The Triumph of Christianity (with Dr. Bart Ehrman)
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 6 сен 2024
- Author and New Testament scholar Dr. Bart Ehrman joins the show to talk about his latest book, "The Triumph of Christianity: How a Forbidden Religion Swept the World."
Bart Ehrman's website: www.bartdehrma...
Support our sponsors:
The Great Courses Plus: www.thegreatcou...
Hello Fresh: www.hellofresh.com (promo code SethAndrews30)
I appreciate Ehrman's admissions of uncertainty. Intellectual integrity.
Jesus was just the first "Celebrity". A serious flaw in humanity is our eagerness to promote and idolise charismatic people.
True
Atheists literally travel half way around the world to visit Lenin's mausoleum and marvel at his mummified corpse.
Great point - the first celebrity up go truly viral
The serious flaw in humanity is to idolize those that think that they are gods.
@@JohnGeometresMaximos yep, and idolize him.
I like Dr. Ehrman. He is a great writer, and his book Misquoting Jesus was an important milestone for me in my journey towards Atheism. But while I do agree that the existence of Jesus is fairly likely, I think Ehrman's dismissal of Mythicists as non-experts with an agenda is unfair. He didn't attempt to address their bigger points at all and just dismisses them out of hand. Definitely makes me keen on siding with Mythicists more.
Imperiused
He has actually addressed several of the mythicists points on his blog, and in his debate with Price...
As far as I know he has never said that Christianity didn't get any inspiration from pagan mythologies - what he, and almost all other university professors in religion, dismiss is the position that there never was a person named Jesus(Yeshua), who was some sort of religious leader and who got executed by Rome!
Now personally I'm looking forward to reading his new book, (or if he will touch on the topic in his blog), also to see if he will be touching on whether he consider all similarities with pagan mythologies and the mythological version Jesus got shaped into by the early groups of Christianities, to be completely coincidental or if he think they were inspired.
Personally I think it's very likely, after all, that's a pattern we've seen with many other religions....
i'm still not with the Mythicists but Bart is very heavy handed with the "argument from authority." he doesn't sell his positions very well.
What "bigger points" hasn't he addressed? The overwhelming majority of mythicists are unqualified non-experts with an agenda. There's really only a handful (out of thousands) of scholars who could be considered genuinely qualified mythicists.
Dr Richard Carrier knows more about the myth of Jesus then Ehrman ever as and he produces more evidence for the nonexistence of Jesus then Ehrman can produce for the existence of Jesus .
I've always said Ehrman is a wolf in sheep's clothing .
I'd like to see Ehrman and Carrier debate. Ehrman seems hand wavy with his points and I'd like to see how Carrier addresses those points in real time
He won't debate Carrier, because he's too mean...aka correct.
Here is an interesting article by Carrier on the subject: "Bart Ehrman Just Can’t Do Truth or Logic": www.richardcarrier.info/archives/10134
Really? you think its more plausible that Paul created Christianity out of the exegesis of an obscure Biblical passage, and there is no need to worry about how, in that case, to explain the existence of Peter and James (and that in Josephus)? You're so over-awed by Bayesian statistics (without understanding) that they seem more powerful to you than evidence?
Von Wane Dr. Carrier can get really abrasive and insulting with his arguments. He can be a real jerk. I mean, you can't deny Carrier's knowledge, but Bart deserves just as much respect. The guy knows his stuff.
Scott Gaines: True, I have not forgotten the Amy Frank/Atheism+ debacle. Seems he was a bit hypocritical. Sometimes egos can cloud the facts concerning the subject in question.
Seth Andrews has an awesome speaking voice
Simply put imagine 2000 years from now the question is asked,
did L. Ron Hubbard exist? Yes.
Believing his existence doesn't make Scientology a truth.
We have more than hearsay from a cult that didn't form until decades after his supposed death, though. There's no Roman record of the death of Jesus of Nazareth for the crimes of blasphemy or fomenting rebellion, the one historical fact that would separate him from every other Jesus (a common name at the time) involved in the messianic upheaval caused by Roman occupation. We have photos and recordings of Hubbard. Saying Hubbard never existed would be idiotic, saying the ill-recorded origin of a 1st century mystery cult is likely false is just good skepticism.
The point is, does it matter if he existed or not? I'm am comfortable with this unknown and will burn few calories over the subject.
Not to you, surely. Not to a theoretical world without religion, obviously. But if we're going to argue with theists at all, why is this topic of limits? Of course, this gets into the antitheist vs live-and-let-live atheist debate. It matters to Christians. Question all of their beliefs, fact check everything; otherwise, there's no point debating in the first place.
So true
Everyone..Jesus is ALIVE..For real...& dont think so but i KNOW i repeat I KNOW...He reveals himself...
Paul said he knew the brother of Jesus. so there! Really?
Seriously 🤣🙏 sorry sir you did not convince me with that one. So scholarly !
As an atheist, I really don't care if Jesus was a real person. He certainly wasn't the son of a man made god that will forgive you of your sins. I also don't believe in ghosts.
Dennis Wicker you're so close minded, of course Jesus lived, he was spreading love and truth.
I think what you really mean he was spreading BULLSHIT!!!!!
Dennis Wicker you will go to hell
Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. If this is love I'll see you hell.
Dennis Wicker I'm sorry
Two of my favorites together at last - I can't wait to get home and watch this!!
Awesome podcast and very interesting conversation Seth and Bart !
Ehrman vs Carrier 2018. Make it happen:-)
I like Bart. I really do. I've read most of his work and really appreciate the amount of knowledge in his books. But when it comes to the historical Jesus, I just think the arguments are poor. It's fine to disagree and I think it's a valuable discussion to have. But I would like to point out the there are plenty of mythicists that are actual historians. There are also plenty of mythicists that all think Jesus was a myth to varying degrees. Some actually buy into that movie zeitgeist hook, line, and sinker.
Milwaukee Atheists Yeah, and the most frustrating thing is, he shows no curiosity in exploring/debunking mythicism. He trots out these old argumentds and hope it goes away.
Milwaukee Atheists, I agree with Bart that there is an agenda in the minds of many western atheists in considering Jesus a myth. It's perhaps that dreaded Fallacy of Composition we see so prevalent in humans, and particularly in western societies like America that we fear.
Whilst the magical supernatural stuff is nonsense, I can readily accept that there could have been a Jesus person preaching around the years 25-35AD. That he preached Judaism with stoic philosophical ideas popular in that time. And that he was killed for his cult status and blasphemous preaching. These personalities are scattered pervasively throughout history. I can easily imagine a rallying in the months and years after his death, with a pseudo-biographical account of his life and teachings merged with the Torah and various other texts. I can imagine these becoming more grandiose in refinement and answering fans, critics, skeptics and evangelizing to audiences of wider cultures between 45-68AD. Then reaching flashpoint after the destruction of Jerusalem.
The thing I have a problem with is his dismissive tone and intellectual arrogance (see the Price debate). He often acts as if he is THE authority and feels no need to prove things. Instead, he just says "it's obvious."
another possibility is that jesus is a composite character from various people who lived around the time. i find john the baptist quite intriguing in that respect, in that john was killed, an jesus might have been based on john the baptist, and then added to.
@Dejawolfs That's half of my position. I lean toward a mythical Jesus, but also offer that *were* there an itinerant preacher named Jesus running around Judea in the 1st Century CE, he would not recognize himself in the texts purporting to describe him. But, if that is the case, the Jesus of the texts didn't live, either, and we're back to a mythicist position.
Much of what I write here comes from the excellent BBC Four A History of Christianity documentary. Highly recommended.
The success of Christianity isn’t that surprising. The masculine Roman mythologies had little to offer women. Worse yet, the hyper-masculine Norse mythologies, where dying in battle was the only way to get to Asgard. The cowards who were shameless enough to die from natural causes went to Hel. Here comes the feminine religion of Christianity, which promises that the last will be first. A religion that venerates weakness, not strength. Blessed are the poor.
(Of course, the women were not aware of the misogyny in the religion. Women in Viking-age Scandinavia had it better before Christianity arrived. Women could own land in the Promised Land of Iceland. That was taken away from them when Christianity arrived.)
Another important thing is Heaven and Hell, which makes the cost of not accepting Jesus as your personal savior extremely high.
It was the women/mothers who made Christianity a success. They used their homes as make-shift churches. It’s the same today. It’s the grand/mothers who keeps traditions like Christmas and Thanksgiving alive.
Equally important was the Christians’ complete disregard for life. The turning point for Christianity came with the Antonine Plague. The other Roman citizens avoided the people who had been contaminated by the plague. It may not actually have been the plague, but the sick were avoided regardless. The Christians were the exception. They did not fear the plague. They did not fear sickness of the flesh. Christians feared only the sickness of the soul. The other Romans saw the Christians care for the sick and their suspicion turned to admiration.
Christians in Rome were not persecuted for being Christian. The instructions from the emperor was that officials could only act against the Christians if they caused social unrest. And the Christians certainly did.
The Romans did not care what gods you believed in as long as you took part in the Roman “religious” festivities. (There was no distinction between religious and secular festivities. They were Roman.) These things were what made you a Roman. Not taking part in a paranoid empire made you suspicious of being anti-Roman or a subversive. One thing the Christians could not partake in was animal sacrifice. Jesus was the final sacrifice. Any sacrifice after that was sacrilege. Then you have the gathering at people’s homes. “Secret” gatherings like this not only made you suspicious, it was outright illegal. The fire brigades were disbanded in Rome for this very reason.
The Romans did not want to kill Roman Christians. As Romans, you had rights. People killed at the Coliseum were foreigners/enemies (POWs) and criminals. These spectacles were about showing Roman superiority.
The Christians not only welcomed martyrdom, they sought it out. One Roman official was so fed up by Christians seeking martyrdom that he told them that if they want to die so much, why don’t you head out in the woods and hang yourselves from a tree?
There are alot of contradictions in your comment.
- Saying that Romans didn't care about your religion as long as you participate in their religious festivals and give offers to their gods is like saying the Vatican doesn't care in what god you believe as long as you celebrate Christmas and Easter and fast the Lent.
- You wrote about Christians complete disregard for life yet you mentioned that unlike Romans, Christians care for the sick. I wonder who has more respect for life the one who cares for the sick or the one who leve them die alone?
- About the Colosseum, tens of thousands of Christians were thrown to lions there, do you think that non of them was a Roman citizen?
- the fact that Christians of Rome were gathering secretly proves that they were persecuted because of their religion. In other parts of the Roman empire, in the periphery and outside the empire Christians could freely gather in places where everybody has access to.
- What the Roman official wrote shows a complete misunderstanding of the concept of martyrdom. Committing suicide won't make you a martyr, sacrificing yourself for the sake of others and for the sake of your faith will.
@@baghdeda The point I was trying to make is that the Christians were not persecuted for being Christians, but for not partaking in things that made you a Roman.
The Christians drew suspicion for holding meetings in their homes, serving as makeshift churches. The secretive meetings, not the Christian, were the cause of suspicion.
Disregard for their own lives, not that of others. As said, the Christians did not fear the sickness of the flesh, only the sickness of the soul. It was an important event because it changed the people's view of the Christians. From one of suspicion to one of admiration.
I never said they weren't. It was the fact that they were Romans that was the problem. As Romans you have rights. The Romans would have had no compulsions if the Christians had been non-Romans. The Colosseum was about displaying the superiority of Rome and Romans. It was basically a slaughterhouse. Of course, Christians being portrayed as enemies of Rome could be slaughtered along with foreigners and prisoners of war.
The Romans most likely didn't care what Christianity and martyrdom are. And Christianity back then was basically a just a bunch of independent sects. There were all kinds of crazy going on.
I would love to see a debate between Ehrman and Carrier.
zombiesingularity ok, disagreeing with someone's position is one thing, but if you are going to accuse that person of a crime, i want to see evidence. You know, the same thing i want to see when someone says a deity exists.
Rajano Gray I assumed everyone was familiar with the public accusations against him.
zombiesingularity ok, i am relatively new to the world of atheist RUclips videos. I have seen many of his talks on youtube and i bought his book "on the historicity of Jesus." I have never heard of these accusations. Could you please provide a link?
Myles Davidson hmm, it would seem to me (if Ehrman is in the right) that a debate would be the perfect place to set the record straight.
Yaaaaassss. Finally gets to interview Dr. Ehrman.
Everyone..Jesus is ALIVE..For real...& dont think so but i KNOW i repeat I KNOW...He reveals himself...
Another excellent podcast, Seth! Keep opening people's minds.
28:20 Previously he said that history is not like science, you can't get a consensus from repeated experiments. But then he uses astronomy as an analogy, you want to know about astronomy, you ask an astronomer. Except they largely agree, historians don't.
This guy isn't very convincing.
Historians largely agree that there was a Historical Jesus.
+scottbignell. You mean, "Christian Biblical Scholars agree that there was a historical Jesus".
If Ehrman's sources really were good enough to firmly establish an historic Jesus, he wouldn't need to invent hypothetical ones as he does in his book. Early Christians called lots of people 'brother' and 'sister' who were clearly not related. We can't rule out fictive kinship.
Also, in Galatians - Paul has no respect for these supposed Brothers of Jesus who supposedly grew up with him, learned from him, shared the bathroom with him, "Who they are means nothing to me." How could you say that about people related to your lord and master? You could if they became Apostles just like Paul did; through hallucination*cough* - revelation, and scripture.
Here’s where scholars really need to explain what they mean by independent sources. The Gospel authors wrote from different areas of the world as evidenced by their individual dialects. Matthew has the sheep and the goat story, but the other Gospels do not. Why don’t they? Because that particular source most likely wasn’t available to the others. There’s no reason not to include it theologically. Luke states “several” drew up an account, so even he said there were sources floating around. The redacting and copying from others theory is unlikely because of the writers wrote in different geographic locations at different times and show they don’t know each other with their contradictory stories.
Paul says he stayed with Peter for fifteen days and saw none of the other apostles EXCEPT for James, the Lord’s brother. If James was a spiritual brother then so was Peter. It doesn’t make sense to say he stayed with Peter, the Lord’s brother and saw none of the other apostles except for James, the Lord’s brother. If they’re both spiritual brothers, why point out James at all? Because he wasn’t a spiritual brother, he was a biological brother.
Patty Floyd I think, don't quote me here, but I remember Josephus mentioning a James brother of Jesus in the context of peasant religious leaders. Think so...
I initially misread the title: The _Trump_ of Christianity. That gave me quite the scare :-D
OMG!! Hahaha! That's funny! How about a book called "The Christianity of Trump"... Any takers??
*:-D*
I did that too! OMG, shows how Trump has infiltrated our brains! But then, he is the greatest Christian example...........ha ha ha.
Everyone..Jesus is ALIVE..For real...& dont think so but i KNOW i repeat I KNOW...He reveals himself...
@@mpmh3 Repeating stuff doesn't make it real. At all.
You finally got Ehrman! Nicely done!
Now I'm a Layman so excuse me if I get this wrong but at 25:00 minutes in when Bart says history is about probabilities not certainties or something like that, he seems to be insinuating that science is about certainty which is absolutely false.
From my understanding, science acknowledges that they can know nothing for absolute certainty. which is why there is nothing higher in science than a theorem. So it would seem to me that science is about probability as well, no?
But I know nothing, so...
You're right J. Dare I say absolutely right?
I don't think he is insinuating that.
Science is also based on probabilities. History, as it is done today, tries to be as scientific as possible. History mostly uses written evidence, but also cross references with anthropology, archeology, etc.
Either way, the best we can do is look at the evidence available and make probability statements - for history or science.
As good a scholar as he is, Ehrman makes the school-boy error of treating the claim as the evidence when it comes to the existence of Jesus. For example, around 23:50 where he uses Paul referring to knowing Jesus' brother as evidence that it's "quite obvious" that Jesus existed. Paul's writings are the claim, not the evidence - using Paul as evidence for the existence of Jesus is circular reasoning, and Ehrman should know better.
You're confusing "proof" with "evidence". Paul's writings count as evidence.
Making up a story about knowing Jesus' brother would be a weird thing to fabricate as it would unnecessarily complicate the doctrine around Mary's virginity. If the story of Jesus is made from whole cloth seems odd to invent a brother. It's like the baptism of Jesus. If he never existed why create a story about him being baptised? He's the son of god, why does he need to be baptised? He was born without sin. Even if he really didn't know James, the fact that he felt the need to say he did means that there very well could have been such a person and he wanted to link himself with this individual.
Aromaki "If he never existed why make up a story about him being baptized?" Is that a serious question? To convince people that he existed. The same way a high-school kid would make up details about his fictional girlfriend who definitely exists but she lives in Canada so his friends can't meet her. The same goes for making up a brother and so on.
Once again, Paul's writings are the _claim_ not the evidence. There is no evidence supporting the claim, so there is no reason to accept it. There are also very good reasons to reject it - read Richard Carrier's, Raphael Lataster's, or David Fitzgerald's work, for example.
Paul had serious disagreements with Jesus' brother. Paul was pissed that James sent men to check up on him. Seems unlikely this detail was made up "to convince people that Jesus existed".
+Aromaki. The concept of the virgin birth came many years after Paul. Bart makes a point of how Paul appears unaware of all of the later myths.
Funny for him to talk about agendas when the majoroty of bible scholars, including himself, are either Christian and/or employed by Christian organizations. Every time Erhman is asked about mythicism all he has is the brother of the lord thing and the fact that most bible scholars believe he existed. He's never actually adressed any of Richard Carrier's arguments. He's not very convincing.
Erhman is an atheist and is employed by a secular university.
TheRhinehart86
Ehrman, (who's an atheist, teaching at a Secular University), hold the same position that the majority of Religious Scholars from any respected University hold, no matter if they are atheists or "believers"!
Carrier belongs to a fringe group of mythicist who can't even agree among themselves on what the mythicist position actually is!
TheRhinehart86
Oh, and Erhman actually did a debate with Price who's a mythicist as well!
And he has touched on the arguments made by the mythicists on his blog....
"all he has is the brother of the lord thing"
That is not "all he has". It's just a quick example that he often uses because it's pretty obvious that it makes sense that Jesus existed if he had a brother. Ehrman has actually addressed many of Carrier's arguments and he tackled more of them in his debate with Price. Even Mythicists (including Carrier) had to admit he wiped the floor with Price. As for Carrier's weak arguments on the "brother of the Lord" references, you can find a detailed debunking of them here: historyforatheists.com/2018/02/jesus-mythicism-2-james-the-brother-of-the-lord/
Tim O'Neill: Humm,, that doesn't seem to be true. You have already been debunked on other threads here.. What's your agenda?
Remember this post?
CARRIER: Ehrman falsely claims in his book that there are no hyper-specialized historians of ancient Christianity who doubt the historicity of Jesus. So I named one: Arthur Droge, a sitting professor of early Christianity (previously at UCSD; now at the University of Toronto).
And of those who do not meet Ehrman’s irrationally specific criteria but who are certainly qualified, we can now add Kurt Noll, a sitting professor of religion at Brandon University (as I already noted in my review of Is This Not the Carpenter) and Thomas Brodie, a retired professor of biblical studies (as I noted elsewhere). Combined with myself (Richard Carrier) and Robert Price, as fully qualified independent scholars, and Thomas Thompson, a retired professor of some renown, that is more than a handful of well-qualified scholars, all with doctorates in a relevant field, who are on record doubting the historicity of Jesus.
Most recently, Hector Avalos, a sitting professor of religion at Iowa State University, has also declared his agnosticism about historicity as well. And now Raphael Lataster joins the ranks of historicity-doubting experts, with a Ph.D. in religious studies from the University of Sydney.
That makes eight fully qualified experts on the record, three of them sitting professors, plus two retired professors, and three independent scholars with full credentials. And there are no doubt many others who simply haven’t gone on the record. We also have sympathizers among mainstream experts who nevertheless endorse historicity but acknowledge we have a respectable point, like Philip Davies (professor emeritus of biblical studies at Sheffield University) and Zeba Crook (professor of religious studies at Carleton University).
From paper 195: "195:6.9 The materialistic sociologist of today surveys a community, makes a report thereon, and leaves the people as he found them. Nineteen hundred years ago, unlearned Galileans surveyed Jesus giving his life as a spiritual contribution to man's inner experience and then went out and turned the whole Roman Empire upside down."
At the 8:53 mark - That's one of the faults of the Bible that caught my attention while I was still a Christian. The Bible was constantly telling us that other tribes were worshiping dead gods and the argument the Bible would use was that all they worshiped were idols made of wood, therefore they were worshiping dead wood. Even at a young age this caught me as a complete caricature or foolish miss-understanding on the Bibles part of how other cultures functioned or perceived things.
No one was worshiping the actual wooden figure stupid. It was a representation or a place holder of a god that existed elsewhere and still felt alive to those people in their daily lives. Kinda like, you know, the Ark of the Covenant.
How can the Bible criticize people for bowing to dead objects when for most of the Bible's history Hebrews bowed to a dead box?
Great point! I was taught the same nonsense in Hebrew school. The Jewish scriptures make out the followers of pagan polytheistic religions to be complete morons who don't even realize that wooden and metal statues can't hear them. Yet they were somehow still smart enough to build the pyramids, Parthenon and aqueducts!
It was the Biblical writers that were morons, because they didn't understand that pagans were not actually talking to the wooden and metal statues, they were using them as a medium to their gods, like the Hebrews with the ark of the covenant. Funny how Biblical writers missed the irony.
This just shows the knee jerk / unthought / extremely superficial / shoot yourself in the foot responses that religious zealots come up with when they try to quickly demonize everyone who is not them. ""See see, there talking to wood !"" They see things at face value and take it as it appears rather than ask questions.
But pagans too also have given quick knee jerk responses to other cultures gods. So it seems to be more an error of strong bias and quick judgment innate in all humans. Further evidence the Bible is written by fallible people. A god would have understood that these pagans were not actually talking to the wooden figure. But instead we get these surface level, juvenile arguments that I wouldn't expect from any well educated person, much less a god.
I suspect the actual Jews and Christians of antiquity were a lot more similar to pagans than we realise. They were way more wacky than we can comprehend. Josephus states the Jewish temple priest wore a headress? modelled on henbane, along with buttons showing the flowers. Henbane in small quantity is a hallucinogenic. It has also been speculated that the anointing oil contained cannabis oil.
Interesting.
Also note the whole circumcision thing in Hebrew culture, even today some Jewish priests still suck the blood off the tip of the babies penis. If that's not pagan like behavior then I don't know what is.
What Christians should be asked is, what difference is there between Jesus and Zeus? They "came from above", have 12 followers, can come in whatever form they want, can heal, can do wonders of various kinds, etc. Zeus "existed" as in historical certainty, but few would make the leap of Illogicality, "Zeus was therefore a man." Syncretism is the Mystery of 'godliness'
Ehrman is slowly becoming more historically accurate. He and Andrews both were raised as fundamental ist
You are implying Dr. Ehrman has erred in the past. Where has he done so?
I believe that Jesus existed, because nobody would die for an unreal person. And many people, in early christianity and after, gave their lives because of their fatih.
At about the 26:00 mark, Dr. Ehrman talks about the sources available to Paul and the sources available to the Gospel writers. He cannot know this because none of them cited sources. Even assuming for sake of discussion that there were indeed the seven or so sources available, how does he know that the writers knew them? How does he know there was not a single early source that all of them derive from, which is something he denies?
I'm only ten minutes into this, but might I posit that the break between Greek and Roman gods and this new god is a great chasm. The old gods did not tell humans how to act. They only demanded sacrifices and laudations. See the Iliad for examples of how and why the old gods chose to intervene. The new god created rules by which "his" people needed to live, act, and even think (covetousness). The old gods could not have cared less what you did or with whom you did it as long as you gave them the proper sacrifices.
I think the simpler explanation as to why Christianity went from a forbidden religion to the official religion of the Roman empire is that the Roman elite saw how devout the Christians remained under persecution, and figured that this kind of attitude would be wonderful for the general population to have. It’s analogous to the thinking of the legendary second king of Rome Numa Pompilius. Regarding Numa Pompilius, Livy wrote:
“And fearing lest relief from anxiety on the score of foreign perils might lead men who had hitherto been held back by fear of their enemies and by military discipline into extravagance and idleness, he (Numa) thought the very first thing to do, as being the most efficacious with a populace which was ignorant and, in those early days, uncivilized, was to imbue them with the fear of Heaven. As he could not instil this into their hearts without inventing some marvellous story, he PRETENDED to have nocturnal meetings with the goddess Egeria, and that hers was the advice which guided him in the establishment of rites most approved by the gods, and in the appointment of special priests for the service of each.” (Livy 1 19).”
Plutarch also suggests that Numa played on superstition to give himself an aura of awe and divine allure, in order to cultivate more gentle behaviours among the warlike early Romans, such as honoring the gods, abiding by law, behaving humanely to enemies, and living proper, respectable lives (see Plutarch, “The parallel lives, Numa Pompilius, §VIII”).
We also see the elites viewing religion as "useful" with Ptolemy I. Serapis (Σέραπις, Attic/Ionian Greek) or Sarapis (Σάραπις, Doric Greek), was cleverly instituted as a Graeco-Egyptian god. The Cult of Serapis was strategically introduced during the 3rd century BC on the orders of Ptolemy I of Egypt as a means to unify the Greeks and Egyptians in his realm.
The elites of the Roman empire may simply have slowly phased in Christianity after seeing how devout the Christians remained under persecution, and thought this would be an excellent attitude/crutch for the masses to have. In fact, Paul may have converted when he made a similar realization when he was persecuting Christians.
"The whole religious complexion of the modern world is due to the absence from Jerusalem of a lunatic asylum."- Thomas Paine
Not Art Vandelay. Thank you for fact checking this. I was not aware that it was attributed to Ellis. I also rechecked and found it attributed to both online by various sources. Quotefancy, Sayquotable, Brainyquote, and azquotes attribute it to Paine. But Izquotes, and ffrf.org and other sites say it was Ellis!
Give me the God of Christmas, the God of love, the God of an innocent child in a manager, who comes to bring salvation and wholeness to the world, the way it was always meant to be.”-Bart Ehrman
At 4:51 is Dr. Ehrman's speech seems deliberately edited to sounded garbled in order to obscure at least two important words describing his take on the New Testament. It's as though, in my opinion, some Christian authority wished to censor his take. However one of the words does sound like "contradictions" which makes sense there.
Having listened to Dr. Ehrman's lectures I assume this is GOOD even before listening )
Everyone..Jesus is ALIVE..For real...& dont think so but i KNOW i repeat I KNOW...He reveals himself...
"Christianity was going to take over the empire" - No, it was a growing religion. It got a privileged position, and the legal right to persecute those who disagreed.
I actually think Constantine was more realist. Because of the civil war, and because he killed all his opponents for the throne, he was very little popular in Rome and among the old elite, political and religious. Of course Rome was not the only centre of the empire anymore, which he also saw and wanted to continue. That's one of the main reasons he also founded New Rome, Constantinople. So a new monotheistic religion, which had spread quite a lot through the eastern provinces, seemed like a perfect opportunity, a mean to pursue his ultimate goal: to reunite the empire under his dynasty's rule. By the way that s what we were taught in high school in Greece.
FANTASTIC SETH
Great discussion Seth.
Likely it was also just easier to have one god to ask everything from, rather than to ask the god who was in charge of whatever to pray to.
Also, Catholics kept more of the old ways of praying to multiple gods. They just made it multiple saints.
I like Derek Murphy's account of how christianity conquered all in his Harry Christ Jesus Potter
You can find plenty of people talking about Harry Potter, does that mean he's a real person?
Sorry, but I remain entirely unconvinced by Ehrman's arguments.
Allan Johansen
Totally agree👍
@Falcon I take your point in principle, but look t some of the Harry Potter fan and analysis sitesand they look like a religion in embryo.
Allan Johansen everyone knows harry potter is a novel written by rowling, idiot.
Only simple or intellectually lazy if not atrified minded people can even begin to "think" that is even a plausible notion.
Be like me saying you are a figment of my imagination even though I read something you wrote; you're just an internet anomally or a bot trying to get me to believe you exist as a person.
The old testament- which has been proven by the Dead Sea Scrolls to have exceptional fidelity throughout it's texts and MILLENIA and an excellent historical track record- speaks of thing you wouldn't understand because you "believe" youre a soulless hunk of randomly thrown together materials. You "believe" there is no "Spirit" that resides in your flesh; you "believe" yourself to be nothing more than an electro-chemo meatbag that's sole purpose is to acquire goods, services and sex and may the strongest fastest smartest conquer the weak at whatever cost.
Because of you're brainwashing and mesmerizement by all things "tech" you will fall under a powerful delusion that AI and "aliens" will save mankind so you can continue the assinine, inane and insane fantasy of a Godless soulless universe.
There's an RFIDebit chip/card/password with your, and everyone else's, name on it already. Why would you refuse something that was only mentioned in some Book you refuse to believe or has any basis in reality- though reality is becoming more like the "story" in that Book. Just another thing you don't understand. Unless or until it happens. And then maybe too late..
Just as everyone at the time knew Jesus was a real person; that other real persons died telling the world about: and later persons went on to change the official stance of a brutal empire.
No sense pointing out the obvious to the obviously pointedly nonsensical. They become dismissive for no reason than the dismissed lack of thought on their part. Tit for tat psychopathy. An issue of narcissism of their ignorance..
The triumph of the early Christians was inspiring and convincing people that they were so special that they have two lives, rather than just the one... and that salvation and the promised resurrection was at hand. Once the Roman Emperor got the bug, Christianity was off and running. The worst, most far reaching decision, the negative effects of which will continue until the delusion of resurrection is dispelled, was the making of Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire.
I wish he talked more about the relationship between Paul and James. Did they believe the same kind of Christianity?
Well, the pitch for a one God, also involved the promise of eternal life, which the pagan religions couldn't offer. Whose story is better than whose?
(Personally, I like a Pete Seeger line from his version of Old Time Religion: "We will pray to Aphrodite, she's beautiful though flighty, in her silken see-through nighty, she's good enough for me." - I don't actually pray to her, as the Divine Father is my guy, but I do like her archetype!)
What Paul figured out(and, really, Philo of Alexandria before him), was that midrash made his sungod more legitimate than the other sungods.
Very nice video, it is important to have an open mind otherwise we become fundamentalists too.
I am a Jesus mythicist on the basis of the lack of contemporary historical evidence from such historians as Philo of Alexander and justus of tiberias who lived and wrote at the time of "Jesus". I believe it is extremely unlikely that there was any guy as Jesus.
coweatsman If you listen to the interview, the movement started out with only 20 people at the most and with very poor, illiterate ones at that. Doubt they were running around in Philo’s circles.
There were other would be messiahs who were written about but not Jesus. That is odd.
coweatsman Written about by who...Philo?
It seems to me that the question of whether or not there was a real person or not is not that important but rather that certain events, characteristics, legends, etc. current at that time were all attributed to an individual as being real history. Ehrman mentioned one other such individual, Apollonius of Tyana in his book "How Jesus Became God".
How did christ get into our dating system?
Wow, I spoke to Erhman right before he released his book and he admitted that there was no conclusive evidence of Jesus actually existing. He just felt the question was to important not to answer. His evidence is basically, "I accept what Paul said about Jesus existing, even though he never met him, but not what Paul said about his divinity. Does he also believe Paul's claim of the 500 witnesses. Also, to say his sources are biased is an understatement.
*too
Why are his sources biased?
Bart Ehrman is probobly one of my most favorit biblical historians right now, my second favorit is probobly Francesca Stavrakopoulou, she focuses more on the old testament, like the historical kingdom of Isreal, the story of Genisis, and the Exodus. She has a really good BBC documentary series called "Bible's Buried Secrets." I think you can watch all episodes on RUclips for free.
Jake, that is the wrong title. I know the one you mean and it is 3 episodes.
David. That's the title it gives on the BBC website. And its on the three episodes on YT.
You tube is why I thought you were wrong. They are a PBS version, and she is not in them. I think I still have the BBC version recorded from when it was broadcast locally. Same name two docos.
The BBC version is on Dailymotion.
www.dailymotion.com/video/x1ik5kv
Edit: just cjhecked again and I see no BBC on YT - I might be geo blocked.
Funny thing is I found yet another doco with the same name from Nat Geo.
How long have we all been waiting for this interview?
The only part about this historian is that without the Christian religion he would not have work. So, that means he has to justify his point of view and try to keep religion.
Richard Presley
The man is an outspoken atheist!
I don't think that Christianity suddenly is going to disappear, especially not in the US.
At least, through his job, he is trying to open the minds of young Christians who take his class because they think they already know the topic - which they quickly find out that they don't....
The thing that establishes the evidences is that we must investigate the period of the desfruction of Jerusalem. Was there a real cut from the past and later the preachings of the gospel returned the issue? If the destruction of Jerusalem interrupted the preaching of the gospel, then there is real doubt that there was really a Jesus.
To say we wouldn't have had culture without Christianity is just foolish. There are incredible works of fiction, art, and music that have nothing to do with God. Past artists would have simply painted or written music about nature, love, or scientific advancements, which are all awe inspiring. Plus, all those millions who died in the name of the Christian God would not have been killed. I think his arguments are fallacious.
I always enjoy the discussions- especially this one. I have a question I would ike to know how to intelligently discuss. Apparently Paul (Saul) was alive when Jesus was alive- I'd like to hear some thoughts on why Jesus never mentioned Paul to his disciples (especially if his writings and books were to make up most of the New Testament) - Jesus never even visited Paul. This is a HUGE hole I have not heard any theologians comment on- it seems kind of a deal breaker as I mention it to current Christians (I am a former Christian). Thank you.
26:36 (or thereabouts) "and they didn't have access to Paul". Yeah, right. And how do you know that, exactly?
Not one person questions the existence of Napoleon for example, there's more evidence of His(jesus /yeshua ) existence than any other person in history! Our calendar is dated in reference to His existence. Much love x
If he knew what he was getting into, I bet money that Constantine wouldn’t have become a christard at all
Valentine Erindros
Lol
I always confuse Seth for Bart and vice versa.
Jesus as a man who became a legend? Yes. I agree. It can and does happen.
He seems to assume the Gospels are mostly true. The mythicist position is that they are totally fictitious so the fact that Paul started a few years after supposed death of Jesus is not a problem.
Lets view Corinthians 1 15:
"that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,[b] and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, "
At first glance this describes what is written in the Acts. However, he talks Cephas (Peter) and the twelve as they were separate entities. Also according to acts the follower of Judas was not yet selected. Somehow it seems logical that the Acts was written to match this.
Prof Bart, they didn't think, they KNEW He Rose from the dead; they saw it with their own eyes and heard it with their own ears. With that conviction AND the tangible infilling of The Holy Spirit to cause inner change and guidance plus a willingness to die for that truth/reality, they brought the Gospel or "Good News" that fallen creation can be reconciled to Creator.
The how's and why's of text become almost irrelavant. People become the living story of the Living Word.
How else do 20 some odd lowly peasants and a LAWYER change the face of a brutal empire? How else does TIME itself bow down to The Son Of Man. And you can say "common era" all day long for millenia- it's STILL based on THAT King God-Mans life.
How do you know the authors of the gospel didn't share sources when it is unknown who they were. I just googled this to double check myself and the first result for me was (www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=124572693) where Dr. Ehrman talks about this very issue. According to my friend Paul( who I just now made up but claims to be a witness to things decades before his birth) it doesn't help to cite someone when you can't tell where they got their information.
The argument basically boils down to "Of course we shouldn't believe Jesus was divine just because of hearsay. By the way, members of the Jesus cult claim to have personally known Jesus; this is OBVIOUSLY true."
Hasn't Bart heard how Joseph Smith and then L Ron Hubbard started a religion in relatively recent times which they grew from nothing, christianity took 300 years to get to 30 million (evidence/citation). Constantine was a pragmatist and a pagan he needed something to unite a very disparate multi-cultural empire and he chose a religion he could easily control and manipulate.
Erhman is getting more historically accurate. He still had a number of inaccuracies in his research. The early followers of Jesus were not illiterate. Constantine was an Arian heretic. He was finally baptized on his deathbed by an Arian bishop. He did favor Christianity but he did not make it the official religion of the empire as Erhman correctly points out. Also, his historical method is getting better.
Is that book translated into Portuguese?.
What.... no mention of the armadillo grill?!? 😂🥳👏😁🤔
This issue with Jesus is one of the reasons I turned atheist.I just didn't know what to believe anymore.I viewed several Richard Carrier videos which led me become an atheist.
There is so very little evidence to consider to determine the historicity of Jesus, what you mainly need is to discover how reliable each piece is. Then it is obvious you would not believe a similar story with similar evidence in a secular setting.
Everything is probable. So?
How do you know that the actual man in the story actually existed?
Ia this the guy Richard Carrier says how he analyzed and considered reliable sources rather flawed?
I think it not impossible that a MAN Jesus lived, but I do think that the stories about him grew in the telling, so much so that the New Testament has very little to do with his actual life.
His arguments, as far as Jesus's existence is concerned, are simply unconvincing. His strongest argument is the argument from embarrassment - that speaks for itself.
The sources he mentions - none of them were contemporary of Jesus, and none of them mention Jesus directly - they only listed what Chirstians believed. And Josephus as a source? That is too much. He says you can doubt everything - but that is philosophical scepticism - an irrational position. We should evaluate the validity of the sources - tesitmonium Flavianum is not a valid source.
To paraphrase - he has no good arguments. My guess is that he can sell more books when partially agreeing with Christian agenda.
There is an interpolation in the textus receptus of Josephus, but we have the original text quoted by Origin and other fathers (this distinction is usually ignored by deceptive confidence tricksters like Carrier). That text makes it clear that James is the leader of the Jerusalem Church and is so because he was the brother of Jesus. How can you explain that text absent a historical Jesus?
I'm an Atheist and have no problem that a crucified human called Jesus existed 2000 years ago and had some social dramas during his life. And then it was used to assemble the fantastic stories.
Where's the problem?
The superpower son of a God stuff is just absurd according to what we know how Reality works, but yeah, I see no problem that a non-magical man existed.
HConstantine no, the interpolation appears later in quotes. So we know it must have been added later.
Here is what the manuscript tradition of Josephus has (and bear in mind the mass are more recent than the text of Origen; Eusebius reports this also (about 310):
"About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared." (jud. ant. 18.3.3.)
And here is what Origen quoted out of the text of Josephus as it existed about 250:
""the death of James the Just, who was a brother of Jesus (called Christ)" C. Cels. 1.47
The parentheses means that even here Origen may (or may not) have added the "called Christ". But there is no reason to doubt that Josephus reported James' execution (for blasphemy) and that he identified James with the remainder of the quotation.
What would be the point of Josephus mentioning that James, the leader of the Jerusalem church, was the brother of Jesus, if Jesus never existed?
Itasasin
What do you hope to gain by lying like this?
Argument from authority, "I don't listen to what people have to say if they don't have a degree."
Scooter Boy He’s saying the person needs to be educated in the subject matter. That’s common sense not a fallacy.
You don't have to have a degree to be informed on a particular matter. Did Newton have a degree in cosmology?I stand by my statement.
Scooter Boy Newton was educated and a genius. Most of us are not geniuses. I do understand where you’re coming from though.
What about Richard carrier?
There appears to be an LCL and an OCT (less certain) volume on the shelf behind him.
@TheThinkingAtheist...isn't the title of this video misleading? Shouldn't it be "Did Jesus Exist"?
Did I mention that I love Bart? ❤️🧡💜💚
Honesty and integrity deserves mucho love *^_^*
Yeah, most of his books are great.
I disagree with Bart on the existence of a historical Jesus. It just seems highly unlikely that no historian spoke of Jesus in the time of Jesus if Jesus had existed. Not Philo and not Justus of Tiberias.
Philo wasn't a "historian" and he made no mention of any other early first century Jewish preachers, prophets or messianic claimants like Jesus, so the fact he doesn't mention this one tells us zero about whether he existed. Philo also doesn't mention all kinds of other people of the time who we are pretty sure existed, so "not mentioned by Philo" isn't a sufficient criterion. As for Justus, we have no idea how interested he was in peasant preachers like Jesus because his works don't survive, so we can't assess how significant his lack of a mention of Jesus may be. And that leaves ... no historians or other writers working at around the time Jesus would have been active. So I'm afraid your assessment is not based on a solid grasp of the evidence. This is why smart people listen to people like Ehrman and not random nobodies on the internet.
coweatsman
Why would they have mentioned an at the time completely insignificant religious guy with a small following?
Jesus first became "somebody" after he was dead!
Much like most artists as my dad used to say....
The gospel writers didn't have access to Paul? _That_ is a major point that sailed by unnoticed. What's the evidence?
Does Paul make an appearance in Mark performing miracles of the spirit?
Numbers 11:27-29
"27 And a young man ran and told Moses, "Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp." 28 And Joshua son of Nun, the assistant of Moses, one of his chosen men, said, "My lord Moses, stop them!" 29 But Moses said to him, "Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all the LORD's people were prophets, and that the LORD would put his spirit on them!""
Mark 9:38-40
"38 John said to him, "Teacher, we saw someone casting out demons in your name, and we tried to stop him, because he was not following us." 39 But Jesus said, "Do not stop him; for no one who does a deed of power in my name will be able soon afterward to speak evil of me. 40 Whoever is not against us is for us."
Galatians 3:5
"5 Well then, does God supply you with the Spirit and work miracles among you by your doing the works of the law, or by your believing what you heard?"
1 Corinthians 12:3
"3 Therefore I want you to understand that no one speaking by the Spirit of God ever says "Let Jesus be cursed!" and no one can say "Jesus is Lord" except by the Holy Spirit."
Romans 8:31
"31 What then are we to say about these things? If God is for us, who is against us?"
Is it more than coincidence? The Gospel named Mark sure looks to be Pauline inspired?
2 Cor 8:9=Mark 10:17-22, 1 Cor 13:2=Mark 11:23, 1 Cor 3:10-11=Mark 12:10-11, Rom 13:7=Mark 12:17, Rom 6:12-14=Mark 9:42-47, 2 Cor 9:6-15=Mark 12:41-44, 2 Cor 11:13-15=Mark 13:21-23, Gal 5:13-15=Mark 12:28-34, 1 Thes 5:4-11=Mark 13:32-37, Phil 3:21=Mark 12:25, 1 Thes 4:16=Mark 14:62, Gal 2:11=Mark 8:33, Gal 4:6=Mark 14:36, 1 Cor 5:6-8=Mark 8:15
The Holy Dopamine Ghost:
ruclips.net/video/de_b7k9kQp0/видео.html
Check out the link. The Gospel Mark started out as allegory to OT stories, and Pauline theology. The other Gospels are just apologetics for a flesh Jesus. The Holy Ghost is just Dopamine which is related to addiction, and hallucinations. Get more informed.
You need to get more informed all right....
Ok itsasin... If you don't want to hear the good news of the Holy Dopamine Ghost, then that's your loss.
I'll gladly accept Saul/Paul had visions. Let's look at the facts ... Saul, a city boy, travels from Israël/Judea to Damascus. As the crusaders discovered a thousand years later, that's a pretty damn harsh road to travel. So, our city boy, unaccustomed to such conditions, suffers heat stroke and has 'visions'.
If someone did that today, they might have 'visions' of Thanos or getting a lapdance from Beyonce or the stay puft marshmallow man or of the marshmellow man getting a lapdance from Thanos.
US-Army with "Black Water", killed 2.000.000 Iraqis, and destroyed Iraq with Nuclear Bombs, result: Iraq is today like 250.000 Nagasakis! The Christ. Triumph!!!
When it comes to Jesus historicity, I get Ehrman's points - I just think he doesn't engage with the counterpoints, i.e. what Carrier says about "James the brother of the Lord" being ambiguous at best due to statements Paul makes about all Christians being "brothers of the Lord".
If he could critique the actual mythicist arguments, I'd be a lot happier - but he doesn't do it, so I'm left favoring mythicism because Carrier actually DOES engage with his critics.
Bart Ehrman, the guy who states that 'people talking' in history is satisfying evidence. When he talks I only get a book sales pitch as evidence
prof bart ur a great source of informations
So who's correct: this guy or all of the other scholars who say he probably didn't?
Chris Rigney
"All the other scholars who say he probably didn't"
Well, it's kind of funny, because it seems like you have a huge misconception about what the majority of religious scholars hold as position on this question....
There's a tiny fringe group of mythicists, who think there never was a person named Jesus(Yeshua), who was some sort of religious leader for a small group of people, and who got executed by the Romans - but almost every religious scholar, from any respected university, atheists as well as "believers", hold the position that this Jesus guy existed!
But I understand that if you spend to much time in the echo chamber of RUclips atheism, you might be thinking that people like Carrier or Price represent a greater group of scholars than they actually do!
What Erhman is presenting is the census, he is just better at communicating it than most of his colleagues in the field - which is why he's such a popular author....
Some human being worshipped as a god or some how worshipped. This happens even besides Abrahamic religions.
I don't really care if Jesus existed. The thing if Jesus existed does it make any difference in excuses of good or bad even if others existed beyond entertainment? I mean if Thor existed does that make people more or less moral , or is it just an excuse to blame such characters?
Question: Was there a historical Jesus if the guy that the myths are based upon was named Bart?
I am interested in the book after watching the interview--good job, Seth. In particular, I am uninterested in the historicity of Jesus--that point will be argued in a shroud of mystery as long as there is one Christian left on Earth. What interests me is the growth of the Church. I teach the history of Western Civilization, and the growth of the Church is one of the major factors in the shaping of this history, as Dr. Ehrman rightly points out. Would we have the same civilization without Christianity? Absolutely not! Would it be better or worse? Impossible to tell. Would we have a civilization? Of course, but it would be significantly different. Without the growth of Christianity (I hesitate here to use Ehrman's baggage-laden term "Triumph"), we may not have had Islam, because both monotheistic religions are so closely related. The conflict may have shifted to the Roman Empire vs. the Persian Empire, and we all might be Zoroastrians or some other faith by now. We also might have reached our modern technological culture much sooner because we may not have bowed to the absolute authority of Aristotle over the empirical curiosity of the Ancient Scientific Revolution. However, all this is counter-factual and fun conversations over beers. Thank you for introducing us to the book, Seth.
+Misha Griffith I have nothing to add other than to point out that your comment is perfectly reasonable. Just didn't want to leave you alone with itsasin the regular troll who gets butthurt over anything and nothing. Just one of those people who gets off on getting mad at others. So goes it.
+Misha Griffith. The growth of the church was due to a monopoly on religion. This status was enforced by ignorance, designed confusion, fear, and violence. If all you can buy to eat is rice, you eat rice.
+David Frisken That's certainly true after a certain point in time. But the Church had to reach that position of "monopoly on religion" first. It certainly wasn't a monopoly when it was just a few dozen people with no position of authority. And that's what makes the growth of Christianity so interesting. How did it get to that position of monopoly in the first place? How did they ensure that appeal that made it grow so quickly? Call it branding or marketing, but even for us it could be interesting to identify the mechanics at play, in case some of them could be of use for us to spread secularism and humanism, provided those mechanics aren't immoral of course.
Oh, the first three hundred years. We don't know anything about the early religion apart from Paul stating his sect was part of a tradition(he claimed authority, as those before). They used the Torah as scripture. How many Chrestians/Christians were around in the beginning? We don't know? When was the beginning? We don't know. My guess is the big spread included a lot of middle class wives, and youth with time to spare. I saw similar during the seventies and eighties where the "hippy movement" had introduced the New Age crap. Crystal, spiritual, eastern gurus, have all evolved 50 miles from where I grew up. The "far out", became sophisticated and evolved it's presentation and became accepted by future generations.
Awesome! It finally happened!
Is that an accurate representation of facial likeness on the book?
Good stuff
It fits the term cult perfectly by the modern definition as well as he evades.
That is a scary side-by-side Seth he looks like you in 20 years
because people said they knew Jesus's brother and many were talking about him in just a few years, that convinces mr. ehrman that JC was a real man. ...... That pretty much settles it for me. Joesph Smith did find the golden plates and translated them behind a curtain. All that he said was true because not only did they know is family they actually knew JS. People talked about him and his tablets all the way to Utah and they were on foot. Now that is convincing.
And now we are left with one god to whittle down to 0.
The problem with Ehrman is that he is an agnostic (a silly position to take). I believe he does not come out as a full atheist because he knows that Christians buy his books. There is a huge difference in the eyes of the deluded between a questioning agnostic and a strong atheist/anti-theist. I also detected little to no anti-theism from Ehrman. He seems to still have a respect for this destructive faith. It is a great tragedy that Michelangelo wasted his tremendous talent painting crazy Hebrew mythology. It's also not that astounding that Christianity became so huge. Islam is huge too. When you kill people who don't convert, then the ones still alive tend to tow the party line. It's not rocket science.
That was years ago. He has been an atheist for some time now. Have a look at some of the you tube material Bart is in, to get up to date.
I'm guessing you're fairly young? Fact is that the words have changed quite a bit over the last twenty years. Twenty years ago "atheism" was "a silly position to take". People like Carl Sagan made sure to not be associated with it because it wasn't a tenable position. But the definitions have changed, at least for a certain portion of the population. But they haven't changed for everyone, and the older you are the more likely you are to hold to the older meanings of agnosticism and atheism. Basically put, someone calling himself an "agnostic" tells me nothing about his actual views and how well grounded they may or may not be, until I ask them exactly what they mean by "agnostic".
agnostics are atheists, as long as he doesnt believe
islam never kill people if they not convert , this is ignorant talk , look to Egypt Morocco and other muslim country have many christian and church ,
the Egypt christian love in peace in islamic country even they celebrate for muslim signing Allah names , this is Fact not by lier media facebook.com/groups/malshfielsosta/permalink/769763406563344/
Quran teach
There shall be no compulsion in [acceptance of] the religion.
quran.com/2/256
"Jesus existed! Just look at the writings!" None of which are contemporary. Also, Paul never met Jesus, he claims to have met his ghost. Not convincing in the least.
Let's just conveniently ignore the fact that Paul met with Peter and James both men who knew Jesus personally.
@@gaiusoctavius5935 Acts isn't at all clear that the Peter in question is St Peter...there is more than one dog named Fido, afterall.
But even if he met both of them...you can meet lots of folks today that will swear they were abducted by aliens. Or encountered bigfoot. Or saw the Loch Ness Monster. Paul never met Jesus but he does claim to have met a ghost...a ghost. Ponder that.
Which Peter would it be then if not the one who walked with Christ?, And he didn't claim to meet a ghost he asserted that he met Jesus who had risen from death, not some apparition. And even discounting all of the above he still goes on to state that he met with James brother of the Lord. You can't be called "brother of the Lord" unless he existed.
@@gaiusoctavius5935 So...not a ghost? Risen from death, eh? Zombie? Lich? Vampire? Take your pick, he claims to have met the undead.
"Brother of the lord" could mean fellow worshipper, fellow cultist. It doesn't say "James, brother of Jesus", does it? Again, if I'm walkabout and meet a dog with tag that reads "Fido", how could it NOT be my neighbour's dog, likewise named Fido?
Your critical thinking skills are poor...almost nonexistent. I suppose you find "the empty tomb" compelling, ya?
Note: "Empty tomb" = hole with naught in it.
@@dinoperedetout7464 "Claims to have met the undead" Jesus wasn't undead because undead people are people who are technically dead but still animate. James was the brother of Jesus this is attested to by several independent sources. If you don't want to believe that a historical person named Jesus existed. Then go put on your tinfoil hat and go sit in the corner with the fundies who deny evolution and the flat earthers.
I had to stop reading this book because I was so frustrated (actually In fairness, his early chapter on the non-Christian gods and their eclectic worship and how the general term ‘paganism’ is inaccurate was helpful.
However, I found it difficult when Bart Ehrman seemed to keep interjecting interpretation of facts based on assumptions rather than evidence either pro or con. Often a statement is made that seems to ignore other material (N.T. Documents) or betrays an unfamiliarity of them.
The final straw was when he refers to Acts 1:13-14 Where, after the resurrection and ascension of Jesus, the remaining 11 of the 12 Disciples are listed as praying in the upper room along with Mary and the (half)-brothers of Jesus. The next verse (15) tells us that Peter stood up “in the midst of the disciples” and includes this additional information: “(altogether the number of names was about a hundred and twenty)”. The author then asks “How were so many converted in the space of one verse?” !?! I was astounded at such a massive misreading of such a simple passage. For me, it capped my prior concerns and eventual frustration.
Does the fact that vs. 13-14 are not giving an exhaustive listing, and that vs. 15 is not speaking of ‘instant conversions’ really need to be explained? Even if you consider the account unreliable, that doesn’t excuse misreading it.
I do not mind reading Church Histories written by those with a bias I do not share (can glean much), but I do expect a scholar to bring basic common sense and objective understanding to the texts to which he refers. When I continue to encounter statements such as the one mentioned above, I eventually have to recognize that the book is just not worth my time.