and I bet my soul that it's true, Because after you see demons for real, you can never say that spirit world doesn't exist, I don't care, if it's a scholar, doctor, or professor, Let them experience the spirit world the way I saw and I bet you, they will fall the their knees and ask Jesus christ for forgiveness.
Having watched Ehrman over the past 20 years (just in passing, not intently) my views on him have evolved greatly. I used to snub his opinion (because I was an idiot and didn't appreciate things that challenged my position in belief). While I am still a believer, in ways but not the same ways I once was, I truly appreciate him and his work now.
Ehrman is a great litmus test for believers. If you hate him, you have blind faith without space for rational discussion about thay faith. If you enjoy Ehrman's writing and lectures and you still believe, you probably can discuss your faith without getting defensive. It's nice to have this test as an ex-christian that still enjoys learning about theology, really makes productive discourse, while rare, much easier to find.
What Dr Ehrman said about 1st Corinthians chapter 3 is exactly how I understood it when I was 6, and I have to say my Baptist Sunday school teacher’s tried very hard to convince me I was wrong. It never took. Do not know why, but my innermost voice told me they had misunderstood something. I always figured they would get it some day.😊
Assuming mainstream Baptists would "get" anything is quite generous of you tbh. They aren't known for progressive alterations of doctrine as new ideas are presented.
Wow! what a wonderful interview! I finally got some smarts between my ears. Keep it up both Dr. Ehrman and Religion for Breakfast. I have several of Ehrman's books to plough through yet.
@@Qwerty-lp1fz She’s scared of death and her imaginary god, so she needs fairy tales not to collapse mentally. She is probably also convinced that people who do not believe in bronze-age fantasies cannot have a moral compass and/or a sense of purpose if life. There’s a lot of these braindead sad sacks around. I’d pity them if that weren’t such a complete waste of time.
@@Qwerty-lp1fz She's also in this comment throwing out classic antisemitism. She's just a True Believer™ whose sensibilities are offended by frank academic discussions of her articles of faith
My FAVORITE part of being a modern Catholic, is being knowledgeable on the TRUTH about our religion. Like the fact based, tirelessly discussed, peer reviewed research here.
11:23 If the women didn't tell anyone, how did the other people come to know Jesus resurrected? An intriguing way to end a text. Leaves a lot to the imagination of the reader.
I absolutely love Mr Ehrman & I love watching your channel as well sir! It is Sooo Nice to actually hear conversation take place without the same questions being asked over and over and over. One person (won't say) had an interview, and the person completely changed the topic, just to ask dumb questions. It was like a trick pulled, and Mr Bart even said something. R.F.B Sir, LOVE your channel, and my only complaint is that this wasn't longer! 🤗
When Dr. Ehrman stated, “you can’t have a resurrection without a faith commitment.” I really wanted you to follow that up with, “ well, that’s debatable…” that would have been the perfect ending to this brief conversation and good transition to the event details.
Even with today’s advanced science resurrection isn’t possible and we have no critical examples of a resurrection by supernatural means either. Without any examples of resurrection it illogical to believe in a resurrection, so going against all logic the resurrection can only be believed in by FAITH and faith alone.
If you remove God out of the realms of possibility then it’s not debatable. But if It is possible God exists you are right. Resurrections are only not possible if you presuppose God is impossible to exist.
Methodological atheism is a great scientific concept and you are good at methodologically adhering to it. Equally so is the "let's talk religion" for that matter. Love your channels.
@@hypotheticalaxolotl Having a "methodological form" is still a precommitment. Saying, "I only accept naturalistic explanations." Is just as much of a presupposition as, "I accept supernatural explanations or I accept divine revelation." It really shouldn't be a controversial point. Everyone has presuppositions, they should just acknowledge that and not pretend to be neutral.
@@hypotheticalaxolotl Say you're studying a religion with a naturalistic view. If that religion was making true claims about miracles, then the naturalistic view isn't going to accurately portray that religion. Agnosticism is more neutral in this case than atheism, since it presents naturalistic and supernaturalistic theories.
Bart Ehrman is intellectually dishonest and deceptive. in his presentations he makes it seems like Christianities original teachings have been corrupted and so has the bible, but in his debates, he admits that he believes that all of Christianities core teachings are the same as they originally were, obviosuly meaning the deity of Christ, literal resurrection (e.g he admitted this at the very end of his debate with Dan Wallace which is on youtube). Why doesnt he mention this in his presentations and books? then he titles his books "misquoting Jesus" "forged", "How Jesus became God" and makes it seem Christianity has been corrupted. Then he says things like "we must go wherever the evidence leads" and stuff like that to come across as an unbias scholar. Well he definitely gets the sales on his books from this and he likely wants to deconvert people, its one of the two likely.
It is so freeing to delve into the actual historical context of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. I don’t believe in this stuff in any literal sense anymore, but I do love the stories of Jesus. The Jesus myths feed my poet’s heart, what matters is the metaphor. The historicity of Jesus doesn’t matter much. Kinda like Johnny Appleseed-maybe a real guy, but legends sprung up around him. So, I don’t waste many brain cells wondering how many angels are dancing around on the heads of which theological pins. I just enjoy the stories of Jesus, and try to follow his example.
After reading the passage that was suggested (1 Corin. 15 I think?), I was struck by how Paul described Jesus appearing to him was essentially the same as Jesus appearing to his disciples and others soon after his death. Combined with his comments about how the resurrected body is different from the living body in the same way a seed differs from what grows from the seed, it seems to me that Paul understood what happened only as some sort of mystical occurrence. At his time and place, he would have believed in any number of mystical things actually happening in the real world, but from a modern perspective where at least I think of things that happen mystically as being somehow separated out from the world we live in, that gives a much different interpretation of the resurrection. If you accept that mystical things can happen, but that those things work via a different set of rules than those of scholarly physics and chemistry, it becomes much more reasonable to believe that the miracles did occur, and it gives a reason why they are not detectable with modern science. It's not enough to get me to believe in any thing mystical, but it does provide a good framework for how a person who believes in science can believe in whatever religion they follow.
Mike Licona literally argues that, because Ouija boards anecdotally work, and other mysterious stuff happens, therefore, it's very plausible that the resurrection happened. The guy is so open-minded (in his quest to believe the resurrection) that his brain has fallen out.
Only if you presuppose that God is impossible to exist. sure to your closed atheistic mind that’s understandable. But if God is even a possibility than the resurrection can be possible.
I dont presupose anything about God. Religious people do, when translating the bible for instance. Since god was invented by humans it is entirely presuposed. Im open to god existng, but i have never seen any evidence of it.
@timetravlin4450 sure, and if gravity pushed instead of pulled, it would be possible to fly. Problem is, there is no evidence of gravity doing anything other than attracting things, so we aren't flying anytime soon. Provide evidence of God existing first, and then we discuss if the resurrection was real. You can still believe in the story without it having actually happened, thats literally the purpose of faith.
Bart is an exceptional person. I feel like I’ve watched every one of his debates and lectures over the years and still can’t get enough. Also, he’s hilarious 😂
Bart Ehrman is intellectually dishonest and deceptive. in his presentations he makes it seems like Christianities original teachings have been corrupted and so has the bible, but in his debates, he admits that he believes that all of Christianities core teachings are the same as they originally were, obviosuly meaning the deity of Christ, literal resurrection (e.g he admitted this at the very end of his debate with Dan Wallace which is on youtube). Why doesnt he mention this in his presentations and books? then he titles his books "misquoting Jesus" "forged", "How Jesus became God" and makes it seem Christianity has been corrupted. Then he says things like "we must go wherever the evidence leads" and stuff like that to come across as "someone who wasn't trying to fit the ideas into a prefabricated narrative and to actually explore them with academic sincerity". an Well he definitely gets the sales on his books from this and he likely wants to deconvert people, its one of the two likely.
I consider myself a Christian, a follower of Jesus, and in the personal experience of my faith (and I know this isn't strictly orthodoxy) the "historical fact" of the resurrection is irrelevant. The stories around Jesus' life, teaching, death, and resurrection, etc. point to profound truths, and it's these otherwise difficult to articulate truths that I value not historical fact. In fact, from my point of view taking the stories literally may threaten to dilute to power of myth and metaphor. Scholars tend to agree that Jesus existed, but even if he didn't that still wouldn't affect my moment-to-moment lived spirituality.
It's sad that mainstream Christians can't wrestle with their faith like this. Blind belief makes it easy to manipulate people, questioning your faith while still valuing what your faith provides for you is a sign of spiritual maturity. An unquestioned, unchallenged spirit is weak and easy to control.
Hi @ReligionForBreakfast Ive been a subscriber for a while! I love the channel. Im gettting into a NT MA soon, I am a practicing Christian. I like your discussion with Dr.Ehrman at the end, I wanted to ask. Bart emphasized that you can have a bias to a worldview and say my worldview breaks the standard narrative and everything in history aligns with it. When you take a Methodological Atheism position as you do history, and your study shows you that some of the historical facts align with a particular world view more than they do with another. Cant you as a Historian make a comment about that? For example, Christianity's view of the crucifixion and the Islamic position on that
Great chat. Love t explanation from BE, that learning a subject should b t same in all countries, regardless of that individuals belief. And how it's fundamental to finding t correct answer. 🍻✌️
What yall are talking about reminds me of Mister Roger's teachings in a roundabout way; an ordained minister, he didn't use his national platform to proselytize- but it could be argued that every episode he filmed was a study in spreading Christ's love and teachings.
I'm an atheist and I'll happily join a church that's just Mr. Roger's being a kind person and good neighbor. Honestly, I struggle to understand most supernatural views, aside from maybe referring to sickness and other ailments before medical ideas were understood, it's a little weird I like this channel but I do. Idk I do understand that others genuinely do believe in the supernatural and I find that interesting. Sorry, that took a super weird turn for some reason. I meant it to be a half joking comment about a secular church that just teaches good wholesome morality with no supernatural elements as something kinda funny, then it just became a bit self reflective for no reason. I mean no disrespect to anyone's faith, as long as it isn't being used to promote bigotry or bad health practices it's all good (weirdly common for bad health practices to come from religious places in recent years. Most religious organizations do not promote bad health practices at all but many people promoting bad health products and practices are weirdly culty).
This is why this quote by Amiel(Mrs. Humphrey Ward) Journal, December 11, 1872, is my favorite quote... "Wisdom consists in RISING superior both madness and to common sense, and in lending one's self to the UNIVERSAL delusion without becoming its dupe."... "EVERY WISH FULFILLED" E.T.
So great! Big take away: there is no American mathematician, Iranian, or indi -- there's just math as there is just religious studies Great interview and thank you!@
What really bums me out about certain scholars (and I guess it's just not the type of thing they study, so it's fine) is that they don't seem to consider much of the mystical view of this stuff. Physical material bodies, body transformations....what about symbolism? What about metaphors? For me, Christianity is about the teachings, the messages, what Jesus was trying to show us about who we are, our inherent holiness, love, etc. This scholar said that the resurrection is the center of Christianity and without it, the whole message changes. IDK about that. I don't agree. If it's interpreted symbolically, mystically, nothing changes at all. I personally don't really care a whole lot about successfully proving whether or not physical this and physical that really historically happened. In fact, I doubt Jesus' body was resurrected!! Seems unlikely! I lean toward the idea that Thomas was having a vision, not really physically sticking his fingers inside of wounds. Ew LOL. I do actually think it's useful and fun and fascinating to debate these things, but I just feel bugged when certain types of scholars don't really seem to touch on what seems to be intended to be taught by these stories, as they just focus on debating what physically happened and what didn't. So then these debates feel incomplete. When people get really caught up in that dimension when debating this stuff, I wonder if they really care about the transformative aspect of Christianity, or if they think proving physical events is the key to that transformation. I don't believe that. I don't really buy Atonement Theory. I'm impacted by the teachings of love, unity, etc. That's why I love Jesus. It's also why I love Ramana Maharshi and the Buddha... I wouldn't care if the Buddha never existed, or if the stories didn't physical happen. The teachings...that's where transformation lies.
If the objective is to determine historicity then debate over literary analysis and content shouldn’t come into the debate-it’s a different subject and field. The literary aspects would be of interest in a historical sense as to find trends of writing style and content over time.
@@Lmaoh5150 You're completely right. And I should know this...I've watched like every single video on this channel. I guess it just came to mind to mention because of what Bart said about if there was no ressurrection, and Christianity being centered on it. And I thought to myself "well I don't really care if it didn't physically happen. In fact I would be pretty surprised if it did...doesn't sound like the way human bodies work!" Thanks for your response, Noah.
@@Fire-Toolz I do wonder what channels do go into the topics you mentioned. There’s gotta be? Cause I’d also be interested in that kind of study too. It’s interesting!
@@Lmaoh5150 In my experience it’s mostly been people who are spiritual. The channel Let’s Talk Religion goes into this occasionally. Sometimes Esoterica as well. I learned a lot of the mystical interpretations from ancient saints and such. Like Meister Elkhart, Hildegard, John Of The Cross, Saint Teresa Of Avila, and modern figures like Thomas Merton. But it would be awesome to learn from more academic types as well.
You're confusing scholarly disciplines. Historians don't deal with that stuff. It's for theologians to ponder. The reason why the Resurrection is central to Christianity is actually pretty obvious if you'd just read your own post. The resurrection was historically the "special sauce" that distinguished Christianity from very similar religious movements of the day, especially Judaism. Without the Resurrection you'd basically end up with a belief system indistinguishable from any other apocalyptic Hellenized Judaism sect. A Jesus minus the Resurrection is just another Buddha-analog.
i dont know if bart pointed out. But he didnt mention there is a difference between the spirit and the soul. spirit being 'ruach' and soul being 'nephesh' (which means 'breath' in aramaic), which then eventually became the word 'psyche'. So it's an important difference to point out and conflation leads to severe misunderstanding of christian texts
I am starting to wonder if the original story found in the Gospel of Mark wasn't written as a fictitious story, as a teaching aid for Jewish people, a sort of fable, to make the audience or reader wonder "if the messiah came, would we recognize him for who he is?". Essentially a what-if novel about a future coming of the messiah. It might have never been intended to be read or told as if these were events that did take place. The ending, I feel, supports this.
I really do enjoy this channel, I don’t however, know anyone on…. Aside from the host, who I realize now that I don’t know the name of. All the same, I enjoy hearing these kinds of conversations, I’m just not as exited as the rest of the audience, but after this video I can see myself in the same camp.
I dropped out of religious studies after 2 years, and for me this debate seems weird. Now I live in an atheistic country ( which I guess reflect our system on religious studies) so people studied religion because of curiosity (education is free here) and very few were religious themselves in anyway. Everything was from an academic point of view
@@greglogan7706 there’s 2 views. Bart has a presumption that atheism is true so he claims resurrections can’t happen. That’s true but only if you presuppose the existence of God is impossible. If God is possible. Than resurrections are possible
I’m a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and we believe in a restoration of the original church and Gospel. That includes proper authority, revelation, prophets and apostles, etc. Much of what traditional Christianity has differing opinions of and what may seem at odds in the Bible is resolved through modern revelation through then prophet Joseph Smith and other modern-day prophets. For example, the Book of Mormon documents a resurrected Christ visiting the peoples of the American continent that partially fulfill the Lord’s statement in John 10:16 “…other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:”. Some think Jesus was speaking of the gentiles, but Jesus said he would never teach the gentiles; which was never done until He was gone. We know that there are issues with the Bible, which is why I’ve read so many of Dr. Ehrman’s books. But because of my faith and it’s ability to resolve many of the issues that are in conflict between history, science and the Bible, I’m still a strong believer in Jesus as the Christ or Messiah. As for the resurrected body of Christ, it is a corporeal body, but a very refined body of spiritual matter. We don’t have any idea what His body is really like except it is exactly like His Fathers body. That’s another thing that has changed over time. The definition of the nature of God. There is no support for the Trinity in the Bible. That is a man-made doctrine. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate beings with the same goal, purpose, and mins-set. They are working in perfect harmony for the exact same goal. The Bible actually points this out often and specifically. Jesus’ baptism is a perfect example. I could go on but much of this is likely well known. There are many resources that can explain our doctrine in-depth. Just go to www.churchofjesuschrist.org/?lang=eng to find out more.
It would seem not to be controversial that the New Testament’s literary context is specifically Hebrew Intertestamental apocrypha, Apocalyptic and Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. The context for understanding Who Christ is, is of course specifically Second Temple Hebrew worship. The Christian community was one among many Hebrew religious groups that existed in that tumultuous period which produced all this literature, from which the canon of New Testament scripture was later selected. It is also worth mentioning that the canon of the Old Testament was not altogether set either in that formative period.
i started listening to these videos while i paint in the morning and its great except i listened to them too fast and i dont think i absorbed much...oh well i'll just have to watch them all again :D
What he said it absolutely true. No one can say that Jesus rose from the dead without believing that Jesus rose from the dead. At some point, he that cometh to God must believe that He is and that He is the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.
I seem to recall reading, in book of the Nag Hamadi collection, that when Mary approached the tomb, the stone door had been opened and she saw three men further away carrying a body away. Which other modern writers said was so the body could be given the necessary rituals for a proper burial according to traditions. It is my belief that Jesus family while hiding in Egypt (probably in Alexandria due to its large population) that JC likely met Buddhists at the Library as a youth and learned deep meditation. As a possibility of that, I think it possible that JC may have controlled his breathing and blood flow to stop the bleeding so he would not die immediately. So, when his body was removed from the cross he was not actually dead, but in a deep, deep trance state which made him seem to be dead. Then, after being removed from the tomb he awoke and this was the basis of the resurrection story. Do not know if you will see this comment posted more than a year after this video, but if you do I would like to know what you think of this theory. Thanks for your videos, they are very interesting to this 73 yo man.
1 Cor 15 is one of the most ignored chapters from the pulpit. I love your chan now. I had worked on an mdiv and haven't thought about this much since then
As a Christian myself, I tend to like hearing the perspectives of my faith from an historical and academic view point. I can disagree with some of the points made and yet understand them fully. I really appreciate this channel and am very familiar with Ehrman and his work. Considering 1 Cor. 15, I find it as sort of an apologetic for Paul...ESPECIALLY v.12-19 where he essentially says if Jesus didn't resurrect and us as Christians believe and teach that he did, then Christians are the most of ALL people to be pitied... He sounded like he knew what was at stake... he had given his whole life up... if he DIDN'T see a resurrected Jesus, then what did he see to make him flip and convert to the very thing he hated? Something happened.
@@ReligionForBreakfast Could you please dedicate a new video (with or without an assisting expert) on 1 Cor 15? Explaining the Greek wording "soma pneymatikon"/"somata epoyrania" vs. "soma psychikon"/"somata epigeia"? Comparing it to other texts in the NT like the metamorphosis ("metemorphoothee") in Matthew 17,2, Mark 9,2 and ("to eidos toy prosoopoy autoy heteron") Luke 9,29, and to John's and Paul's theology about spirit (good) vs. flesh (bad), and to Jesus' saying that his kingdom belongs to a completely different world (John 18,36)? I appreciate your scientific, clear and concise videos very much. I'm still a Christian, but I don't believe in any churches and clergymen any more. Therefore, independent scientific information helps me to get a broader insight than just relying on biased church doctrines.
🙋♀️ I have a question, what about Lazarus who died and was bought back to life, really interested regarding that story and a bit disappointed that wasn't mentioned?
The notion that science doesn't change based on your religion is powerful. If you get various religious leaders to mix the same concoctions, and each prays for a miracle, each should still get the same result (barring observed errors). Implications.
Can someone please explain what do (12:10) “Appalachian steak houses” have to do with the added verses in Mark that make the risen impermeable to snake venom?
@@Kobolds_in_a_trenchcoat no way…Jesus was a vegan! It’s in the bible, because breaking bread is more than just an expression - Jesus literally wanted us to stop eating meat.
I really liked the discussion about how we approach the method of study without allowing for our own religious bias. But I do think there is some value also in debating the historicity of miracles as a possibility. Not for the sake of rescuing religion in the face of science, but for the sake of keeping science honest. If we start a review of the facts under the assumption that any simile of miracle is definitely not a miracle, because God doesn't intervene with history, then you have already altered the results of your analysis regardless of what the truth may be.
The difficulty is that there is nothing to debate except for personal ideas about what could have happened, which isn’t really scholarship. It’s fine to speculate if you like, but it’s difficult to debate historicity of something with zero evidence and falsifiability.
@@8114梦见 I agree, but you are assuming that miracles are not historical. That is a very safe assumption, but what if we come across something that can only be explained as a miracle in the contemporary world? It would open up the possibility of historical miracles as well, which shakes that assumption somewhat.
@@gawayne1374 I'm not assuming that miracles are unhistorical. I am only stating that if they are, it is impossible to prove so via scholarly methods (hence why they are unfalsifiable). Even in your example of the contemporary world, a miracle is entirely unfalsifiable. If you came across something that could not be explained with any known knowledge, supernatural assumptions only lead to levels of speculation that throw no further light on the subject. A miracle can only ever serve as a place-holder for an explanation, due to its definition of being outside natural constraints of reality. Since scholarship aims towards a deeper understanding, relying on a miraculous claims can't get you very far in that pursuit.
@@8114梦见 I see your point, and I support this entirely. However, I do think that there may be things that are entirely beyond our natural understanding, even within the natural world. For example, it may be impossible for scientists to explain dark matter. Maybe not, maybe yes, but the possibility of unmovable unknowns is very real, especially since we can only study that which we perceive directly. The only reason why we understand quantum mechanics is because we have developed instruments that can translate quantum effects into visual queues. The problem I see with the generally held perception of scholarly knowledge is that it is held up as a synonym of all that is true, while it really is more like all that is methodically demonstrable given our existing capabilities. Given that context, if someone were to inexplicably gain the power of resurrecting dead people today, and we find no way to understand how it is done, that would to some extent support the possibility of such things happening in the past. I would still encourage the study of the power with all our available tools to explain it, I don't think speculation is useful beyond an initial exploration of the topic. But we must still take into account that because of how history works, we would rely on written accounts and archaeological inference to approximate the right answer about historical miracles, in which case we would have to find a way to compare historical miracles to test for demonstrable evidence. TLDR: We shouldn't be too "off the cuff" about dismissing these accounts as they are written, although maintaining a healthy amount of scepticism for the sake of epistemological consistency is important.
I could listen to Dr. Bart Ehrman all day! I think I first heard of him when I got some of his lectures from The Teaching Company maybe fifteen years ago. Fascinating stuff! While I'm not superstitious I think we can learn at least as much about humanity from studying our religions as we can from psychology.
Register for the debate here: bartehrman.com/easterdebate
Do you guys upload mp3 versions of your episodes anywhere? I have been listening to your videos on my commute which has been so fun, But it is taking a lot of data from my phone haha...
Im so and so im this im that.
@@emilyr8668 RUclips to MP3 conversion. Sites are available.
Is this available to view after the event? 26th of April now 😶
One of your weaknesses is to not look at the theme of the Bible from cover to cover. Without that anslysis you lose out on many of the historical intricacies. But other than that good job just a bit myopic
I’m a Civil War historian, consider myself nominally Christian leaning towards agnostic, but I find this channel absolutely fascinating. Religion For Breakfast is one of my favorite channels. I would be interested to see a video on the role Christianity and Religion played in the American Civil War. Of course, the war occurred shortly after or arguably during the Second Great Awakening and the soldiers were almost universally Christian. Would love to hear religious scholars take on that topic!
How did Union Christians view the Confederate Christians. Did they think they were hypocrites for wanting to own slaves and thinking that Africans were inferior?
@@randomango2789 it varied. Certainly most black Christians in the US would have thought so! In terms of white Christians, several denominations argued and split over slavery. I’ve read prewar and postwar texts from southern Christians who casually said absolutely vile and abusive things about slaves and black people in general. In the North, many churches mourned John Brown and there were several strains of abolitionism/anti-slavery. All too many northern Christians though still harbored racist views regardless of their stance-many (including Lincoln I think) by my reading had a very white-centric view of even the ‘sin of slavery’. Certainly people like Frederick Douglas noted that. Much like today, the oppressed, ‘allies’, and oppressors had a spectrum of beliefs and rhetoric about slavery & black Americans. I know there are some books that either partially discuss it (Battle Cry of Freedom, especially the prewar chapters) or are dedicated to the theological aspect (I believe there’s one called ‘The Civil War as a Theological Crisis’, though I haven’t read it recently and can’t vouch for its quality)
@@randomango2789 unfortunately Northern views were not as progressive as we would like. Only a radical few saw issue with the idea of white supremacy. They did however see the hypocrisy in the institution of slavery. Both sides firmly believed that God was on their side. Antebellum Southern religion is a fascinating topic as there were a multitude of theological defenses of slavery that developed.
This is a fascinating topic. I've been reading some Albert Barnes lately. He was a minister and abolitionist. It's crazy how controversial abolitionism was, even in the north. I'd love to see some research on that, if you've done it, Dan.
Also, the role of religion in wars is always interesting. Sometimes it feels like a god is a sports mascot for an army lol.
Andrew, it's amazing how you've built this channel up and how important it is to so many people. This is a great use of your PhD. It's great that you're able to connect so many people to scholars like Bart Ehrman, who also cares about public scholarship. Great interview.
My favorite RUclipsr is definitely a certain Ryan Armstrong
@@zomboidcrossing Now that you mention it, he might be my favorite, too!
Feels good to have some fresh religious studies content after working on my archaeology paper for nine hours today. 😌
I know Dr. Ehrman does _a lot_ of interviews and speaking engagements when he has something coming up to promote, but I hope RFB continues to be high up on the list of platforms he engages with. Andrew (I should say Dr. Henry) is uniquely qualified to interview Ehrman in a way that covers the subject on a meaningful level, while still being accessible and reaching a relatively wide audience.
+
Agreed. My favourite Ehrman interview was with three Catholic guys who looked like they needed a lie down by the time all their preconceptions had been shredded, they had good questions but weren't prepared for the answers. I think Ehrman has some issues when asked questions regarding Jesus' existence, but other than that he's great.
Oooh could you point me to that? That sounds really interesting, I have been Catholic but am re-exporting things.
It is the year 2022, and we still have professors (!) who believe in the Bible. Imagine a geography professor who believes that the Earth is flat ... I think people like Ehrman must be absolutely baffled about this. How could someone who studied theology or history still believe that the supernatural elements of the Bible are fact?
@@ricksimon9867 I don't really care what they believe as long as they keep a clear distinction between their faith and scholarship and don't try to assert their beliefs as fact. I think, for example, you can be a fine scholar even if you believe Jesus raised from the dead, but the minute someone claims the resurrection is supported by the available evidence, they're no longer practicing legitimate methods.
To your point though, I do think it's pretty much impossible to be an honest scholar while holding a belief in complete Biblical literalism and inerrancy. Some things in the Bible are demonstrably untrue, and it would seem that becomes even clearer the more you familiarize yourself with the scholarship.
Regarding similar figures/stories in the literature, I once worked with a Jewish lady who said that one of the reasons Jews didn't accept Jesus as the Messiah was that there were other miracle workers in their history. Jesus wasn't seen as more special or unique than the others.
@Sarah Hodgins many people still expect that. So many criticisms of Christianity revolve around the perceived weakness of being a forgiving person. It just shows how small minded we all are and reinforces to me why we need Christ.
Another reason is that the messiah was not described to be divine, while jesus is described as divine by Christians, but Jews deny this.
The following quote from Stephen L. Harris, Professor Emeritus of Humanities and Religious Studies at California State University- Sacramento, completes this point with a devastating argument.
*Jesus did not accomplish what Israel’s prophets said the Messiah was commissioned to do:* He did not deliver the covenant people from their Gentile enemies, reassemble those scattered in the Diaspora, restore the Davidic kingdom, or establish universal peace (cf.Isa. 9:6-7; 11:7-12:16, etc.). Instead of freeing Jews from oppressors and thereby fulfilling God’s ancient promises-for land, nationhood, kingship, and blessing- *Jesus died a “shameful” death, defeated by the very political powers the Messiah was prophesied to overcome.* Indeed, the Hebrew prophets did not foresee that Israel’s savior would be executed as a common criminal by Gentiles, *making Jesus’ crucifixion a “stumbling block” to scripturally literate Jews.* (1 Cor.1:23)
@@justforplaylists this is a core argument in Gibbons decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Many have argued that Christianity weakened the glory of Rome.
As to your comment about unchristian Christians, that’s the kind of the whole point of christianity isn’t it? If we were perfect we wouldn’t need God and we wouldn’t need to be forgiven would we?
Reality dictates that humans don't reanimate after death. To think otherwise is to disbelieve in reality.
The original ending of mark was perfect
During the book of mark frequently Jesus would tell somebody don't tell anybody about the miracle I just did
And the person would go tell people about the miracle anyway
And then at the end of the book Jesus tells the women go tell everybody
And they're scared and they don't tell anybody
We the reader are left with this information about the resurrected Jesus and it's up to us to go tell everybody that we've read the story and Jesus has been resurrected
I heard a theologian point that out and it's fascinating to me that I've never heard any other theologian point that out
The abrupt ending was on purpose it served a purpose
I came across a discussion once of how Mark is written in the style of a Greek Tragedy, and that’s how those tended to end.
Dunno if it’s accurate.
2,000 years later,and we're still pondering over every detail..amazing, miraculous or not.
@@honeysucklecat wasn't it written in Greek?
@@2degucitas Correct. All of the new Testament was written in Greek, Mark included.
Yes! Two of my favorite religion scholars in one place.
Bart is only a new testament scholar, not a scholar of religions broadly
Bart Ehrman is intellectually dishonest and deceptive. in his presentations he makes it seems like Christianities original teachings have been corrupted and so has the bible, but in his debates, he admits that he believes that all of Christianities core teachings are the same as they originally were, obviosuly meaning the deity of Christ, literal resurrection (e.g he admitted this at the very end of his debate with Dan Wallace which is on youtube). Why doesnt he mention this in his presentations and books? then he titles his books "misquoting Jesus" "forged", "How Jesus became God" and makes it seem Christianity has been corrupted. Then he says things like "we must go wherever the evidence leads" and stuff like that to come across as "someone who wasn't trying to fit the ideas into a prefabricated narrative and to actually explore them with academic sincerity". an Well he definitely gets the sales on his books from this and he likely wants to deconvert people, its one of the two likely.
@@hamis490 Huh? I don't get that from what he's said and written. Certainly, he puts a spotlight on how things like soteriology and other systematic theology shifted in the first couple centuries of the church, but there's a difference between evolution of thought and "corruption".
@@pnwmeditations Ive watched his online lectures only, from that, he leaves out specific information that makes the Christian position more convincing such as how he believes all major teachings remain the same, which is very bias. Also just the way he presents things. But all good
@@pnwmeditations - @harris490 is a troll that 1) does not know what she is talking about and 2) has copy-pasted the same screed multiple times here without seeming to realize that will NOT make it true.
The kind of eschatology of the resurrection which St. Paul has in 1 Thessalonians and 1 Corinthians is considerably different than the personal eschatology of the intermediate state in 2 Corinthians and Philippians.
One thing a lot of Christians either do not understand or refuse to accept is how Paul’s views of the afterlife considerably developed through the course of his ministry to near the end of his life. The Apostle has a very basic, second temple Jewish view of an “age to come” (עוֹלָם הַבָּא) in 1 Thess. 4:13-5:11 and 1 Cor. 15, in contrast with 2 Cor. 5:6-10 and Phil. 1:21-6 and 3:17-21 which is more Platonic in its understanding of the soul and where it goes following bodily death. No real contradiction, per se. These passages simply talk about two different aspects relating to the Christian Parousia.
They addressed this topic in their previous interview. ruclips.net/video/J3sR3z_rvQ4/видео.html
Man I was just hurtin for a new RFB video AND I’ve been on a Bart Ehrman kick too! Looks like other people feel the same haha. Perfect to listen to while I workout.
Thought I was the only one who nerds out while I work out. Lol 😆
I guess God truly does work in mysterious ways
@@devinmccrorey4911 me too 😂 can't forget to use the muscle that's your brain haha
Bart Ehrman and Elaine Pagels were the two people who got me interested in all this, decades ago, with their first major selling books. What 30 years ago??? I follow it as a hobby, but I've bought and read a dozen books in total by one or the other over the decades. It is amazing how dull topics like religious history and textural analysis can become fascinating when properly presented!
I'm familiar with Ehrman, but not Pagels. What books do you suggest by her?
@@aramesh428 - I think you’d enjoy any of her books, she isn’t a fundamentalist nut nor an atheist with an agenda type, she’s a true scholar like Bart Ehrman and I believe she was trained at Harvard University. Three I’ve read and enjoyed are The Gnostic Gospels (her early bestseller, the one that made her name so to speak), and perhaps even better than that one, The Origin of Satan, and Revelations. The Origin of Satan was a real eye-opener for someone like me who just assumed Satan/Lucifer/The Devil was part of Judeo-Christian beliefs all along. Not so! I’m sure your local bookstore will have all three of these books, and if not then of course Amazon will. Have fun!
@@dukeon Thank you for the suggestions. I'll have a look at them!
Another great theological writer is Karen Armstrong. Excellent books on Islam, Christianity, and Buddhism.
I love Elaine Pagels! Anything she has written is super interesting.
I am a philosophy, ethics and Christian studies student - starting college to study philosophy and theology in the next coming months so this was really enlightening to watch!
Enlightening for sure. Enlightened Ehrman! 😊
Nice. You are living my dream but my parents (who helped me pay for university) did not approve of the philosophy degree. I now work in a bank... good luck!
Dr. Ehrman mentioned Greco-Roman texts pre-dating the Gospels that depicted figures that healed the sick, cast out demons, and ascended into heaven. What are some of these texts? I’d be interested in reading and a Google search was not forthcoming
Edit: dang I should’ve finished the video before posting this instead of pausing since he immediately names two examples
I know that feeling, but sometimes when I do wait before posting a comment I'll totally forget what I meant to ask
i watched the vid but didn’t catch those examples :c
@@jayventura7387 18:00 Livy's account of Romulus and a story about Julius Cesar (he doesn't mention by who). And the Hebrew Bible as far back as the Book of Daniel? His examples are a little chaotically presented.
Dr. Ehrman has also mentioned in some of his books that Philostratus’s “Life of Apollonius of Tyana” offers some excellent parallels with the gospels as well!
If you want a good example, you can check Asklepios' rod which is usually depicted with a Snake rolled into it with the biblical tale of the bronze serpent, which is also a staff with a Snake rolled in it. In both myths anyone who touched the staff gets healed of any diseases they suffered.
I want to thank you for bringing my attention to the discipline (is that the right term) of Methodological Agnosticism. I both like it and love how you explained it. Even as a super devout Catholic, I think being able to remove my biases and commitments helps me to really dig into interesting facets and movements in ancient peoples more. To have it so succinctly phrased is wonderful. Best of luck on your path to 1M viewers!
Both in Luke and John’s accounts, the resurrected Jesus is both the same physically, with his real body, but also different: the two guys going at Emmaus didn’t recognize him, although he was physically there and they seem to know Him personally, enough to recognize His gestures, habits and appearance, but they did understood who He was afterwards. When Jesus appeared in the room to the Apostles, he appeared in the room without entering from the door (like he passed through the wall or materialized there, but he was tangible, with the marks of torture and crucifixion still visible. So, Paul and the gospels agree between them, but they use slightly different language and aimed at different audience.
Those are great points, but I think there are still reasons for thinking that they had different conceptions of Jesus's resurrected body. For one, Jesus appearing among the apostles without coming through the door doesn't imply a special kind of body, anymore than Philip disappearing from the view of the Ethiopian convert in the book of Acts implies anything about Philip's body. The short answer in both cases could be "God made them appear/disappear." But also, it seems difficult to reconcile Paul's concept of a "spiritual body" with the presence of wounds in Jesus's resurrected body in John's Gospel; it doesn't seem like much of a "glorified" spiritual body if one still bears the marks, scars, and deformities of their old body. Other scholars have argued that John (and Luke) want to especially emphasize that Jesus had a physical body (even down to the scars from the crucifixion) in order to combat the Gnostic doctrine of docetism, which argued that Jesus was a spirit and didn't possess a material body. Therefore, they had to introduce a different understanding of Jesus's resurrected body aimed at rebutting the Gnostics. So just like the Greco-Roman view of the resurrection among the Corinthians was the impetus for Paul's teaching about "spiritual bodies," the conflict with the Gnostics was the reason behind the Gospels' account of Jesus's resuscitated body. They both had their own reasons for teaching what they did, and I think it's best to acknowledge their unique purposes than attempt to harmonize their differences.
@Nietzsche's Ghost the resurrection physical body of the Lord is the same one and of the same nature as what was executed, and it does fly in the face of how many people want to interpret Paul's spiritual resurrection body.
Paul's resurrection body in 1 cor 15 is singular. With what kind of body [singular] do they [plural] come? Paul asks. Ehrman badly misinterpreted Paul and backed it up by misquoting Paul as referring to resurrection bodies, plural.
Paul in 1 cor 15 is talking about the dead ones, plural, who some denied were, present tense, being raised. Paul is talking about the resurrection of the dead ones of Israel, I.e. the Old Testament dead, Israel as a body, from Ez. 37, for example. This body was supposed to rise as a new body, under the New Covenant. Some were denying this, while still insisting on Christ's resurrection and their own. Paul argues that the dead ones were indeed rising, and identified their resurrection with that of Christ and his audience. This prompted the question, with what kind of body [singular] do they [plural, I.e. the dead ones] come? How are the old Testament dead rising with Christ and his people at that contemporary time? Paul explains that the old Testament dead die like a seed and rise in a new body, the spiritual body, the body of Christ.
Paul is not talking about individuals physical bodies. Christ was raised physically yes, but the dead ones and his audience were identified with that death and resurrection spirituality by baptism. The resurrection was a present reality and a current process which was to be perfected when Christ's enemies (the Jews, the Old Israel who killed him) would be judged and totally shattered (Dan. 12:7).
"Aimed at different audiences" is a significant distinction, I think.
@@nietzschesghost8529 I was raised with the belief that Philip left the Ethiopian in some weird way, but further study seemed to indicate that he simply got off the chariot at someplace, and went a different direction. I emphasize "seemed".
Not to split hairs, but isn't G-d a "spirit" and yet possesses/animates physical bodies (all of ours, I'm assuming)? I have enjoyed studying the New Testament from a Jewish perspective--there is so much info out there that I was never told about in church.
@@riffraftmusic8669 I always thought of the Transfiguration story as a sort of prefiguring of the bodily resurrection with Moses and Elijah also showing up with radiant bodies like that of Jesus post-resurrection and during that event.
Thanks for this one. I'm really glad you keep the discussion open with questions that rotate the focus to include so much understanding. Good work. Good service. Good on ya.
I know this is an older video, but Dr. Ehrman's remarks at the end about the academic mindset and methods reminded me of something Justin Sledge over at the Esoterica channel said: "If you let your faith dictate your history, you've really just betrayed them both."
4:42 Omg yes! I paused right when you mentioned 1 Corinthians 15! This section is actually my specific bar where I personally feel that I'd have to literally believe it in order to consider myself "Christian." As I stand currently, my belief system is a weird mix of apatheism and Christian modernism, which I don't personally count as "real" Christian. While I understand the symbolic meaning behind the resurrection, I currently disagree with Paul that everything Christians do would be in vain if there wasn't a literal resurrection.
I, at times, used to think very similarly to you and then I read Tolstoy's _The Gospel in Brief_ online. It pretty much fully convinced me that belief or non-belief in the resurrection/miracles has almost nothing to do with the core Ideas behind the Christian teaching. I'd recommend it to pretty much anyone who is interested in it but has little to no interest in dogmatic churches. The preface outlines it quickly and precisely, it is a brilliant work of distillation though.
@@Epiousios18 Im months late, but I would say your right, IF, and only if Christianity and it’s whole premise was solely moral ethics. The resurrection is important, dating to its Jewish roots as Judaism and Christianity speaks both of the life to come- meaning not necessarily heaven, but what is called the Messianic Age, when Yeshua, [Jesus] according to those who believe in Him, or some other “Messiah” figure [concerning the Jews who reject Him] would sit on the Davidic throne and execute perfect order, justice and peace from Jerusalem. This is considered at the time, according to both Jewish and Christian understandings, when Messiah will judge between the nations and bring order in the age to come- again not heaven, but on established on earth.
I bring this up to say, when we remove the narrative from the Tanakh [Hebrew Bible] and the New Covenant writings [New Testament], we’re left with a moral teaching, and defining “the goal” or “pursuit” of Christianity is a high moral and ethical life. But when we keep in step with the narrative the Scriptures present, we get a a complete prophetic account, immersed in the past present and future that’s to come concerning God and His interaction with mankind.
The resurrection is very important, because of Yeshua was raised, then He’s vindicated as Messiah who is to sit on David’s throne forever who not only brings the true meaning of Passover through a sacrificial system that’s for all peoples, but a Kingdom, a Reign, and a reuniting in the age to come of what is Eden in the Genesis account that was lost to men. The resurrection my friends, vindicate Yeshua’s point on the meaning of life, death, this age, and the age to come and what His “Father”, as He would say, is doing now. He didn’t just say things like “love your neighbor” to reveal moral codes to people who needed it, rather in keeping in step with the narrative and how it closes in the Hebrew Bible in Malachi, He was returning the hearts back to God, and causing those who was first ready to receive these understandings [which is the Jews because they received Torah, or the Law from Moses] to turn back to their God and live in a way that reunites Eden- because although Eden is literal, it also represents divine and connected relationship between God and man, man and man, God and creation and creation and creation. At the fall [in the beginning of the narrative] this is lost which is the Tanakhs account for the brokenness in mankind. It’s not saying no one can do good at all, since man was accounted to be created in Gods image, rather its saying that we rather choose to act corruptly for our gain, rather than in divine synergy with each other and the Creator- this is what Yeshua was redeeming with His death and resurrection [which if it didn’t happen, there’s no redemption and we all stand guilty now and in the age to come] and this, in His Teachings, is what He was restoring in, through and to those whose hearts are committed to Him. Because anyone can act on His moral teachings, but the divine help and motivation to truly live in this way at the cost of your suffering for another’s good is the restorative part He was revealing.
It’s not about morals or ethics, or living a better life now for the sake of human flourishing. His life, death and resurrection was about restoring and renewing covenant faithfulness with His creation, while justice acting on behalf of all of our affairs as the cosmic king of the universe who subjects all divine order under His will.
@@deandreross235 I got the notification of your response. My thoughts on the matter have changed since my original post, and I do think what you said is correct. The resurrection clearly is central, but what I would still maintain is that even if it _weren't_ true Christianity wouldn't be in vain, for as Tolstoy I believe correctly pointed out Christianity also works, "as a teaching which gives us the meaning of life."
It goes beyond morals or ethics, Christ's teaching allows you to properly understand and orient your perspective on Life itself. So, even if events like the resurrection didn't literally happen, the teaching is still valid.
To be clear I am not saying that is the case.If anything my point is that it makes the case for Christianity even stronger, for it presents humans with the "Truth" regardless if it is "historical."
Fortunately, you are wrong, just because scholars say that they don't believe in the ressurection as real, doesn't mean it isn't real,
Jews knew about Jesus christ and they saw his miracles and they still didn't believe him,
What I know for a fact that Jesus christ really died physically and he rose again physically,
Just by the fact that they are attacking Jesus christ all over human history,
And the hatred towards anyone who follows Jesus christ,
I've seen demons in people who really didn't like the truth of the gospel and that made them angry and vengeful and started screaming,
When you see spiritual warfare into someone physical,
You can never again say that the ressurection is a metaphor,
The resurrection of Jesus christ is real and is physical and I bet my soul that it's true,
Because after you see demons for real, you can never say that spirit world doesn't exist,
I don't care, if it's a scholar, doctor, or professor,
Let them experience the spirit world the way I saw and I bet you, they will fall the their knees and ask Jesus christ for forgiveness.
Thanks for that one! I saw a couple Dr. Ehrman's lectons before and I like his style
Having watched Ehrman over the past 20 years (just in passing, not intently) my views on him have evolved greatly. I used to snub his opinion (because I was an idiot and didn't appreciate things that challenged my position in belief). While I am still a believer, in ways but not the same ways I once was, I truly appreciate him and his work now.
Ehrman is a great litmus test for believers. If you hate him, you have blind faith without space for rational discussion about thay faith. If you enjoy Ehrman's writing and lectures and you still believe, you probably can discuss your faith without getting defensive. It's nice to have this test as an ex-christian that still enjoys learning about theology, really makes productive discourse, while rare, much easier to find.
What Dr Ehrman said about 1st Corinthians chapter 3 is exactly how I understood it when I was 6, and I have to say my Baptist Sunday school teacher’s tried very hard to convince me I was wrong. It never took. Do not know why, but my innermost voice told me they had misunderstood something. I always figured they would get it some day.😊
Assuming mainstream Baptists would "get" anything is quite generous of you tbh. They aren't known for progressive alterations of doctrine as new ideas are presented.
Another great program, Andrew!
I always feel smarter after listening to Dr. Ehrman. Great channel.
He wrote my textbook my Origins of the New Testament class is using. Really great read.
Ooooh I've been waiting for this!!
Wow! what a wonderful interview! I finally got some smarts between my ears. Keep it up both Dr. Ehrman and Religion for Breakfast. I have several of Ehrman's books to plough through yet.
I was a history major in college and found this video to be quite interesting and enlightening
What fantastic news! With my Christian friends, I instantly shared this video and Ehrman's website.
@Sarah Hodgins Being atheist is "a horrible and hopeless way to live"? Why?
@@Qwerty-lp1fz She’s scared of death and her imaginary god, so she needs fairy tales not to collapse mentally. She is probably also convinced that people who do not believe in bronze-age fantasies cannot have a moral compass and/or a sense of purpose if life. There’s a lot of these braindead sad sacks around. I’d pity them if that weren’t such a complete waste of time.
@@Edo_Marinus I can picture exactly how you look just typing that Comment
@@Qwerty-lp1fz She's also in this comment throwing out classic antisemitism. She's just a True Believer™ whose sensibilities are offended by frank academic discussions of her articles of faith
@Sarah Hodgins look at you who Just Assumes she knows why Bart got smart. You’re wrong. Typical deplorable
I have 3 of Dr. Erhman's books he is absolutely fantastic
I aways enjoy when have him on your show. Thanks.
I was brought up Christian but as I get older I want to know the truth about the writings especially when alot of the bible is stories not factual
My FAVORITE part of being a modern Catholic, is being knowledgeable on the TRUTH about our religion. Like the fact based, tirelessly discussed, peer reviewed research here.
I was so happy and excited to see that you posted a video today! I couldn't wait to watch it when I got home from work!
11:23 If the women didn't tell anyone, how did the other people come to know Jesus resurrected? An intriguing way to end a text. Leaves a lot to the imagination of the reader.
“Jesus lives for ever. Good for him.” - Bart Ehrman
I was wondering if anyone caught that lol
I absolutely love Mr Ehrman & I love watching your channel as well sir!
It is Sooo Nice to actually hear conversation take place without the same questions being asked over and over and over.
One person (won't say) had an interview, and the person completely changed the topic, just to ask dumb questions. It was like a trick pulled, and Mr Bart even said something.
R.F.B Sir, LOVE your channel, and my only complaint is that this wasn't longer! 🤗
When Dr. Ehrman stated, “you can’t have a resurrection without a faith commitment.” I really wanted you to follow that up with, “ well, that’s debatable…” that would have been the perfect ending to this brief conversation and good transition to the event details.
Even with today’s advanced science resurrection isn’t possible and we have no critical examples of a resurrection by supernatural means either. Without any examples of resurrection it illogical to believe in a resurrection, so going against all logic the resurrection can only be believed in by FAITH and faith alone.
Hahaha "debatable." Because he's about to "debate" it! Nice one, Stuart. I get it.
I mean debatable if you see the resurrection as an allegory and not an actual event that happened.
If you remove God out of the realms of possibility then it’s not debatable. But if It is possible God exists you are right. Resurrections are only not possible if you presuppose God is impossible to exist.
@@timetravlin4450 yeah except for the part that Gods are supposed to be Immortal, they don't die, not even when they take a human form
Two of my favorites! Great combination.
Methodological atheism is a great scientific concept and you are good at methodologically adhering to it. Equally so is the "let's talk religion" for that matter. Love your channels.
The favorite myth of atheists: neutrality.
@@hypotheticalaxolotl atheism is just as much a presupposition as theism. No one is neutral.
@@hypotheticalaxolotl Having a "methodological form" is still a precommitment. Saying, "I only accept naturalistic explanations." Is just as much of a presupposition as, "I accept supernatural explanations or I accept divine revelation." It really shouldn't be a controversial point. Everyone has presuppositions, they should just acknowledge that and not pretend to be neutral.
@@hypotheticalaxolotl Say you're studying a religion with a naturalistic view. If that religion was making true claims about miracles, then the naturalistic view isn't going to accurately portray that religion. Agnosticism is more neutral in this case than atheism, since it presents naturalistic and supernaturalistic theories.
@@nth7273 Nonsense. Atheism is to religion what ‘OFF’ is to a television channel. There is no god. Deal with it.
Such a good conversation. I didn't realize that the bodily resurrection was such an interesting topic.
Love Bart man he articulates so well and I love how this channel and him both are neutral when presenting information. High quality content !
Bart Ehrman is intellectually dishonest and deceptive. in his presentations he makes it seems like Christianities original teachings have been corrupted and so has the bible, but in his debates, he admits that he believes that all of Christianities core teachings are the same as they originally were, obviosuly meaning the deity of Christ, literal resurrection (e.g he admitted this at the very end of his debate with Dan Wallace which is on youtube). Why doesnt he mention this in his presentations and books? then he titles his books "misquoting Jesus" "forged", "How Jesus became God" and makes it seem Christianity has been corrupted. Then he says things like "we must go wherever the evidence leads" and stuff like that to come across as an unbias scholar. Well he definitely gets the sales on his books from this and he likely wants to deconvert people, its one of the two likely.
@recreantjournals6723 - Ignore @hamis490, a troll who keeps posting the same over and over as though that very act will make what she says true.
What a good interview, Dr. Henry!
It is so freeing to delve into the actual historical context of the Hebrew and Christian scriptures. I don’t believe in this stuff in any literal sense anymore, but I do love the stories of Jesus. The Jesus myths feed my poet’s heart, what matters is the metaphor. The historicity of Jesus doesn’t matter much. Kinda like Johnny Appleseed-maybe a real guy, but legends sprung up around him. So, I don’t waste many brain cells wondering how many angels are dancing around on the heads of which theological pins. I just enjoy the stories of Jesus, and try to follow his example.
You are so going to heaven
From the begining what doesn't make sense is that a loving god requires blood to be spilled
God didn't require it. Don't buy into the Penal substitution garbage
@pyroghostultra3718 - I cannot support a religion based on human sacrifice.
Much obliged.
It takes a certain depth of understanding and confidence to maintain your method and your faith; the rational and the irrational.
So interesting topics. Bring him again :)
After reading the passage that was suggested (1 Corin. 15 I think?), I was struck by how Paul described Jesus appearing to him was essentially the same as Jesus appearing to his disciples and others soon after his death. Combined with his comments about how the resurrected body is different from the living body in the same way a seed differs from what grows from the seed, it seems to me that Paul understood what happened only as some sort of mystical occurrence. At his time and place, he would have believed in any number of mystical things actually happening in the real world, but from a modern perspective where at least I think of things that happen mystically as being somehow separated out from the world we live in, that gives a much different interpretation of the resurrection. If you accept that mystical things can happen, but that those things work via a different set of rules than those of scholarly physics and chemistry, it becomes much more reasonable to believe that the miracles did occur, and it gives a reason why they are not detectable with modern science.
It's not enough to get me to believe in any thing mystical, but it does provide a good framework for how a person who believes in science can believe in whatever religion they follow.
Snake handlers and the longer ending of Mark: textual criticism saves lives!
Mike Licona literally argues that, because Ouija boards anecdotally work, and other mysterious stuff happens, therefore, it's very plausible that the resurrection happened. The guy is so open-minded (in his quest to believe the resurrection) that his brain has fallen out.
Only if you presuppose that God is impossible to exist. sure to your closed atheistic mind that’s understandable. But if God is even a possibility than the resurrection can be possible.
@@timetravlin4450 "possible" is quite different from saying "very plausible"
I dont presupose anything about God. Religious people do, when translating the bible for instance. Since god was invented by humans it is entirely presuposed. Im open to god existng, but i have never seen any evidence of it.
@timetravlin4450 sure, and if gravity pushed instead of pulled, it would be possible to fly. Problem is, there is no evidence of gravity doing anything other than attracting things, so we aren't flying anytime soon. Provide evidence of God existing first, and then we discuss if the resurrection was real. You can still believe in the story without it having actually happened, thats literally the purpose of faith.
Bart is an exceptional person. I feel like I’ve watched every one of his debates and lectures over the years and still can’t get enough. Also, he’s hilarious 😂
Bart Ehrman is intellectually dishonest and deceptive. in his presentations he makes it seems like Christianities original teachings have been corrupted and so has the bible, but in his debates, he admits that he believes that all of Christianities core teachings are the same as they originally were, obviosuly meaning the deity of Christ, literal resurrection (e.g he admitted this at the very end of his debate with Dan Wallace which is on youtube). Why doesnt he mention this in his presentations and books? then he titles his books "misquoting Jesus" "forged", "How Jesus became God" and makes it seem Christianity has been corrupted. Then he says things like "we must go wherever the evidence leads" and stuff like that to come across as "someone who wasn't trying to fit the ideas into a prefabricated narrative and to actually explore them with academic sincerity". an Well he definitely gets the sales on his books from this and he likely wants to deconvert people, its one of the two likely.
@@hamis490 - Reposting this over again verbatim will not make it true.
I consider myself a Christian, a follower of Jesus, and in the personal experience of my faith (and I know this isn't strictly orthodoxy) the "historical fact" of the resurrection is irrelevant. The stories around Jesus' life, teaching, death, and resurrection, etc. point to profound truths, and it's these otherwise difficult to articulate truths that I value not historical fact. In fact, from my point of view taking the stories literally may threaten to dilute to power of myth and metaphor. Scholars tend to agree that Jesus existed, but even if he didn't that still wouldn't affect my moment-to-moment lived spirituality.
It's sad that mainstream Christians can't wrestle with their faith like this. Blind belief makes it easy to manipulate people, questioning your faith while still valuing what your faith provides for you is a sign of spiritual maturity. An unquestioned, unchallenged spirit is weak and easy to control.
Brilliant discussion. Love this channel and hearing Dr. Erhman's perspective.
ReligionForBreakfast + Bart Ehrman = Dream combination
Definitely!
= Bartligion for Ehrmfast
@@thesalvadorian ReligiEhrman for Bartfast
@@reevevanlaanen-smit8499 Hahaha
@@reevevanlaanen-smit8499 Bart's shorts for breakfast
Hi @ReligionForBreakfast
Ive been a subscriber for a while! I love the channel. Im gettting into a NT MA soon, I am a practicing Christian.
I like your discussion with Dr.Ehrman at the end, I wanted to ask.
Bart emphasized that you can have a bias to a worldview and say my worldview breaks the standard narrative and everything in history aligns with it.
When you take a Methodological Atheism position as you do history, and your study shows you that some of the historical facts align with a particular world view more than they do with another. Cant you as a Historian make a comment about that? For example, Christianity's view of the crucifixion and the Islamic position on that
Great chat. Love t explanation from BE, that learning a subject should b t same in all countries, regardless of that individuals belief. And how it's fundamental to finding t correct answer. 🍻✌️
What yall are talking about reminds me of Mister Roger's teachings in a roundabout way; an ordained minister, he didn't use his national platform to proselytize- but it could be argued that every episode he filmed was a study in spreading Christ's love and teachings.
I'm an atheist and I'll happily join a church that's just Mr. Roger's being a kind person and good neighbor. Honestly, I struggle to understand most supernatural views, aside from maybe referring to sickness and other ailments before medical ideas were understood, it's a little weird I like this channel but I do. Idk I do understand that others genuinely do believe in the supernatural and I find that interesting.
Sorry, that took a super weird turn for some reason. I meant it to be a half joking comment about a secular church that just teaches good wholesome morality with no supernatural elements as something kinda funny, then it just became a bit self reflective for no reason. I mean no disrespect to anyone's faith, as long as it isn't being used to promote bigotry or bad health practices it's all good (weirdly common for bad health practices to come from religious places in recent years. Most religious organizations do not promote bad health practices at all but many people promoting bad health products and practices are weirdly culty).
bart ehrman is the rockstar of biblical scholarship!
Thank you.
Would you consider interviewing Dr. Bob Price? He's a favorite of mine, and I would love to hear a conversation between the two of you.
This is why this quote by Amiel(Mrs. Humphrey Ward) Journal, December 11, 1872, is my favorite quote... "Wisdom consists in RISING superior both madness and to common sense, and in lending one's self to the UNIVERSAL delusion without becoming its dupe."... "EVERY WISH FULFILLED" E.T.
So great! Big take away: there is no American mathematician, Iranian, or indi -- there's just math as there is just religious studies
Great interview and thank you!@
Bart Ehrman is also debating Jimmy Akin concerning the historical reliability of the Gospel on Thursday 24th at 10:00 pm EST
Excellent! I’m sharing this with a friend who is a Catholic and a cultural anthropologist and also with my local Pagan/Witch group.
@Inquiring Okay so far. No one has shot at me yet. 🤣
@Inquiring don't be like this. I'm an atheist but if no one is hurting anyone, let people believe whatever religion they want.
@@inquiring1409 - You are being infantile. Mr Breakfast respects all religions or belief systems he covers; why can't you?
INCREDIBLE!
Interesting interview. Not sure I see the point of debating whether the resurrection really happened.
I was thinking the same. Its simply not an appropriate historical question.
Great discussion
Fascinating conversation. I love when you have guests!
What really bums me out about certain scholars (and I guess it's just not the type of thing they study, so it's fine) is that they don't seem to consider much of the mystical view of this stuff. Physical material bodies, body transformations....what about symbolism? What about metaphors? For me, Christianity is about the teachings, the messages, what Jesus was trying to show us about who we are, our inherent holiness, love, etc. This scholar said that the resurrection is the center of Christianity and without it, the whole message changes. IDK about that. I don't agree. If it's interpreted symbolically, mystically, nothing changes at all. I personally don't really care a whole lot about successfully proving whether or not physical this and physical that really historically happened. In fact, I doubt Jesus' body was resurrected!! Seems unlikely! I lean toward the idea that Thomas was having a vision, not really physically sticking his fingers inside of wounds. Ew LOL. I do actually think it's useful and fun and fascinating to debate these things, but I just feel bugged when certain types of scholars don't really seem to touch on what seems to be intended to be taught by these stories, as they just focus on debating what physically happened and what didn't. So then these debates feel incomplete. When people get really caught up in that dimension when debating this stuff, I wonder if they really care about the transformative aspect of Christianity, or if they think proving physical events is the key to that transformation. I don't believe that. I don't really buy Atonement Theory. I'm impacted by the teachings of love, unity, etc. That's why I love Jesus. It's also why I love Ramana Maharshi and the Buddha... I wouldn't care if the Buddha never existed, or if the stories didn't physical happen. The teachings...that's where transformation lies.
If the objective is to determine historicity then debate over literary analysis and content shouldn’t come into the debate-it’s a different subject and field. The literary aspects would be of interest in a historical sense as to find trends of writing style and content over time.
@@Lmaoh5150 You're completely right. And I should know this...I've watched like every single video on this channel. I guess it just came to mind to mention because of what Bart said about if there was no ressurrection, and Christianity being centered on it. And I thought to myself "well I don't really care if it didn't physically happen. In fact I would be pretty surprised if it did...doesn't sound like the way human bodies work!" Thanks for your response, Noah.
@@Fire-Toolz I do wonder what channels do go into the topics you mentioned. There’s gotta be? Cause I’d also be interested in that kind of study too. It’s interesting!
@@Lmaoh5150 In my experience it’s mostly been people who are spiritual. The channel Let’s Talk Religion goes into this occasionally. Sometimes Esoterica as well. I learned a lot of the mystical interpretations from ancient saints and such. Like Meister Elkhart, Hildegard, John Of The Cross, Saint Teresa Of Avila, and modern figures like Thomas Merton. But it would be awesome to learn from more academic types as well.
You're confusing scholarly disciplines. Historians don't deal with that stuff. It's for theologians to ponder.
The reason why the Resurrection is central to Christianity is actually pretty obvious if you'd just read your own post. The resurrection was historically the "special sauce" that distinguished Christianity from very similar religious movements of the day, especially Judaism. Without the Resurrection you'd basically end up with a belief system indistinguishable from any other apocalyptic Hellenized Judaism sect. A Jesus minus the Resurrection is just another Buddha-analog.
i dont know if bart pointed out. But he didnt mention there is a difference between the spirit and the soul.
spirit being 'ruach' and soul being 'nephesh' (which means 'breath' in aramaic), which then eventually became the word 'psyche'.
So it's an important difference to point out and conflation leads to severe misunderstanding of christian texts
I am starting to wonder if the original story found in the Gospel of Mark wasn't written as a fictitious story, as a teaching aid for Jewish people, a sort of fable, to make the audience or reader wonder "if the messiah came, would we recognize him for who he is?". Essentially a what-if novel about a future coming of the messiah. It might have never been intended to be read or told as if these were events that did take place. The ending, I feel, supports this.
We can't study the resurrection, but we can study the history of the belief and claims of witness to the resurrection as a scientific matter.
I really do enjoy this channel, I don’t however, know anyone on…. Aside from the host, who I realize now that I don’t know the name of.
All the same, I enjoy hearing these kinds of conversations, I’m just not as exited as the rest of the audience, but after this video I can see myself in the same camp.
I dropped out of religious studies after 2 years, and for me this debate seems weird. Now I live in an atheistic country ( which I guess reflect our system on religious studies) so people studied religion because of curiosity (education is free here) and very few were religious themselves in anyway. Everything was from an academic point of view
Id like to have the same episode with Dr Gary Habermaas
That would be nice!
@Pietro - I would rather keep it scholarly then introduce the fraudulent, childish charlatan
@@greglogan7706 "Okay"
@@greglogan7706 there’s 2 views. Bart has a presumption that atheism is true so he claims resurrections can’t happen. That’s true but only if you presuppose the existence of God is impossible. If God is possible. Than resurrections are possible
@@greglogan7706 The only one who seems to be childish here is you throwing ad hominem attacks.
I would love a video about the ideas of resurrection contemporary to Jesus's time. What did other Jewish sources think it meant.
I’m a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and we believe in a restoration of the original church and Gospel. That includes proper authority, revelation, prophets and apostles, etc. Much of what traditional Christianity has differing opinions of and what may seem at odds in the Bible is resolved through modern revelation through then prophet Joseph Smith and other modern-day prophets. For example, the Book of Mormon documents a resurrected Christ visiting the peoples of the American continent that partially fulfill the Lord’s statement in John 10:16 “…other sheep I have, which are not of this fold:”. Some think Jesus was speaking of the gentiles, but Jesus said he would never teach the gentiles; which was never done until He was gone.
We know that there are issues with the Bible, which is why I’ve read so many of Dr. Ehrman’s books. But because of my faith and it’s ability to resolve many of the issues that are in conflict between history, science and the Bible, I’m still a strong believer in Jesus as the Christ or Messiah.
As for the resurrected body of Christ, it is a corporeal body, but a very refined body of spiritual matter. We don’t have any idea what His body is really like except it is exactly like His Fathers body. That’s another thing that has changed over time. The definition of the nature of God. There is no support for the Trinity in the Bible. That is a man-made doctrine. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are three separate beings with the same goal, purpose, and mins-set. They are working in perfect harmony for the exact same goal. The Bible actually points this out often and specifically. Jesus’ baptism is a perfect example.
I could go on but much of this is likely well known. There are many resources that can explain our doctrine in-depth. Just go to www.churchofjesuschrist.org/?lang=eng to find out more.
Awesome video!
Two of the Greats!
I am an atheist and studied theology at a private Baptist College.
my prof loves bart ehrman, he used one of his books as the textbook for my new testament class
Ehrman's New Testament textbook is fairly standard in the US. My NT class in graduate school used it too.
This is fascinating.
It would seem not to be controversial that the New Testament’s literary context is specifically Hebrew Intertestamental apocrypha, Apocalyptic and Old Testament Pseudepigrapha. The context for understanding Who Christ is, is of course specifically Second Temple Hebrew worship. The Christian community was one among many Hebrew religious groups that existed in that tumultuous period which produced all this literature, from which the canon of New Testament scripture was later selected. It is also worth mentioning that the canon of the Old Testament was not altogether set either in that formative period.
Wonderful talk fellas! 👏👏👏👏👏
i started listening to these videos while i paint in the morning and its great except i listened to them too fast and i dont think i absorbed much...oh well i'll just have to watch them all again :D
Great scholar he says some things you mentioned before, thanks for interviewing him, watched the video again :)
What he said it absolutely true. No one can say that Jesus rose from the dead without believing that Jesus rose from the dead. At some point, he that cometh to God must believe that He is and that He is the rewarder of them that diligently seek Him.
Well done. tthere is no certainty abut the resurrection, it's a matter of faith.
Respect to Dr Ehrman for the massive collection of Greek and Latin Loebs in the background.
He once said he starts his day reading Greek texts.
I seem to recall reading, in book of the Nag Hamadi collection, that when Mary approached the tomb, the stone door had been opened and she saw three men further away carrying a body away. Which other modern writers said was so the body could be given the necessary rituals for a proper burial according to traditions.
It is my belief that Jesus family while hiding in Egypt (probably in Alexandria due to its large population) that JC likely met Buddhists at the Library as a youth and learned deep meditation. As a possibility of that, I think it possible that JC may have controlled his breathing and blood flow to stop the bleeding so he would not die immediately. So, when his body was removed from the cross he was not actually dead, but in a deep, deep trance state which made him seem to be dead. Then, after being removed from the tomb he awoke and this was the basis of the resurrection story.
Do not know if you will see this comment posted more than a year after this video, but if you do I would like to know what you think of this theory. Thanks for your videos, they are very interesting to this 73 yo man.
Loved Dr Erman's podcast with Sam Harris
1 Cor 15 is one of the most ignored chapters from the pulpit. I love your chan now. I had worked on an mdiv and haven't thought about this much since then
Very underrated chapter. So interesting.
Subscribed
As a Christian myself, I tend to like hearing the perspectives of my faith from an historical and academic view point. I can disagree with some of the points made and yet understand them fully. I really appreciate this channel and am very familiar with Ehrman and his work.
Considering 1 Cor. 15, I find it as sort of an apologetic for Paul...ESPECIALLY v.12-19 where he essentially says if Jesus didn't resurrect and us as Christians believe and teach that he did, then Christians are the most of ALL people to be pitied... He sounded like he knew what was at stake... he had given his whole life up... if he DIDN'T see a resurrected Jesus, then what did he see to make him flip and convert to the very thing he hated? Something happened.
@@ReligionForBreakfast Could you please dedicate a new video (with or without an assisting expert) on 1 Cor 15? Explaining the Greek wording "soma pneymatikon"/"somata epoyrania" vs. "soma psychikon"/"somata epigeia"? Comparing it to other texts in the NT like the metamorphosis ("metemorphoothee") in Matthew 17,2, Mark 9,2 and ("to eidos toy prosoopoy autoy heteron") Luke 9,29, and to John's and Paul's theology about spirit (good) vs. flesh (bad), and to Jesus' saying that his kingdom belongs to a completely different world (John 18,36)?
I appreciate your scientific, clear and concise videos very much. I'm still a Christian, but I don't believe in any churches and clergymen any more. Therefore, independent scientific information helps me to get a broader insight than just relying on biased church doctrines.
🙋♀️ I have a question, what about Lazarus who died and was bought back to life, really interested regarding that story and a bit disappointed that wasn't mentioned?
It comes down to a similar debate of the resurrection of Jesus. The only accounts we have of it come from Christian sources.
>popular comments: comments with respect looking forward to the debate
>recent comments: edgy comments quickly dismissing other side
Hmm
The notion that science doesn't change based on your religion is powerful.
If you get various religious leaders to mix the same concoctions, and each prays for a miracle, each should still get the same result (barring observed errors).
Implications.
Are you also gonna have an interview with Mike Licona or Gary Habermas?
That'd be great! But it seems like RFB treats religion like a sociological phenomena instead of a lived theology. IE, secular scholars are prefered.
Can someone please explain what do (12:10) “Appalachian steak houses” have to do with the added verses in Mark that make the risen impermeable to snake venom?
He said "snake-handlers", not "steak houses"-the auto-generated captions got it wrong.
Appalachian steak houses are famous for their snake infestations and Mark was very concerned with making sure the Risen could eat there safely. /s
@@Kobolds_in_a_trenchcoat no way…Jesus was a vegan! It’s in the bible, because breaking bread is more than just an expression - Jesus literally wanted us to stop eating meat.
"Everything is unique"
Thank you for talking so openly and in an accepting manner about atheists.
I really liked the discussion about how we approach the method of study without allowing for our own religious bias. But I do think there is some value also in debating the historicity of miracles as a possibility. Not for the sake of rescuing religion in the face of science, but for the sake of keeping science honest. If we start a review of the facts under the assumption that any simile of miracle is definitely not a miracle, because God doesn't intervene with history, then you have already altered the results of your analysis regardless of what the truth may be.
The difficulty is that there is nothing to debate except for personal ideas about what could have happened, which isn’t really scholarship. It’s fine to speculate if you like, but it’s difficult to debate historicity of something with zero evidence and falsifiability.
@@8114梦见 I agree, but you are assuming that miracles are not historical. That is a very safe assumption, but what if we come across something that can only be explained as a miracle in the contemporary world? It would open up the possibility of historical miracles as well, which shakes that assumption somewhat.
@@gawayne1374 I'm not assuming that miracles are unhistorical. I am only stating that if they are, it is impossible to prove so via scholarly methods (hence why they are unfalsifiable). Even in your example of the contemporary world, a miracle is entirely unfalsifiable. If you came across something that could not be explained with any known knowledge, supernatural assumptions only lead to levels of speculation that throw no further light on the subject. A miracle can only ever serve as a place-holder for an explanation, due to its definition of being outside natural constraints of reality. Since scholarship aims towards a deeper understanding, relying on a miraculous claims can't get you very far in that pursuit.
@@8114梦见 I see your point, and I support this entirely. However, I do think that there may be things that are entirely beyond our natural understanding, even within the natural world. For example, it may be impossible for scientists to explain dark matter. Maybe not, maybe yes, but the possibility of unmovable unknowns is very real, especially since we can only study that which we perceive directly. The only reason why we understand quantum mechanics is because we have developed instruments that can translate quantum effects into visual queues. The problem I see with the generally held perception of scholarly knowledge is that it is held up as a synonym of all that is true, while it really is more like all that is methodically demonstrable given our existing capabilities. Given that context, if someone were to inexplicably gain the power of resurrecting dead people today, and we find no way to understand how it is done, that would to some extent support the possibility of such things happening in the past. I would still encourage the study of the power with all our available tools to explain it, I don't think speculation is useful beyond an initial exploration of the topic. But we must still take into account that because of how history works, we would rely on written accounts and archaeological inference to approximate the right answer about historical miracles, in which case we would have to find a way to compare historical miracles to test for demonstrable evidence. TLDR: We shouldn't be too "off the cuff" about dismissing these accounts as they are written, although maintaining a healthy amount of scepticism for the sake of epistemological consistency is important.
I could listen to Dr. Bart Ehrman all day! I think I first heard of him when I got some of his lectures from The Teaching Company maybe fifteen years ago. Fascinating stuff! While I'm not superstitious I think we can learn at least as much about humanity from studying our religions as we can from psychology.
Psychology is a field of superstition. There's absolutely no proof for any of its theories! It is a fake science and it destroys human interaction.