About a year ago, i started studying Roman history- which led to studying early Christianity- which led me to this channel- you two are brilliant, entertaining, and so insightful. Thank you for being such good historians and messengers. ✌🏼❤️
Ehrman is an erstwhile guest on MythVision and History Valley RUclips channels. Both are excellent. Kenneth Humphrey’s channel JesusNeverExisted presents the Roman Provenance theory of Christian origins. The first century is full of surprises.
Dr. James White got Ehrman to admit in the cross examination of their debate that the new testament is by far the best attested work of Antiquity out of all the documents of the ancient world. Good books that refute Ehrmans arguments are called misquoting truth by Timothy Paul Jones and keeping faith in an age of reason by Dr. Jason Lisle. Only reason people reject Jesus is cause they love their sin and wanna suppress the truth Romans 1:18-32 Gods word says that and it says they won't have an excuse on judgment day. 1 reason Ehrman admitted he has nightmares about hell. Ehrman alao said that we have more evidence for Jesus than anyone else in the ancient world.
This last part, not trying to convince people about “nonsense” and being ready for changing your thought was in my opinion a brilliant position one can take. Thanks a lot for sharing ❤
Bart and Megan, I would like to see 2 podcasts: 1. What did the earliest of early Christians believe about Communion? 2. What did the earliest Christians believe happened at baptism? The above two sacraments/ordinances are very confusing for both Christians and non-Christians today Thank you! I enjoy both of you and look forward to your podcasts.
@@AveCaesar2112They weren't. It's actually discussed in Bart's Forgery book. The guy who said there was a sect doing that likely made it up to make them look bad.
What about Plato? My understanding is the early dialogues are mostly actually Plato documenting what Socrates said but later ones are mostly Plato’s ideas but in Socrates name. Do scholars think Plato was trying to pawn off his ideas as those of Socrates in the later dialogues or was he just using Socrates as a literary device (which is what I was taught)?
I agree with Bart on avoiding talking about Christianity (or Mormonism, etc) as “nonsense”. I don’t believe in the supernatural, but am humble enough to see that our current understanding of the natural world is pretty weak. Think dark matter, dark energy, or the multiverse. Or the quantum measurement problem. I study the Bible like I study Plato or Hume as influencers of modern thinking. My dear friend is a Christian who is very involved in his church. I feel that’s it’s appropriate to challenge his vaccine skepticism (which does societal harm) with data, but inappropriate to try to pry him away from his congregation with my interpretation. With fundamentalists who rail against immigrants or spew hatred toward LGBT humans, I always ask “what would Jesus do”.? Makes me feel better and stands a (vanishingly small) chance of changing their thinking
The reason the "what would Jesus do" cliche is a waste of time is that Jesus is a pseudo-historical Rorschach blot upon which "believers" imprint their own version. To a liberal Christian, he is the source of all human goodness, and to a conservative, he is a fire-breathing, vengeance-dealing warrior coming to prepare the path for eternal punishment for anyone they don't like. Forget Jesus, and ask yourself what should I do? That's a real question.
The cliche has its uses. I don’t use it as a rhetorical question to determine my own behavior. I think it is a useful rhetorical device for defending my beliefs from a “fire breather”. I feel better having said something rather than nothing.
if you want a means to reveal a Christian's flavor of belief system, wwjd? relating to a specific scenario is a useful technique. Socratic, if you will. @@GaiusSonofGermanicus
The world is probably radically different from what we can possibly conceive. That doesn’t lend the slightest bit of credence to any religious belief system. If you approach religion as you approach philosophy or science, you are deeply confused. The Bible in particular is not a science textbook, nor does it purport to be.
science & philosophy are tools. religion is something upon which such tools are applied in order to gain understanding. perhaps you are conflating religion w/ spiritual experience? though, the tools of reason can be applied to that as well. the personal or group spiritual experience is obviously fraught w/ subjectivity & emotion... that's pretty obvious... doesn't mean it cannot be critically studied & understood as a human phenomenon. @@jeffryphillipsburns
Just to sharpen the Euthryphro argument slightly: It's relevant in particular to Christians who wish to make claims like "God is perfectly good" and also "God's will determines what is good or right." If "good" is just whatever God decides is good-he could have decided instead that cruelty and selfishness would be what's good-then the claim that "God is good" becomes meaningless. The claim only has content if there's an independent standard for what counts as "good."
What? How is this even a rebuttal? You literally based your whole argument on something that could've and didn't happen? Do you understand Divine Simplicity?
Euthypro's argument is answered by the Bible's statement that God IS Good. That is that the virtue of Goodness itself describes God's nature. God doesn't arbitrarily define good or adhere to a external standard. The Euthypro argument is a Coluphodism where one constructs a rhetorical "God Box" then asserts that God in fact, is contained in the box. Then when the skeptic triumphantly collapses the box, God disappears in a puff of logic. Or so the skeptic thinks...
Thank you for your intelligent analysis of the New Testament writings. And thank you for the acknowledgment that fundamentalist Christianity can be HARMFUL, not just wrong, but psychologically harmful and socially dangerous, as are all fundamentalist interpretations of religion.
theology of the Seventh-day Adventist Church corresponds to common evangelical Christian teachings, like the Trinity and the infallibility of Scripture. The church places an emphasis on diet and health, including adhering to Kosher food laws, advocating vegetarianism. They believe that the body, soul, and spirit form one inseparable entity. The Church holds the belief that "God created the universe, and in a recent six-day creation made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day". Marriage is defined as a lifelong union between a man and a woman.
Looking forward to next week's presentation. I too was an evangelical (even attending Westminster Theological Seminary). I later drifted into atheism due to being an intellectually curious person. I then returned to the Christian faith, thanks to an exploration of Buddhism, the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead, William James and John Dewey, and the work of Carl Jung. I'd say I am a more "enlightened" Christian having made peace with my evangelical past, but now supporting a much more inclusive perspective. Thank you both for the great work that you offer us seekers. BTW, I first became familiar with Bart's work way back in 1997!
@wamaartasylum Curious why you turned to Christian faith, opposed to being “spiritual.” What defines Christian faith to you, specifically? Genuinely curious and wanting to learn various perspectives.
Dr. James White got Ehrman to admit in the cross examination of their debate that the new testament is by far the best attested work of Antiquity out of all the documents of the ancient world. Good books that refute Ehrmans arguments are called misquoting truth by Timothy Paul Jones and keeping faith in an age of reason by Dr. Jason Lisle. Only reason people reject Jesus is cause they love their sin and wanna suppress the truth Romans 1:18-32 Gods word says that and it says they won't have an excuse on judgment day. 1 reason Ehrman admitted he has nightmares about hell. Ehrman alao said that we have more evidence for Jesus than anyone else in the ancient world.
I'd love to eventually see an episode about Lazarus, how the episode goes in the bible, if it appears in all the gospels, if so, if there are any contradictions, what non-cannonical gospels might say about him etc -- as I've heard for example that some consider he was the disciple whom Jesus loved. Is there any indication that he did become an apostle? Or does he just disappear from history and we assume he was just a narrative tool to show that Jesus can do miracles -- since, if someone supposedly ressurected, you'd think they'd be a pretty big deal in christianity.
Question about "He who over comes will be able set on my throne just as I overcame and sat on my Father's thrown." - is deconverting a form of over coming?
I'm interested if you were to do an episode about what we know of the other 10 disciples (not Peter, John). It seems like all the forgeries as well as the only characters in Acts are Paul, James the brother of Jesus, John Zebedee son, and Peter. The other 10 disciples just seem to disappear. If they were active in the early church and preaching their message of risen jesus why are they so absent? Why did no one forge anything under their names? It almost seems like after Jesus' crucifixion they just went back home and went to work within a few months or year afterwards. Their absence is quite conspicuous
He has mentioned since this episode that only 8 names actually happen consistently in the different gospels (four are missing from John, I think) and that there are forged books in all their names.
It’s good to finally find out why the Bible - particularly the New Testament, has so many contradictions! And interesting to see that so many of the minor issues that many Christians really focus in on (like the 3rd temple & the role of women, homosexuality etc) are not even written by Paul…
Could the pastoral epistles be originally by Paul but updated and modified over time in accordance with the needs of an evolving church? Could the personal information they contain be a deceitful attempt to make it look authentic, or the remnants of a genuine original?
Writing analysis uses things such as word choice, word meaning, themes, and other elements of writing style to show a coherence between multiple pieces of work.
@@toml992 You have a good point there. However, we're looking at the largest single contributor to a collection supposedly by the same person. If we are going to claim that any author in the collection is that person, then we pick the largest portion. Further, I believe that one of the factors involved is how accurate the work is on the details, such as travel destinations making sense, and so on. The ones that get those wrong aren't the original.
@@toml992 The author of the seven was a guy who called himself, and was likely called, Paul. That makes him Paul as much as anything could. Paul is just a name.
Thanks for not wanting to trash Christian beliefs. I’m newly deconverted and I have desire to deconvert others. But I do take exception if their faith hurts others.
Another excellent episode as always. And excited for the new course! Bart's courses are always insta-buys for me. Even if I don't make it live (and...I usually don't), I always watch/listen as soon after as I can. 💜
Like the 2nd/4th Book of Esdras, allegedly written by Ezra. Which Ezra? Many believe it was the same Ezra who 'wrote' Daniel, Nehemiah, Ezra. But not possible because that Ezra was long dead according to the dating of the Book of Esdras
When you are beaten as a child for not accepting outright medieval fairy tales as holy truth you will have a lot less tolerance for nonsense put out as religion. By medieval nonsense I am referring to miracle stories of medieval saints and stories from some of the non canonical gospels of Mary and young Jesus Bart has discussed taught as facts in a religious school.
1:45 "I'm not sure if you want to hear this but you're going to!" Epic! Almost made me spit out my coffee! You just have to love him for this sort of things.
"Objective morality" is incoherent. Morality is by nature subjective. It is an emergent phenomenon of human societies. Either give a definition of "objective morality", OR give an example of something you can point to and label as objective morality.
*what I mean by incoherent: Trianglws are three sided by nature. "Three-sided triangle" is redundant. "Four-sided triangle" is incoherent. Morality is subjective, individual humans are the subjects. "Subjective" is not a pejorative or a synonym for "inferior." It annoys me when people use objective/subjective as synonyms for superior/inferior, respectively
@@marcomoreno6748 This has got to be one of the stupidest comments I have ever read. Since morality is meant to regulate RELATIONS between human beings, it HAS TO be objective (i.e. independent of what anyone thinks about it) or it is not at all. "Subjective morality" is an oxymoron. The fact that morality is an emergent phenomenon is irrelevant. Liquidity is an emergent property of certain molecular arrangements, that does not make is subjective. As to an example, sure: murder is objectively wrong. It does not matter if a psychopath thinks it is good, it is STILL wrong, objectively. All we need to ascertain that is game theory and the irrefutable axiom that life is better than death (if you don't agree with that one, why are you still living?). Just THINK, man, THINK!.
@@KRGruner If you want to talk about regulation, there is no need to conceive morality as being necessarily objective to enforce regulations. Different countries have different speed limits; there is nothing objective about those laws. But as a regulation, it sure looks like it can work. Life is better than death is a value judgment. It is not objective. You only think it is objective because the vast majority of people subscribe to that value and it just feels intuitive. It's not because of the influence of objective morality, but because of evolution. Our genes are coded to have a distaste for murder.
@@andrewtsai777 Nope, try again. First, all regulations are not equally valid or effective. That is the point. As to death versus life being a value judgement, that is one of the stupidest comments I have ever read or heard. To make the case, you have to be alive which means that you prefer life over death. Some people do commit suicide, but then they are in no position to argue the value of life over death, are they? The very nature of life is to live. Otherwise, rocks are good enough. As to our genes having a distaste for murder, that is complete bullshit, as anyone familiar with human history would know (not sure what planet you are from). Or anyone who has read "Lord of the Flies." Think, man, think!
I agree with your last speech. Other than for a very short time as a troubled teen, I have not been Christian. There have been too many issues connected with it, particularly their afterlife views, that have turned me off, especially in recent years as I have aged. Stating that, I am sometimes appalled at the way that some "professional atheists", such as Matt Dilahunty, treats his Christian callers. He is condescending and completely loses his temper way too easily. That is in spite of the fact that he, just like the callers that he is hating on, was steeped in Christianity for many years. Dilahunty almost became a preacher, for goodness sake. I have read the rantings of Quora atheists that are unbelievably even worse than Dilahunty's. While I don't hesitate to give my negative views of Christianity on online forums when challenged, I would never go out of my way to attack Christians that are simply expressing supernatural beliefs that I don't agree with. I have come to blame BOTH militant Christians AND militant atheists for online vitriol concerning religion.
How terrible it is to those who write the Book with their hands and then say, "This is from God," to sell it for a little money. How terrible it is for them for what their hands have written, and how terrible for them what they have earned. Qur'an Al- Baqarah - 79
Thank you so much for taking the position of an honest critical examination of the Bible, it is horrifying and angering to see that the Bible has so many faults and that it otherwise expects us to accept them uncritically.
Where in the bible does it say destroy Al Aqsa mosque. By the way, I am saying a good moral life means respecting everyone and that is what Jesus tried to teach us.
Saturday was the Sabbath. The Catholic Church changed it to Sunday in order to attract the sun worshippers. For similar reasons, Christmas was declared to be December 25 to coincide with the Winter solstice. Easter was originally the name of a pagan goddess. Fertility rites. Hence, rabbits and eggs are symbols of fertility and became the Easter Bunny and Easter eggs.
Nonsense is always true and infallible in a echo chamber. The controversies only happen when the nonsense seeps out of or rides on the steeds of war beyond the borders of the echo chamber.
Is premarital sex a sin for non-virgins? Some people make that claim even after they have been sexually active with one or multiple people, have kids, divorced a few times, etc. What does the bible say about that?
To a large degree most Christians are internally consistent. It's not "nonsense" - it's just founded on assumptions that might not be true. You'll find that JWs and Mormons actually know their lore and engage with it to a high degree. I agree with Bart *entirely* especially about where it becomes problematic which is socially. I think that happens around the beat-me-I'm-a-dog stuff, like turning the other cheek. If Christians are teaching their children to love the kids who beat and bully them, only ever be nice to them, invite more abuse, don't even rat as the other child will be punished and wishing punishment on them is wrong, that is child abuse.
“Internally consistent”? You mean their organs are aligned? Probably more or less. Can’t say as much for their belief system. In any case, it is perfectly possible for psychotic delusions, for example, to be consistent (the “internally” is superfluous). The problem is that they don’t comport with physical reality. Consistency is necessary but not sufficient. The “Christian” belief system, however, neither comports with physical reality nor is it at all consistent. Christianity is not nonsense only in the sense that it has, traditionally, deep cultural and historical significance. The actual belief system qua belief system, on the other hand, is patently, plainly, and indisputably fantastical and nonsensical. Ehrman is simply not in a position to point this out. His profession and past history preclude it.
I have been listening to Bart for over 20 years since The Teaching Company courses. Are there more Barts out there? Who will be his successors? Maybe there are but they aren’t well known in popular culture? I am genuinely curious as this seems to be an important approach to biblical studies.
Prof. Ehrman. I have a question. Does the part when Jesus say that god is going to get rid of the romans within the life time of his generation an undisputable one? Excuse my english, this is not my langage.
If you have not done so already, I suggest you listen to Bart’s podcasts on the Book of Revelation, Episodes # 17, 18, 19, and 20 (these are from the Misquoting Jesus series). Bart uploaded Episode #17 about 11 months ago (“The Book of Revelation and the End of the World”). There, you might find your answer. Good luck!
"8 of the 27 Books of the NT were written by the actual claimed authors. " They are: Revelation Romans Galatians 1 Corinthians 2 Corinthians 1 Thessalonians Philippians Philemon 13 Letters claimed to be written by Paul, but Scholarly consensus believes he only wrote 7.
The New Testament is a collection of man made stories about an imaginary godman who arranged his own torture and death after he performed magic acts to impress his followers. An alternative for those who want to escape reality.
Forgery?! I, Paul, most definitely wrote those letters. You can take my word for it because I myself am Paul. My buddy Luke is here with me and wanted me to tell you that he saw me write it too. Trust us.
After listening to thousands of hours of apologetics I wouldn’t say it’s forgery. Everyone was just trying to get their own 2cents in with their own understanding of Christology and eschatology. Jesus didn’t write anything nor did his disciples for decades. This means everyone was going around preaching for decades and decades. That’s a lot of oral information in circulation going around I mean you would need volumes and volumes to catch up and that’s why there were so many gospels because there were so many interpretations going around and add to that all different culture merging with Hebraic, Roman and greek. This would be expected.
There are some scholars that also see echos of the Greeks, especially Stoicism, Plato, and possibly Homeric myths in the gospels. I believe Robin Faith Walsh is one of them.
That's all true, but... I'm unclear how any of that makes it "not a forgery" when an author composes a text pretending to be someone they're not. Yes, sure, they "wanted to get their 2 cents in." And the way they tried to do that was by committing forgery.
@@normative I was just responding to your last few sentences. But, yes if someone is writing and putting someone else’s name on it, then that is definitely a forgery. In the case of the four Gospels, that’s a bit different since the originals were anonymous and someone else added the names.
@@normativebecause everybody was doing it. So if everybody was doing it and the audience knows it you’re not fooling anyone. It was just accepted that to give it legitimacy it needs to be signed with “according to”. Sure you can make the case was everyone really doing it or did they all know, but I think it was the trend. The forgery notion in that scenario is not like our modern understanding. The past history as dominic crossan eloquently puts it is “Past is interactively reconstructed by the present using evidenced based arguments in public discourse.” We are using our own understanding today of what forgery is today or anything into the past. It doesn’t always line up 1-1. A race war was triggered as soon as someone wrote the first gospel and it causes a schism because one group said Matthew said this another said no he said this or that. So I think the whole “according to” was the loop hole that got them out of being claimed a forgery.
Christianity is not nonsense only in that it has deep cultural and historical significance. The actual belief system qua belief system, however, is patently and plainly absurd. There have been in the modern era intelligent, literate persons who perversely cling to it (C S. Lewis, for example), but I’ve never met an actual genius who did. In any case, just because an intelligent person, or even a genius, believes something (or gives it lip service) doesn’t mean it isn’t nonsense. Even though he persistently maintains that he has abandoned his “faith”, Ehrman is not in a position to judge this objectively, since he’ll never and could never completely renounce his former self-which after all must necessarily be essentially the same self he inhabits now.
not a modern era example, but Isaac Newton comes to mind. I'm surprised he hasn't been brought up by apologists to prop up Christianity as being accepted by geniuses. Newton was obsessed with the Bible. Potentially as a means to unravel its power over society? He must have been conflicted but his personal writings show a strong belief in Christianity
@@MrJashuaDavies Isaac Newton was a Non-Trinitarian / Unitarian and was a strong opponent of the Trinitarian / Godhead / Triune God worshipping faith. He indeed was on the side of Jesus of the Bible. Jesus gave the Trinity-DESTR-OYING testimony that THE FATHER (SINGLE PERSON) IS THE ONLY TRUE GOD but Christians (majority) testify that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (The Trinity) is the true God. John 4:21-22 Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, *WORSHIP THE FATHER* . Ye worship ye know not what: *WE* know what *WE WORSHIP* : for salvation is of the Jews. Have another look: *WE WORSHIP* (The Jews INCLUDING ME - Jesus) Here is the Trinity-DE:ST-RO-YI-NG testimony of Jesus. “And this is life eternal, that they might know *YOU THE ONLY TRUE GOD* , and Jesus Christ, whom *YOU* have sent.” John 17:3 John 20:17: “Jesus saith unto her, ...I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and TO MY GOD, AND YOUR GOD.” Have another look! ".... *TO MY GOD and YOUR GOD* " ME and YOU 👉 *WE* *WE WORSHIP* THE ONLY TRUE GOD - THE FATHER who is THE GOD OF ME (Jesus) and YOU 👉 *OUR GOD* And Jesus answered him, THE FIRST OF ALL the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord *OUR GOD* is one Lord Mark 12:29 Jesus teaches: “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and *HIM ONLY* shalt thou serve” Luke 4:8. Notice the words: “HIM ONLY.” Jesus did not say “US only,” or “Him and I only.” How could he possibly i it more clear than that? Jesus told to worship ONLY THE FATHER - who is THE GOD of Jesus too. Of course the term Father in the J3-w-1sh context. It's NOTHING more than a term for endearment NOT that God has a Son. God has got Son by the Ton in the Bible.
@@MrJashuaDavies The reason why Newton hasn't been brought up by apologists to prop up Christianity as being accepted by geniuses is because this genius was a Non Trinitarian / Unitarian. Isaac Newton, considered Christian, rejected the divinity of Jesus and the concept of the Holy Trinity. His beliefs, published after his death, suggest a closer affinity to the Islamic doctrine. The name Isaac Newton needs no introduction. Being one of the most influential individuals in human history, Newton tops any list of scientists, mathematicians or physicists. Despite being that renowned, many people are unaware that Newton’s trajectory of interests was far beyond just mathematics or physics. To anyone’s surprise, Newton also invested much of his time in theology. Newton accomplished almost everything in the field of physics but still felt he was missing something much more important. He searched for one true God despite being raised as a Christian. Newton, with time, became aware that the faith he believed in wasn’t stable. It wasn’t until much later after his death, it was revealed that he identified himself as a Nontrinitarian Monotheist. When Newton died, in addition to his scientific work, he left a huge collection of his religious work as well, comprising his interpretation and explanation of the Bible. However, Newton’s descendants felt that it wasn’t the right time to reveal his religious beliefs to the general public as it might hurt Newton’s scientific legacy. Newton believed that the doctrine of the Trinity was bogus. Newton insisted that the Church was responsible for the corruption of Biblical texts. When Newton’s unorthodox beliefs were made public by the end of the 20th century, scholars were associating him with Nontrinitarian Arians, Socinians or sometimes Unitarians. Newton’s beliefs were shockingly much closer to orthodox Muslims than unorthodox Christians.
Fun conversation. Interesting tangent: the Prophet Mohammed was aware of the inconsistency in the Bible and wanted to avoid the same fate. Islamic scholars worked diligently to preserve the textual integrity of the Quran, which was complied by Mohammed's companions. Nevertheless, errors and inconsistencies immediately appeared, though they are relatively minor.
Someone changed the translation of the word meaning "young woman" to "virgin" in order to create a virgin birth. One of the stand-out falsifications or interpolations is the account of Mary Magdalene meeting Jesus outside the tomb where He tells her "Do not touch me for I have not yet ascended to The Father." That was simply a warning not to touch Jesus as powerful spiritual forces were at work fashioning His multidimensional body in order to appear at will to His disciples wherever they might be. Only a few hours later He was eating and drinking with the boys and being touched by them - yet He still had not ascended to The Father, and would not for another 40 days.
Attempts have been made, but there's alway an element of subjective judgement. My guess is that there'll never be a 100% consensus, even amongst secular scholars about which of the sayings attributed to jesus might actually have been spoken by him.
We will never really know, but Bart has his own opinions about what Jesus said. I don’t know that he would say any of the writers were ‘incorrect’. For example Jesus probably didn’t say anything John has him say but that doesn’t mean John is incorrect, it just means he was using the figure of Jesus to convey his ideas. Which to some degree, all of the gospel authors were.
@@mikeharrison1868 You’re hedging just a bit too much. It should be quite a bit easier to achieve consensus about what Jesus “might have said” than about what he did say. He “might have” said all sorts of things; probably he didn’t. That’s an important logical distinction. Moreover, the degree of consensus depends on what particular saying we have in mind.
Each religion usually had a founder who has some degree of realization above the usual man or woman. To follow such a one's moral teachings or spirit blessings or whatever, is what some people want and puts them on the religious path. Like Bart, I wouldn't necessarily dissuade such people if they feel they derive benefit from such association. 🎉
Take Christianity, for example. Is Christianity in its essence the attempt to learn from and abide by the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth? Of course, it isn’t. It’s a cult mystical rationalization of the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, necessarily overlaying the rationalization with fantastical and blatantly contradictory stories and dogma. It’s not at a bad thing to follow Jesus, but that doesn’t put you on a “religious path”. I know several followers of Buddha (as they understand him) who don’t consider themselves the slightest bit religious.
Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, but isn't the point of forgery to misrepresent who the author is? So why would we necessarily know who the author is?
![Seungmin "그렇게, 천천히, 우리(As we are)" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kAzmhLHePqU/mqdefault.jpg)
Bart's style is so refreshing in this age of overconfident, blustery influencers peddling flimsy 5th hand information with absolute certainty. Thanks!
About a year ago, i started studying Roman history- which led to studying early Christianity- which led me to this channel- you two are brilliant, entertaining, and so insightful. Thank you for being such good historians and messengers. ✌🏼❤️
Ehrman is an erstwhile guest on MythVision and History Valley RUclips channels. Both are excellent. Kenneth Humphrey’s channel JesusNeverExisted presents the Roman Provenance theory of Christian origins.
The first century is full of surprises.
Dr. James White got Ehrman to admit in the cross examination of their debate that the new testament is by far the best attested work of Antiquity out of all the documents of the ancient world. Good books that refute Ehrmans arguments are called misquoting truth by Timothy Paul Jones and keeping faith in an age of reason by Dr. Jason Lisle. Only reason people reject Jesus is cause they love their sin and wanna suppress the truth Romans 1:18-32 Gods word says that and it says they won't have an excuse on judgment day. 1 reason Ehrman admitted he has nightmares about hell. Ehrman alao said that we have more evidence for Jesus than anyone else in the ancient world.
This last part, not trying to convince people about “nonsense” and being ready for changing your thought was in my opinion a brilliant position one can take. Thanks a lot for sharing ❤
Absolutely!
Yes
Bart and Megan, I would like to see 2 podcasts: 1. What did the earliest of early Christians believe about Communion? 2. What did the earliest Christians believe happened at baptism? The above two sacraments/ordinances are very confusing for both Christians and non-Christians today Thank you! I enjoy both of you and look forward to your podcasts.
They were eating each other’s semen in the earliest days of Christianity. Can’t remember the name of the sects
he talked about that like 3000 times you can easily find it on youtube😅
@@AveCaesar2112Borborites?
@@AveCaesar2112They weren't. It's actually discussed in Bart's Forgery book. The guy who said there was a sect doing that likely made it up to make them look bad.
@@milna64 I’ve heard it from Bart’s mouth much more recently than Forged. Do you remember what the sect was called?
Bart needs to ask Megan about lighting. She looks like she’s in a proper studio setup, he looks like he’s in his bedroom. Lol
Fr usually his setup looks better but bro looks like one of my teachers on zoom during covid lmao
Who gives a shit😂
Love, love, love the glasses on you, Megan!
Thank you for the interview.
What about Plato? My understanding is the early dialogues are mostly actually Plato documenting what Socrates said but later ones are mostly Plato’s ideas but in Socrates name. Do scholars think Plato was trying to pawn off his ideas as those of Socrates in the later dialogues or was he just using Socrates as a literary device (which is what I was taught)?
I would love to hear them do an episode analyzing the Book of Clarence.
Great as always
Beautiful cat Megan 😍!!!!
Ehrman at his best, when he's talking about textual criticism. I loved "Forged" and this episode as well!
28:50 What would really interest me: Do you think that Matthew 23:15 is actually polemic against Paul?
I agree with Bart on avoiding talking about Christianity (or Mormonism, etc) as “nonsense”. I don’t believe in the supernatural, but am humble enough to see that our current understanding of the natural world is pretty weak. Think dark matter, dark energy, or the multiverse. Or the quantum measurement problem. I study the Bible like I study Plato or Hume as influencers of modern thinking. My dear friend is a Christian who is very involved in his church. I feel that’s it’s appropriate to challenge his vaccine skepticism (which does societal harm) with data, but inappropriate to try to pry him away from his congregation with my interpretation. With fundamentalists who rail against immigrants or spew hatred toward LGBT humans, I always ask “what would Jesus do”.? Makes me feel better and stands a (vanishingly small) chance of changing their thinking
The reason the "what would Jesus do" cliche is a waste of time is that Jesus is a pseudo-historical Rorschach blot upon which "believers" imprint their own version. To a liberal Christian, he is the source of all human goodness, and to a conservative, he is a fire-breathing, vengeance-dealing warrior coming to prepare the path for eternal punishment for anyone they don't like. Forget Jesus, and ask yourself what should I do? That's a real question.
The cliche has its uses. I don’t use it as a rhetorical question to determine my own behavior. I think it is a useful rhetorical device for defending my beliefs from a “fire breather”. I feel better having said something rather than nothing.
if you want a means to reveal a Christian's flavor of belief system, wwjd? relating to a specific scenario is a useful technique. Socratic, if you will. @@GaiusSonofGermanicus
The world is probably radically different from what we can possibly conceive. That doesn’t lend the slightest bit of credence to any religious belief system. If you approach religion as you approach philosophy or science, you are deeply confused. The Bible in particular is not a science textbook, nor does it purport to be.
science & philosophy are tools. religion is something upon which such tools are applied in order to gain understanding. perhaps you are conflating religion w/ spiritual experience? though, the tools of reason can be applied to that as well. the personal or group spiritual experience is obviously fraught w/ subjectivity & emotion... that's pretty obvious... doesn't mean it cannot be critically studied & understood as a human phenomenon. @@jeffryphillipsburns
Thank you Burt Eherman very true it’s waking me up kon from down inter Australian thank you both
Any other thinking Christians here watching Bart’s videos?
Aha! I always suspected that Bart Ehrman wrote "The Shawshank Redemption."
Just to sharpen the Euthryphro argument slightly: It's relevant in particular to Christians who wish to make claims like "God is perfectly good" and also "God's will determines what is good or right." If "good" is just whatever God decides is good-he could have decided instead that cruelty and selfishness would be what's good-then the claim that "God is good" becomes meaningless. The claim only has content if there's an independent standard for what counts as "good."
Good point.
What? How is this even a rebuttal? You literally based your whole argument on something that could've and didn't happen? Do you understand Divine Simplicity?
I’m glossing an argument the full form of which would be obvious if you were familiar with the Euthyphro
@@normative I really struggle to see how this argument is even coherent
Euthypro's argument is answered by the Bible's statement that God IS Good. That is that the virtue of Goodness itself describes God's nature. God doesn't arbitrarily define good or adhere to a external standard. The Euthypro argument is a Coluphodism where one constructs a rhetorical "God Box" then asserts that God in fact, is contained in the box. Then when the skeptic triumphantly collapses the box, God disappears in a puff of logic. Or so the skeptic thinks...
Thank you for your intelligent analysis of the New Testament writings. And thank you for the acknowledgment that fundamentalist Christianity can be HARMFUL, not just wrong, but psychologically harmful and socially dangerous, as are all fundamentalist interpretations of religion.
26:40 It's not that complicated, but it's very fascinating. 🙂
I would live to hear the talk about 7th day Adventist theology so I can hear what they think as don't often hear much about them.
theology of the Seventh-day Adventist Church corresponds to common evangelical Christian teachings, like the Trinity and the infallibility of Scripture. The church places an emphasis on diet and health, including adhering to Kosher food laws, advocating vegetarianism. They believe that the body, soul, and spirit form one inseparable entity. The Church holds the belief that "God created the universe, and in a recent six-day creation made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested on the seventh day". Marriage is defined as a lifelong union between a man and a woman.
The Euthyphro dilemma was the starting point on my exit from christianity so I enjoyed his take on it.
Megan, you look stunning and happy.
Love antient Greek, had it for a year or two in liceo (ofc and latin).
Like the podcast.
Delighted by the surprise appearance of Megan's cat!
She takes parrots for their unique fashion sense.
Bart's lighting isawesome !
Looking forward to next week's presentation. I too was an evangelical (even attending Westminster Theological Seminary). I later drifted into atheism due to being an intellectually curious person. I then returned to the Christian faith, thanks to an exploration of Buddhism, the philosophy of Alfred North Whitehead, William James and John Dewey, and the work of Carl Jung. I'd say I am a more "enlightened" Christian having made peace with my evangelical past, but now supporting a much more inclusive perspective. Thank you both for the great work that you offer us seekers. BTW, I first became familiar with Bart's work way back in 1997!
@wamaartasylum Curious why you turned to Christian faith, opposed to being “spiritual.” What defines Christian faith to you, specifically? Genuinely curious and wanting to learn various perspectives.
LOL - loved the feline visitation! Great episode as always. Thanks Bart, Megan et al.
An adorable baby, who was done with all this human nonsense 😀. Time to get back to important stuff, like giving that sweet baby attention lol
Maybe it was Feline of Alexandria
Dr. James White got Ehrman to admit in the cross examination of their debate that the new testament is by far the best attested work of Antiquity out of all the documents of the ancient world. Good books that refute Ehrmans arguments are called misquoting truth by Timothy Paul Jones and keeping faith in an age of reason by Dr. Jason Lisle. Only reason people reject Jesus is cause they love their sin and wanna suppress the truth Romans 1:18-32 Gods word says that and it says they won't have an excuse on judgment day. 1 reason Ehrman admitted he has nightmares about hell. Ehrman alao said that we have more evidence for Jesus than anyone else in the ancient world.
The critics want you to be an activist not a teacher.
I'd love to eventually see an episode about Lazarus, how the episode goes in the bible, if it appears in all the gospels, if so, if there are any contradictions, what non-cannonical gospels might say about him etc -- as I've heard for example that some consider he was the disciple whom Jesus loved.
Is there any indication that he did become an apostle? Or does he just disappear from history and we assume he was just a narrative tool to show that Jesus can do miracles -- since, if someone supposedly ressurected, you'd think they'd be a pretty big deal in christianity.
Brill as always. Especially bit at end when bart explains why he doesnt attack Chrisyianity.
Yep. The fact that the Diatessaron nearly supplanted the four gospels might just indicate certain people wanted the differences minimized.
What an interesting conversation. You guys are so great together. Thank you for this. ❤
Question about "He who over comes will be able set on my throne just as I overcame and sat on my Father's thrown." - is deconverting a form of over coming?
I'm interested if you were to do an episode about what we know of the other 10 disciples (not Peter, John). It seems like all the forgeries as well as the only characters in Acts are Paul, James the brother of Jesus, John Zebedee son, and Peter. The other 10 disciples just seem to disappear. If they were active in the early church and preaching their message of risen jesus why are they so absent? Why did no one forge anything under their names? It almost seems like after Jesus' crucifixion they just went back home and went to work within a few months or year afterwards. Their absence is quite conspicuous
I always thought the same thing. Myself and all the religious people I know cant even name the majority of them
He has mentioned since this episode that only 8 names actually happen consistently in the different gospels (four are missing from John, I think) and that there are forged books in all their names.
It’s good to finally find out why the Bible - particularly the New Testament, has so many contradictions! And interesting to see that so many of the minor issues that many Christians really focus in on (like the 3rd temple & the role of women, homosexuality etc) are not even written by Paul…
KITTY. Lol.
Fascinating subject. I'll need to find your book.
Begins 5:28.
Could the pastoral epistles be originally by Paul but updated and modified over time in accordance with the needs of an evolving church? Could the personal information they contain be a deceitful attempt to make it look authentic, or the remnants of a genuine original?
@28:00 Megan, meet Robinson Erhardt and his podcat :)
The books which are positively attributed to Paul, how was that attribution established?
Great question. Could the seven epistles regarded as authentic actually be the work of a prolific forger?
Writing analysis uses things such as word choice, word meaning, themes, and other elements of writing style to show a coherence between multiple pieces of work.
Yes, but that doesn't mean the author of the seven epistles was Paul, just that they were written by the same person.@@Kyeudo
@@toml992
You have a good point there. However, we're looking at the largest single contributor to a collection supposedly by the same person. If we are going to claim that any author in the collection is that person, then we pick the largest portion. Further, I believe that one of the factors involved is how accurate the work is on the details, such as travel destinations making sense, and so on. The ones that get those wrong aren't the original.
@@toml992 The author of the seven was a guy who called himself, and was likely called, Paul. That makes him Paul as much as anything could. Paul is just a name.
Thanks for not wanting to trash Christian beliefs. I’m newly deconverted and I have desire to deconvert others. But I do take exception if their faith hurts others.
2:27 🤔 didnt Shaul teach the greeks?
Good show 😊👍
Another excellent episode as always. And excited for the new course! Bart's courses are always insta-buys for me. Even if I don't make it live (and...I usually don't), I always watch/listen as soon after as I can. 💜
Like the 2nd/4th Book of Esdras, allegedly written by Ezra. Which Ezra? Many believe it was the same Ezra who 'wrote' Daniel, Nehemiah, Ezra. But not possible because that Ezra was long dead according to the dating of the Book of Esdras
Not Ezra Pound, anyway.
When you are beaten as a child for not accepting outright medieval fairy tales as holy truth you will have a lot less tolerance for nonsense put out as religion. By medieval nonsense I am referring to miracle stories of medieval saints and stories from some of the non canonical gospels of Mary and young Jesus Bart has discussed taught as facts in a religious school.
And were you beaten as a child?
Extreme fundamentalist Christianity is a form of child abuse.
Love Megan’s glasses. Very flattering
Beautiful cat!
The cat stole the show! Kept telling Megan what to ask next 🐈
I'm here for the impeccable glasses fashion of Megan Lewis 🧐
1:45 "I'm not sure if you want to hear this but you're going to!" Epic! Almost made me spit out my coffee! You just have to love him for this sort of things.
Yep, the Euthyphro dialogue is one of the most important when discussion religion and God. Objective morality does not need God as justification.
"Objective morality" is incoherent. Morality is by nature subjective. It is an emergent phenomenon of human societies. Either give a definition of "objective morality", OR give an example of something you can point to and label as objective morality.
*what I mean by incoherent: Trianglws are three sided by nature. "Three-sided triangle" is redundant. "Four-sided triangle" is incoherent. Morality is subjective, individual humans are the subjects.
"Subjective" is not a pejorative or a synonym for "inferior." It annoys me when people use objective/subjective as synonyms for superior/inferior, respectively
@@marcomoreno6748 This has got to be one of the stupidest comments I have ever read. Since morality is meant to regulate RELATIONS between human beings, it HAS TO be objective (i.e. independent of what anyone thinks about it) or it is not at all. "Subjective morality" is an oxymoron. The fact that morality is an emergent phenomenon is irrelevant. Liquidity is an emergent property of certain molecular arrangements, that does not make is subjective. As to an example, sure: murder is objectively wrong. It does not matter if a psychopath thinks it is good, it is STILL wrong, objectively. All we need to ascertain that is game theory and the irrefutable axiom that life is better than death (if you don't agree with that one, why are you still living?). Just THINK, man, THINK!.
@@KRGruner If you want to talk about regulation, there is no need to conceive morality as being necessarily objective to enforce regulations. Different countries have different speed limits; there is nothing objective about those laws. But as a regulation, it sure looks like it can work.
Life is better than death is a value judgment. It is not objective. You only think it is objective because the vast majority of people subscribe to that value and it just feels intuitive. It's not because of the influence of objective morality, but because of evolution. Our genes are coded to have a distaste for murder.
@@andrewtsai777 Nope, try again. First, all regulations are not equally valid or effective. That is the point. As to death versus life being a value judgement, that is one of the stupidest comments I have ever read or heard. To make the case, you have to be alive which means that you prefer life over death. Some people do commit suicide, but then they are in no position to argue the value of life over death, are they? The very nature of life is to live. Otherwise, rocks are good enough. As to our genes having a distaste for murder, that is complete bullshit, as anyone familiar with human history would know (not sure what planet you are from). Or anyone who has read "Lord of the Flies." Think, man, think!
I agree with your last speech.
Other than for a very short time as a troubled teen, I have not been Christian. There have been too many issues connected with it, particularly their afterlife views, that have turned me off, especially in recent years as I have aged.
Stating that, I am sometimes appalled at the way that some "professional atheists", such as Matt Dilahunty, treats his Christian callers. He is condescending and completely loses his temper way too easily. That is in spite of the fact that he, just like the callers that he is hating on, was steeped in Christianity for many years. Dilahunty almost became a preacher, for goodness sake.
I have read the rantings of Quora atheists that are unbelievably even worse than Dilahunty's.
While I don't hesitate to give my negative views of Christianity on online forums when challenged, I would never go out of my way to attack Christians that are simply expressing supernatural beliefs that I don't agree with.
I have come to blame BOTH militant Christians AND militant atheists for online vitriol concerning religion.
Thank you.
How terrible it is to those who write the Book with their hands and then say, "This is from God," to sell it for a little money. How terrible it is for them for what their hands have written, and how terrible for them what they have earned. Qur'an Al- Baqarah - 79
How can you know the word or questi
Thank you so much for taking the position of an honest critical examination of the Bible, it is horrifying and angering to see that the Bible has so many faults and that it otherwise expects us to accept them uncritically.
Yea... Is it Gods word then with all the faults? And forged documents?
You have three choices...
Become an atheist, become Jewish, or become a Muslim. See Paul Williams for more education... ☑️☑️
Read the Bible more what it actually says. It is about how to live a moral life. Who cares as long as it has a good messages for us all.
@@AmalfiCoastinItaly it says to destroy Al Aqsa mosque is that a good message?
Where in the bible does it say destroy Al Aqsa mosque. By the way, I am saying a good moral life means respecting everyone and that is what Jesus tried to teach us.
5:27 discussion begins
I wouldn't want to miss the pre-discussion.
Did early Christians keep the sabbath? Did they worship on Saturday or Sunday?
Saturday was the Sabbath. The Catholic Church changed it to Sunday in order to attract the sun worshippers. For similar reasons, Christmas was declared to be December 25 to coincide with the Winter solstice. Easter was originally the name of a pagan goddess. Fertility rites. Hence, rabbits and eggs are symbols of fertility and became the Easter Bunny and Easter eggs.
Nonsense is always true and infallible in a echo chamber. The controversies only happen when the nonsense seeps out of or rides on the steeds of war beyond the borders of the echo chamber.
“The steads of war”?
@@jeffryphillipsburns Good catch thank you, fixed
The part about destroying and then rebuilding the temple, was that metaphorical?
, Jesus was talking about Himself john chapter two, verses 19 to 22. It explains that "the temple" was referring to His body.
Is premarital sex a sin for non-virgins? Some people make that claim even after they have been sexually active with one or multiple people, have kids, divorced a few times, etc. What does the bible say about that?
Video starts at 5:50
Hey Bart? Why didn’t you get the big mic?
To a large degree most Christians are internally consistent. It's not "nonsense" - it's just founded on assumptions that might not be true. You'll find that JWs and Mormons actually know their lore and engage with it to a high degree. I agree with Bart *entirely* especially about where it becomes problematic which is socially. I think that happens around the beat-me-I'm-a-dog stuff, like turning the other cheek. If Christians are teaching their children to love the kids who beat and bully them, only ever be nice to them, invite more abuse, don't even rat as the other child will be punished and wishing punishment on them is wrong, that is child abuse.
Christianity's core teaching includes loving your enemy as you love yourself.
“Internally consistent”? You mean their organs are aligned? Probably more or less. Can’t say as much for their belief system. In any case, it is perfectly possible for psychotic delusions, for example, to be consistent (the “internally” is superfluous). The problem is that they don’t comport with physical reality. Consistency is necessary but not sufficient. The “Christian” belief system, however, neither comports with physical reality nor is it at all consistent. Christianity is not nonsense only in the sense that it has, traditionally, deep cultural and historical significance. The actual belief system qua belief system, on the other hand, is patently, plainly, and indisputably fantastical and nonsensical. Ehrman is simply not in a position to point this out. His profession and past history preclude it.
@@blktarockstar818 That may have have been one of Jesus’s core teachings, but that doesn’t make it one of Christianity’s core teachings.
I love Megan's styles of glasses xx
I have been listening to Bart for over 20 years since The Teaching Company courses. Are there more Barts out there? Who will be his successors? Maybe there are but they aren’t well known in popular culture? I am genuinely curious as this seems to be an important approach to biblical studies.
Dan McClellan comes to mind. I appreciate his approach.
We need to get Bart to turn down his screens brightness.
Prof. Ehrman. I have a question. Does the part when Jesus say that god is going to get rid of the romans within the life time of his generation an undisputable one? Excuse my english, this is not my langage.
If you have not done so already, I suggest you listen to Bart’s podcasts on the Book of Revelation, Episodes # 17, 18, 19, and 20 (these are from the Misquoting Jesus series). Bart uploaded Episode #17 about 11 months ago (“The Book of Revelation and the End of the World”). There, you might find your answer. Good luck!
@@balancematters2776 Thanks, i think i have listened those but it's bein a while, lets do it again! 😃
BART looks like the alien (Mr burns ) in the simpsons Halloween episode lol !
Oh, I guess I now need a lesson on each book of the new testament. Please Bart!
No cutting bud.
"8 of the 27 Books of the NT were written by the actual claimed authors. " They are:
Revelation
Romans
Galatians
1 Corinthians
2 Corinthians
1 Thessalonians
Philippians
Philemon
13 Letters claimed to be written by Paul, but Scholarly consensus believes he only wrote 7.
One day these two will stand before the great white throne❗Wonder what they will say.
"Paul" is basically giving the Gentiles an early form of what today is known as "The Noahide Laws." Same with the Jerusalem Council of Acts 15!
In alaska, it is very dark for a long time
The New Testament is a collection of man made stories
about an imaginary godman
who arranged his own torture and death
after he performed magic acts to impress his followers.
An alternative for those who want to escape reality.
Whoa. This is like completely new information! I award you one gold star. Now everyone knows.
Define "reality."
maybe they just need help managing it.
@@VladfishTheMagnificent Define “define”.
It's a work of literature. Move on. Don't forget to pay your bills and taxes. Now, that's hard reality.
Forgery?! I, Paul, most definitely wrote those letters. You can take my word for it because I myself am Paul. My buddy Luke is here with me and wanted me to tell you that he saw me write it too. Trust us.
Anyone who has studied the early church fathers can see that.... its easy doesn't take much scrutiny.
The Genius of the Gospel according to Matthew was already uploaded a year ago, why repeat?
After listening to thousands of hours of apologetics I wouldn’t say it’s forgery. Everyone was just trying to get their own 2cents in with their own understanding of Christology and eschatology. Jesus didn’t write anything nor did his disciples for decades. This means everyone was going around preaching for decades and decades. That’s a lot of oral information in circulation going around I mean you would need volumes and volumes to catch up and that’s why there were so many gospels because there were so many interpretations going around and add to that all different culture merging with Hebraic, Roman and greek. This would be expected.
There are some scholars that also see echos of the Greeks, especially Stoicism, Plato, and possibly Homeric myths in the gospels. I believe Robin Faith Walsh is one of them.
That's all true, but... I'm unclear how any of that makes it "not a forgery" when an author composes a text pretending to be someone they're not. Yes, sure, they "wanted to get their 2 cents in." And the way they tried to do that was by committing forgery.
@@normative I was just responding to your last few sentences. But, yes if someone is writing and putting someone else’s name on it, then that is definitely a forgery. In the case of the four Gospels, that’s a bit different since the originals were anonymous and someone else added the names.
@@normativebecause everybody was doing it. So if everybody was doing it and the audience knows it you’re not fooling anyone. It was just accepted that to give it legitimacy it needs to be signed with “according to”. Sure you can make the case was everyone really doing it or did they all know, but I think it was the trend. The forgery notion in that scenario is not like our modern understanding. The past history as dominic crossan eloquently puts it is “Past is interactively reconstructed by the present using evidenced based arguments in public discourse.” We are using our own understanding today of what forgery is today or anything into the past. It doesn’t always line up 1-1. A race war was triggered as soon as someone wrote the first gospel and it causes a schism because one group said Matthew said this another said no he said this or that. So I think the whole “according to” was the loop hole that got them out of being claimed a forgery.
Christianity is not nonsense only in that it has deep cultural and historical significance. The actual belief system qua belief system, however, is patently and plainly absurd. There have been in the modern era intelligent, literate persons who perversely cling to it (C S. Lewis, for example), but I’ve never met an actual genius who did. In any case, just because an intelligent person, or even a genius, believes something (or gives it lip service) doesn’t mean it isn’t nonsense. Even though he persistently maintains that he has abandoned his “faith”, Ehrman is not in a position to judge this objectively, since he’ll never and could never completely renounce his former self-which after all must necessarily be essentially the same self he inhabits now.
not a modern era example, but Isaac Newton comes to mind. I'm surprised he hasn't been brought up by apologists to prop up Christianity as being accepted by geniuses. Newton was obsessed with the Bible. Potentially as a means to unravel its power over society? He must have been conflicted but his personal writings show a strong belief in Christianity
@@MrJashuaDavies
Isaac Newton was a Non-Trinitarian / Unitarian and was a strong opponent of the Trinitarian / Godhead / Triune God worshipping faith. He indeed was on the side of Jesus of the Bible.
Jesus gave the Trinity-DESTR-OYING testimony that THE FATHER (SINGLE PERSON) IS THE ONLY TRUE GOD but Christians (majority) testify that the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit (The Trinity) is the true God.
John 4:21-22
Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, *WORSHIP THE FATHER* .
Ye worship ye know not what: *WE* know what *WE WORSHIP* : for salvation is of the Jews.
Have another look:
*WE WORSHIP*
(The Jews INCLUDING ME - Jesus)
Here is the Trinity-DE:ST-RO-YI-NG testimony of Jesus.
“And this is life eternal, that they might know *YOU THE ONLY TRUE GOD* , and Jesus Christ, whom *YOU* have sent.”
John 17:3
John 20:17: “Jesus saith unto her, ...I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and TO MY GOD, AND YOUR GOD.”
Have another look!
".... *TO MY GOD and YOUR GOD* "
ME and YOU 👉 *WE*
*WE WORSHIP*
THE ONLY TRUE GOD - THE FATHER who is THE GOD OF ME (Jesus) and YOU 👉 *OUR GOD*
And Jesus answered him, THE FIRST OF ALL the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord *OUR GOD* is one Lord
Mark 12:29
Jesus teaches: “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and *HIM ONLY* shalt thou serve” Luke 4:8. Notice the words: “HIM ONLY.” Jesus did not say “US only,” or “Him and I only.” How could he possibly i it more clear than that? Jesus told to worship ONLY THE FATHER - who is THE GOD of Jesus too.
Of course the term Father in the J3-w-1sh context. It's NOTHING more than a term for endearment NOT that God has a Son. God has got Son by the Ton in the Bible.
@@MrJashuaDavies
The reason why Newton hasn't been brought up by apologists to prop up Christianity as being accepted by geniuses is because this genius was a Non Trinitarian / Unitarian.
Isaac Newton, considered Christian, rejected the divinity of Jesus and the concept of the Holy Trinity. His beliefs, published after his death, suggest a closer affinity to the Islamic doctrine.
The name Isaac Newton needs no introduction. Being one of the most influential individuals in human history, Newton tops any list of scientists, mathematicians or physicists. Despite being that renowned, many people are unaware that Newton’s trajectory of interests was far beyond just mathematics or physics. To anyone’s surprise, Newton also invested much of his time in theology. Newton accomplished almost everything in the field of physics but still felt he was missing something much more important. He searched for one true God despite being raised as a Christian. Newton, with time, became aware that the faith he believed in wasn’t stable. It wasn’t until much later after his death, it was revealed that he identified himself as a Nontrinitarian Monotheist.
When Newton died, in addition to his scientific work, he left a huge collection of his religious work as well, comprising his interpretation and explanation of the Bible. However, Newton’s descendants felt that it wasn’t the right time to reveal his religious beliefs to the general public as it might hurt Newton’s scientific legacy. Newton believed that the doctrine of the Trinity was bogus. Newton insisted that the Church was responsible for the corruption of Biblical texts. When Newton’s unorthodox beliefs were made public by the end of the 20th century, scholars were associating him with Nontrinitarian Arians, Socinians or sometimes Unitarians. Newton’s beliefs were shockingly much closer to orthodox Muslims than unorthodox Christians.
Fun conversation. Interesting tangent: the Prophet Mohammed was aware of the inconsistency in the Bible and wanted to avoid the same fate. Islamic scholars worked diligently to preserve the textual integrity of the Quran, which was complied by Mohammed's companions. Nevertheless, errors and inconsistencies immediately appeared, though they are relatively minor.
It's filled with Mythologies
What does the bible say about atheism?
Yay...for the kitty!
Someone changed the translation of the word meaning "young woman" to "virgin" in order to create a virgin birth. One of the stand-out falsifications or interpolations is the account of Mary Magdalene meeting Jesus outside the tomb where He tells her "Do not touch me for I have not yet ascended to The Father." That was simply a warning not to touch Jesus as powerful spiritual forces were at work fashioning His multidimensional body in order to appear at will to His disciples wherever they might be. Only a few hours later He was eating and drinking with the boys and being touched by them - yet He still had not ascended to The Father, and would not for another 40 days.
Year of Acadian! I Second the motion!
*Akkadian. "Acadian" is French Canadian settled in Louisiana.
Very interesting. Does Bart or anyone else have a book that is only what Jesus said and are the writers that wrote Jesus' quote correct 🤔
Attempts have been made, but there's alway an element of subjective judgement. My guess is that there'll never be a 100% consensus, even amongst secular scholars about which of the sayings attributed to jesus might actually have been spoken by him.
We will never really know, but Bart has his own opinions about what Jesus said. I don’t know that he would say any of the writers were ‘incorrect’. For example Jesus probably didn’t say anything John has him say but that doesn’t mean John is incorrect, it just means he was using the figure of Jesus to convey his ideas. Which to some degree, all of the gospel authors were.
@@mikeharrison1868 You’re hedging just a bit too much. It should be quite a bit easier to achieve consensus about what Jesus “might have said” than about what he did say. He “might have” said all sorts of things; probably he didn’t. That’s an important logical distinction. Moreover, the degree of consensus depends on what particular saying we have in mind.
27:10. Mummy, never mind that funny man on the screen talking about forgeries I am the real thing feed me !😺.
Each religion usually had a founder who has some degree of realization above the usual man or woman. To follow such a one's moral teachings or spirit blessings or whatever, is what some people want and puts them on the religious path. Like Bart, I wouldn't necessarily dissuade such people if they feel they derive benefit from such association. 🎉
Take Christianity, for example. Is Christianity in its essence the attempt to learn from and abide by the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth? Of course, it isn’t. It’s a cult mystical rationalization of the crucifixion of Jesus of Nazareth, necessarily overlaying the rationalization with fantastical and blatantly contradictory stories and dogma. It’s not at a bad thing to follow Jesus, but that doesn’t put you on a “religious path”. I know several followers of Buddha (as they understand him) who don’t consider themselves the slightest bit religious.
So the term "pseudepigraphy" basically means telling a lie to cover up another lie.
18:20 🎉🎉🎉
Can something be a forgery if the real author is not known?
Yes, if we know it is definitely not the person saying it's the author.
If the author is not known, then the whole book can potentially be a forgery
This is explained in the video. You posted the question without watching it.
@@spankflaps1365
Lol😂 so true.
Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you, but isn't the point of forgery to misrepresent who the author is? So why would we necessarily know who the author is?
Even the gospels were forgeries as the original gospel of the kingdom preached by Jesus were nowhere to be found.
Do scholars know when (approximately) the forgeries were written? Late 1st, early 2nd centuries, or later?
Tim
I wish you could get college credit for these lectures
Bart, how did the concept of ‘Saved’ arise?
Meghan is now lemon lime
She's hot
Megan’s spectacles look much better than Bart’s. In fact Megan looks great today!! Cheers
I like both of them. 🙏
These glasses are my favorite of the ones Megan wears.
I preferred the steampunky ones.