Quest for the Historical Jesus | Bart D. Ehrman Ph.D | Mythicism Vs. Historicism
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- Link for the DEBATE (Pay Per View EXCLUSIVE):
gnosticinforma...
Bart D. Ehrman (PhD) is an American New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including three college textbooks. He has also authored six New York Times bestsellers. He is currently the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor of Religious Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
In this video we discuss the Historical Jesus and Mythicism. We attempt to separate the myth from the history and see what we have left as far as details for the life of Jesus of Nazareth. We discuss the key Mythicist arguments and the reasons why we think Jesus was a historical person, despite NO physical evidence or Primary Sources for the life of Jesus.
For more from Dr. Bart Ehrman:
www.bartehrman...
Dr. Bart's Blog:
ehrmanblog.org/
Bart Ehrman Twitter:
/ bartehrman
Books from Bart Ehrman:
www.amazon.com...
RUclips:
/ bartdehrman
#BartEhrman #HowJesusBecameGod #Mythicism #Gnostic #GnosticInformant
It has always baffled me why was it important to write about Joseph's genealogy if he was not Jesus' biological father. I figure someone made up the immaculate conception story later to add some divine intervention.
I could be wrong here, but I read somewhere that Mary’s father was also named Joseph. If this is true, then that’s why the genealogy is important.
@@netzarim1277 Nope.
The Bible has only two genealogy trees, one in Matthew Chp 1, Verses 1 thru 17 (see verse 16), and the other in Luke Chp 3, verses 23 thru 38 (see verse 23).
Thank you for pointing those verses out. I logged each genealogy in excel; one column for Matthew and the other for Luke (yeah, tedious typing!). The genealogies are the same from God - David; however Matthews genealogy splits from Davids son Nathan while Luke’s genealogy goes thru Solomon.
Matthews genealogy does state it’s the lineage of Joseph (Mary’s husband) while Luke’s genealogy does not…thus I’m inclined to believe that Luke’s genealogy is of Mary’s lineage. Therefore this means that Mary and Joseph are both from David lineage.
The whole thing about Jesus being the actual son of god didn’t emerge until after the 3 synoptic gospels were written.
@@netzarim1277 I think they didn't include the mothers' side in genealogies.
When a religion started centuries ago, and a lot of the surrounding context in its earliest days has been lost, it can seem kind of spooky. But then we have well-documented religions with recent origins, like Mormonism, and we can see that they aren't spooky at all. Instead we can understand the origins of these newer religions in terms of natural social and psychological mechanisms. If that is the case now, then it was also the case back when Christianity originated.
Apparently Mormonism and Christianity come from the same God of Abraham, the Mormon faith has the trinity and God but the trinity not separate from each other as in the Christian faith, in effect Joseph Smith was returning to an earlier time. Great video on Centre Place channel Jan 18 '22 about it. Definitely those mechanisms at work!
Yeah you guys never seen Jesus with an iPad in the 1700s
Good
Religion started before there was a word for it
Freemasonry is the craft the Archons use to create religion
and scam the masses
Religion is not real
Yeah, but just one thing. Most of Judaism of the 1st century CE wanted a military messiah. Everything we know about Jesus was that he was the opposite of a military messiah. That might have actually been the reason why the crowds during Passover were so divided on Jesus. He wasn't the military messiah that most Jews were looking for.
There's a reason why Bart Ehrman is a Distinguished Professor Emeritus and Richard Carrier is unemployed. There's all the proof you need.
Bart serves the religion of the empire
Bart Ehrman is one of the religious scholars whose judgement I trust the most.
I'm reading Dr Ehrmans anthology of early Christian authors up to the apostolic fathers. I am grateful to him for assembling all these into a single volume trade paperback, so poor autodidacts like myself can access them in book form.
Can you please give me a link?? I’ve looked up these works online for free, but almost all the translations for these early Christian writing outside the Bible are in old, non-contemporary English from like the 1940s.
@@smithcm14 ehrman
Understanding how Xtianity developed is very easy-to-explain in our time
when you have all of the pieces of the puzzle combined to create a very
clear and vivid picture.
We understand the motives both political and psychological, also the
military motives.
We understand the perpetrators' minds and history.
We understand the true history of the first century that led to to the
creation of Xtianity.
It is not as much of a mystery as it once was...
It's puzzling to me, that when asked about the main reasons to think Jesus existed, Ehrman said, "people agree" instead of here is the historical basis for what people agree on. A lot of people agree that donkeys talk, and Jesus walked on water. But there is no reasonable basis for believing those thing. Doesn't the current archeological evidence indicate that almost nobody lived in Nazareth at the time of Jesus? Isn't the entire Nazarene thing a debatable translation? If there was a tomb of Jesus, it would be the holiest spot in Christianity, visited and kept sacred, instead of there being more than one, none of which has any foundation in fact.
The all powerful, all knowing god couldn't even "inspire the gospel authors" to agree on when/where/how his only son was born. Isn't that shocking that people are still arguing about the most basic facts about the most important person ever who is going to determine if we burn in hell forever? What does that tell us about god?
@@henrim9348 Throughout history God has revealed himself to certain people and not others. It has to do with their own sinful nature more than whether they are for instance, a Jew or not a Jew. If you want to know the truth of God as Jesus said seek and Ye shall find, knock and the door shall be open unto you. It is sin which blinds us and separates us from the God who created all things.
John 14:22
*Then Judas (not Judas Iscariot) said, “But, Lord, why do you intend to show yourself to us and not to the world?*
23Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. *24Anyone who does not love me will not obey my teaching.*
100% agree! As Matt Dillahunty would say, it’s a Argumentum ad populum Fallacy…
I enjoy listening to ehrman usually but the 'all serious scholars believe jesus existed ' is weak instead of listing solid historical facts....and then he obfuscates the issue about mary being pregnant and the different interpretations of 'how' she became pregnant...the holy ghost story 'cannot' be verified by definition... nobody there to witness it... no holy ghost visible and cannot be substantiated... very sketchy discussion... who was joseph of arithamea and where is arithamea?... fiction?
@@johnkerr1113 He’s written multiple books on the subject. There are also debates and lectures of his on YT where he goes into the details.
What is sadly missing in this conversation is the fact that during that period there were several preachers and rebel leaders going around claiming to be the Messiah, some with significant following. The Jesus story we see in the Bible could very well be a composite of several such people and their adventures. Additionally, Jeshuah (aka Jesus) was a fairly common name in the region, which could have contributed to further confused identity - either at the time or later during the course of oral tradition.
I remember Jesus ben Ananais ...Jesus the Egyptian?
@@henrim9348 Jesus ben Ananias supposedly came from Syria.
@@rookmaster7502 His grandpa was called from Egypr
If there are several inspirations then none of them is the "real" character.
Fictional characters are always based on real ones to some degree. But there's no middle ground, there's either a barely altered Jesus of Nazareth who did 85%+ of the speeches and actions, or there's no one.
@@crhu319 It's Nerones of the Palatine-hill, the non-violent, popular, philosopher-artist-ceasar. 85% applied to him and maybe 15% his original policies
Sources: Christian literature. If scholars take that as history, there's a problem with scholarship
Literature is an integral part of history and historiography. Your image about scholarship itself is false. And historiography itself is limited. There are a lot of facts that you did yesterday you cannot anymore proof today.And still they happend. False scholarship starts with the assumption that all can be proofed or disproofed by sciences. Barts' image about the ''neutral historical Jesus'' is also based on what he likes to believe... He cannot proof neither all his speculations. It's good to be critical but finally at the really end of that kind of research your personal conclusive narrative will only gives us a certitude about your own biased thoughts and feelings and theories and speculations and never about what really happend 2000 years ago regarding the person of Jesus. That's all.
Yes because I’m so sure you’re such an expert to be able to make that assessment.
@@wernervannuffel2608 Bart Ehrman responds to Christian speculations which nobody can proof by confronting them with contradictions in the narratives and contradictions to historical knowledge. By the way it is an irony of you to blame him to believe - an irony deserving homerical laughter!
@@WMedl It's good to be critical and having scholars like Bart. D. Ehrman making all kinds of contradictions clear. And they are many. As an autoethnographer I'm only aware about a lot of gaps in even my own personal archive to proof or disproof facts of my personal life and this when I'm a still living person.. And so it will be for other persons, including a person who was born and acting as an adult 2000 years ago in a timeframe in which archives for private persons were not existing.
Historiography is sometimes very limited. That's the only and general point I made.
Finally in historiography their is not such a thing as an end conclusion. It's only everytime a temporaly thesis, anthithesis and synthesis as startingpoint to a new thesis and so on. Based on new archeological evidence, new scientific approaches, even included new forensic sciences techniques applied to cold cases like the life of a certain Jesus, acting in Judea, a province of the Roman empire in that days.
@@wernervannuffel2608 Sorry, all your 'arguments' run against all religions. And that you do not know all about you is only an argument that you do exist to paraphrase Descartes.... By the way how do you know that.
And your autoethographical work may serve psychologists, sociologists, etc. for studying the present and historians and archeologists to do that maybe 2000 years later. Autoethography is an interesting activity but no science!
I am a very skeptical historicist, understanding that virtually all that we have come to know as the biblical Jesus is mythical. That being said, I really cannot stand this man's delivery and the way he mockingly dismisses the research of people outside of his academic circle.
Yes the constant laughter is quite off putting
Chris please answer these two multiple choice questions derived from the Pauline Epistles.
Who would most likely kill Jesus just for looking like, and believed to be just a human (Phili. 2:7 "but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form,")?
A) Romans
B) Jews
C) Satan
Who would most likely not kill Jesus if they knew that killing him would fulfill God's secret plan for mankinds salvation as per God's will (1 Cor. 2:6-8 "Yet among the mature we do speak wisdom, though it is not a wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are doomed to perish. But we speak God's wisdom, secret and hidden, which God decreed before the ages for our glory. None of the rulers of this age understood this; for if they had, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.")?
A) Romans
B) Jews
C) Satan
@@bleirdo_dude 1Cor. 2:6-8 is conceiving the religion as a mystery religion "mature", "secret", "hidden", that actually supports the idea that this is another mystery religion with a mythical savior.
Your multiple choice contains a mythical being so that's a bit weird?
@@joelrivardguitar The earliest Xtian writings (Pauline Epistles) are odd when looked at closely. Paul is adamant that his Gospel is not from humans, but from scripture, and visions/dreams (Gal. 1:11-18, Rom. 15:4, 1 Cor. 15:3-8). A secret hidden through the ages now revealed (Rom. 16:25-26, 1 Cor. 2:6-7). Also Paul says his apostleship is by the same means as the founding Pillars (Gal. 2:6-8). Paul's preexisting being was killed for looking like a human (Phili. 2:7), and his killers would not have killed him if they knew it was God's secret plan for mankind's salvation (1 Cor. 2:6-8). This makes more sense when looking at the Joshua/Jesus in the OT who tricks Satan and is exalted by God. Note that these verses have what can be perceived as symbolisms for flesh (dirty clothes= sinful flesh & Five Kings= Five Senses that enslaves one to sin & rules over you). So Zech. 3:1-9, 6:11-13, & Jos. 10:22-27 all together symbolically has a Jesus in a flesh disguise getting hung in a tree, shoved into a tomb, and exalted by God to remove guilt of the land.
Zechariah 3:1-9
"1 Then he showed me the high priest Joshua (Savior) standing before the angel of the LORD, and Satan (Adversary) standing at his right hand to accuse him. 2 And the LORD said to Satan, "The LORD rebuke you, O Satan! The LORD who has chosen Jerusalem rebuke you! Is not this man a brand plucked from the fire?" 3 Now Joshua was dressed with filthy clothes as he stood before the angel. 4 The angel said to those who were standing before him, "Take off his filthy clothes." And to him he said, "See, I have taken your guilt away from you, and I will clothe you with festal apparel." 5 And I said, "Let them put a clean turban on his head." So they put a clean turban on his head and clothed him with the apparel; and the angel of the LORD was standing by.
6 Then the angel of the LORD assured Joshua, saying 7 "Thus says the LORD of hosts: If you will walk in my ways and keep my requirements, then you shall rule my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you the right of access among those who are standing here. 8 Now listen, Joshua, high priest, you and your colleagues who sit before you! For they are an omen of things to come: I am going to bring my servant the Branch. 9 For on the stone that I have set before Joshua, on a single stone with seven facets, I will engrave its inscription, says the LORD of hosts, and I will remove the guilt of this land in a single day."
Zechariah 6:11-13
11 Take the silver and gold and make a crown, and set it on the head of the high priest Joshua son of Jehozadak (Savior Son of the Righteous God); 12 say to him: Thus says the LORD of hosts: Here is a man whose name is Branch: for he shall branch out in his place, and he shall build the temple of the LORD. 13 It is he that shall build the temple of the LORD; he shall bear royal honor, and shall sit upon his throne and rule. There shall be a priest by his throne, with peaceful understanding between the two of them."
Joshua 10:22-27
"22 Then Joshua (Savior) said, "Open the mouth of the cave, and bring those five kings out to me from the cave." 23 They did so, and brought the five kings out to him from the cave, the king of Jerusalem, the king of Hebron, the king of Jarmuth, the king of Lachish, and the king of Eglon. 24 When they brought the kings out to Joshua, Joshua summoned all the Israelites, and said to the chiefs of the warriors who had gone with him, "Come near, put your feet on the necks of these kings." Then they came near and put their feet on their necks. (see Psa. 110:1/Heb. 10:13) 25 And Joshua said to them, "Do not be afraid or dismayed; be strong and courageous; for thus the LORD will do to all the enemies against whom you fight." 26 Afterward Joshua struck them down and put them to death, and he hung them on five trees. And they hung on the trees until evening. 27 At sunset Joshua commanded, and they took them down from the trees and threw them into the cave where they had hidden themselves; they set large stones against the mouth of the cave, which remain to this very day. (see also Deut. 21:22-23/Gal. 3:13)"
1 Corinthians 15:3-4
"3 For I handed on to you as of first importance what I in turn had received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the scriptures, 4 and that he was buried, and that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the scriptures,"
Exodus 19:11
"11 and prepare for the third day, because on the third day the LORD will come down upon Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people."
Hosea 6:2
"2 After two days he will revive us; on the third day he will raise us up, that we may live before him."
@@bleirdo_dude "A secret hidden through the ages now revealed (" More proof it's another mystery religion. I am aware Paul only knows scripture and "visions". Same with Joseph Smith seeing Moroni and Muhammad seeing Gabrielle. They had "visions". Most revelatory religions start out with that claim. Even the Cargo cults. They are myths. Mystery religions had dying/rising demigod saviors.
This is awesome! I have read many of Dr. Ehrman's books. This is awesome you got him on your show!!! Keep up the great work. 👍
I heard Dr. Ehrman state that he was not a Christian when interviewed elsewhere. If he is not a Christian, then he is likely to bias his views on Christianity.
I dont know think Ehrman really believes in the existence of Jesus, but it's his bread and butter
@@geraldamos292 Dr Ehrman's tell is his nervous giggle.
It sounds like the tomb WAS empty, but for the wrong reason, Jesus was still hanging on the cross!
A very enjoyable program, executed with great professionalism and sincerity.
They also have discovered a stone inscribed with the name Pontious Pilate who was also an important figure of the time of Jesus. "Bone box" discovery at 16:17. Bart has sited this discovery (Pilate stone) in prior interviews.
Why Jesus is blamphemy ? Caiaphasis sentenced him to DEATH ... John 10:36, matthlew 16:13 to 17, John 3:16,John 4:9- Jesus is a flesh man, john1:1-3, john1:18 and John 14:9 why julilus tiberius raped Mary ? Mary and Joseph fleed sway from Julius TIBERIUS why heriod murdered male babies?matthlew 2:16 to 28.
@@williamgraves535 Get help immediately.
It's been 2000 years and we haven't finished discussing who Jesus or God is
I agree
yes , absurd isn't it.
Not likely to get any clearer....
😂 I know right! Where’s Odin? H’mmm.
Well people been talking about God much longer than that
We won't have to wait to much longer until discussions like these will be moot. Jesus Christ is God in the flesh and He's coming back.
@@jimmyray5524 I wonder that too. Many will deny Him until they can't.
@@jimmyray5524 I know, it's sad but they will get every opportunity until the end. So many will be saved.
@@jimmyray5524 I don't see an end time revival either. I was speaking more on an individual basis. We never know when someone will wake up to the truth.
@@jimmyray5524 Thank you for the blessing and may the Lord bless you also. I don't believe in the rapture either, we will be here for the whole show. Those 7 years were shortened to 5 1/2 months or else no flesh would be left alive.
@Thomas Freeman The return of the Jews to Israel was the parable of the fig tree which occurred in 1948. Jesus said that generation shall not pass away until he came back. That generation is getting old so it will be soon. There would be good figs (tribe of Judah) and bad figs (synagogue of Satan) returning. Read Revelations, it's happening now. Wait for Satan claiming to be Jesus and then you know it's time.
Bart comparing academic mythicism to whether the moon is made of cheese shows that he has no idea what the arguments for mythicism are.
Any honest person will actually find out what someone's argument is before claiming to have rebutted it.
Bart is in denial....
Not the river in Egypt type....
"The book of the Revelation (along with the NT) was written the Roman Piso family.
We Jews and Church Leaders have known since the beginning of Christianity that it was synthesized by the Roman Piso family for the purpose of maintaining control over the masses and to placate slaves. And, this is why we Jews are the "Chosen People" and why we have endured so much for so many years; we are witnesses to the lie.
The New Testament, the Church, and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso (pronounced Peso w/ long "E") family (a), who were Roman aristocrats. The New Testament and all the characters in it--Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, and John the Baptist--are all fictional.
Judaism's ethics and morality were incompatible with the hallowed Roman institution of slavery on which the aristocracy fed, lived and ruled. They feared that Judaism would become the chief religion of the empire...Repeatedly, religious-minded Judaean zealots were staging insurrections against the Herodian rulers of Judaea who were Piso's wife's relations. Piso wished to strengthen his wife's family's control of the Judaeans. The Pisos searched for a solution to the two problems. They found it in the Jewish holy books, which were the foundation both for the rapid spread of the religion and for the zealot's refusal to be governed by Rome's puppets. The Pisos mocked, but marveled at, the Jewish belief in their holy books. Therefore, they felt a new "Jewish" book would be the ideal method to pacify the Judaeans and strengthen their in-laws' control of the country."
~SOURCE: tektonics.org/lp/pisocake.php
@@consciensnesttv AWESOME!!!
@@consciensnesttv I'm using this.
@@samfromisrael Of course you are! An uncritical acceptance of an insane theory propagated by a hack on a ten-cent website, with tenuous connections and no evidence? Must be true!
Bart Uses the same argument to argue against Jesus Mythicism as the people desperate in the 70's for Moses to be an historical figure. Accedemic inertia, however, is hardly a compelling argument and most historical scholars now agree Moses is a mythical character, not an historical figure. Jesus should follow suit sometime in the next decade
You live in a confused delusional fantasy world.
@@danieleyre8913 It's the people who follow one of the three books who are in that world, not PT!
@@JojoWasa57 Okay more nonsense…
Listening to Dr. Ehrman always inspires me to research & learn more!
Hi brother read The Quran verse 2 SURAT AL IMran and marium
Mytho ado
Theogamy (divine marriage) comes from Egypt: God begets a queen: the new pharaoh. And there is an Egyptian text (in demotic) from 550 BC, The Tale of Satmi, which relates this: "The shadow of God appeared to Mahitusket and announced: 'You will have a son and he will be called Si-Osiris." Does it ring a bell?
-The angel of the Annunciation, Mary ...
-Very well. Shall I tell you what Mahitusket means? "Full of grace"! And Si-Osiris means "son of Osiris": that is, son of God.
-Ya… And who is Satmi in that story?
"Mahitusket's husband." "Satmi" means "the one who obeys God": just as Joseph will do later, called "the just one" by the Gospel ...
-Then, Herod will want to kill Jesus ...
-In Egyptian mythology, Seth wants to kill the baby Horus, and his mother, Isis, flees with him: as the Holy Family flees to Egypt!
"What about gold, frankincense, and myrrh, what?"
-The Egyptians had them as emanations of the God Ra: gold was their meat; the incense, its perfume; myrrh, its germination.
"What about the cowherd boys?"
-The image of the good shepherd is painted hundreds of times in Egyptian temples!
-And what about the circumcision of Jesus?
-It was a ritual among the Egyptian priests. And in the story of Setme, Si-Osiris, at the age of 12, discusses face to face with the wise men of the temple. As the Gospel tells us about Jesus!
- And what about the baptism of Jesus?
- Contemplate this image of a priest: he is baptizing the Pharaoh with water from the Nile ...
"Hey, it all makes me square, you!"
-Everything is in ancient Egyptian texts, paintings and bas-reliefs. Look at this one, from the year 300 BC: King Ptolemy is prostrate before Isis, and Isis tells him: "I will give you all the kingdoms of the Earth." In the Gospel, Satan will tempt Jesus by copying this word for word!
-And what about the miracles of Jesus?
"See this painting of a banquet?" It is in the Egyptian tomb of Paheri (1,500 BC): it depicts the conversion of water into wine by the pharaoh. The same miracle that Jesus will perform at the wedding feast at Cana! And count the jugs ...
"One, two, three ... six jugs." What's the matter?
-In the miracle of Jesus, there are six jars. Theologians still wonder why six? Well, because it was copied from the Egyptian story.
-Did Pharaoh also perform the miracle of multiplying loaves and fishes?
-No, that was made by the God Sobek, as the Pyramid Texts tell us of the year 3,000 BC! Sobek is the Crocodile-God, and he gives fish and white bread to the people on the shore of Lake Fayum ... And he walks on its waters!
-I get it, already ...
-And a curiosity: in Gothic paintings on scenes of miraculous fishing of the apostles I have discovered that the fish are "Nilotic tilapia", a species that is only found in the Nile!
"Any other parallels?"
-The story of Sinuhé (2,000 BC): he is a prince who fears to reign, and goes from the court to the desert, between Bedouins and calamities ...
-But Jesus enters Jerusalem in triumph!
-Yes: already as "king" ... and on a donkey. That is, victor over evil: the ass in Egypt was Seth, the God who killed Osiris and whom his son, Horus, subdues ... and rides.
"And what about the Last Supper?"
-Osiris, God of wheat, dying each year allowed the Egyptians to feed on his body (bread). And in the Pyramid Texts he is also called "Lord of wine." And Osiris makes Isis drink his blood in a cup, so that she may remember him after his death!
-The resurrection and ascension of Jesus, are they also a copy of Pharaonic theology?
- So I maintain: there was a ritual of "resurrection" of the dead pharaoh - women intervene -, after which he "ascended to heaven."
-Did Jesus conscientiously reproduce those patterns, or did the evangelists later contribute them?
-My thesis is different: the Gospels were composed by learned Jewish-Egyptian priests from the temple of Serapis in Sakkara (Egypt): they translated Egyptian texts word for word. I'll tell it all in a book ...
great comment. the Egyptian krst child. The English word Messiah originated Aramaic Mashih which in its Verb form “MeSHeH” means “to anoint”. This word is of Egyptian origin, where MeSSeh signifies the ritual of anointing the ancient Egyptian King (including Twt-Ankh-Amen)with the fat of Crocodile. This tradition has dated at least 2700 BCE. but i think it all goes back a lot further than Egypt … possibly as far back as the Red Lady of Paviland - as hinted at by the anointing with red ochre.
What a bunch of claptrap. Amazing no scholars in centuries ever made these stunning connections, but luckily you have! Oh wait, isn’t this all false, nonsense, or coincidence that’s been debunked decades ago? I guess we need to wait for that great book of yours.
@@minskdynamo make up your mind. Either no scholars have ever made these connections before (hint : they have) or they have and it's all been debunked decades ago but it can't be both. Which you do prefer? ( i know you weren't replying to me)
Hint: consider purchasing a sarcasm detector, perhaps this one: m.ruclips.net/video/EZ73Q4DwrGM/видео.html
@@minskdynamo :) i did detect a smidgen of sarcasm
The Celsus Panthera character is also from 175 CE...
Hardly a reliable source for a historical jebus from the year 0 - 33 CE.
The more I hear Bart Ehrman speak on the historicity of Jesus the more towards the mythicist position I lean. Lies and exaggerations in the primary sources and interpolations in secondary sources do not give confidence in the NT gospel Jesus story.
The Israel Authourities have found 21 ossuaries at Toipot containing bones in the stone boxes with all having inscriptions on the outside of the ossuaries the name "Yeshua bar Yoseuf". Which one belongs to Jesus???
Debunked as forgeries.
Yeah right so the jew and Roman's hid the body so Christianity grew in the same place of his death.
I❤️ docs that Jewish guy, Simka? I like him. He says he found Jesus whole families ossuaries. His documentary is interesting. Sure debunked, but the odds are better than the critics say.
Who was Jesus ?. Well..... for one, Jesus was a brother in law of mine and also one cousin. It kind of depends of what we take the name to mean but in terms of the biblical Jesus, that depends on what an individual wants to make of him . There are many christian denominations and they very rarely agree on who Jesus was. What it all boils down to is that Jesus/god is a product of the feeble human mind searching for something bigger than himself/herself in order to assuage our human fears and insecurity.
But was he a product of "the feeble human mind" or was he a real person in history? Ehrman makes his views clear.
Feeble mindedness if you do not know Jesus Christ personally, based upon bibkixal history, archaeology, and personal encounter of Him (Christ).
The more time that passes since my deconversion the more absurd and ridiculous all of this seems to me. I am at the point that if there is a God that wants us to know who Jesus was/is and the events that happened and expects all of us to be convinced just from reading a book (that is loaded with issues) then that is a very unfair and stupid God. I would not want it as my God anyway if that is the case.
Exactly. No God could possibly be this incompetent
gotta love Dr. Bart
Bart is eating from the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Your on a roll with great guests !
With much respect for Dr. Ehrman and no offense intended to anybody: Pantera was a relatively common name and Roman soldiers served at Sepphoris to put down a rebellion around the time ascribed for the birth of Jesus. Sepphoris is only walking distance from Nazareth. This doesn't prove anything ...But still there's another simple fact: According to a tombstone in the museum at Bad Kreuznach in Germany, Tiberius Julius Abdes Pantera from Sidon served in the Roman first cohort of archers, which was stationed first in Judaea and then in Germany. The gospels of Mark (v.24-31) and Matthew (v. 15.21-28) describe Jesus traveling to the region of Tyre and Sidon "where he entered a house and did not want anyone to know, yet he could not be hidden". That's when a Gentile woman, Syrophoenician by birth, fell at his feet and begged for his help to heal her daughter. Reportedly, despite his reluctance (because she was not Jewish by birth) he relented and said that because of the woman's faith her daughter was now healed, as "the unclean demon" had left her. (Mark v. 3.7-8 mention people from Tyre and Sidon in the crowd which came to Jesus by the sea of Galilee - so he apparently had followers there. Why, only because they had heard of his miracle cures? Did he only have followers there or even relatives? What drew him to Tyre and Sidon if he was determined to preach exclusively to Jews. In whose house did he stay? Who was the woman - evidently a believer, could she have been related? All of this is only speculation, but the allegation that Yeshua (Jesus) was the son of Pantera was at least a possibility even if it could never be conclusively established.
I love Bart Ehrman, I really do… but his attempt at rebutting the mythicist position by “appealing to authority” for 5 mins straight was hilarious. Bro says “I don’t have a stake in this”, but the guy is obviously deep in his feelings when it comes to this topic. Yeesh!!! 🤦🏽♂️😂😂
Imagine if you study your whole life Jesus and you even get a PDH for this. But in fact Jesus is potentially a fictional character.
Then Bart rejects this idea because it would make his professional life a good joke 🤣
Worse than that he goes on about the evidence for historicity being overwhelming yet can't supply a single shred of evidence. Seems to me that he along with other historicity advocates are just fooling themselves.
@@OrtyTyor I totally agree with you point. Additionally, Richard Carrier rubbed him wrong in the early days when they first debated each other and he hasn’t forgiven him since. Young Phd Carrier was a bit cocky to be fair, but he was undeniably well informed and thought out when it came to his arguments. You can tell it still irks Bart when it comes to acknowledging Carrier’s scholarship. Carrier’s proposition is also frequently misstated. Carrier asserts that Jesus “may” have existed, although he states that the probability he didn’t is “more likely”. If I remember correctly, he put the probability of historicity at about 30% or so, which is actually freaking high.
@@brianalmeida1964 totally dude. It’s like they forget how to construct arguments altogether and just loop assertions that every smart person in their field agrees with them. It’s comical!! Use evidence bro!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣
You and your ilk never got beyond childhood.
"The evidence is overwhelming!"
5min later...
"Do we have any physical evidence?"
"No."
Evidence doesn’t necessarily have to be physical to be overwhelming.
@@danieleyre8913 no
@@dion5804 Ah actually yes. Otherwise nobody would’ve ever been convicted of any crime ever.
@@danieleyre8913 Usually, in a trial, there're REAL people testifying about REAL happenings or events, not about mithological stories and characters like Jesus. Nonsense your comparison. You're delusional sadly.
@@dion5804 Ahahaha the delusional one here is you.
Are you too stupid to understand what a comparison is? Nobody was making any comparison. What I said is correct: Strong evidence for anything doesn’t necessarily have to be physical.
And that’s why scholars consider a historical Jesus a fact and Mythicism is just some fringe twaddle peddles by charlatans and lapped up by bumbling failures.
Thank you for this. I have been binging on Dr. Ehrman videos recently, and here he finally mentions "Live of Brian". Now I have to go to his blog and see if did a "How historically accurate is..."
It's Life of Brian. 🙄
9:32 The moment yet another human realizes that Monty Python, while being zany, are also brilliant.
I was raised in the Methodist church, was 'confirmed' (membership) at age 10. I knew 'about' Jesus intellectually. Age 31 I was 'BORN AGAIN' in a hotel room , was at the worst time in my life. I merely looked at the Gideon bible on nightstand and said 'JESUS, if you are who you say you are then come get me now. I cannot take this anymore.' I never opened the Bible. At that moment I was BORN AGAIN, sealed with the HOLY SPIRIT. Did not know what happened; sensed immediately the 'weight' of all my sins lifted. I had a deep hunger, began to read the Bible. A pastor mentored me. All the world's religions have to do with being good to WORK one's way to heaven. JESUS is about Relationship , salvation is a Free Gift. My 'sin problem' was now forgiven. The Scripture can be summed up in 3 verses; John 3.3, 33-34. Read this for yourself; then ask him as I did. HE will reveal HIMSELF to you CLEARLY.
Good to hear from you Mr J Ray.
You were delusional and that was it.
@@kiabvaj5656 In what way? And what will you do IN THE END!?
@@pmcclaren1 In the end? You are dead and that's the end. Dead people never return to life.
@@kiabvaj5656 wrong? You will live forever; either in hell (Revelation 6, 13) or heaven (John 3.3, 33-34). Whether you choose to believe this or not does not nullify this TRUTH. Good luck.
"Writing Did Jesus Exist was an interesting task. For one thing, before writing the book, like most New Testament scholars, I knew almost nothing about the mythicist movement."
- Dr. Bart Ehrman
"Bart Ehrman also confesses on page two in his book, "Did Jesus Exist?," that for 30 years he never even thought to consider to question the existence of Jesus as real historical character because it was a question that he "did not take seriously." Bart goes on to say, "I discovered, to my surprise, an entire body of literature devoted to the question of whether or not there ever was a real man, Jesus ... I was almost completely unaware - as are most of my colleagues in the field - of this body of skeptical literature."
"Thank you, Bart Ehrman, for admitting that you and most of your colleagues knew nothing about mythicism before you started writing your book, 'Did Jesus Exist?'; having read DJE I can confirm that you STILL know nothing about it. So, he's admitting that he was ignorant, as are most of his colleagues, of what is an "entire body of literature" in his field."
So why do mythicists keep expecting New Testament scholars and Historians to accept mythicism when they know "almost nothing about it" because they do not study it???
"The Mythicist case has been rebutted? Really? When did that happen? The arguments of the Mythicist camp have never been refuted - they have only been steadfastly ignored." "...As for this tiresome business about there being "no scholar" or "no serious scholar" who advocates the Christ Myth theory: Isn't it obvious that scholarly communities are defined by certain axioms in which grad students are trained, and that they will lose standing in those communities if they depart from those axioms? The existence of an historical Jesus is currently one of those. That should surprise no one, especially with the rightward lurch of the Society for Biblical Literature in recent years."
- Dr. Robert Price, Biblical Scholar with two Ph.D's
Here's what Dr. Price had to say about Bart Ehrman's attack on Acharya S/Murdock:
"Such libel only reveals a total disinclination to do a fraction of the research manifest on any singe page of Acharya’s works."
- Dr. Robert Price, page xxi of the book, ‘Bart Erhman and the Quest of the Historical Jesus of Nazareth: An Evaluation of Ehrman’s Did Jesus Exist?’
; )
True.
Ehrman was taught all his life by religious scholars because who the fuck in this world will devote his whole life to study the Bible without being a believer or an ex believer ? For religious people, the non existence of Jesus is not even an option. So of course they don’t even consider this question except very few scholars.
Robert is incorrect that there have been no rebuttals. Whether he finds them convincing is another thing altogether. What an odd statement.
Well said! Appealing to the consensus of theological college trained 'scholars' is no argument
The idea that Jesus is completely mythical is pure farce and fantasy.
@@jimkennedy8812 Nerones
Nothing new. Bart just repeats the outdated mainstream positions of NT scholarship and shows again to be ignorant what peer-reviewed mythicism says. When will Bart do a peer-reviewed case against such positions (Carrier's "OHJ")?
He will not because he holds to some, not all (obviously), of the brethren’s (believer’s) NT corpus of scholarship. He never fully emerged from the Bible college mentality he studied in…
Why would Ehrman waste his time reviewing a fringe theory no one in the academic community is interested in? That would suggest any of Carrier’s arguments are substantive, and they’re not. Moreover, plenty of scholars have reviewed OHJ and found it terrible, stretching and misinterpreting the sources and making tenuous connections ignorant of modern scholarship (of course he’s ignorant, he’s never held an academic job). Look at the wikipedia entry for Carrier which links to many direct criticisms of his writings.
@@minskdynamo Ehrman is excellent at what he does. His attempts to comment on mythicism however are not useful to the discussion since he has not legitimately attempted to study the topic...
There is no credibly peer-reviewed mythicism. It's all fringe crankery.
Saying this is nothing new or outdated is like dismissing evolution of accepting the holocaust or that vaccines work. There's nothing to change the consensus, the evidence still leads to historicity.
@@doubtingthomasreviews7702 If "What he [Carrier] does" is be an unemployed grifter failing to make a buck pushing fringe crankery. Otherwise I'd be hard pressed to find a bigger failure in life who's worse at what he does or wants to do.
There was no "NAZARETH'' in the time of ''Jayyeeezusss'', not even a hamlet.
Nazareth did not exist until Helena declared it to be the site of his dwelling.
Right where you spy glass . Blue clue
@@twoangels3405 talk to Kenneth Humphreys
Archaeology has conclusively proven that Nazareth was a real place. This is uncontroversial everywhere other than in your mythicist bubble, and you are ignorant of the source material. Humphreys is an uncredentialed hack pushing widely disproven fantasies that no one in the academic and most in the lay community believe, and his “book” has essentially no biblical verses or footnotes to support its crazy claims. It’s one fabulist’s wishful thinking and delusions, which you clearly share based on your comments here.
@@minskdynamo Did jeebus like applepie?
@@hecticnarcoleptic3160 Everyone likes apple pie.
I have to disagree, perhaps we have to take parts of the stories seriously.
Jesus said "I thirst" and they gave him vinegar - was it instead a sour substance that makes you unconscious? Everyone was surprised at how quickly Jesus died.
A wealthy Jew, who was given the code name Joseph of Arimathea, offered a lot of money to be allowed to take the alleged body down from the cross. To be sure, the thrust with the spear.
The grave was then empty, because Jesus had already been cared for, his wounds tended and he was told that he had been dead for 3 days. This was how he was able to "appear" to his disciples. Later, Jesus disappeared, perhaps with an existential crisis, or he had to disappear.
Can’t wait to hear him lowering Jesus as much as possible, saying he was a nobody and his sect composed of 2 lonely bums.
That’s how scholars try to preserve the existence of Jesus and explain this silence about Jesus.
By doing this, they contradict not only ALL the Gospels, and ALL the Epistles of the New Testament but they contradict in same time the only independent source of the first century about Jesus. Josephus in his “authentic” lines, mention Jesus as a great leader and miracle maker followed by many jews and many greeks. Then, it contradict Tacitus who made the christians an important sect persecuted by Nero. And finally it contradict Suetonius who mention riots and special laws against christians. It doesn’t look like a little and unknown sect if we consider these testimonies as authentic. Bart Ehrman and his friends, by lowering as much as possible Jesus and his sect in order to explain the silence of the writers in the first century, contradict all the sources and basically remain with absolutely nothing on their hands, just the dogmatic will to protect at all cost the historical Jesus.
Not really.
I guess you're a mythicist, right? I find it very odd how they try to determine wich parts of Christian fiction is historical; not to mention late christian interpolations in Josephus and historians whose sources where Christian fathers like Tacitus
@@abraferrazify they do cherry-picking, and by doing this, they contradict christian sources + romans sources. It’s not convincing at all.
@@Sinouhe
Both sides cherry pick! In its totality, the Bible is stupid!
@Reformed Persona non grata
You should be able to prove his existence or the claims this deity makes! Nothing he claims cans be demonstrated!
Jesus is the most faithful friend anyone can have . He is for me .
There are so many issues with this and you need someone like Richard Carrier to ask the questions or debate Bart 'Gnostic Informant' (I don't know your name) didn't query any of Bart's answers and accepted everything.
1. The Nazereth Bethlehem crazy story is a strong case for mythicism because the writers were trying and failing to fulfil so called prophesies of the Torah - that he would be a Nazerene (a mistaken prophesy as a Nazerene was part of a group of believers and not from a town) and from the town of David (even though Joseph wasn't supposed to be the father).
2. Bart says the evidence for Jesus' life is overwhelming, yet minutes later he is asked was there any contemporary evidence for Jesus' life close to when he was alive, and he said 'no'. All the so called evidence about his life pre crucifixion comes from Christian sources and people writing afterwards using Christian sources. That is not overwhelming evidence. Plin.y the Elder lived at the time, he mentioned nothing but did mention other events like so called other miracles. Pliny the Younger, his nephew live in the first century and he said knew nothing about Christians.
3. The Tanakh wrote about a Jesus who was born out of wedlock in the first or 2nd century BCE, that could be where the virgin story came from which was another mistaken prophesy they tried to fulfill. There was no virgin birth prophesy but the writers mistranslated an Isiah verse.
4. On Josephus, he mentions a few Jesuses but most agree that the main paragraph referring to Jesus is mostly forged or is a complete interpolation. But if you believe it is mostly forged and leave the unforged part, why would Josephus mention this - a few lines, when he was discussing other things before and after. It makes no sense. Also no one mentions this paragraph for centuries, the most important non Christian reference was not important for hundreds of years? More like it wasn't in existence until it was added in centuries later. On the other reference to a Jesus the brother of James, if you read the passage Josephus is explaining about the leadership politics at the time and the treatment of this rebel called James. One Roman leader did not like the decision of the local leader who sentenced James to death so he embarrassed the person who made the decision by appointing James' brother to the court. This was years after Jesus' supposed crucifixion, so nothing to do with the Christian Jesus and someone must have added the word 'messiah'. The context of the story had nothing to do with the Christian Jesus but all to do with Roman politics.
A debate between Ehrman and Carrier would show Bart's assertions are not backed up with facts.
Bart has said he won't ever debate Carrier, because Carrier is too mean to him. Which is a good strategy, because Bart would make himself look foolish.
That, or Carrier is an unemployed hack who’s never had an academic job and whose works have been widely ignored or panned by most of the academic and lay community. There is nothing to gain from debating Carrier, whose chief method of evidence is sneering incredulity. His arguments have largely been taken apart by Ehrman on his blog and by others like Tim O’Neil on History for Atheists (in great detail). The fact that no one is interested in Carrier other than a community of people who already believe his nonsense is evidence that Carrier is irrelevant.
@@minskdynamo What about all these scholars who consider “mythicism” as an eventuality ?
I don’t understand what this means. An eventuality? And other than Price and Carrier, who are long sidelined and who have zero support in the academic community, there are no scholars in mythicism, which is comprised of uncredentialed, untrained hacks spouting fringe theories. Even the Wikipedia entry on the Christ myth theory is devastating to the mythicists, which should say something to the community. But, cognitive dissonance is strong here, just like with Christian apologists.
@@minskdynamo eventuality = a possible event or outcome
And forget wikipedia and try academia, JSTOR and scholar studies 😉
Bart Ehrman is awesome. I could listen to him for hours.
In German 🇩🇪 there is an ad: Ehrmann, keiner macht mich mehr an! 😜
(nobody turns me more on = youghorts by Ehrmann) 🤣
So sad😔
I was not convinced by these arguments. In my opinion Jesus will remain mythical untill better evidence is provided.
The forced laughter Dr Ehrman adds to his answers debunking Mysticism, is a psychological ploy.
A way of saying; well of course, we both know (whatever evaluation the Mythicists have ) can't possibly be true.
@Ben Jones define "heaven"
And your opinion will never change because you’ve just decided to back mythicism for emotional and thus irrational reasons.
You are a skeptic. No evidence will make you believe.🤔
@@reasonablespeculation3893 You do not live in reality.
Bit of a diss by Christians who commonly believe the historical Jesus/Yeshua/Thomas/Didymus/Judas/Jude could not read & write. He could. He did. And it’s amazing.
I haven't started yet but I know it's gonna be painful how much Bart twists to make things fit his view. He is an apologists dream!
Don’t worry about Bart twisting things: he doesn’t exist so there is no twisting either. Neither does this comment exist.
@@cmk1964 Loved your commentary.Lol
And that sums you up and everything wrong with you in a nutshell.
Joseph of Arimathea was a member of the Jewish council and asked permission from Pontius Pilate for Jesus's burial. If Pilate himself was somewhat reluctant to have put Jesus on the cross but did so because of fear of a riot then at least allowing Joseph to give Jesus a burial may still be plausible?
I used to be a historicist, but when I studied more I became a Mythicist.
Even Ehrman says there is just too much forged or wrong with early Christianity and the gospels. There is not a single bit of evidence that Jesus was a historical character and he seems to be a composition of multiple self declared "messias" that Josephus describes.
For Ehrman himself, I found out that he is not up to date with his current knowledge. He is still using long debunked arguments, such as old work from Feldman and is making some strange logical conclusions. Ehrman's strength is to tell debatable things like they are absolute facts, while they are not.
Yes totally agree. He constantly says 'they' all agree... meaning scholars who study this stuff which is fair enough. But what 'objective' evidence do they rely upon as Bart very much takes the Gospels as having 'facts' in them and seems reluctant to unpack them in a truly skeptical manner. Still waiting for him to actually say precisely what type of evidence is so overwhelming other than just 'we have four autobiographies' about him and that fact alone is enough. It would be if they were not so biased to the extent they have to be scrutinized to see what actual facts can be distilled from them.
@@paulbriggs5355 Do neither of you believe that there's at least an historical mortal human Jesus at all?
@@MrEVAQ Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character, yet he is inspired by a deductive surgeon that existed with the name of Joseph Bell. And many people actually do think Sherlock existed, because the details in the stories are correct.
So does that make Sherlock Holmes a historical person?
You can say Sherlock is inspired by Joseph Bell. But even if you know everything about Sherlock Holmes you still don't know anything about Joseph Bell because the inspiration and fictional character have nothing to do with eachother.
If the Biblical Jesus has very little or nothing to do with the inspiration (and even Ehrman says this), how historical is he?
Does it even matter if there was a historical figure (like a preacher) that Jesus was based of if he has literally nothing to do with the biblical Jesus or anything written?
@@mver191 Whether one should use the term "historical Jesus" or not is a matter of personal choice, and I think that's your point of contention with Dr. Ehrman. Your objection to him is a semantic one, not a substantive one. Ehrman himself already acknowledges that the vast majority of the details in the gospels are forged and have been post-humorously attributed to his life. Prying away at these various mythological details we end up with what is called "historical Jesus", which you in your own opinion consider a misnomer, which is fine, but otherwise you seem to be on the same page with him (correct me if I got it wrong).
In that case you agree that the Jesus character of the gospels is loosely based on a real historical figure who had lived in the 1st century.
@@mver191
Do you consider the oral stories narrated by mass at one population in any region as a myth ?
Vast majority of these population in these region whom witnessed this figure i.e Jesus with his miracles were illiterate .
Those whom witnessed Jesus are the poors who can not writes.
The papyrus and the leather are very expensive materials at that times.
Why did the sanhendrin teachings portrayed Jesus do a black magic and violated the sabbath.
Why did these religious council / sanhendrine wants to kills him, Jesus.
Who are those whom finaly had succeed took charged at the council and then had replace (coup d etat) Zacharie as the high priest of the Holy Shrine at Jerusalem and then finally those same people kills Zacharie and John, the baptist.
Zachari and John, the baptist are the progeny of prophet Jacob.
Mary, the mother of Jesus, is the progeny of prophet Musa.
Those whom in charge on sanhendrine are the progenies of the people whom kill the prophets ( Their forefather had kill many prophets, including prophet Isaiah).
But, those can not kill Jesus.
Please brother, I hope you can comprehend the subject above.
Peace for you all.
Wow! I really respect Bart. Also Robert Price, even Richard Carrier. Gnostic Informant is really f’n cool 👍😎
Why do you respect Carrier?
Once upon a time ... Jesus the Egyptian
CHRISTMAS: THE CHILD GOD IS BORN
A theory is made up of hypotheses, in reality it is of a series of them, of assumptions supported to a great extent through research ...
People who investigate, in general, are the only thing they usually work with, with hypotheses. So let's get rid of those nervous giggles and contempt of scientific methodological instrumentation, where hypotheses are the core of any investigation to affirm a non-self-evident rationality, that is, a theory. Hence, that of Llogari Pujol Boix is perfectly subscribed within the more general theses in the area of critical biblical research ...
Of course, Llogari's work is diametrically opposed to that of Antonio Piñero, and that of 99.9% of researchers on the origins of Christianity, whose conclusions are basically the same as those that have been supported by religious officers for several centuries, of course with a touch here and there of skepticism and extreme rationalism on rather vague questions ...
What does Piñero admit of Llogari's work? Well, obviously he does not admit any of it. Piñero has swallowed the whole story of Christianity and nothing else fits ...
Well, what does the Christian religious official say about the origins of Christianity and with what Piñero agrees? Well, the Gospels refer to a true historical nucleus about Jesus, of his ideas and activity, enough so that after his death (adding the belief of his followers in his resurrection), a new faith and in consequently the beginnings of Christianity. In summary: Piñero is a historical propper of official Christianity. Although Piñero does not expose a historical theory of Jesus in all of his extensive and erudite work. And he does not do it because, like faith, he assumes the historicity of Jesus for certainty and law ...
On the part of him, Llogari, it seems to me, that he is not trying to explain the rise of Christianity, rather, but how the Gospels were made, and the entire New Testament itself, beyond the evident Jewish Old Testament influence. He maintains that the Gospels are largely based on Egyptian texts such as the Tale of Satmi for the birth and infancy of Jesus. But neither the Gospels, nor, of course, Satmi, are history, although they may seem to the non-specialized reader, they are rather historicized theological tales, steeped in realism; such as the visual effects of the cinema where we can observe a Forrest Gump (actor Tom Hanks) interact with an Elvis Presley, a John F. Kennedy, a Richard Nixon and even a John Lennon. Literature such as evangelical was the Hollywood of antiquity where we see Jesus, a son of God (half human and half divine), interact in situations and with real characters such as Herod, Caiaphas, Pilate, and even walk in the temple of the Jews , apparently still standing to augur its destruction ...
It has become customary to call that explanation "mythism" that sustains that the Jesus of the Gospels and of the entire New Testament itself is of a literary mythical character, and that even everything we have of the hero of Calvary would not even contribute enough evidence to consider it historical, such as the absolving claims of Piñero, Ehrman and other proponents of the historicity of Jesus ...
But let Llogari explain his approach to us through an interview with Víctor M. Amela entitled:
Christmas: the child God is born
"But not 2,000 years ago."
-There is a calendar gap of three or four years, right?
- No, I don't mean that: I'm talking about 5,000 years ago! The idea of the child God was born 3,000 years before Christ ...
-How? Which child is God referring to?
"To Pharaoh!" To the figure of the Pharaoh of Ancient Egypt: he was considered "son of God".
-I don't see the relationship between Pharaoh and Jesus.
- It is this: Jesus was attributed the teachings and characteristic features of Pharaoh.
Well, maybe there are coincidences, but ...
-The parallels are infinite!
-Let's see.
-Already 3,000 years BC, Pharaoh was considered the son of God: like Jesus later. Pharaoh was both human and divine: like Jesus later. His conception was announced to his mother: as after that of Jesus. Pharaoh mediated between God and men: like Jesus later ... Pharaoh rises: like Jesus later. Pharaoh ascends to heaven: like Jesus ...
"Jesus, a clone of Pharaoh?" What things...
- Do you know the prayer that they tell us that Jesus created and taught: our Father?
-Of course: "Our Father, who art in heaven, hallowed be your name ...".
-That prayer is found in an Egyptian text from the year 1,000 BC, known as the Blind Man's Prayer. And in that same text are also what will later become the Beatitudes of Jesus.
-Listen to me: all the theology of Ancient Egypt will appear later in Jesus. Yes? Sure that is so?
- And not only that: the Old Testament (600 BC) is also steeped in the monotheism of Pharaoh Akhenaten (1,360 BC).
-Let's go back to Jesus: the divine conception of
In truth, Akhenaten was the historical Moses and his son Pharaoh Tutankhamun was the historical Jesus Christ.
Bless his heart for not seeing the correlation between physicists/astronomers and Biblical scholars. Bias is bias. No subject is immune from it.
What are you guffing about?
A good site written by an actual Biblical scholar.
Contradictions in the Bible | Identified verse by verse and explained using the most up-to-date scholarly information about the Bible, its texts, and the men who wrote them -- by Dr. Steven DiMattei
How do we know that the biblical writers were ***not*** writing history? -- by Dr Steven DiMattei
Also:
How Did The Gospel Writers Know? - The Doston Jones Blog
Christian Apologetics: The Art of Deceit - Atheomedy
Bull-oney
A gospel is a God Spell
The bible is not real
its brainwashing
13:00 “Paul wasn’t interested in the historical Jesus”. Yes, logic.
Why Paul would be interested in the life of the son of god ? 🤣🤣🤣
@Capo ad Paul
After the so-called conversion of Paul he did not go to Jerusalem to learn about the person Jesus by his disciples. Instead he went to Arabia and than tried to convert mainly pagans in Asia minor and Greece to his form of Christianity. Only three years later he went Jerusalem. The Jesus in Pauls letters is so bloodless, almost no sermons or parables are even mentioned. Pauls primary goal was to derogate the law that is the Thora, to belittle the Jews believing in the Thora, and to combat preaching Christians who furthermore holded on the Thora.
My issue with Bart's view of the empty tomb is that he him self, I think correctly, says that nobody believed that Jesus was raised because of the empty tomb. They believed because of the visions.
So what would have been the point in in venting the story of the empty tomb?
If it was that unusual and that unlikely that Pilot would have allowed the body to be taken down anyway, wouldn't that defeat the purpose of adding that to the story and make ot seem less plausible to potential converts?
Sometimes i wonder if Bart Ehrman is really naive or just a liar. Still don’t know.
I want to know what is the New quest for the historical Jesus?
No tomb wow Dr, Ehrman now you got me interested. I found no proof of Jesus either. Maybe they there was a guy but he became so mythologized by the person or group they call Paul to create a new Theology. The Romans must have found this useful or they wouldn't have supported it.Who had the most to benefit by this. Hummm They say follow the money.
One of the greatest insights I ever heard on this topic was to stop trying to understand who Jesus was and to try understanding the origins of Christianity. After doing so, it became abundantly clear that it was based on a central savior figure who was later historicized.
Jesus apparently died in under 6 hrs by a method of execution that was designed/perfected to be a slow process...(he was already dead when they supposedly speared him in the side)..How long did it take for the two others beside him to die?
lol the excuse for jesus existence is crazy interpreting forged documents , relying on hear say as evidence or scripture visions
its just terrible. claims overwhelming evidences and shows zero evidence along with sick laughter and appeals to consensus... and the way he talks about josephus is just goofy. its clear that the end game is to try sell his stuff. neal you need to challenge the claims or else its just preaching. what we have here is just another video example of the desperation for a real jesus...
Sick laughter...LOL that cracked me up. But yes, the fact that he's taken a position of certainty puts into question his objectivity & implies a vested interest
Jesus is the son of God lived a sinless life was crucified buried rose from the dead and will rule as king of kings and Lord of lords.
More like was crucified and left on the post like all Jews.
One thing that is definitely is that the depiction of the Pharisees which is totally distorted and inaccurate. The Pharisees were deeply religious men. They were scholars and mystics. They believed that "pikuach nefesh," saving lives, superseded all other laws. One could break the Sabbath if it was necessary to save someone's life or their health. The Pharisees are the basis for a almost 2000 years of anti-jewish and antisemitism.
Yea it might not have been the majority of them. But it seems like at least some, and some with power. And some of them thought they were doing the right thing. Keep in mind, at least according to the gospels, Jesus was saying some anger-able things to them, making statements about the temple, claiming himself to be the Messiah, working on the Sabbath in plain view of all, potentially stirring up trouble with Rome.
I’m also no scholar though. So I do think that John and Matthew, potentially written in a time where Christianity has gained a following but Christian Jews and potentially god fearers are now at odds with leaders of synagogues and Pharisees and being kicked out of synagogues even, are potentially written to cast them in a negative polemic light. So the gospel authors are taking real stories of Jesus, the oral tradition passed down and q source and mark, but putting a magnifying glass on “the Pharisees” and “the Jews”. Whereas Marks gospel is more relaxed on this.
You’re wrong. The Pharisees had no power so it wasn’t the ones in power. The Pharisees developed the concept that saving lives or their health superseded all laws including observing the Sabbath. That was accepted by all Pharisees, including their leaders, so no it wasn’t their leaders either. The Pharisees wanted to sanctify daily life.
@@susanstein6604 May I have a source for them having no political, religious, or social power in Judea (or in extra Judaic synagogues) whatsoever? Also to think there can never ever be a bad apple in any bunch is…well honestly ridiculous. Also there are plenty of human beings who in their heart thought they were doing what was right but in reality were not.
I mean to give an example it seems pretty reasonable to deduce that Matthew and John were written in part as a response to Jewish/Pharisaic opposition to Christianity. To Jewish Christians and God-fearers being removed from the assembly for being Christians…hence the polemic against them…
Btw there were also sadducees and Rome. It wasn’t all on the Pharisees in any gospel. Also the gospels are careful to show, even the polemical ones, that there were certainly good and righteous and life-regarding Pharisees and Jews. That is beyond obvious. Certainly the Christians who persecuted Jews in later centuries were simply people who not only failed to see this but also failed to obey their own Jewish masters command to love and treat all as if they were your very self….
I watched this at 2x speed.
Maybe I missed it, but where's the actual evidence that Jesus existed, other than it's what the majority of scholars believe?
So Dr. Bart offers zero reasons to believe that Jesus was crucified. He thinks it because it is in the bible.
Is this really a scholar?
Love that intro music. Can someone tell me where it comes from? I love the female vocalist--her voice, that is.
I have absolutely not seen undeniale evidencr that theJesus of the Bible existed. Zero. Just opinions.
Dr Ehrman is informative
I am not convinced that Jesus ever existed but even if he did there is no evidence that he was anything other than a normal human. No miracles, no son of any god.
So His ministry (referring to Jesus) isn't convincing you of His actual existence, why is that?
"The book of the Revelation (along with the NT) was written by the Roman Piso family.
We Jews and Church Leaders have known since the beginning of Christianity that it was synthesized by the Roman Piso family for the purpose of maintaining control over the masses and to placate slaves. And, this is why we Jews are the "Chosen People" and why we have endured so much for so many years; we are witnesses to the lie.
The New Testament, the Church, and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso (pronounced Peso w/ long "E") family (a), who were Roman aristocrats. The New Testament and all the characters in it--Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, and John the Baptist--are all fictional.
Judaism's ethics and morality were incompatible with the hallowed Roman institution of slavery on which the aristocracy fed, lived and ruled. They feared that Judaism would become the chief religion of the empire...Repeatedly, religious-minded Judaean zealots were staging insurrections against the Herodian rulers of Judaea who were Piso's wife's relations. Piso wished to strengthen his wife's family's control of the Judaeans. The Pisos searched for a solution to the two problems. They found it in the Jewish holy books, which were the foundation both for the rapid spread of the religion and for the zealot's refusal to be governed by Rome's puppets. The Pisos mocked, but marveled at, the Jewish belief in their holy books. Therefore, they felt a new "Jewish" book would be the ideal method to pacify the Judaeans and strengthen their in-laws' control of the country."
@@samfromisrael There are no ‘chosen people’ because there is no proof of any god to chose anyone.
@@chrismassey7563 There is no reason to just accept that anything in the bible is true unless it can be corroborated by multiple external sources.
@@torontocitizen6802 Do you ever listen to a person's ministry?
Dr. Tabor says that Pantera was a Jew who served in the Roman army.
The evidence that Atwill provides is ROCK SOLID.
Ehrman reaches for straws.
You're a clown.
This quest will always be no more than a quest of the 'self' to ''find'' at the very end of that journey no more than thé biased conclusive narrative, based on speculations, of the researcher. It will only proof what the researcher likes to believe and will never gives us an enterely 'final conclusion' what really happened. A real scientist knows this. The postulated thesis reveals always more about the storyteller himself than over the hidden story and person we likes to discover. Historiography, as all other social sciences, are as a method and technique very limited. Good scholarship starts with recognizing this fact. Sciences are not instruments to reveal The Whole Picture of All. If it was so, science becomes a religion itself with their own highpriests. A good scientist is an agnost and knows the limitations of his own scientific (sub)discipline(s) and will gives us a spectrum of all kinds of possibilities and without (as academic person) choosing one as ''the truth''. At the very end this agnostic scientist can, as a human person, making a choice in which he BELIEVES with articulation on the word BELIEVE.
Dr Erhman's Bias is Clearly Being Seen By Many. His Cringe Laughter is So Telling, Have Some of His Books, Respect Some of His Work, YET, When it Comes to Jesus and Those Who Disagree with Him, He Lives in Ignore and Make-Believe Land, That's the Christian Way.
Understanding how Xtianity developed is very easy-to-explain in our time
when you have all of the pieces of the puzzle combined to create a very
clear and vivid picture.
We understand the motives both political and psychological, also the
military motives.
We understand the perpetrators' minds and history.
We understand the true history of the first century that led to to the
creation of Xtianity.
It is not as much of a mystery as it once was...
He just stated his opinion, why are you attacking him?
@@MrEVAQ Stating My Opinion. What Attack???
@@phoenixrising4172 Your opinion is to attack someone's personal character? You attacked the way he conducts himself (his laughter)
@@MrEVAQ I stated my opinion, you stated yours. Enjoy!!!
I wish I was able to attend the Ehrman-Price debate years ago but what the people really want to see is: Ehrman v Doherty 2022!
It was always my mind God didn’t let Moses’s or Elijah body on earth and if Jesus raised Lazrous he came back home and live again if Jesus was raised where he is now??
Where is the evidence? What are your sources?
I would hesitate to draw any analogy between biblical scholars and astronomers or physicists. There's nothing to suggest that biblical scholarship is any different from Classics scholarship.. Thus, they can interpret the bible as they wish... but they have very little authority to opine one way or another as to the historicity of what appears in the bible.
Allah said:( ‘And mention when the angels said, “O Mary, indeed Allah gives you good tidings of a word from Him, Whose name will be the Messiah,Jesus,the son of Mary- distinguished in this world and the Hereafter and among those brought near to “Allah”. He will speak to the people in the cradle and in maturity and will be of the righteous.”She said,” My Lord, how will I have a child when no man has touched me?” ‘ The angel’ said , “Such is Allah, He creates what He wills. When He decrees a matter, He only says to it ,”Be” and it is .” )3: 45-47
As opposed to the Lukan version: "The Holy Ghost shall fall upon thee, and the power of the Most High shall overshadow thee, and the child which is born shall be called holy, the Son of God."
This raises all manner of sexual connotations especially in the original Koine Greek and the Latin, so Muslim apologists have a field day with this, asking Christians, "Which would you rather teach your daughter, the Lukan version or the Islamic version?" Ahmed Deedat's exposition of this is on RUclips.
I don’t think this guy knows enough about Jewish tradition… Jews definitely keep record of lineage, just look at the old testament. So for him to say that Jews didn’t keep record and couldn’t write, totally errant.
The name of Caiaphas (sp?) on the ossuary: is a photo available? When Mr. Ehrman said the name was "scratched on" the ossuary, well, that could have been done at any time. In that time period, for persons of note, were their names put on ossuarys?
And, it what fashion? Perhaps, a stone mason used a chisel?
Who rewrote Josephus to include Jesus as a messiah?
Doesn't Josephus also report that he was able to plead-for, and acquire, the pardon of three of his acquaintances that were crucified, having them taken down from their crosses? If so, why might not Joseph of Arimathea, a character who pops up out of nowhere and of whom no back-story is given, have the same power?
To support your arguments:
The gospel of John (Chapter 19) reports that Pilate used Jesus to humiliate his Jewish enemies by declaring Jesus "King of the Jews" ("INRI"). Since decades, the mainstream Jews tried to get rid of the Romans violently. They were very dangerous for the Roman garrison (culminating in the annihilating Jewish-Roman War few decades later)! In contrast, the Jesus movement appears to have been peaceful not opposing to Roman rule and Roman taxes. A behaviour the Romans would have appreciated much from the mainstream and leading Jews and, in addition, from common messianic movements of that time. For Pilate, the Jewish demand for an execution of Jesus was a clever opportunity to kid the Jews: By killing their own exemplary king they would deliberately justify Roman rule.
Pilate could have purposely allowed a decent funeral in a permanent tomb! In this way, he could have reminded his enemies forever to have killed their own peaceful king. On the other hand, to sacrifice an innocent person would fit to a ruthless govenour - there is no contradiction to his presumed character.
In addition: The Torah does not allow to hang a person overnight (Deuteronomium 21, 22-23), but strictly mandates to bury the executed before onset of night! Why should the Romans insist to violate this rule? Pilate even gave in when Jews opposed to show pictures of the Roman emperor in Jerusalem. Why should he have taken the risk of conflict for an issue of no importance?
In my view, Dr. Ehrman should not rule out that Jesus could have had a decent funeral by just taking some general assumptions.
Regarding the resurrection, there are some things regarding archeology that Bart is completely missing. Bart doesn't seem to understand the logistics of the crucifixion and burial site. Most scholars, including non-religious academic ones, consider the Church of the Holy Sepulchre as the true crucifixion and burial site.
The logistics of Golgotha are rather interesting. First of all, it's about 460 meters away from the Roman Governor's Jerusalem residence. Sounds like a reasonable distance to ask a scourged man, who had to carry a 70 lbs crossbeam on his shoulders, to walk. About 120 meters away is the tomb that tradition attributes to Jesus. Both Golgotha and Jesus' tomb have wide scholarly consensus as being genuine. Additionally, all four Gospels say that both the crucifixion site and the tomb (and an adjoining garden) were very close to each other.
There is a theory that there was a small complex of tombs near Golgotha, owned and managed by the Sanhedrin, to give a proper burial to those who were crucified. Archeology implies that there was more than one tomb near Golgotha. This bit of logistics is an archeological fact. Yes, crucifixion is a Roman capital punishment, but I think in order to have that form of punishment so close to a city that the Jews considered holy, they were able to extract some concessions from the Romans.
If you're gonna execute people so close to a holy site, then those folks needed to be buried according to Jewish custom. Bart himself says most of the Roman troops were in Syria and it's pretty clear that the Romans, in Judea, had to have the Sanhedrin's help in ruling Judea and keep it pacified, particularly if most of your troops are in Syria. Additionally, three people were crucified on the most holy holiday for the Jewish people: Passover. Are you telling me that the heavily outnumbered Romans were going to ignore Jewish burial customs so close to their holiest city on their most holiest holiday?
I would only think it prudent for the Romans to give some concessions on crucifixion, particularly to the Sanhedrin. It would be more difficult to rule Judea without the cooperation of the Sanhedrin so giving them some concessions around the process of capital punishment only sounds prudent and logical. Additionally, Josephus is very clear in indicating that Pontius Pilate and the Sanhedrin had a very good relationship, so this arrangement is entirely plausible.
Now, this doesn't prove the resurrection, but I think this shows that putting crucified bodies into typical limestone Jewish tombs was entirely feasible. Again, the archeological logistics are pretty clear. A mere 100 or so meters away from the actual crucifixion site are a small complex of tombs and I'm pretty sure both these tombs and the crucifixion site shared some kind of synergistic relationship. I don't think the place of crucifixion and a number of tombs being so close to each other is a coincidence.
😅
Shortly before the birth of Christianity, Philo of Alexandria writes of a Jewish cult that had an archangel named Jesus and he was crucified in the imaginary heaven of the Jews. It would be interesting to hear Ehrman's opinion on this. Was this Jesus crucified in "heaven" something that influenced the story of Jesus in Christianity. - A completely detached plot in history or the most important part of the puzzle that explains the birth of Christianity?
I heard from my brother who is a scholar of salts the money Judas received what is a standard payment for a police informer at the time does anyone have anything to add
Tacitus famously refers in his 2nd. c. A.D. history to the Christian sect in Rome at the time of the fire in Nero's reign. He also mentions upper-class Romans converted to this heresy. Pliny the Younger, in Trajan's reign (about 115 A.D.), governor of an eastern province, mentioned, in his letter to the emperor asking for guidance, early Christians gathering in private homes and singing hymns. Those are other early references, apart from Suetonius and Josephus.
Yes. References to the CULT/believers. Not at all the same as a reference to the man.
Jesus was born of a Parthian.
His father was a Parthian king and his mother was an exile from Israel, exiled because she was of the pro Persian davidic line as opposed to the pro Roman Herodian heritage
I like this idea. And concisely presented. It deserves expansion and examination.
@@owentduggan8966 I'm expanding on it, the whole Old Testament is describing the process if you read it carefully without superstition
16:53 "even when I was an atheist"??? What is he now?
I think he is agnostic now.
Very interesting, but a huge amount of guesswork looking back 2000 years. If America can’t figure out what happened on 1/6/21 what hope do we have for stating what did or didn’t happen way back when?
Chris P Bacon
The disciples were not scholars. They were mostly fishermen, farmers, potters, carpenters, irrigation diggers etc... Not many in that area at that time could read, write or have a need to. Many depict Jesus to have long hair. Archeologists have found that all in that area had short thick coarse and somewhat wavy hair. If stories are true about Jesus going to Tibet and learning to meditate in India where he found God through Kriya meditation, he might've had long hair as most Yogis and Gurus had and still have. But taking him down from the cross? Even if they let Joseph do that, I can't picture people on tall ladders up there taking a body down seeing how the crosses were put in the ground like they were.
Interesting how much Ehrman's take on Jesus' background differs with Tabor's. I think Tabor is just more likely to run with less evidence and Ehrman is more skeptical.
There was no Jebus, there were sects of Jews fighting one another on how to deal with the Romans in the first century CE.
The Romans latched on to these breakaway sects to create a false history.
I can only think of the Sicilian from The Princess Bride movie saying...
*_INCONCEIVABLE_* when Jebus as a totally fictional character becomes part of the discussion.
None of that makes any sense.
Probably a Jew named Jesus existed. But he was an apocalyptic Jew. He had his Jewish followers. Sometime later after the crucifixion, non Jews of the movement branched off because they didn't want to adhere to the Torah and the laws. They started another sect, today's Christians.
@@michealfriedman7084 It was under Paul that the early Christians started to accept gentiles as members and when they abandoned kosher diets and circumcisions, etc.
And that caused a rift with what was left of the 12 disciples such as Peter and James, who considered Paul an usurper and wanted the Christian movement to remain exclusively Jewish. But it was Paul’s sect who lasted and from whom Christianity as we know it evolved.
Okay. I'm surprised Bart doesn't know this about the Testimonium Flavianum because he should. We have the Testimonium in its original form and it was preserved by Jerome, in the late 4th century, in Latin. Jerome, in his book "On Illustrious Men" has his Latin version of the Testimonium Flavianum as follows:
“In this same time was Jesus, a wise man, if indeed it be lawful to call him man. For he was a worker of wonderful miracles, and a teacher of those who freely receive the truth. He had very many adherents also, both of the Jews and of the Gentiles, and was believed to be Christ, and when through the envy of our chief men Pilate had crucified him, nevertheless those who had loved him at first continued to the end, for he appeared to them the third day alive. Many things both these and other wonderful things are in the songs of the prophets who prophesied concerning him and the sect of Christians, so named from him, exists to the present day.”
As you can see, it's rather similar to the Greek version of the Testimonium we have today, but with one notable exception. In our version it says: "[Jesus] was the Messiah," whereas Jerome's Latin version it says "was believed to be Christ." This isn't something that Jerome could fabricate because in the 4th century there were probably copies of Josephus' Histories in various libraries in the Empire and the Empire was still extant at the time.
Furthermore, Origen in the late 2nd century, and Eusebius in the early 4th century, also mention the Testimonium Flavianum, although they didn't quote it like Jerome did. Origen goes as far to say that Josephus didn't believe that Jesus was the Messiah, which corresponds to, and aligns with, how Jerome had preserved the Testimonium Flavianum.
Lastly, both Origen and Eusebius mention the Testimonium in apologetics works, meaning that when they mentioned the Testimonium they were not doing so to fellow Christians, but in works that were aimed at non-Christian skeptics. So, them mentioning the Testimonium Flavianum could not have been a fabrication, given the intended audience. The Testimonium Flavianum is real. It exists and IMHO Jerome's 4th century preservation is probably what the original says.
6:53 Serious question: Can someone please explain the "swastika" shape on the robe of the man on the right side?
How are the Bible genealogies of Jesus relevant if God is Jesus' father in a miraculous conception?
The same way the dude walked on water. It's all mythological bullshit. ;-)
Good question! - The only way it could be relevant is to introduce JC's "half" brothers . so it at least then he hung around with 'Royalty' ...
Why there are 4 gospels? With all those contradictions?. Why not one?
Dr. Ehrman an agnostic Atheist knew Christ very well
Who was the king of Edessa in the mid to late 1st century?
Agbar V and Izates II
Correct! Izates II was the historical person who was also the raw material for the Jesus fantasy that Josephus wrote into his many stories about the 1st century C.E. Which I also believe that Josephus was directed or maybe even forced to augment his works to the liking of his captors in the form of Vespasian. How else would Rome write their victory over the Jews into history?
From reading the scriptures the nation of Israel had failed many times to call the then known world to repentance and to worship the only true God. So many times have they turned their back to the creator and worshipped other gods and did other abominable things (the book of prophets).Hence; God had to continuously punish her with nations so that she can turn away from her adulteries.
Now the authors of the new testament MASTERFULLY created one man (according to some people) who has allowed the WHOLE world to come to accept and know the God of Abraham. Billions of lives have been changed and will be changed for the best by teachings of this one man.
Imagine how many persons would have died without knowing the existence of the God of Abraham if HE didn't allow the story of a so-called fictitious Jesus to reach world.
Nice piece 😂
I am not convinced that Jesus ever existed but even if he did there is no evidence that he was anything other than a normal human. No miracles, no son of any god.
@@samfromisrael if you later find out, would you believe?
You may only be egocentric on the acceptance of the obvious records
I think it is likely on top of what bart says about Jesus that he was a faith healer Galilee was considered a centre of faith healing at that time
Always suspect people who state extreme metaphors in support of their own ideas, speak for others they don't identify, and laugh about opposing viewpoints without specifying data and conclusions - especially when they cannot prove very much about the subject at hand, and talk about what others say about the subject
Dude!
Your music taste is SOOOO GOOD!
Please, share it with us?