Megan is so pro... never steps on Barts answers, and always has something to say when she does speak. Keeps it light and informative at the same time. Thanks to Megan and Bart
I’m in England. Many Church of England vicars are clear that doing good deeds is what is important. A personal relationship with Jesus is not important at all. Having a belief in god is not important . It seems to be an American thing that your belief is more important than your actions.
I like how meagan and bart delicately skirt the line between an interview and a conversation…. Having the directionality of an interview, while maintaining the comfortable interaction of a conversation
Genesis 12 I think explains it pretty well. "And the Lord said to Abram: Go forth out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and out of thy father's house, and come into the land which I shall shew thee. And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and magnify thy name, and thou shalt be blessed. I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee, and IN THEE shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed." Here we see that the seed of Abraham is to be a sort of conduit through which "all the kindreds of the earth be blessed". Which can explain how, despite apparent tension, locality and universality could be held simultaneously.
7:24 I like how god apparently gave his people “commandments” they had to obey but he has them break the main commandment all the time “thou shall not kill…. Unless I tell you to” and “thou shall not steal… unless I tell you to”
Original sin is a complete failure as a theological explanation. Adam and Eve were punished for eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil when God said not to eat from it. However, prior to eating it, they had no knowledge of right and wrong. They were perfectly incapable of making moral assessments. They had no way to judge or even conceptualize whether or not it was wrong to eat the fruit. They had no way to know if God himself was good or evil. They had no way to evaluate whether they should or should not listen to God. The same goes for the snake. Is it good ir evil? Listen or don't listen? They were completely incapable of making this assessment. They were essentially babies in a moral sense. Yet God punishes them and all their descendants in perpetuity for breaking a commandment he knew they would break before he created them and because he created them in such a way that they couldn't not break it. Adam and Eve bear absolutely no responsibility for eating those fruits. They were intentionally set up to fail. It would be like if God made Adam and Eve blind, but then put a certain area in the middle of the garden of Eden that lacked any way to differentiate it from the rest of the garden without seeing it. And god calls this forbidden area the Patch Of Vision. If AnE step on it, they will gain sight. God commands them not to step on the patch, for otherwise, he says, they will surely die. But one day, as Adam and Eve were wandering about the garden, they accidentally stepped onto the patch and instantly gained eyesight. Now, God comes down, enraged that they didn't listen to him, and he curses them and all their descendants in perpetuity, then banishes them from Eden. Would this be reasonable? It sounds pretty stupid to me, but this is a perfect parallel to the original story. They have no way to avoid disibeying God because he's deprived them of the necessary ability to do so. And the only way for them to gain the ability that would allow them to follow his order is by first breaking the order. He sets them up for failure, knowing they will fail and giving them no tools to succeed, then he punishes them for doing exactly what he planned that they would do. Now, he has an excuse to punish them. If you actually consider this story in a non-biased way, God seems like an evil being who wanted to punish and torment people, so he put a plan into action so he could do just that. And then he creates this ridiculous narrative to dupe the gullible into blaming themselves for his sadism and to get them to worship and praise him like he's a great perfectly good being and he's just trying to do what's best for us when in fact we're just his torture toys. It's a sick and twisted story. Frightening so many people believe it and think the Bible is a source of morality and not a source of how to be a psychopathic tyrant and get away with it. Thank God that God is not real. Thank God we don't actually live in the Christian concept of reality. We are so lucky that we don't actually have a psychopathic deity controlling our eternal destinies. LOL btw I was trying to be ironic by thanking God for this. I, of course, don't believe in him. But I still want to thank him for not-existing. It's the greatest gift we could possibly have gotten from him 😂
Reading his books, and listening to B Ehrman has been so informative for me. I always found church "teachings" problematic, since childhood. Thank you again for thoughtful and intellectually informed information.
Hello Dr.Ehrman! Thank you for your contribution to the world through your research on Christianity. The more I listen to you talk about the religion of Christianity the more I realize how little I knew about this religion. Thank you for teaching us so so much! Have a wonderful time!
Never liked the Book of Revelations. The church I grew up in used it to scare you into believing. Never understood coming to a loving Savior through fear.
Really scary stuff if you happen to believe it... In Rev 14,14ff Jesus and an angel "reap" the earth with "sharp sickles" then gather "its grapes and threw them into the great winepress of God’s wrath. They were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses’ bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia [300km]."
_"The church I grew up in used it to scare you into believing. "_ The scriptures/god you grew up with used it to scare you into believing. Common typo, I fixed it for you. You're welcome. Your church didn't write the bible, nor inspire it, nor is it the main character in the bible.
I was just thinking the same thing. Watched a great discussion between Bishop Barron and Cosmic Skeptic last night, and Barron was talking about how great, strange, unthinkable, unknowable God is, and I was just thinking, he's portrayed so understandably throughout the bible. Here in Revelation you have him in heaven on a "throne" and "surrounded" by angels and beings. In the old Testament he's talking with everyone in plain Hebrew, showing very mammal like emotions and desires...It seems like there is a lot we can pin down and say about him. He is either incapable of changing his, what would be in a human called character flaws, being vengeful, incredibly jealous, desirous of neverending adoration, or he can change these things, but isnt interested in doing that. Either way seems like a decent example of what Im trying to say.
God gets up from the throne in 5:6, morphing into the lamb, which is a picture of the Holy Spirit bringing forth the Son. Do not allow the biased Bart Ehrman to remote control your mind. He is lost and he knows it and he tries to take as many with him as he can.
It seems the only conclusion for me is that the Bible is a collection of stories that try to understand or connect with a “higher power” that most humans somehow sense exists, and tries to express within their own culture and time. If we don’t destroy our beautiful planet, perhaps the great collection of all stories in every culture throughout human existence will coalesce into an understanding of God that accurately represents the true Divinity. I really loved Barts example of the horizontal view of heaven and hell becoming vertical.
A God invented by humans doing human things and you wonder why it seems like oh God it's just like us that's because we invented God Why would this being be vain why would they need to be worshiped what possible purpose can angels singing their praises do for them? These are all things people wish they had. Streets of gold you got to be kidding me why would God need that? If indeed there is some sort of Creator in so far beyond our imagination is to be incomprehensible at this stage. If in fact there are places we go after this then I believe it will become more slowly revealed to us over the course of those lifetimes
The Hebrew god is obviously man made. He's also based on Canaanite mythology. According to the general consensus of scholarship (even critical Christian scholars), YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts. "I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the sons of El. It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the sons of El, plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, solely according to the number of the sons of El. *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting."* *"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.* (Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian) *"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"* (A second response to Michael Heiser) *"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."* *"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10 - TheTorah.com"* (Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), which appears to be a later addition, Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)* *"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"* (Mark Smith is a Catholic) *"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"* (Daniel McClellan is a Mormon) *"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"* (Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)") *"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."* (Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh) *"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."* *"Married Deities: Asherah and Yahweh in Early Israelite Religion - Yahweh Elohim."* *"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"* *"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."* *"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"* (It appears in addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh it also appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort) *"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"* (Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion") *"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"* (For a good summary of all of the above articles) Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 27:40 minutes onwards. Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on. Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40. Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"* (By a former theist) Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.
Excellent content, audio, and nice saturation of colors for the video! Really looking forward to next weeks video because that is what I have been wondering the last couple weeks.
Thankyou Dr Ehrman, and Megan. On 'Love': if we examine how the 1st century Bible writers probably understood it we can see more consistency perhaps. The love that 1 John and ‘John’ is writing about, that is required for salvation according to that author’s system, is primarily a transactional love: of doing things, not necessarily an emotional love in the mind: of feeling things. It is like the author is saying in 1John 4:19 “He did something for us first, that is why we are doing something for Him now”. The author is apparently NOT saying “He felt a warm feeling towards us first, that is why we feel a warm feeling towards Him”. This is an ongoing relationship of helping and serving like the “reciprocal love” between a patron and client. The Great Patron does a great kindness, which he did not have to do, or he offers a kindness of assistance that the person chooses to accept, then that person becomes a client, who is expected to praise and be loyal and of some service to the patron. The NT writers, and some OT writers, use an analogy with family love to show the unusual extent of the obligations of God’s servants/children and of the promised care by their God/Father. But it is questionable whether the writers are expecting/demanding the kind of internal affectionate responses of the mind that close family members often have, when those writers speak of ‘love’. When the scripture speaks of loving God with all their mind, it is obeying God with all the thoughts not feeling an inner glow of affection. On love between believers, they are again speaking of ACTIONS that are like the actions of close family members or very close friends. In practice, after the action might come the feeling and the feeling help sustain the action. - Dr. G. Craig Fairweather.
The concepts of Heaven and Hell, Judgment Day and the final revelation of the world, and angels and demons all originated in the Zoorastrianism. It was the religion on Persia, bordering Roman Empire. Iraq had a significant Jewish and early Christian population.
These episodes are essential for curious minds. Thank you both for doing them. Also, please understand that your comment section does not necessarily reflect the majority of your viewers who many times are not likely to post comments. What you do is valuable and resonates with people who have no axes to grind, no preconceived oxen to gore, and who hear what you have to say with wonder and gratitude and intellectual humility.
These discussions are fantastic. Bart is amazing, and Megan is the *perfect* interviewer whose questions are always intelligent and whose insights are exceptional. An incredible partnership!
This interviewer has literally no personality, she has the personality of an android in Star Trek. She'll ask a question, then just awkwardly stare without blinking rarely ever smiling, then once Bart's done talking just move on to the next segment... complete robot. If you see some "incredible partnership" I have no idea wtf "chemistry" looks like to you, basically just existenting and talking means incredible partnership to you with your bar that low.
Thank you for addressing this question and for your answer that at the very least there is very certainly a strong discrepancy between the two. This enormously helps me in my need to 'judge' the God of the Bible for my own protection and integrity and well-being and decency and to cast off his unreasonable oppressiveness. It is terrible that we even have this difficult doctrinal reality that needs reconciliation, I am disappointed in God.
It's so sad to have such interesting conversations filled with comments from theists who ignore everything said to revert to making unfounded faith-based arguments or pick and choose unrelated verses completely out of their original writer's context to defend whatever random part of their theology has been developed entirely by misinterpreting texts. You guys are so weird.
Or people who come with a massive dissertation on how everything is a giant conspiracy or taken from some other story or tradition (which absolutely there are influences from all sorts of ancient traditions), but it often comes across like ancient aliens or UFO nuts. It's a real shame. Most of them don't seem to pay any attention to the content of the video at all.
Thank you, Dr. Ehrman, for your serious and knowledgeable skepticism. I'm not as skeptic as you are, but I value how your job helps me a lot to take positions in regards to the most important subject in my life.
It is understood that the immaculate conception of Mary was necessary to prevent original sin from Jesus. What I didn't realize, was that God performed a miracle for Anna to prevent the sin from passing on to Mary. This begs the question, why go through all the effort to perform the miracle on Jesus's grandmother and not hold out the miracle for Mary?
I'm loving all this Revelation content that you two are making. When I was a Christian, I tried reading it to try to understand the end times. It didn't make any sense to me, so I thought it better to just not think about it. Now that I'm not a Christian, learning about how it relates to the rest of the Christian Scriptures and the Hebrew Bible is fascinating. Historical context is essential! Thanks to both of you!
I'm guessing that those Old Testament passages where God commands and blesses that His favorite people take the land from the heathens (and even at times exterminate them) were very encouraging to the devout Christians who followed that example with the indigenous peoples from the Americas.
Love these episodes! Also does Megan come up with these question herself? And if so, they are absolutely brilliant and impressively on topic and discussion provoking!
I was stunned by your welcomedly blunt summary at 29min-32:30 of the video confirming my own emerging impression of the horrific discrepancy in the 'love/retribution' qualities of the God of the Old Testament and Jesus and also those same qualities of the Jesus of the 4 Gospels and the Jesus of the book of Revelation. Like you I solemnly shook my head at the onerous task I now face in deciding whether Jesus and the God of the Old Testament are worthy of my continued worship. Thank you so much for your honest and accurate scholarliness in this critical matter.
Bart is too biased against the Book of Revelation to give an objective survey of it. For example, Jesus said "Narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading to life and few are the ones entering in, whereas broad and spacious is the road leading to destruction and many are the ones on it.". So the destruction in Revelation has been spoken about before. Yet Bart still holds on to his modern American paradigm that everyone can be forgiven.
@@busyb8676It's kinda baffling that it was included at all. Seeing as it's referring to Rome and it's big issues with it's portrayal of god and Jesus.
Why wasn’t Jesus dropped when Jesus’s predictions failed? If Ehrman is right that Jesus was essentially an “apocalyptic preacher”, then clinging to failed predictions is the essence of Christianity. Sir Fred Hoyle remained steadfast in his belief in the steady state universe theory to his death, long after it had been thoroughly debunked. At that point, you might argue-at the point it became an article of faith for him, it had ceased to be astrophysics and had turned into something akin to religious dogma. This is the nature of religion: it is impervious to reason.
Always great, Learned a lot from this one that I wasnt expecting ! @Bart I do love your audio lectures and audiobooks but really prefer the ones that you read, your enthusiasm is palpable in the reading and adds a great texture that reminds me of a classic Greek theologian performing his theories to an audience, enthralled. Although haven't heard much talk about the Armadillo Grill lately :)
Thank you, I have read the damn book and can't figure out why Christians think their god is all about love. I don't think these people actually even read the book
No offense, if you don't think a God that is willing to engage with his creation providing moral laws to get them closer to "the good", and even come into our little MineCraft universe "in the flesh" to die for our sins, if that isn't a God who cares let's see you do it... live a selfless, perfect life helping the poor and sick, and die in self-sacrifice for the greater good of people. Btw the fact that you refer to the Bible as just some "book" is a giveaway you have no idea the overall emphasis of the creation, the fall/paradise lost, to the restored covenant with a select ppl to be the lantern of the world, divided kingdom and promised redemption, death & resurrection, pentecost, and paradise found and new creation in Revelation. There's a promised salvation that although we might suffer in this life.. salvation will await us in the end if we stay true to his word. What hope do you have from an atheist/Materialist world view? You suffer... you die, this is your only life and it isn't fair, but that's it. Again, there's at least hope from the Christian worldview, if God doesn't exist there's no purpose to anything and nothing waiting for you when you become dirt just oblivion. But again, if that's all there is to our conscious experience and reality so be it, good luck.
According to the general consensus of scholarship (even critical Christian scholars), YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts. "I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the sons of El. It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the sons of El, plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, solely according to the number of the sons of El. *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting."* *"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.* (Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian) *"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"* (A second response to Michael Heiser) *"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."* *"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10 - TheTorah.com"* (Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), which appears to be a later addition, Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)* *"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"* (Mark Smith is a Catholic) *"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"* (Daniel McClellan is a Mormon) *"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"* (Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)") *"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."* (Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh) *"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."* *"Married Deities: Asherah and Yahweh in Early Israelite Religion - Yahweh Elohim."* *"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"* *"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."* *"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"* (It appears in addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh it also appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort) *"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"* (Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion") *"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"* (For a good summary of all of the above articles) Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 27:40 minutes onwards. Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on. Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40. Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"* (By a former theist) Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.
Excellent. I've read John Day's book, Mark Smith, Listened to Christine Hayes, etc also Hector Avalos...you've done a great job compiling these sources. “I conclude, therefore, that El and Yahweh were originally distinct deities that became amalgamated.” John Day “El Shaddai was worshipped as a God even we might say before they even know about Yahweh” Mark Smith Mark Smith: ruclips.net/video/j7GpPHyWDlE/видео.html
Evil inclination runs amuck! without attention to the soul and spirit the heart will not change as narcissistic hence postmodernism as today. The reins were there but freedom has boundaries...we choose evil inclination hence judgement...if choose good inclination to direct freewill then you will accept the reward spiritual elevation of soul. Look up: Introduction to the Purpose of Man in the World. NLE Morasha Syllabus. OLAMI Resources.
Though Revelation was contested and was touch and go for awhile if it would make it in...The fact is it did. And many early church leaders/fathers thought Revelation fit just fine with the rest of the Bible and the rest of the NT. You can see this type of violence foreshadowed at times in the NT and by Jesus himself in verses like Matt 10:14-15. Other examples were discussed in the comments of the previous video. And for one of the most extensive scholarly works ever done on violence in the NT see: The Bad Jesus the ethics of NT ethics by Dr. Hector Avalos.
Good point, though I do think Bart is right that the Jesus of Revelation is a lot harsher and meaner than the Jesus of the synoptics. Imo, Jesus of the synoptics was *mostly* about love and helping the unfortunate, with a dash of terror (e.g., God will destroy you if you don't straighten up), an occasional cult-leader-like statement (e.g., the one about hating your family), and some bad advice, whereas the Jesus of Revelation is mostly Big Bad Jesus, come to kick your ass.
Fascinating discussion, thank you! Megan asked good questions, as always. Bart is very eloquent in clarifying how Jesus's morality (as portrayed in the synoptic gospels) is very different than what you see in Revelation. I also appreciated the discussion near the end of how Jesus didn't believe in a traditional hell.
Man, his explanation about how natural sin became a thing left me amazed. The development of ideas that we have inherited can be so interesting and insane.
If Mary was born without a sin nature, then what was even the point of Jesus' birth? As one without sin, Mary could have been the atonement. The resurrection is not the atonement for sin, but the death. Instead of Jesus God could have just talked through a prophet and Mary could have died for our sins. The prophet could have even performed the resurrection. What is even the point of Jesus if there is someone else with no sin?
But Mary was a woman and Christianity is paternalistic. In any case, Mary’s Immaculate Conception was retroactive. First there was this preacher who was crucified. Only afterward were the circumstances of his birth constructed (narratively).
@@jeffryphillipsburns the whole story of Jesus was "constructed narratively" to pacify the jews in Rome after Titus went :scorched earth" across the Levant.
In a another episode, Dr. Ehrman quoted Jesus from Mark as saying to obey the law (of Moses?) in order to go to heaven, but if you want the best place in heaven, then give away your property. That's not exactly what Dr. Ehrman says here. Here, Ehrman says Jesus said to take care of others (poor, weak, least of them = me) in order to get into heaven, but no mention of the law. So, that's confusing.
Christianity must convert ITSELF to the teachings ("GOOD NEWS") of JC, and divorce itself from the manmade BAD NEWS of "sacrifice for sin." "They worship me in vain, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men." JC (Matthew 15:9) "GOD IS LOVE" and has absolutely no jealousy or wrath, which is of satan. The Bible often mixes GOD's and satan's attributes so that we learn to discern between the two. And absolutely nothing in this world makes sense until you find the "Philosopher's Stone," which is the deepest of truths, and The Meaning of Life, which is the best-kept secret in this entire Universe of limitation: THE PRECISE REASON WHY WE ARE EXPERIENCING IT. This information is revealed in my little online book (The Book of GOD), which can be read in 5 minutes at no cost. Click and ye shall find. Elijah has returned, as prophesied. I communicate only through my sites.
Revelation had already started seeming to me to be related to Yahweh of the OT. Evangelicals commonly say things like "with all the chaos today, where are we in the book of Revelation?". Can't quite understand Revelation...
When Jesus says that a person that says it is Corban to his father or mother, he has cursed his father or mother. This is a death penalty offense, as Jesus himself does points out. So in the gospels Jesus teaches that there are commandments that if disobeyed can result in death under the law of which Jesus approves. Paul says if a person refuses to take care of poor members of his family he has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel. The difference is that in the gospels God's purpose is that men repent. In the book of Revelation, the judgment is God's final judgment. There is no repentance. We are not God and we all have not been given individual judgment over other men. We are simply given to be an example to the world of belief in God.
it is man's nature to judge his surroundings, which include other people. Christ absolutely judged others and christians are literally calling themselves "christ-like", so it is also for them to judge others just as others are judging them ("they will know you by your fruits"). That is part of that "being an example". One cannot argue that only God can judge yet claim to follow that god, without judging themselves.
If you e.g. look at the teachings of the Buddha, this were ‘multi-layered’ talks containing very different messages depending on the spiritual maturity of the audience. In the simplest form this was about ethics and devotion, for others he was teaching concentration and purification as preparation for ‘self’ inquiry. For the inner circle it was directly about practicing and realizing ultimate reality, which is ‘beyond’ words, space and time. Putting all these texts in a basket without any differentiation, mixing them thoroughly and then compiling them in one ‘book’ for later intellectual interpretation inevitably leads to the ‘word and interpretation salat’ that we experience in religions which have lost their inner spiritual core.
The most interesting thing about the Battle of Jericho, and Joshua as a whole, is that archaeologically, it never happened. The authors looked around the cities where they lived sometime in the first millennium BC, saw ruins in various places, and wrote legends weaving those ruins into their ancestors' origin story. The assorted atrocities were entirely invented, basically to "glorify" how powerful their religion was.
The most vicious laws in Leviticus and some in Deuteronomy are believed to have been invented and added just after the Exile to give the priests more terror power. Priests filled a vacuums of power as the aristocracy had been decimated by the Babylonian Exile or refused to leave Babylonia and the Governors under the Persians, apart from the (eunuch) Nehemiah, were politically weak.
I used to have beliefs similar to the typical evangelical. But I now reject the idea that every word of the bible is the literal word of God. So I dont base too much of my beliefs on individual bible verses, especially since I cant read it in the original language with the original grammar and cultural context it was written. Instead I think its important to step back and look at the story of Jesus life ss a whole. Jesus never condemned the lowly sinner. He called out the teachers of the law for using their power to abuse people. Jesus was clearly on a mission to relieve the Jewish people from religious oppression. And his emphasis on what we needed to change was not so much our lifestyle but instead how we treat others. How we treat others is the only thing that really matters.
Exactly. Whether you believe Jesus to be the son of god, a prophet, or just a simple man. The philosophy of “love thy neighbor” should be a universally agreed upon subject.
@@potiphajerenyenje6870 I dont need to start a religion or church. What I said is the simplest most basic form of Christianity and I'm sure there are some people who already preach it that way. It's just not the mainstream evangelical version that is widely taught across the US.
I'm a Theist and by no means an expert in either the Old or New Testaments, but I recall in my youth the first time I read the Apocalypse, after having read the Gospel of John, how nightmarish it was. It seemed to me to be a psychotic document originating not from Truth but from the darkness of the human psyche and I couldn't see, nor could ever quite believe since, that it was written by the same John who wrote the Gospel. Only in the unlikely (and perhaps completely implausible) event that John experienced some sort of mental breakdown. I tend to disfavour apocalyptic- judgment second coming ideas/scenarios in favour of ideas, such as those of Teilhard de Chardin, where mankind is edging towards some sort of "Omega Point" fulfillment and attainment of God in the distant future. This is the sense I have (but I could be wrong and if a second coming should occur in my lifetime I'll probably be shaking in my boots like a good many others : ) ). Although I somehow doubt it, it would be interesting to know if any ancient documents canonical or otherwise contain any inkling that could be interpreted along de Chardin's ideas.
Recently, some scholars have proposed that the growth of ‘christian’ groups in the Roman Empire in spite of its Jewish cultural foreignness and persecution and prejudice was because initiates and members experienced ‘acts’ associated with caring from, effectively, strangers across class, gender, status, wealth and ethnic divides. Real feelings of mutual affection might then develop between individuals. I wonder if the relatively slow growth of some ‘Christian’ denominations in so many places is partly through congregations having less experience of an overriding emphasis on ‘acts of caring’, in fact massive failures to act in ways like those who care. Also, many modern governments have increasingly legislated a more ‘caring’ society facilitating more professional services, compared to any other period in history. When ‘John’ writes that “God is love” the context shows it is NOT a generalized emotional love towards everyone in the world, in every age and place regardless, of what they are doing. The overriding ethos of the Christian-communities-that-John-approves-of is supposed to be an ethos of doing things for people as if they were close family members. This is an ethos he says they learned from Jesus as a revelation what God is like towards them, the believers. To the author God loves “the world” (John 3:15-17) primarily in the sense of doing something that is theoretically available to “all” people (ethnic groups, classes, positions, genders), provision of ‘the gospel’ tied up with His son’s life and death. It does not entail loving care, to the author, unless they become 'believers', in the congregation, in his view. The author thinks that “punishing” opponents of believers, as in Revelation, is an aspect of God’s love (help) for the believers.
This trope about the God of the Hebrew Bible and the God of the New Testament keeps on going, despite the fact that it was condemned in the very early third century; but otherwise well-informed people keep on promoting Marcionism. Bart Ehrman is learned, honest, and engaging and I love his work, but he's still shaped by the Conservative Evangelicalism he has left. He asks "Is the God of Revelations the same as the God of the rest of the NT," not "Why is God depicted as he is in Revelations? Why did the author, evidently a Christian, do this?" And for the Hebrew Bible, he doesn't naturally think of different and developing understandings of God, but rather of different aspects of God. Also, watch out for the brief glimpse of Cattus absconditus at 5:58.
Yeah, I'm sure you've put more thought into it than him. I'm sure you've asked the questions he hasn't. Marcionism is on to something. If you read the bible and don't think the character of God is evil...then you might be evil yourself.
@@510tuber I think the Bible gives us changing, various, and sometimes conflicting human notions about God. I'm not sure what you mean by "character of God"; but if you mean literary, fictional character, then that tells us about the ideas of God that were around in the Levant over about six or seven centuries. Conflicted ideas.
Of course if you take multiple small pieces of literature by different writers and compile it into a bigger book there will be contradictions. Even different Bibles have additional books like the Catholic Bibles. The Ethiopian Bible includes the book of Enoch as canon where angels or watchers come to earth and have sex with human women that birth giants who teach humans to make weapons and war. Read some of the non canon books that didn’t make the Final Cut for even more of wtf myths and legends.
Reminds me of a comedy skit I used to fantasy cast with some theater friends for fun. The premise was Jesus smoking weed in God's basement like That 70's show but with famous dead historical figures as his friends like Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure. The rest of the cast was pretty fluid but God was set as John Malchovich and Robin Williams as the voices of God you only ever hear yelling down the basement stairs. John for Fire and Brimstone God, Robin for lovey happy God and Jesus making Jokes about his Dad's bipolar disorder.
The ethos of Revelation: If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head, and the Lord will reward you. Proverbs 25:21-22 (also Romans 12:20)
The story of the couple that sold their house and was “smited” right in front of Peter. when I first read that in the Bible I pictured Peter as a mafia boss and they were “offed”
It's been largely decoded already, not by the likes of B. Ehrman though. The Protestant Reformation decoded the major aspects on Rome although it was Matthew Poole who published the best explanation for the 7 kings (5 in John's time). Much of the rest is largely explained and has even taken place in recent times. As I stated to another person on here who has not studied with great diligence: So Isa.47 and Rev.18 with their references to the pharmakaia and the prominent ones, and the push to a singular international digital currency to restrict your ability to buy or sell in Rev.13, these have no basis in reality to you? Nor does the defeat of the Vandals, the final Arian horn, giving rise to the Dark Ages; Isa.60, Dan.7, Rev.13, 17, being the sign to the Protestant Reformation herald any relevance to you? What about the one-eyed False Shepherd whom the Satanists worship, Zech.11, 2Thess.2, Rev.13, 16, 19-20, are you unaware that Agenda 2030 is all about the preparations for his advent? Or King David's curse upon Israel, Ps.89, 137, 2Sam.23, when he predicted the destruction of the 1st & 2nd Temples, and the death of The-Messiah? Let alone the signs of old rediscovered by the late Ron Wyatt from Turkey to the Red Sea.
In another episode Bart talks about what a lot of the symbology really means. Its really fascinating and makes much more sense than religious interpretations. 666 for example, religions often attest that this is some mysterious figure when actually they know it stood for ceaser Nero. Reason is numbers and letters in ancient greek were interchangeable; and Neros name adds up to 666.
When the Elohist uses the title Elohim it means Sons of God (singular God). When the Yahwist uses the title Elohim it means gods/goddesses (plural gods/goddesses).
Didn't women follow Christ from beginning to end. Did women not FUND hie ministry? Are there not at least three woman post gospels in Acts and the letters of SAUL of Tarsus. that clearly call them apostles of the Lord? Follow YESHUA not saul. Also did YESHUA not say that "FREELY YOU HAVE RECIEVED, FREELY YOU ARE TO GIVE!" to his disciples?
Yes of course. But was the God of Jesus really the same God as the God of Christians? Did Jesus really believe himself to be a god in a Trinity? The problem with the video title is that it assumes that the gospel-Jesus is the historical Jesus. When I hear correctly high-critical scholars, they don't tend to assume that the gospel-Jesus is very much like the historical Jesus, instead they depict some almost unknown guy that started a riot in the temple and was crucified for it. That one Jesus is much more compatible to the Revelation-Jesus, but ... we actually don't know that the Revelation-Jesus-guy is really Jesus: he is mostly called "the Lamb". "The Lamb" could be Israel.
The premise of the original sin is fundamentally faulty because a perfect deity cannot create imperfect creatures. Moreover if this all knowing deity created the inherent blueprint of humanity, where and how did the creature metamorphosised from perfect creature to a sinful nature. Who created that ingredient that caused them to deviate from obeying this deity. Hogwash belief fables if you would ask me. Thank you Dr.Ehrman for making us critically THINK about these fables. The god of the old testament is arguably a man and a bully
@gillesderais1293 Man has the ability to choose. Freewill is an oxymoron from biblical perspective. Dont you know foreknowledge contradicts free will? The fact that the bible God has foreknowledge of everything proves that free will is an impossibility, as free will could alter the future and therefore your the bible God couldn't have an absolute and true knowledge of the future. It's evident the God of the bible isn't all knowing
@gillesderais1293 I didn't propose anything about predestination because I don't subscribe to that biblical concept. If your god has knowledge of the future and a personal decision (free will) thwarts thwarts this God's iwill, then this god couldn't have an absolute and true knowledge of the future. Are you suggesting your decision determines the omnipotence/ sovereignty of this God deity? . Free will does not actually and literally mean that one can make choices, create, change his mind, or reformulate ideas and data, etc., but that those choices and thought processes must themselves be free thoughts and free choices. "Free will" is only true if our choices are also free. But free from what? Why, free from being forced upon us against our will, or free from being caused by anyone or anything except our OWN will. And so, yes, man can think, process data, make choices, change his choices, etc. But none of these activities are free from internal or external CAUSES. That man has a will, there is no debate. It is the teaching that man himself determines his own will, FREELY, without anything causing his will or his choices to be what they are. The idea of free will or free moral agency is that man can by himself unaided by anything else, originate his own choices of his will. But that's not what your bible teaches. One cannot think outside of the box so to speak from biblical perspective, otherwise you deviate or miss the mark. The abrahamic faiths is divisive, bondage, segregates, birth hatred and mind controlling. Accirding to your bible man cannot thwart this bible God's will and or his plan and intentions. And so if your God had willed for a specifc plan for your life, if your free will decisions change his plans, your God seizes to be omnipotent and sovereign. Free will from biblical perspective is an oxymoron. There are so many errors and inconsistencies which causes so many confusion. One bible, but over close to 40,000 interpretations. Why? Did Pharoah have free will? Read roms9:15-16, 17-18. Pharaoh did not harden his own heart- the bible God said that He hardened it. Read Rom9:19 and ex14:3-4
@@gillesderais1293 Nope! Man has will to make choices. My emphasis is that with respect to christendom biblical belief concepts, man doesn't have free will , that's why I am no longer a christian
@gillesderais1293 You obviously don't seem to understand, could it be a comprehension issue? There are many many example stories in your bible that conclusively dictates that the bible God will always prevail, so that man or his followers can't thwart using free will. If you're an atheist, then I really don't understand your logic premise. You seem to insinuate that man's free willcan alter the intentions of the biblical God. I don't want to go back and forth with you cause your attempt to refute what I am saying has no logic and doesn't make any lick of sense. If you believe foreknowledge doesn't contradict free will, suit yourself. I don't on the other hand subscribe to that nonsensical abrahamic religious belief systems
He talks extensively in numerous of his videos and lectures about how scholars can determine which quotes of Jesus are likely to be from him, and which not. You might want to watch those.
"These are his [God's] attributes...." It's a useful corrective to read Maimonides' "Guide for the Perplexed," in which Maimonides' monotheistic vision of god is so radical that nothing, even attributes, can be imputed to God in the plural. Needless to day, the Christian trinitarian view is a complete non-starter.
I believe that in Revelations it states that only 144,000 people will be saved and go to heavan. Question: do you think all of these 144,000 have already died and are in heaven. If so, then what does anybody have to lose by not being a Christian? Just wondering aloud.
The way it works in Revelation, as I recall, is that everybody who has ever lived and died is resurrected for the Last Days, and *then* the 144,000 are chosen. I mean.... that's a vanishingly small percentage of every hunan to live ever!
It’s unfortunate that most do not see that these numbers are not literal! In Biblical usage numbers often are not literal. The number 7 for instance is a reference to a full cycle or complete cycle. The number twelve is often used to refer to God’s people, and the list goes on. As well there are examples of multiples of 10 or 100 or even a 1000 being used to add emphasis or power to a number. Remember also that in the languages of those days there were no capital letters, and no punctuation. There were limited ways to add emphasis!!! So numbers and multiples of numbers were used to add that emphasis. So back to the 144,000. Many times in scriptures you will see 12 used to refer to the people of god (12 tribes). So 12 could refer to the “people of God”. So what if you wanted to say ALL! the people of God but you couldn’t capitalize or add an exclamation point? You would multiply 12 x 12 (144), but yo might feel that you were only saying ALL and not ALL! So the next thing to do would be to use a multiplier, and in this case the writer was looking to make a BIG statement, so 1000 was used instead of just 10 or 100. Hence 144,000 is to say that ALL! of God’s people will be saved.
@ChatGPT I didn’t illustrate that view as a defense of a position, because I don’t care what anyone believes as to whether it’s all true or not, literal or not, God’s word or not. I simple was pointing out how writers of these books and in this time thought and did things. Whether one believes or not is irrelevant to the issue of what 144,000 likely means.
Great episode! interestingly there is a distinction between 'spirit' (ruach) and 'individual soul' (nephesh). So maybe the nephesh is related to plato's world of perfect forms, and the spirit is the breath of god? (like atman being a part of the universal spirit/brahman in hinduism, (amazingly is related to the word 'atmosphere' in english - which again relates to breath)
Dr James Tabor has an excellent video on RUclips on "Five concepts" in which he explains "nephesh chayim", translated in the King James version as "living soul", as "breather that lives", a term uses for other animals too, beside 'Adam' , and hence not implying any eternal spirit at all. Identical presentation to Dr Ehrman.
Is this question for me? I would say The word/concept God is overused and meaningless since all religious people throughout the world claim the same word. The God concept dwells in the mind of each believer and is particular and different to each individual’s mind. John and Jesus/Joshua had different minds and therefore had different concepts of the word God in detailed definition. #definingthenebulous
Yep, food for cognitive dissonance: *"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."* Matthew 5: 48. What is that perfecion we are to imitate like? *God's wrath is part of His perfection.* For us humans, obviously not something to emulate... we're to turn the other cheek. But why then this command to be perfect like God, if we, however, have to try and (cognitively) separate from His perfection those "parts" that we are not to imitate?
"GOD IS LOVE" and has absolutely no jealousy or wrath, which is of satan. The Bible often mixes GOD's and satan's attributes so that we learn to discern between the two. And absolutely nothing in this world makes sense until you find the "Philosopher's Stone," which is the deepest of truths, and The Meaning of Life, which is the best-kept secret in this entire Universe of limitation: THE PRECISE REASON WHY WE ARE EXPERIENCING IT. This information is revealed in my little online book (The Book of GOD), which can be read in 5 minutes at no cost. Click and ye shall find. Elijah has returned, as prophesied. I communicate only through my sites.
Megan says the revelations matches Ot portrayal of "god" ehrman says many speakers say in NT "god " is unimaginable or undescribable and then they go to describe him. ppl say Ot is wrath and Nt shows love... however Jesus quotes Duet 4 :6 & levi 19 :18 so there is love too. Then brings up Josh & jericho circling 7 times and slaughters all who is man woman child and animal in the city. revelations is god sitting on a throne and 7 seals broken by Christ leading to 7 disaster, then 7 angels blow 7 trumpets leads to another 7 disasters, then bulls come to Earth 10 :00 - 1st set wipes out a quarter, then next 7 wipes out 1/3 of what's left, and next 7 takes out the rest... John patmos spoke of wrath. Aristotle says it maybe ok based on circumstance. in mark Jesus's anger is considered righteous indignation. jon and 1st jon mentions love alot, in jon of revelation its never mentioned though his slaves get New Jerusalem. Jesus told the people to repent but didn't mention our jahunnum. Jesus did predict destruction. paul talks about wrath is already present. Meg asks will those punished in revelation match the 4 gospels. ehrman says in mark mathew and luke, the good samaritan and in luke 16, or mathew 25, those who do good will enter the kingdom of God. matches the hadith sounds similar, it says the judge of the Earth will say i was lonely and hungry etc. and you didn't visit or feed me, don't you know I was with those in need. Revelation is fully different, the 7 churches given letters, only certain kinds of christians are saved. in 3 gospels eternal life is follow commandments ( paul removed it) even for non jews. he never goes around believing me and these doctrines. 20 :00 - in evangelical churches its just believe and get rich. - doesn't match Jesus in mathew mark and luke! Meg asks is it vengenace or retributioin. Erhman says its retributive justice. in a scene christian martyrs are pleading for vengeance, Jesus says wait a while. in acts a couple ananias & saphira lie abut money they made to lessen what they give in charity , Peter l'3ns them and they die. in paul's book a man is with his step mom, he ia handed over to deviI, not Jesus... marcian said there is 2 gods, one in old testament jericho, and Jesus spared teh children. Marcian accepted luke & 10 letters of paul but doesn't know about revelaiton. many ppl said revelations golden city sounded materialistic, that was an issue more then violence... Jesus says bad ppl will be like weeds in a furnace. Paul also says the destruction can be any time. ehrman says the big difference is jezebel having her kids to die after being r@p3d. 30 :00 - evangelicals say act like "god" does that mean torutre... ppl say we follow "god" so why can't we question him? how do you reconcile these points? 35 :30 Q & A asks to compare Nero persecution and revelations. Erhman says nero is guilty for the martyrs. author is upset rome made money off other people. (rbuh like fairissi) tacitus speaks of similar topics. revelations say christians should get the money of rome. Q on original sin, was it started by Augustine. erhman says different ppl mean different things byt it. it was made convincing by St augustine. some say in Garden of Eden Adam sins then his kids do, paul in romans 5 says Adam sins and we are all like this as his kids, he says sin allowed a demonic force to enter into the world. sin wants to enslave the ppl and spread. says Jesus liberates us from sin... but not the same way Augustine defined it. Augustine (5th century) says sin is inherited via marital relations so it's not an external force. It is only cleansed by Jesus as he was born of a virgin. in some tradition Virgin Mary was protected from this sin nature as well. question on lake of fire. ehrman says this is what his book of heaven and hell is about. Jesus and paul don't believe in hell. Jesus and paul were apocalyptic, says history well end, present age is controlled by evil and soon it will be controlled by god. paul says wars and epidemics are going on so this will be wiped out and the righteous will get a new Kingdom and so will the righteous of the past. apocalyptic judaism says it will happen to everyone, the righteous will be resurrected, jews don't believe in splitting body and soul, plato believe is splitting body and soul. jews says your soul is your breath as "God" breathed into you. says resurrection is God breathing life back. apocalytic view decreases due to paul... and greeks became christians believed in splitting of body. so soul lives on in heaven and hell is in 1st and 2nd century... erhman says christian view is a combo of old testament and plato. erhman says ot and nt has both wrath and love , its just portrayed in different situations. different authors have different views.
This is my favorite Bart Ehrman interpretation. ...if you have done it to the least of these, you have done it to me,...~enter the Kingdom. I fear that Fundamentalism has confused many people. My Mother believes - focus on Sin, Salvation in Jesus, and get rich. And, by the way, hate gays. This is the legacy of the Reformed Church (where I grew up) and evangelical Christians in America. I believe, like Mormons, that we are given a mission before we are born. I fear that my Mother has been distracted from her mission.
Yes he really is a to present it in a understandable way. Yes as another commenter said Christian’s like myself have been put under a bad ideology that seems to be in opposition with the gospels and Paul. A book also enjoyed was called that all shall be saved by David Bentley Heart.
![Blox Fruits Dragon Rework Update [Full Stream]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/EqDAp8udhm0/mqdefault.jpg)
Megan is so pro... never steps on Barts answers, and always has something to say when she does speak. Keeps it light and informative at the same time. Thanks to Megan and Bart
The format of those videos was chosen thoughtfully - it helps them both shine
I too am impressed with her. Who is she? Does she have her own channel? A last name?
I’m in England. Many Church of England vicars are clear that doing good deeds is what is important. A personal relationship with Jesus is not important at all. Having a belief in god is not important . It seems to be an American thing that your belief is more important than your actions.
A different strain of Protestantism took hold.
I like how meagan and bart delicately skirt the line between an interview and a conversation…. Having the directionality of an interview, while maintaining the comfortable interaction of a conversation
It bothers me that an omnibenevolent deity would have a favorite people at all.
Genesis 12 I think explains it pretty well.
"And the Lord said to Abram: Go forth out of thy country, and from thy kindred, and out of thy father's house, and come into the land which I shall shew thee.
And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and magnify thy name, and thou shalt be blessed.
I will bless them that bless thee, and curse them that curse thee, and IN THEE shall all the kindreds of the earth be blessed."
Here we see that the seed of Abraham is to be a sort of conduit through which "all the kindreds of the earth be blessed".
Which can explain how, despite apparent tension, locality and universality could be held simultaneously.
It's a good thing one of the Psalms seems to explain this.
Unfortunately for Christians, the exact same verse also means YHWH isn't God
i hear you brother
I'm Irish, can we be the 'Chosen'? Or is it only an ancient semitic tribe?
@@steveng8727 In the Christian dispensation Jew and Gentile were made one in Christ, in whom "there is neither Jew nor Greek"
7:24 I like how god apparently gave his people “commandments” they had to obey but he has them break the main commandment all the time “thou shall not kill…. Unless I tell you to” and “thou shall not steal… unless I tell you to”
Original sin is a complete failure as a theological explanation. Adam and Eve were punished for eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil when God said not to eat from it. However, prior to eating it, they had no knowledge of right and wrong. They were perfectly incapable of making moral assessments. They had no way to judge or even conceptualize whether or not it was wrong to eat the fruit. They had no way to know if God himself was good or evil. They had no way to evaluate whether they should or should not listen to God. The same goes for the snake. Is it good ir evil? Listen or don't listen? They were completely incapable of making this assessment. They were essentially babies in a moral sense. Yet God punishes them and all their descendants in perpetuity for breaking a commandment he knew they would break before he created them and because he created them in such a way that they couldn't not break it. Adam and Eve bear absolutely no responsibility for eating those fruits. They were intentionally set up to fail.
It would be like if God made Adam and Eve blind, but then put a certain area in the middle of the garden of Eden that lacked any way to differentiate it from the rest of the garden without seeing it. And god calls this forbidden area the Patch Of Vision. If AnE step on it, they will gain sight. God commands them not to step on the patch, for otherwise, he says, they will surely die. But one day, as Adam and Eve were wandering about the garden, they accidentally stepped onto the patch and instantly gained eyesight. Now, God comes down, enraged that they didn't listen to him, and he curses them and all their descendants in perpetuity, then banishes them from Eden. Would this be reasonable? It sounds pretty stupid to me, but this is a perfect parallel to the original story. They have no way to avoid disibeying God because he's deprived them of the necessary ability to do so. And the only way for them to gain the ability that would allow them to follow his order is by first breaking the order.
He sets them up for failure, knowing they will fail and giving them no tools to succeed, then he punishes them for doing exactly what he planned that they would do. Now, he has an excuse to punish them. If you actually consider this story in a non-biased way, God seems like an evil being who wanted to punish and torment people, so he put a plan into action so he could do just that. And then he creates this ridiculous narrative to dupe the gullible into blaming themselves for his sadism and to get them to worship and praise him like he's a great perfectly good being and he's just trying to do what's best for us when in fact we're just his torture toys. It's a sick and twisted story. Frightening so many people believe it and think the Bible is a source of morality and not a source of how to be a psychopathic tyrant and get away with it.
Thank God that God is not real. Thank God we don't actually live in the Christian concept of reality. We are so lucky that we don't actually have a psychopathic deity controlling our eternal destinies. LOL btw I was trying to be ironic by thanking God for this. I, of course, don't believe in him. But I still want to thank him for not-existing. It's the greatest gift we could possibly have gotten from him 😂
I love Bart Ehrman. I could listen to him talk about this stuff all day.
He has this very winsome, avuncular quality to him.
Reading his books, and listening to B Ehrman has been so informative for me. I always found church "teachings" problematic, since childhood. Thank you again for thoughtful and intellectually informed information.
Hello Dr.Ehrman!
Thank you for your contribution to the world through your research on Christianity. The more I listen to you talk about the religion of Christianity the more I realize how little I knew about this religion. Thank you for teaching us so so much! Have a wonderful time!
Never liked the Book of Revelations. The church I grew up in used it to scare you into believing. Never understood coming to a loving Savior through fear.
Really scary stuff if you happen to believe it...
In Rev 14,14ff Jesus and an angel "reap" the earth with "sharp sickles" then gather "its grapes and threw them into the great winepress of God’s wrath. They were trampled in the winepress outside the city, and blood flowed out of the press, rising as high as the horses’ bridles for a distance of 1,600 stadia [300km]."
_"The church I grew up in used it to scare you into believing. "_
The scriptures/god you grew up with used it to scare you into believing. Common typo, I fixed it for you. You're welcome. Your church didn't write the bible, nor inspire it, nor is it the main character in the bible.
I was just thinking the same thing. Watched a great discussion between Bishop Barron and Cosmic Skeptic last night, and Barron was talking about how great, strange, unthinkable, unknowable God is, and I was just thinking, he's portrayed so understandably throughout the bible. Here in Revelation you have him in heaven on a "throne" and "surrounded" by angels and beings. In the old Testament he's talking with everyone in plain Hebrew, showing very mammal like emotions and desires...It seems like there is a lot we can pin down and say about him. He is either incapable of changing his, what would be in a human called character flaws, being vengeful, incredibly jealous, desirous of neverending adoration, or he can change these things, but isnt interested in doing that. Either way seems like a decent example of what Im trying to say.
God gets up from the throne in 5:6, morphing into the lamb, which is a picture of the Holy Spirit bringing forth the Son. Do not allow the biased Bart Ehrman to remote control your mind. He is lost and he knows it and he tries to take as many with him as he can.
It seems the only conclusion for me is that the Bible is a collection of stories that try to understand or connect with a “higher power” that most humans somehow sense exists, and tries to express within their own culture and time.
If we don’t destroy our beautiful planet, perhaps the great collection of all stories in every culture throughout human existence will coalesce into an understanding of God that accurately represents the true Divinity.
I really loved Barts example of the horizontal view of heaven and hell becoming vertical.
He’s unknowable because it doesn’t exist.
A God invented by humans doing human things and you wonder why it seems like oh God it's just like us that's because we invented God
Why would this being be vain why would they need to be worshiped what possible purpose can angels singing their praises do for them? These are all things people wish they had. Streets of gold you got to be kidding me why would God need that?
If indeed there is some sort of Creator in so far beyond our imagination is to be incomprehensible at this stage. If in fact there are places we go after this then I believe it will become more slowly revealed to us over the course of those lifetimes
The Hebrew god is obviously man made. He's also based on Canaanite mythology.
According to the general consensus of scholarship (even critical Christian scholars), YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts.
"I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the sons of El. It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the sons of El, plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, solely according to the number of the sons of El. *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting."*
*"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.*
(Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian)
*"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"*
(A second response to Michael Heiser)
*"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."*
*"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10 - TheTorah.com"*
(Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), which appears to be a later addition, Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)*
*"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"*
(Mark Smith is a Catholic)
*"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"*
(Daniel McClellan is a Mormon)
*"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"*
(Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)")
*"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."*
(Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh)
*"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."*
*"Married Deities: Asherah and Yahweh in Early Israelite Religion - Yahweh Elohim."*
*"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"*
*"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."*
*"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"*
(It appears in addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh it also appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort)
*"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"*
(Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion")
*"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"*
(For a good summary of all of the above articles)
Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 27:40 minutes onwards.
Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on.
Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40.
Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"*
(By a former theist)
Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.
The bible: The law is written on your heart so you have no excuse.
Also the bible: the heart is deceitful above all else.
Excellent content, audio, and nice saturation of colors for the video! Really looking forward to next weeks video because that is what I have been wondering the last couple weeks.
Every episode I think: this was the best one but the next episode is always more interesting. Great. Love it
Thankyou Dr Ehrman, and Megan. On 'Love': if we examine how the 1st century Bible writers probably understood it we can see more consistency perhaps. The love that 1 John and ‘John’ is writing about, that is required for salvation according to that author’s system, is primarily a transactional love: of doing things, not necessarily an emotional love in the mind: of feeling things. It is like the author is saying in 1John 4:19 “He did something for us first, that is why we are doing something for Him now”. The author is apparently NOT saying “He felt a warm feeling towards us first, that is why we feel a warm feeling towards Him”. This is an ongoing relationship of helping and serving like the “reciprocal love” between a patron and client. The Great Patron does a great kindness, which he did not have to do, or he offers a kindness of assistance that the person chooses to accept, then that person becomes a client, who is expected to praise and be loyal and of some service to the patron.
The NT writers, and some OT writers, use an analogy with family love to show the unusual extent of the obligations of God’s servants/children and of the promised care by their God/Father. But it is questionable whether the writers are expecting/demanding the kind of internal affectionate responses of the mind that close family members often have, when those writers speak of ‘love’. When the scripture speaks of loving God with all their mind, it is obeying God with all the thoughts not feeling an inner glow of affection. On love between believers, they are again speaking of ACTIONS that are like the actions of close family members or very close friends. In practice, after the action might come the feeling and the feeling help sustain the action.
- Dr. G. Craig Fairweather.
It bothers me that an omnibenevolent deity would allow all the elite and wealthy to laugh at the poor in this world and doesn't punish evil
The concepts of Heaven and Hell, Judgment Day and the final revelation of the world, and angels and demons all originated in the Zoorastrianism. It was the religion on Persia, bordering Roman Empire. Iraq had a significant Jewish and early Christian population.
These episodes are essential for curious minds. Thank you both for doing them. Also, please understand that your comment section does not necessarily reflect the majority of your viewers who many times are not likely to post comments. What you do is valuable and resonates with people who have no axes to grind, no preconceived oxen to gore, and who hear what you have to say with wonder and gratitude and intellectual humility.
WOW. I'd always wondered about this stuff, and this an EXCELLENT overview of exactly these issues.
These discussions are fantastic. Bart is amazing, and Megan is the *perfect* interviewer whose questions are always intelligent and whose insights are exceptional. An incredible partnership!
I don't think there could ever be too many compliments like yours 💛
This interviewer has literally no personality, she has the personality of an android in Star Trek. She'll ask a question, then just awkwardly stare without blinking rarely ever smiling, then once Bart's done talking just move on to the next segment... complete robot. If you see some "incredible partnership" I have no idea wtf "chemistry" looks like to you, basically just existenting and talking means incredible partnership to you with your bar that low.
Thank you for addressing this question and for your answer that at the very least there is very certainly a strong discrepancy between the two. This enormously helps me in my need to 'judge' the God of the Bible for my own protection and integrity and well-being and decency and to cast off his unreasonable oppressiveness. It is terrible that we even have this difficult doctrinal reality that needs reconciliation, I am disappointed in God.
It's so sad to have such interesting conversations filled with comments from theists who ignore everything said to revert to making unfounded faith-based arguments or pick and choose unrelated verses completely out of their original writer's context to defend whatever random part of their theology has been developed entirely by misinterpreting texts. You guys are so weird.
Or people who come with a massive dissertation on how everything is a giant conspiracy or taken from some other story or tradition (which absolutely there are influences from all sorts of ancient traditions), but it often comes across like ancient aliens or UFO nuts.
It's a real shame. Most of them don't seem to pay any attention to the content of the video at all.
Thank you, Dr. Ehrman, for your serious and knowledgeable skepticism. I'm not as skeptic as you are, but I value how your job helps me a lot to take positions in regards to the most important subject in my life.
It is understood that the immaculate conception of Mary was necessary to prevent original sin from Jesus. What I didn't realize, was that God performed a miracle for Anna to prevent the sin from passing on to Mary. This begs the question, why go through all the effort to perform the miracle on Jesus's grandmother and not hold out the miracle for Mary?
The"virgin" and the "virgin birth" notions as presented in the Infancy Narratives are fictitious, and are theological devices used by the authors.
3:55 Surprised he didn't use that as an opportunity to say a little about apophatic vs. cataphatic theology, which addresses that very issue.
I'm loving all this Revelation content that you two are making. When I was a Christian, I tried reading it to try to understand the end times. It didn't make any sense to me, so I thought it better to just not think about it. Now that I'm not a Christian, learning about how it relates to the rest of the Christian Scriptures and the Hebrew Bible is fascinating. Historical context is essential! Thanks to both of you!
So now you know that the End Times were just a few years after the Crucifixion, long ago. It didn't happen.
This will stand the test of time. A classic. Thank you both.
I'm guessing that those Old Testament passages where God commands and blesses that His favorite people take the land from the heathens (and even at times exterminate them) were very encouraging to the devout Christians who followed that example with the indigenous peoples from the Americas.
Love these episodes! Also does Megan come up with these question herself? And if so, they are absolutely brilliant and impressively on topic and discussion provoking!
Yes. She is invested in learning, not in the outcome. That really helps with asking the right questions.
Another superb podcast! Thank you both for taking the time to keep delivering, week after week after week. xx
Everytime I see a new video, I know I am about to learn something fascinating from Bart.
Great concise explanation of immaculate conception in the Q&A portion... It never quite made sense to me before!
I was stunned by your welcomedly blunt summary at 29min-32:30 of the video confirming my own emerging impression of the horrific discrepancy in the 'love/retribution' qualities of the God of the Old Testament and Jesus and also those same qualities of the Jesus of the 4 Gospels and the Jesus of the book of Revelation. Like you I solemnly shook my head at the onerous task I now face in deciding whether Jesus and the God of the Old Testament are worthy of my continued worship. Thank you so much for your honest and accurate scholarliness in this critical matter.
Bart is too biased against the Book of Revelation to give an objective survey of it. For example, Jesus said "Narrow is the gate and cramped the road leading to life and few are the ones entering in, whereas broad and spacious is the road leading to destruction and many are the ones on it.". So the destruction in Revelation has been spoken about before. Yet Bart still holds on to his modern American paradigm that everyone can be forgiven.
No, he says no such thing. He is actually very concise about this bloodthirsty book
I understand that the majority of the bishops deciding on which books to include in the Bible did want Revelation included. Could you comment on this.
Correction on my reply .The majority of the bishops did not want Revelations included.
@@busyb8676It's kinda baffling that it was included at all. Seeing as it's referring to Rome and it's big issues with it's portrayal of god and Jesus.
Looking forward to next week's episode. I wonder why Revelation wasn't dropped from the Canon when it's predictions failed.
Why wasn’t Jesus dropped when Jesus’s predictions failed? If Ehrman is right that Jesus was essentially an “apocalyptic preacher”, then clinging to failed predictions is the essence of Christianity. Sir Fred Hoyle remained steadfast in his belief in the steady state universe theory to his death, long after it had been thoroughly debunked. At that point, you might argue-at the point it became an article of faith for him, it had ceased to be astrophysics and had turned into something akin to religious dogma. This is the nature of religion: it is impervious to reason.
Always great, Learned a lot from this one that I wasnt expecting ! @Bart I do love your audio lectures and audiobooks but really prefer the ones that you read, your enthusiasm is palpable in the reading and adds a great texture that reminds me of a classic Greek theologian performing his theories to an audience, enthralled. Although haven't heard much talk about the Armadillo Grill lately :)
Thank you, I have read the damn book and can't figure out why Christians think their god is all about love. I don't think these people actually even read the book
It’s reminiscent of the “love” of a father figure who is controlling, cruel, narcissistic, and of course supremely emotionally unavailable.
No offense, if you don't think a God that is willing to engage with his creation providing moral laws to get them closer to "the good", and even come into our little MineCraft universe "in the flesh" to die for our sins, if that isn't a God who cares let's see you do it... live a selfless, perfect life helping the poor and sick, and die in self-sacrifice for the greater good of people.
Btw the fact that you refer to the Bible as just some "book" is a giveaway you have no idea the overall emphasis of the creation, the fall/paradise lost, to the restored covenant with a select ppl to be the lantern of the world, divided kingdom and promised redemption, death & resurrection, pentecost, and paradise found and new creation in Revelation. There's a promised salvation that although we might suffer in this life.. salvation will await us in the end if we stay true to his word. What hope do you have from an atheist/Materialist world view? You suffer... you die, this is your only life and it isn't fair, but that's it. Again, there's at least hope from the Christian worldview, if God doesn't exist there's no purpose to anything and nothing waiting for you when you become dirt just oblivion. But again, if that's all there is to our conscious experience and reality so be it, good luck.
According to the general consensus of scholarship (even critical Christian scholars), YHWH was originally incorporated into the Canaanite pantheon as a son of the Canaanite high god El before inheriting the top spot in the pantheon and El's wife Athirat (Asherah) before religious reforms. If you want to see if El is fictional, just read his mythology in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts.
"I should add here that it is very clear from the grammar that the noun nachalah in v. 9 should be translated “inheritance.” *Yahweh receives Israel as his “inheritance” (nachalah), just as the other sons of El received their nations as their inheritance (nachal, v. 8).* With this verb, especially in the Hiphil, the object is always what is being given as an inheritance. Thus, Israel is given to Yahweh as his inheritance. ((Here I’m indebted to Dan McClellan.)) It would make no sense for Elyon to give himself an inheritance. Moreover, as I’ve argued elsewhere, it is not just the Gentile nations that are divided up according to the number of the sons of El. It is all of humankind, i.e., “the sons of Adam.” This clearly includes Israel. And the sons of Adam are not divided up according to the number of the sons of El, plus one (i.e., plus Elyon). They are divided up, according to the text, solely according to the number of the sons of El. *Thus, that Yahweh receives Israel as his inheritance makes Yahweh one of the sons of El mentioned in v. 8. Any other construal of the text would constitute its rewriting."*
*"The Most Heiser: Yahweh and Elyon in Psalm 82 and Deuteronomy 32 - Religion at the Margins"* based on the *majority scholarly consensus.*
(Written by Thom Stark who is a Christian)
*"Michael Heiser: A Unique Species? - Religion at the Margins"*
(A second response to Michael Heiser)
*"Excerpt from “Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan” by John Day - Lehi's Library."*
*"The Table of Nations: The Geography of the World in Genesis 10 - TheTorah.com"*
(Excluding the short narrative on Nimrod (vv. 8-12), which appears to be a later addition, Genesis 10 contains *70* names of nations or cities, a number that was symbolic of totality. Similarly, the descendants of Jacob were *70* in number (Gen 46:37; Exod 1:5), *as were the sons of the supreme Canaanite god El, with whom YHWH became equated.)*
*"Mark Smith: Yahweh as El’s Son & Yahweh’s Ascendency - Lehi's Library"*
(Mark Smith is a Catholic)
*"02 | December | 2009 | Daniel O. McClellan - Psalm 82"*
(Daniel McClellan is a Mormon)
*"Elohim | Daniel O. McClellan"*
(Refer to the article "Angels and Demons (and Michael Heiser)")
*"God's Wife Edited Out of the Bible - Almost."*
(Pay attention to whose wife Asherah (Athirat) is in the Ugaritic/Canaanite texts and how she became the wife of YHWH/Yahweh)
*"Yahweh's Divorce from the Goddess Asherah in the Garden of Eden - Mythology Matters."*
*"Married Deities: Asherah and Yahweh in Early Israelite Religion - Yahweh Elohim."*
*"Asherah, God's Wife in Ancient Israel. Part IV - theyellowdart"*
*"The Gates of Ishtar - El, was the original god of the bible."*
*"The Gates of Ishtar - Anath in the Elephantine Papyri"*
(It appears in addition to Asherah (Athirat) being the consort of Yahweh it also appears some Israelites also viewed the Canaanite goddess Anat(h) as Yahweh's consort)
*"Canaanite Religion - New World Encyclopedia"*
(Refer to the section "Relationship to Biblical Religion")
*"The Syncretization of Yahweh and El : reddit/AcademicBiblical"*
(For a good summary of all of the above articles)
Watch Professor Christine Hayes who lectures on the Hebrew Bible at Yale University. Watch lecture 2 from 40:40 to 41:50 minutes, lecture 7 from 30:00 minutes onwards, lecture 8 from 12:00 to 17:30 minutes and lecture 12 from 27:40 minutes onwards.
Watch *"Pagan Origins of Judaism"* by Sigalius Myricantur and read the description in the video to see the scholarship the video is based on.
Watch *"How Monotheism Evolved"* by Sigalius Myricantur and watch up to at least 21:40.
Watch *"Atheism - A History of God (The Polytheistic Origins of Christianity and Judaism)"*
(By a former theist)
Watch *"The Origins of Yahweh"* by Derreck Bennett at Atheologica.
Excellent. I've read John Day's book, Mark Smith, Listened to Christine Hayes, etc also Hector Avalos...you've done a great job compiling these sources.
“I conclude, therefore, that El and Yahweh were originally distinct deities that became amalgamated.”
John Day
“El Shaddai was worshipped as a God even we might say before they even know about Yahweh”
Mark Smith
Mark Smith:
ruclips.net/video/j7GpPHyWDlE/видео.html
@Steve Clark Thank you for that. And thank you for providing the link to Mark Smith. I'll check it out.
interesting!
Paul: Sin is a powerful cosmic force that controls the world.
Augustine: Sin is contained in the balls.
Evil inclination runs amuck! without attention to the soul and spirit the heart will not change as narcissistic hence postmodernism as today. The reins were there but freedom has boundaries...we choose evil inclination hence judgement...if choose good inclination to direct freewill then you will accept the reward spiritual elevation of soul. Look up: Introduction to the Purpose of Man in the World. NLE Morasha Syllabus. OLAMI Resources.
Salaam to you and your families❤️
Love from South Africa 🇿🇦
loved this episode. Bart really lays out what Jesus taught about loving your neighbor. Not just believing that Jesus is divine.Thanks guys.
Where is the proof that you crucified God is divine 😅
In revelation 2:6 Christ is said to hate the ACTIONS of the nicolatians not the people themselves
Thanks to Bart at 17:30, I now have Cake’s lyrics, “sheep go to heaven, goats go to Hell” in my head.
I like these summaries at the end of podcast.
Though Revelation was contested and was touch and go for awhile if it would make it in...The fact is it did. And many early church leaders/fathers thought Revelation fit just fine with the rest of the Bible and the rest of the NT. You can see this type of violence foreshadowed at times in the NT and by Jesus himself in verses like Matt 10:14-15. Other examples were discussed in the comments of the previous video. And for one of the most extensive scholarly works ever done on violence in the NT see: The Bad Jesus the ethics of NT ethics by Dr. Hector Avalos.
".The fact is it did" - not for all churches.
Good point, though I do think Bart is right that the Jesus of Revelation is a lot harsher and meaner than the Jesus of the synoptics. Imo, Jesus of the synoptics was *mostly* about love and helping the unfortunate, with a dash of terror (e.g., God will destroy you if you don't straighten up), an occasional cult-leader-like statement (e.g., the one about hating your family), and some bad advice, whereas the Jesus of Revelation is mostly Big Bad Jesus, come to kick your ass.
"No loaves and fishes for the people until they get jobs" -Jesus
Republican Jesus
health care? who's your insurer?
Really?!
Fascinating discussion, thank you! Megan asked good questions, as always. Bart is very eloquent in clarifying how Jesus's morality (as portrayed in the synoptic gospels) is very different than what you see in Revelation. I also appreciated the discussion near the end of how Jesus didn't believe in a traditional hell.
Man, his explanation about how natural sin became a thing left me amazed. The development of ideas that we have inherited can be so interesting and insane.
Question everything. Tradition and inheritance have always been terrible reasons to accept anything as truthful.
The similarities between Gaza and Jericho seem clear.
If Mary was born without a sin nature, then what was even the point of Jesus' birth?
As one without sin, Mary could have been the atonement. The resurrection is not the atonement for sin, but the death.
Instead of Jesus God could have just talked through a prophet and Mary could have died for our sins. The prophet could have even performed the resurrection.
What is even the point of Jesus if there is someone else with no sin?
But Mary was a woman and Christianity is paternalistic. In any case, Mary’s Immaculate Conception was retroactive. First there was this preacher who was crucified. Only afterward were the circumstances of his birth constructed (narratively).
@@jeffryphillipsburns the whole story of Jesus was "constructed narratively" to pacify the jews in Rome after Titus went :scorched earth" across the Levant.
In a another episode, Dr. Ehrman quoted Jesus from Mark as saying to obey the law (of Moses?) in order to go to heaven, but if you want the best place in heaven, then give away your property. That's not exactly what Dr. Ehrman says here. Here, Ehrman says Jesus said to take care of others (poor, weak, least of them = me) in order to get into heaven, but no mention of the law. So, that's confusing.
Bravo for telling lay people about Christianity without the push to convert the viewer. 👍
Christianity must convert ITSELF to the teachings ("GOOD NEWS") of JC, and divorce itself from the manmade BAD NEWS of "sacrifice for sin." "They worship me in vain, teaching for doctrine the commandments of men." JC (Matthew 15:9)
"GOD IS LOVE" and has absolutely no jealousy or wrath, which is of satan. The Bible often mixes GOD's and satan's attributes so that we learn to discern between the two. And absolutely nothing in this world makes sense until you find the "Philosopher's Stone," which is the deepest of truths, and The Meaning of Life, which is the best-kept secret in this entire Universe of limitation: THE PRECISE REASON WHY WE ARE EXPERIENCING IT. This information is revealed in my little online book (The Book of GOD), which can be read in 5 minutes at no cost. Click and ye shall find. Elijah has returned, as prophesied. I communicate only through my sites.
Totally agree. Makes no sense.
An Omnibenevolent being shouldn’t just love all people but all beings.
Hitler? And all the murder rs??? Think!
@@ThetennisDr Yes. BY DEFINITION.
Dr Bart my name sake u got so much wealth of knowledge.
Revelation had already started seeming to me to be related to Yahweh of the OT. Evangelicals commonly say things like "with all the chaos today, where are we in the book of Revelation?". Can't quite understand Revelation...
When Jesus says that a person that says it is Corban to his father or mother, he has cursed his father or mother. This is a death penalty offense, as Jesus himself does points out.
So in the gospels Jesus teaches that there are commandments that if disobeyed can result in death under the law of which Jesus approves. Paul says if a person refuses to take care of poor members of his family he has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel.
The difference is that in the gospels God's purpose is that men repent. In the book of Revelation, the judgment is God's final judgment. There is no repentance.
We are not God and we all have not been given individual judgment over other men. We are simply given to be an example to the world of belief in God.
it is man's nature to judge his surroundings, which include other people. Christ absolutely judged others and christians are literally calling themselves "christ-like", so it is also for them to judge others just as others are judging them ("they will know you by your fruits"). That is part of that "being an example". One cannot argue that only God can judge yet claim to follow that god, without judging themselves.
If you e.g. look at the teachings of the Buddha, this were ‘multi-layered’ talks containing very different messages depending on the spiritual maturity of the audience. In the simplest form this was about ethics and devotion, for others he was teaching concentration and purification as preparation for ‘self’ inquiry. For the inner circle it was directly about practicing and realizing ultimate reality, which is ‘beyond’ words, space and time. Putting all these texts in a basket without any differentiation, mixing them thoroughly and then compiling them in one ‘book’ for later intellectual interpretation inevitably leads to the ‘word and interpretation salat’ that we experience in religions which have lost their inner spiritual core.
Awesome episode!!
The most interesting thing about the Battle of Jericho, and Joshua as a whole, is that archaeologically, it never happened. The authors looked around the cities where they lived sometime in the first millennium BC, saw ruins in various places, and wrote legends weaving those ruins into their ancestors' origin story. The assorted atrocities were entirely invented, basically to "glorify" how powerful their religion was.
The most vicious laws in Leviticus and some in Deuteronomy are believed to have been invented and added just after the Exile to give the priests more terror power. Priests filled a vacuums of power as the aristocracy had been decimated by the Babylonian Exile or refused to leave Babylonia and the Governors under the Persians, apart from the (eunuch) Nehemiah, were politically weak.
I used to have beliefs similar to the typical evangelical. But I now reject the idea that every word of the bible is the literal word of God. So I dont base too much of my beliefs on individual bible verses, especially since I cant read it in the original language with the original grammar and cultural context it was written. Instead I think its important to step back and look at the story of Jesus life ss a whole. Jesus never condemned the lowly sinner. He called out the teachers of the law for using their power to abuse people. Jesus was clearly on a mission to relieve the Jewish people from religious oppression. And his emphasis on what we needed to change was not so much our lifestyle but instead how we treat others. How we treat others is the only thing that really matters.
Exactly. Whether you believe Jesus to be the son of god, a prophet, or just a simple man. The philosophy of “love thy neighbor” should be a universally agreed upon subject.
No
Are you going to start your own religion or church?
@@potiphajerenyenje6870 I dont need to start a religion or church. What I said is the simplest most basic form of Christianity and I'm sure there are some people who already preach it that way. It's just not the mainstream evangelical version that is widely taught across the US.
I'm a Theist and by no means an expert in either the Old or New Testaments, but I recall in my youth the first time I read the Apocalypse, after having read the Gospel of John, how nightmarish it was. It seemed to me to be a psychotic document originating not from Truth but from the darkness of the human psyche and I couldn't see, nor could ever quite believe since, that it was written by the same John who wrote the Gospel. Only in the unlikely (and perhaps completely implausible) event that John experienced some sort of mental breakdown.
I tend to disfavour apocalyptic- judgment second coming ideas/scenarios in favour of ideas, such as those of Teilhard de Chardin, where mankind is edging towards some sort of "Omega Point" fulfillment and attainment of God in the distant future. This is the sense I have (but I could be wrong and if a second coming should occur in my lifetime I'll probably be shaking in my boots like a good many others : ) ).
Although I somehow doubt it, it would be interesting to know if any ancient documents canonical or otherwise contain any inkling that could be interpreted along de Chardin's ideas.
Recently, some scholars have proposed that the growth of ‘christian’ groups in the Roman Empire in spite of its Jewish cultural foreignness and persecution and prejudice was because initiates and members experienced ‘acts’ associated with caring from, effectively, strangers across class, gender, status, wealth and ethnic divides. Real feelings of mutual affection might then develop between individuals. I wonder if the relatively slow growth of some ‘Christian’ denominations in so many places is partly through congregations having less experience of an overriding emphasis on ‘acts of caring’, in fact massive failures to act in ways like those who care. Also, many modern governments have increasingly legislated a more ‘caring’ society facilitating more professional services, compared to any other period in history.
When ‘John’ writes that “God is love” the context shows it is NOT a generalized emotional love towards everyone in the world, in every age and place regardless, of what they are doing. The overriding ethos of the Christian-communities-that-John-approves-of is supposed to be an ethos of doing things for people as if they were close family members. This is an ethos he says they learned from Jesus as a revelation what God is like towards them, the believers. To the author God loves “the world” (John 3:15-17) primarily in the sense of doing something that is theoretically available to “all” people (ethnic groups, classes, positions, genders), provision of ‘the gospel’ tied up with His son’s life and death. It does not entail loving care, to the author, unless they become 'believers', in the congregation, in his view. The author thinks that “punishing” opponents of believers, as in Revelation, is an aspect of God’s love (help) for the believers.
Can’t wait to buy his books
Yeah, in talking about salvation most of these denominations seem only interested in John of the four gospels.
Much like Spinal Tap, Revelation is God's wrath turned up to 11. 😁
haha! But... this goes to 11.
@@kencreten7308 Yes, there's a good reason it is such a well known, well loved and really classic scene.
Megan, beautiful shirt!
I think Bart would look good with blue hair.
@ChatGPT Yellow hair like Bart Simpson. Sadly you would get the Ukrainian flag
This trope about the God of the Hebrew Bible and the God of the New Testament keeps on going, despite the fact that it was condemned in the very early third century; but otherwise well-informed people keep on promoting Marcionism.
Bart Ehrman is learned, honest, and engaging and I love his work, but he's still shaped by the Conservative Evangelicalism he has left. He asks "Is the God of Revelations the same as the God of the rest of the NT," not "Why is God depicted as he is in Revelations? Why did the author, evidently a Christian, do this?" And for the Hebrew Bible, he doesn't naturally think of different and developing understandings of God, but rather of different aspects of God.
Also, watch out for the brief glimpse of Cattus absconditus at 5:58.
Yeah, I'm sure you've put more thought into it than him. I'm sure you've asked the questions he hasn't. Marcionism is on to something. If you read the bible and don't think the character of God is evil...then you might be evil yourself.
@@510tuber I think the Bible gives us changing, various, and sometimes conflicting human notions about God. I'm not sure what you mean by "character of God"; but if you mean literary, fictional character, then that tells us about the ideas of God that were around in the Levant over about six or seven centuries. Conflicted ideas.
Of course if you take multiple small pieces of literature by different writers and compile it into a bigger book there will be contradictions. Even different Bibles have additional books like the Catholic Bibles. The Ethiopian Bible includes the book of Enoch as canon where angels or watchers come to earth and have sex with human women that birth giants who teach humans to make weapons and war.
Read some of the non canon books that didn’t make the Final Cut for even more of wtf myths and legends.
Can’t wait for the book 📖 😊
great again
Reminds me of a comedy skit I used to fantasy cast with some theater friends for fun.
The premise was Jesus smoking weed in God's basement like That 70's show but with famous dead historical figures as his friends like Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure.
The rest of the cast was pretty fluid but God was set as John Malchovich and Robin Williams as the voices of God you only ever hear yelling down the basement stairs. John for Fire and Brimstone God, Robin for lovey happy God and Jesus making Jokes about his Dad's bipolar disorder.
I just wanna know, is Megan Mod Victorian or Mod Steampunk, or is there a different thing now that I don't know about?
Youre asking the Big Questions
Megan is victorian steampunk today and I love it! And it makes me super happy someone noticed it and commented about it, so thank you! 💜
The ethos of Revelation:
If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. In doing this, you will heap burning coals on his head, and the Lord will reward you.
Proverbs 25:21-22 (also Romans 12:20)
The story of the couple that sold their house and was “smited” right in front of Peter. when I first read that in the Bible I pictured Peter as a mafia boss and they were “offed”
Oh the shark, babe, has such teeth, dear
And it shows them pearly white...
what a waste of time to try and "decode" revelation - after 2000+ years you would think people would be smart enough to give up.
because it is convient ideology of state control and power over women.
It's been largely decoded already, not by the likes of B. Ehrman though. The Protestant Reformation decoded the major aspects on Rome although it was Matthew Poole who published the best explanation for the 7 kings (5 in John's time). Much of the rest is largely explained and has even taken place in recent times.
As I stated to another person on here who has not studied with great diligence:
So Isa.47 and Rev.18 with their references to the pharmakaia and the prominent ones, and the push to a singular international digital currency to restrict your ability to buy or sell in Rev.13, these have no basis in reality to you? Nor does the defeat of the Vandals, the final Arian horn, giving rise to the Dark Ages; Isa.60, Dan.7, Rev.13, 17, being the sign to the Protestant Reformation herald any relevance to you? What about the one-eyed False Shepherd whom the Satanists worship, Zech.11, 2Thess.2, Rev.13, 16, 19-20, are you unaware that Agenda 2030 is all about the preparations for his advent? Or King David's curse upon Israel, Ps.89, 137, 2Sam.23, when he predicted the destruction of the 1st & 2nd Temples, and the death of The-Messiah? Let alone the signs of old rediscovered by the late Ron Wyatt from Turkey to the Red Sea.
@@nickmansfield1 You're not very bright, huh?
@@510tuber Wow! That was your 5 seconds of fame. What a legacy.
In another episode Bart talks about what a lot of the symbology really means. Its really fascinating and makes much more sense than religious interpretations. 666 for example, religions often attest that this is some mysterious figure when actually they know it stood for ceaser Nero. Reason is numbers and letters in ancient greek were interchangeable; and Neros name adds up to 666.
When the Elohist uses the title Elohim it means Sons of God (singular God).
When the Yahwist uses the title Elohim it means gods/goddesses (plural gods/goddesses).
Excellent, informative video.
But in the synoptics He does say that if you give away your possessions now, you will be rewarded with riches in the Kingdom of God.
Amazing how many Preachers seem to not want to risk it
he says lots of inconsistent things
Pastor Ehrman, in the masjid of Chapel Hill, preaches again on Shabbat. Bart, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs.
Didn't women follow Christ from beginning to end. Did women not FUND hie ministry? Are there not at least three woman post gospels in Acts and the letters of SAUL of Tarsus. that clearly call them apostles of the Lord? Follow YESHUA not saul. Also did YESHUA not say that "FREELY YOU HAVE RECIEVED, FREELY YOU ARE TO GIVE!" to his disciples?
If Christians follow Jesus and Jesus was a Jew, why don't Christians attend synagogues and practice the same religion Jesus did?
Because, for some reason, the teachings of a dude called Saul of Tarsus is apparently the shit.
@@michaelanderson4849 If you take away Paul's Epistles, all that would be left is Messianic Judaism.
@YVONNE Gordon Naah! According to the jews, Jeezbuz is most certainly not the king. And they ought to know since its their own mythology.
@@fieldsleeper Not really. There are some serious deviations from ortodox judaism in the gospels.
That's a good question. But Jesus changed some things around.
Love you both!
Yes of course. But was the God of Jesus really the same God as the God of Christians? Did Jesus really believe himself to be a god in a Trinity? The problem with the video title is that it assumes that the gospel-Jesus is the historical Jesus. When I hear correctly high-critical scholars, they don't tend to assume that the gospel-Jesus is very much like the historical Jesus, instead they depict some almost unknown guy that started a riot in the temple and was crucified for it. That one Jesus is much more compatible to the Revelation-Jesus, but ... we actually don't know that the Revelation-Jesus-guy is really Jesus: he is mostly called "the Lamb". "The Lamb" could be Israel.
Revelation 3:21 makes it clear. The Lamb Jesus is a person not Israel
The premise of the original sin is fundamentally faulty because a perfect deity cannot create imperfect creatures. Moreover if this all knowing deity created the inherent blueprint of humanity, where and how did the creature metamorphosised from perfect creature to a sinful nature. Who created that ingredient that caused them to deviate from obeying this deity. Hogwash belief fables if you would ask me. Thank you Dr.Ehrman for making us critically THINK about these fables. The god of the old testament is arguably a man and a bully
@gillesderais1293 Man has the ability to choose. Freewill is an oxymoron from biblical perspective. Dont you know foreknowledge contradicts free will? The fact that the bible God has foreknowledge of everything proves that free will is an impossibility, as free will could alter the future and therefore your the bible God couldn't have an absolute and true knowledge of the future. It's evident the God of the bible isn't all knowing
@gillesderais1293 I didn't propose anything about predestination because I don't subscribe to that biblical concept. If your god has knowledge of the future and a personal decision (free will) thwarts thwarts this God's
iwill, then this god couldn't have an absolute and true knowledge of the future. Are you suggesting your decision determines the omnipotence/ sovereignty of this God deity? .
Free will does not actually and literally mean that one can make choices, create, change his mind, or reformulate ideas and data, etc., but that those choices and thought processes must themselves be free thoughts and free choices. "Free will" is only true if our choices are also free. But free from what? Why, free from being forced upon us against our will, or free from being caused by anyone or anything except our OWN will. And so, yes, man can think, process data, make choices, change his choices, etc. But none of these activities are free from internal or external CAUSES.
That man has a will, there is no debate. It is the teaching that man himself determines his own will, FREELY, without anything causing his will or his choices to be what they are. The idea of free will or free moral agency is that man can by himself unaided by anything else, originate his own choices of his will. But that's not what your bible teaches. One cannot think outside of the box so to speak from biblical perspective, otherwise you deviate or miss the mark. The abrahamic faiths is divisive, bondage, segregates, birth hatred and mind controlling. Accirding to your bible man cannot thwart this bible God's will and or his plan and intentions. And so if your God had willed for a specifc plan for your life, if your free will decisions change his plans, your God seizes to be omnipotent and sovereign. Free will from biblical perspective is an oxymoron. There are so many errors and inconsistencies which causes so many confusion. One bible, but over close to 40,000 interpretations. Why? Did Pharoah have free will? Read roms9:15-16, 17-18. Pharaoh did not harden his own heart- the bible God said that He hardened it. Read Rom9:19 and ex14:3-4
@@gillesderais1293 Nope! Man has will to make choices. My emphasis is that with respect to christendom biblical belief concepts, man doesn't have free will , that's why I am no longer a christian
@gillesderais1293 Yours has no merit but you just parroting your indoctrination. Read your bible well
@gillesderais1293 You obviously don't seem to understand, could it be a comprehension issue? There are many many example stories in your bible that conclusively dictates that the bible God will always prevail, so that man or his followers can't thwart using free will. If you're an atheist, then I really don't understand your logic premise. You seem to insinuate that man's free willcan alter the intentions of the biblical God. I don't want to go back and forth with you cause your attempt to refute what I am saying has no logic and doesn't make any lick of sense. If you believe foreknowledge doesn't contradict free will, suit yourself. I don't on the other hand subscribe to that nonsensical abrahamic religious belief systems
How can you quote what jesus said ????when 80% of what’s written is not by i witness. And is copies of mark ??? And written by unknown authors???
He talks extensively in numerous of his videos and lectures about how scholars can determine which quotes of Jesus are likely to be from him, and which not. You might want to watch those.
Her glasses frames are EPIC!! where are they from?
🤣
"These are his [God's] attributes...." It's a useful corrective to read Maimonides' "Guide for the Perplexed," in which Maimonides' monotheistic vision of god is so radical that nothing, even attributes, can be imputed to God in the plural. Needless to day, the Christian trinitarian view is a complete non-starter.
I believe that in Revelations it states that only 144,000 people will be saved and go to heavan. Question: do you think all of these 144,000 have already died and are in heaven. If so, then what does anybody have to lose by not being a Christian? Just wondering aloud.
The way it works in Revelation, as I recall, is that everybody who has ever lived and died is resurrected for the Last Days, and *then* the 144,000 are chosen.
I mean.... that's a vanishingly small percentage of every hunan to live ever!
It’s unfortunate that most do not see that these numbers are not literal! In Biblical usage numbers often are not literal. The number 7 for instance is a reference to a full cycle or complete cycle. The number twelve is often used to refer to God’s people, and the list goes on. As well there are examples of multiples of 10 or 100 or even a 1000 being used to add emphasis or power to a number.
Remember also that in the languages of those days there were no capital letters, and no punctuation. There were limited ways to add emphasis!!! So numbers and multiples of numbers were used to add that emphasis.
So back to the 144,000. Many times in scriptures you will see 12 used to refer to the people of god (12 tribes). So 12 could refer to the “people of God”. So what if you wanted to say ALL! the people of God but you couldn’t capitalize or add an exclamation point? You would multiply 12 x 12 (144), but yo might feel that you were only saying ALL and not ALL!
So the next thing to do would be to use a multiplier, and in this case the writer was looking to make a BIG statement, so 1000 was used instead of just 10 or 100. Hence 144,000 is to say that ALL! of God’s people will be saved.
Your response is a strong contender for the understatement of the last several thousand years.
@ChatGPT I didn’t illustrate that view as a defense of a position, because I don’t care what anyone believes as to whether it’s all true or not, literal or not, God’s word or not.
I simple was pointing out how writers of these books and in this time thought and did things. Whether one believes or not is irrelevant to the issue of what 144,000 likely means.
I think that the 144000 includes only the ones from the 12 tribes of Israel
Great episode!
interestingly there is a distinction between 'spirit' (ruach) and 'individual soul' (nephesh). So maybe the nephesh is related to plato's world of perfect forms, and the spirit is the breath of god? (like atman being a part of the universal spirit/brahman in hinduism, (amazingly is related to the word 'atmosphere' in english - which again relates to breath)
Dr James Tabor has an excellent video on RUclips on "Five concepts" in which he explains "nephesh chayim", translated in the King James version as "living soul", as "breather that lives", a term uses for other animals too, beside 'Adam' , and hence not implying any eternal spirit at all. Identical presentation to Dr Ehrman.
@@craigfairweather3401 oh interesting
Great 👍
Professor Ehrman - given the different picture of Revelation, do you consider that Christianity would have evolved markedly differently than it had?
“Would have” if what?
Is this question for me? I would say The word/concept God is overused and meaningless since all religious people throughout the world claim the same word. The God concept dwells in the mind of each believer and is particular and different to each individual’s mind. John and Jesus/Joshua had different minds and therefore had different concepts of the word God in detailed definition. #definingthenebulous
That's true for all words.
Hola puede ser que se traduzca al español? Gracias
I am sure you have read Paul Wallis books explaining the "Gods of the Old Testament" not being gods at all. What is your view?
Yep, food for cognitive dissonance: *"Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."* Matthew 5: 48. What is that perfecion we are to imitate like?
*God's wrath is part of His perfection.* For us humans, obviously not something to emulate... we're to turn the other cheek. But why then this command to be perfect like God, if we, however, have to try and (cognitively) separate from His perfection those "parts" that we are not to imitate?
"GOD IS LOVE" and has absolutely no jealousy or wrath, which is of satan. The Bible often mixes GOD's and satan's attributes so that we learn to discern between the two. And absolutely nothing in this world makes sense until you find the "Philosopher's Stone," which is the deepest of truths, and The Meaning of Life, which is the best-kept secret in this entire Universe of limitation: THE PRECISE REASON WHY WE ARE EXPERIENCING IT. This information is revealed in my little online book (The Book of GOD), which can be read in 5 minutes at no cost. Click and ye shall find. Elijah has returned, as prophesied. I communicate only through my sites.
Key words being little, online, and maybe - obscure.
Still, at least it's free.
Exodus 21 wasn't.
This show is just fantastic. Both Bart and Megan are entertaining and informative.
Megan says the revelations matches Ot portrayal of "god"
ehrman says many speakers say in NT "god " is unimaginable or undescribable and then they go to describe him.
ppl say Ot is wrath and Nt shows love... however Jesus quotes Duet 4 :6 & levi 19 :18 so there is love too.
Then brings up Josh & jericho circling 7 times and slaughters all who is man woman child and animal in the city.
revelations is god sitting on a throne and 7 seals broken by Christ leading to 7 disaster, then 7 angels blow 7 trumpets leads to another 7 disasters, then bulls come to Earth
10 :00 -
1st set wipes out a quarter, then next 7 wipes out 1/3 of what's left, and next 7 takes out the rest...
John patmos spoke of wrath.
Aristotle says it maybe ok based on circumstance.
in mark Jesus's anger is considered righteous indignation.
jon and 1st jon mentions love alot, in jon of revelation its never mentioned though his slaves get New Jerusalem.
Jesus told the people to repent but didn't mention our jahunnum.
Jesus did predict destruction.
paul talks about wrath is already present.
Meg asks will those punished in revelation match the 4 gospels.
ehrman says in mark mathew and luke, the good samaritan and in luke 16, or mathew 25, those who do good will enter the kingdom of God.
matches the hadith sounds similar, it says the judge of the Earth will say i was lonely and hungry etc. and you didn't visit or feed me, don't you know I was with those in need.
Revelation is fully different, the 7 churches given letters, only certain kinds of christians are saved.
in 3 gospels eternal life is follow commandments ( paul removed it) even for non jews.
he never goes around believing me and these doctrines.
20 :00 -
in evangelical churches its just believe and get rich. - doesn't match Jesus in mathew mark and luke!
Meg asks is it vengenace or retributioin.
Erhman says its retributive justice.
in a scene christian martyrs are pleading for vengeance, Jesus says wait a while.
in acts a couple ananias & saphira lie abut money they made to lessen what they give in charity , Peter l'3ns them and they die.
in paul's book a man is with his step mom, he ia handed over to deviI, not Jesus...
marcian said there is 2 gods, one in old testament jericho, and Jesus spared teh children.
Marcian accepted luke & 10 letters of paul but doesn't know about revelaiton.
many ppl said revelations golden city sounded materialistic, that was an issue more then violence...
Jesus says bad ppl will be like weeds in a furnace.
Paul also says the destruction can be any time.
ehrman says the big difference is jezebel having her kids to die after being r@p3d.
30 :00 -
evangelicals say act like "god" does that mean torutre...
ppl say we follow "god" so why can't we question him?
how do you reconcile these points?
35 :30 Q & A
asks to compare Nero persecution and revelations.
Erhman says nero is guilty for the martyrs.
author is upset rome made money off other people. (rbuh like fairissi)
tacitus speaks of similar topics.
revelations say christians should get the money of rome.
Q on original sin, was it started by Augustine.
erhman says different ppl mean different things byt it.
it was made convincing by St augustine.
some say in Garden of Eden Adam sins then his kids do, paul in romans 5 says Adam sins and we are all like this as his kids, he says sin allowed a demonic force to enter into the world.
sin wants to enslave the ppl and spread.
says Jesus liberates us from sin... but not the same way Augustine defined it.
Augustine (5th century) says sin is inherited via marital relations so it's not an external force.
It is only cleansed by Jesus as he was born of a virgin.
in some tradition Virgin Mary was protected from this sin nature as well.
question on lake of fire.
ehrman says this is what his book of heaven and hell is about.
Jesus and paul don't believe in hell.
Jesus and paul were apocalyptic, says history well end, present age is controlled by evil and soon it will be controlled by god.
paul says wars and epidemics are going on so this will be wiped out and the righteous will get a new Kingdom and so will the righteous of the past.
apocalyptic judaism says it will happen to everyone, the righteous will be resurrected, jews don't believe in splitting body and soul, plato believe is splitting body and soul.
jews says your soul is your breath as "God" breathed into you.
says resurrection is God breathing life back.
apocalytic view decreases due to paul... and greeks became christians believed in splitting of body.
so soul lives on in heaven and hell is in 1st and 2nd century...
erhman says christian view is a combo of old testament and plato.
erhman says ot and nt has both wrath and love , its just portrayed in different situations.
different authors have different views.
This is my favorite Bart Ehrman interpretation. ...if you have done it to the least of these, you have done it to me,...~enter the Kingdom. I fear that Fundamentalism has confused many people. My Mother believes - focus on Sin, Salvation in Jesus, and get rich. And, by the way, hate gays. This is the legacy of the Reformed Church (where I grew up) and evangelical Christians in America. I believe, like Mormons, that we are given a mission before we are born. I fear that my Mother has been distracted from her mission.
Yes he really is a to present it in a understandable way. Yes as another commenter said Christian’s like myself have been put under a bad ideology that seems to be in opposition with the gospels and Paul. A book also enjoyed was called that all shall be saved by David Bentley Heart.
Bart. It doesn’t say Jesus his people. It says he hates the deeds of the nicolaitabs.