As a former True Blue Mormon of over 40 years, and after having studied the early history of Mormonism and seeing how it developed from myths and deceit, it is easier for me to see how Christianity followed a similar course. Stories based on the lives of one or more itinerant preachers, illiterate and superstitious people who were easily convinced of magical and supernormal events, the superimposition of pagan beliefs and concepts already in place, not to mention the desire of the dominant government of the time to change a rebellious religion into a compliant one, make it easy to see from the growth of Mormonism, how Christianity took root and grew.

@Lina-lq6en

4 жыл бұрын

deskjockie49 Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water. Mormonism was based off of one man’s story but Christianity - there were many eye witnesses that saw Jesus’ miracles and heard his sayings. Love came through Jesus

@slay2525

4 жыл бұрын

The only difference between Paul and Joseph Smith or L. Ron Hubbard is the recent hucksters are exposed by modern record preservation. So we know that Joseph Smith was a convicted fraudster and L. Ron was a science fiction author who stole a psychology treatise and published it as Dianetics. The fraud of Paul if he truly existed will never be known because no records exist. Both Smith and L. Ron recognized that the government give religions a hand up versus regular citizens by allowing them to avoid taxes.

@epiphanydrums5427

4 жыл бұрын

Lina B take a look at Erhman’ free larger lecture series. Mind blowing. Then go on to “Caesars messiah.” If that doesn’t get you thinking you’re just not interested. But make no mistake, it takes some effort to get honest with yourself. I personally still believe in God. But I recognize I can only speak for myself.

I'm an atheist and I loved this conversation, one of the most honest and thoughtful religious people I've ever heard speak, and Bart is fantastic of course.

@some_old_guy1976

4 жыл бұрын

I am not Atheist cause with discernment I cannot reject something I have no idea how to define. Same reason I do not believe, religion gave G-d a bad name. With humility agnostic is the only stance. Peace out.

@robbiebobbie2011

4 жыл бұрын

some_old_guy atheist simply means rejecting super natural claims

@nathanmckenzie904

4 жыл бұрын

@@robbiebobbie2011 it's not supernatural.. it's not accepting the claim there is a god

@robbiebobbie2011

4 жыл бұрын

nathan mckenzie what’s the difference in super natural and a god?

@some_old_guy1976

4 жыл бұрын

@@robbiebobbie2011 that's what you would like to believe fine.

I'm a Latter-day Saint and I really enjoyed this interview and all of the presentations by Dr. Ehrman. I think we all need to keep our minds open and learn all we can, from every side and point of view.

@UK_WMB

4 жыл бұрын

So do agree book of Mormon is fiction?

I appreciated this interview. You finally have a religion like the Mormons who believe in Jesus but feel they have a superior written authority. This allows for deep probing questions to Dr. Ehrman without the uncomfortable pushback he gets when on other Christian shows and debates, or the dismissive nature of my atheist brothers and sisters typical line of questioning. This guy needs to interview Dr. Ehrman for hours.

I also love this interview. I have listened to lots of Ehrmans presentations and this is by far the best

Bart Ehrman is brilliant! Loved this interview.

I have read a number of Bart's books. This is perhaps the favorite interview that I have seen. I agree with the end, we really need to appreciate all his work.

This is probably my favorite video featuring Dr. Ehrman so far.

I appreciated the guest and his comments. I don’t know how I missed this when it first came out.

Good vibes from Dr. John Dehlin too. Good job both.

I’m an atheist and always love Ehrman’s material and his debates. Thanks!

Great interview! always a pleasure to hear Bart speak!

It is interesting to me that many of the more popular posts here have nothing to do with what Ehrman wrote. I have several of his books, and find his writings very interesting, and easy for me to read. He also here shows he is not to destroy anyone's belief even though he describes his own -experience was to leave fundamentalist Christianity and become an agnostic.

Dr Ehrman is a brilliant scholar.

I have watch many of Bart's interviews and this is one of the best.

@DavidMFChapman

4 жыл бұрын

Bbarfo Agrred, it is concise in its coverage of his main points.

@PhdAAA

4 жыл бұрын

Ehrman indeed did well. Unfortunately it was impossible for Ehrman to give good answers on the parts about Mormonism based on the way the questions were worded to him. It looked like he thought the Book of Abraham was part of the Book of Mormon, and I can understand why based on how the question was worded.

Interesting conversation. Thanks for the upload.

Very informative and objective. Giving lots to think about. Arguments that make sense. Tanks to both of you.

Bart Ehrman approaches the subject with intelligence, reason and historical facts.

Prof. Bart. The Catholicism is against the use of condomns, as an Afrikan in Afrika I know the impact of this. So is the issue of abortion, many Christian denominations are against it and influences the communities to reject it no matter what the physicians may advice in case of complications. That cannot be viewed as not harmful.

He Asked all great questions in this interview

Thank you for this video. Very informative.

I’m LDS and have most of the books listed at the beginning. It is interesting that most LDS who lose their faith in the church, also lose their faith in Jesus Christ as the Son of God. I love Barts books. They are very informative and useful. I don’t know that Dehlin’s assessment on how LDS member see the Bible is completely accurate.

Fascinating stuff to learn both about the Bible and the Mormons

Prof. Erhman simply speaks the truth. Then why the world is in shocked? Why the world is shaken? Lets everyone be open minded enough .

Nice to hear this.

Excellent video. Thx.

Really impressive and respectful interview from both sides.

My favorite part of Misquoting Jesus is the history of how manuscripts were found. Especially the story about the monastery where some papers were laid by the fire, ready to be tossed in, and a visitor looked through them and realized these were bible manuscripts. What a save! I appreciated that book a lot, even though it took away one of my pillars of faith, if not the only one, and literally removed a "rock" from beneath my feet. Still looking, and recovering some faith, though I'll never consider the bible in the same light that I did as a fundie. Thanks, Dr. Ehrman. Your work is phenomenal.

Mormonism I thought or belief has hardly any interest in the complexities of biblical accounts .....which makes this interview compelling viewing, great interview and yes I was once a LDS .....tremendous values and life styles......just goes to show that we can take any sort of fiction and make it reality so long as it serves our deeper aspirations......

@dafflad1

4 жыл бұрын

Mental gymnastics

I'm a recent convert to a brand new offspring of the Mormon religion, instead of adhering to The Book of Mormon, I follow The Book of Arnold....

@thenowchurch6419

4 жыл бұрын

Book of Arnold Layne, from prophet Syd Barret ?

57:38 Boom! No punch pulled there from Bart.

I learned a lot about Dr. Ehrman within this interview.

Good talk.

I think the interviewer did a great job. He asked engaging, relevant and interesting questions, he was nothing but respectful and he tolerated the points in the discussion where his own views may have differed from those of Dr. Ehrman. As for debate between Dr. Ehrman and Richard Carrier, I'd love to see it. In his scholarly works, every claim Dr. Ehrman makes is supported with evidence. That doesn't make his claims all true, but it does mean he never makes an appeal to authority as the basis for an assertion. He seems happy to stack up his evidence against anyone else's.

49:50 well said Dr Ehrman

A debate vs Dr. R Carrier on mythicism would be great

@enlightedjedi

6 жыл бұрын

Isn't there one? There is such a debate but not with Dr. Carrier :)!

@123keepitsimple97

6 жыл бұрын

Yeah that would be a good debate...

@kuriosites

6 жыл бұрын

He debated Robert Price, who is also a mythicist.

@RonJohn63

6 жыл бұрын

Why should the mythicists get all bent out of shape whether or not a Jewish rabbi named Yeshua (apparently a common name) existed in Galilee? That doesn't make him a God, or a miracle worker or means that he was raised from the dead...

@nikolademitri731

6 жыл бұрын

kuriosites Correct, and they’ve spoken in a other forums, and Dr. Price just completed a book examining Dr. Erhman’s work, with his blessing. They disagree on multiple points, but have a lot of respect for one another. Unlike Carrier, Bob Price is a professional, and very kind man, who’s not hostile towards other scholars who disagree with his work, and with mythicism, in general. That’s, in part, why Bart agreed to debate Bob. Carrier was an asshole towards Erhman, simply bc they disagree on the facts, and is completely unapologetic about it. He may be a scholar, but he lacks the professionalism and decorum of Bob, Bart, and pretty much all scholars, who simply respectfully disagree with one another when their work is criticized by their peers, which is part of the game in academia. It’s a feature in all fields of academia, and it helps keeps the data accurate. That’s why Bart almost definitely will never be debating Dick.. I mean, Richard... ✌🏼😂

24:35 The best explanation I have heard for the discrepancies between the two accounts of Judas's death. Matthew was reporting what actually happened. Luke (in the book of Acts) was reporting what he had heard people saying. To that explanation, I would have to ask, how do you know the author of the gospel of Matthew wasn't also reporting what he heard, and ...how many of the details in the gospels are just accounts of the hearsay? If the hearsay was so wildly different than what actually happened, how can you trust that any of it accurately reports what happened?

@mthokozisilanga4497

4 жыл бұрын

run_gavagai_run That was what was going through my mind too. The other issue is that the Prof. seemed to be certain that after the alleged death and ressurection of Jesus, the Apostles were eleven. But at the same time admits that the first person to write about Jesus was Paul. Paul says that Jesus after his resurrection he appeared to the twelve, not the eleven Apostles (I Corinthians 15:5).

@Hamann9631

3 жыл бұрын

run_gavagi-run. My thoughts on that are this. The most important points made by the New Testament writers are true. The discrepancies aren't a problem for me because I focus on the main points. Another reason the discrepancies aren't a problem for me is God still lives and has had modern prophets and apostles on earth since He called Joseph Smith Junior. God can and has revealed to us what discrepancies are true and other things.

Helpful

The fact there are (2) completely different versions of how Judas Iscariot died is one example among many that the gospels were never intended to be put side by side in a book... And considered what is part of the biblical canon... The Synoptics and John were most likely written each for a slightly different audience...

This was a great interview to do. Mormons really need to get exposed to this kind of information. A lot of them will be very receptive to it if you can present it to them properly.

@Darkligh3r

4 жыл бұрын

My impression is that many Mormons probably welcome Bart poking holes in the New Testament. As the interviewer says at one point, they see the book of mormon as above the christian bible. I would love to see how this interviewer would react to someone poking holes in their primary holy book.

@dr.corneliusq.cadbury6984

4 жыл бұрын

Darkligh3r Dehlin hasn’t been a true believer for years.

@raysalmon6566

4 жыл бұрын

It is not going to help mormons they will just have an incorrect view of the Bible from BE

@MrArtist7777

4 жыл бұрын

Latter-day Saints are exposed to this information, it's public, not private to non-Saints. I love hearing and reading Dr. Ehrman's stuff, he's very insightful and speaks the truth that none of the New Testament writings can be proven and that early Roman Christianity started on shaky grounds, among many other things he's taught.

@MrArtist7777

4 жыл бұрын

@@Darkligh3r Any open-minded Latter-day Saint, including myself, would be happy to listen to critiques of the Book of Mormon and our faith as there's been A LOT of goofy things said and done.

I like how his answer to theodicy is that this realm is a testing ground: designed by an omniscient being outside the boundaries of time, so with each individual failure and consignment to eternal torture known beforehand. With the reward being eternal bliss in which the possibility of rejecting god is impossible (incidentally, Mormons, like Origen, generally hold to the notion of the pre-existence of souls, so perhaps we just cycle between heaven hell and the mundane).

Very interesting :)

luke:Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.

Please show us why Bart is able to study the gospels as historic documents which record real past events. Then talk about the fruots of such a study or analysis of the book of Mormon.

@ballasog

4 жыл бұрын

It's a 19th-century historic document, and gives some insight into the kinds of grifts that were prevalent then.

Jesus did state He came from above. The living bread that came down from heaven. He did ask, "what if you see Him ascend to where He was before". He did state He was the one the Father set apart as His very own and sent into the world. He did state He was before Abraham was born.He did ask the Father to glorify Him in the Fathers presence with the glory He had with the Father before the world began. I would admit though He claimed to be Gods Son He never stated He was God. He did state the Father was living in Him doing His work and they are one.

Do people who write their auto biographies and biographies actual write or type up their books.?

I don't particularly like the practice of Biblical and Religious literalism. But I find certain books in the Bible to be remarkable pieces of literature and philosophy. If I were to guess the origins of the narrative canonical Gospels judging from their dates and their contents I think they were written as mystery religions in a similar way as the Elusynian, Dionysian, Orphic, Mythric mystery religions were practiced. and it makes a lot sense to see it like that because the narrative contains similar motifs. And these pagan mysteries were incredibly popular. And if you are competing with these other mysteries you come up with one that is better than the others. We also know that some of the mysteries were authored by Pythagoreans and there are several Pythagorean references in the Gospels. There are also several Christian writers who criticize the mystery religion motifs in comparison to Christianity. I forgot the author but one wrote about the Elusynian mystery saying how can holding a single shaft of wheat compare to our communion. Or another document that said the bread and water of the mythraic rite are a mere mockery of our communion. So the four canonical narrative gospels were not written as a history but a mystery script with a memory loci approach. Perhaps a better way to approach the literature is not to read it literally, not to read it historically, but to read them as to how they might have functioned as a living mythology. In the case of the Gospel narrative they functioned as a ritual performance. I get that one of the hang ups of Christianity is the idea of a real historical Jesus. I think there was. But I also think it doesn't matter. Christian tradition from communion, Palm Sunday, Ash Wednesday, Baptism, etc. all mystery rituals. And they were the dominant practice of a church with an illiterate population. These ritual motifs in and of themselves have a great deal of power and resonance and open ended meaning. Christianity returns to relevance by returning to poetry.

Okay....I'm only at 7:10 into the video and the answer Dr. Ehrman gave seems misleading. He just stated that Paul of Tarsus said he knew Jesus'brother and his follower Peter. I know of no outside confirmation of the existence of Paul outside of The Bible. We have external sources confirming the existence of Pontius Pilate as an example. 🤔

My only problem with religion is that people take the written words in said religions literally, and countless inocent humans lives have been enslaved, prosecuted, and killed in result of it.

@ezassegai4793

5 жыл бұрын

atheism is the religion with the second highest bodycount in history next to Islam, which killed roughly 270 million people and counting.

@mickqQ

4 жыл бұрын

EZ Assegai It’s difficult to know where to start with that .... it’s wrong in so many ways

@robbiebobbie2011

4 жыл бұрын

EZ Assegai atheism is not a religion and what are you talking about atheism has killed 270 million people?

@PhdAAA

4 жыл бұрын

That is a pretty big problem.

@UK_WMB

4 жыл бұрын

@@ezassegai4793 we only blame religion or any other ideology when killing is done IN ITS NAME. If an atheist kills 10 million to get power but not in the name of atheism, then you can't blame atheism anymore than you can blame his dark hair or gender or any other councidental characteristics. People don't kill in the name of atheism, but they do frequently kill in the name of religion.

Interesting how Bart Ehrman says that authors (of gospels) relied on an oral tradition of stories said through decades between Jesus death and the first written gospel. And yet there is no mention of any such shared tradition in Paul's letters which predate gospels. There is nothing except of "James, brother of the Lord" which is very ambiguous. It is very hard to explain. I would expect that scholars (agnostic ones, at least) would be much more careful in deducing so definitive conclusions on historicity of Jesus. But whatever...

Why am I just now seeing this?!

38:38 Lots patron saints for lots of functions... (Not for nothing to Protestants think that Catholicism borders on polytheism.) 52:25 That's *almost* as silly as the Scientology myth!

No essential belief of the Christian faith is affected by any of our extant manuscripts. - Bart Ehrman.

Is it the case that the majority of converts to Christianity in the Early Church were women ,and if so; how does this square with the Pater Familius concept? Thank you Mike

@trikitrikitriki

3 жыл бұрын

@Lorrie Johnson There actually are stories in Acts, Paul's letters, and some apocryphal gospels that speak of female converts, female leaders of the church, and even married women who converted and then caused their whole family to convert.

The Book of Mormon presents HUGE problems that cannot be explained away: LANGUAGE: 1 Ne. 1:2, etc., states that Hebrews who left Jerusalem and came to the Americas spoke Egyptian. It is a known fact that Hebrews spoke Hebrew, and their records were kept in Hebrew. Egyptians were their enemies! It is as absurd to think that Hebrews would have written their sacred history in Egyptian, as to think that American History would have been written in Russian. In Mormon 9:32, 34, it is stated that the language was "reformed Egyptian", and that no other people knew their language. There is no known language called "reformed Egyptian." Ask any linguistic expert. DESERT FRUIT: 1 Ne. 17:5 talks about ample fruit and wild honey being products of Sinai desert (called Bountiful). Not possible! DESERT TIMBER: 1 Ne. 18:1 talks about ample timber that these Jews used to build a ship. There is not ample timber in that area. It was a desert. It still is a desert. LAMAN RIVER: 1 Ne. 2:6-9 mentions a river named Laman that flows into the Red Sea. There is no river there and has not been since the Pleistocene era. BOTANICAL PROBLEMS are many in the Book of Mormon. Wheat, barley, olives, etc., are mentioned, but none of these were in the Americas at that time. ANIMALS: North America had no cows, asses, horses, oxen, etc. Europeans brought them hundreds and hundreds of years later. North America had no lions, leopards, or sheep at that time. Honey bees were taken there by Europeans much later. Ether 9:18, 19, lists domestic cattle, cows, and oxen as separate species! They did not even exist in the Americas at that time. The Book of Mormon also mentions swine as being useful to man. Maybe, but Jews would not think of swine as being useful or good; swine were forbidden, unclean animals to them. Elephants were not in the Americas either. And what on earth are "cureloms" and "cumoms"? No such animals have ever been identified anywhere. Domestic animals that are thought to be "useful" would hardly become extinct. Ether 9:30-34 talks about poisonous snakes driving sheep to the south. The Book of Mormon states that the people ate the snake-killed animals, all of them! (v. 34). Hebrews would not have eaten animals that were killed that way. Chickens and dogs did not exist in the Americas at that time either. BUTTER is also mentioned, but it could not possibly exist, since no milk-producing animals were found in the Americas at that time. CLOTHING MATERIAL: No silk and wool clothing (or moths) existed at that time either, contrary to 1 Ne. 13:7; Alma 4:6; Ether 9:17 and 10:24. BEHEADING: Beheaded Shiz --- Ether 15:30-31 says that after Shiz was beheaded, he raised up and struggled for breath! MISCALCULATIONS: In Ether, chapter 6, we learn that furious winds propelled the barges to the promised land for 344 days! Even if the winds were not "furious" but, for example, blew only 10 miles per hour, the distance traveled in 344 days would have been 82,560 miles, or more than three times around the world. Absurdity, to say the least! And why would the Lord instruct Jared to make a hole on top and bottom of each barge? (Ether 2:20). POPULATION: When Lehi left Jerusalem, according to the Book of Mormon, his group consisted of fewer than 20 people. Yet 19 years later the people had so prospered and multiplied in the Promised Land that they built a temple of which the "manner of construction was like unto the temple of Solomon: and the workmanship thereof was exceeding fine" (2. Ne. 5:16). Looking at what the Bible says about the construction of Solomon's temple, we find that it took 30,000 Israelites, 150,000 hewers of stone and carriers, 3,300 supervisors (I Kings 5:13-16) and about seven years to build it (See also I Kings 6). And how many people could Lehi have had in his group after 19 years? The book further tells that in less than 30 years after arriving on this continent, they had multiplied so rapidly that they even divided into two nations. Even the most rapid human reproduction could only have resulted in a few dozen in that brief time, and most of them still would be infants and children and about one-third older people. Not only did they divide into two nations, but throughout the book, about every few years, they had devastating wars that killed thousands (i.e., Alma 28:2). SKIN COLOR: Beginning after the first 19 years or so, Laman and Lemuel and their descendants and followers (!) turned dark skinned because of their disobedience (2 Ne. 5:21). According to the Book of Mormon, dark skin color was a curse from God! This change of skin color takes place throughout the book. In 2 Ne. 30:6 we read that if Lamanites accepted the true gospel, they became "white and delightsome" (and since the 1981 printing of the Book of Mormon, they became "pure and delightsome.) But if they left this true gospel, they became "dark and loathsome." People's skin color does not change if they believe or do not believe! Nor is the skin color a curse! The Book of Mormon teaches that Indians originated from these Jewish settlers. Indians are distinctly Mongoloid. They have the "Mongoloid" blue spot, specific blood traits, and their facial features are of typical Asian origin, not Semitic at all. Current DNA evidence has confirmed this as well. Questionable Materials for This Time Period: In Ether 7:8-9, we read of steel and breakable windows (2:23) in Abraham's time! Try to explain that to an archaeologist. Steel was not even developed until c 1400 years later. At the end of the Book of Mormon, Moroni tells about a great battle that took place on the Hill Cumorah. Over 200,000 people, armed to their teeth, were killed on that hill. The story tells about their weapons, breastplates, helmets, swords etc. Nothing has ever been found on that hill or anywhere else in this continent. As a matter of fact, metal, helmets, swords, etc., do not disappear in a mere 1,400 years. Before the LDS Church purchased the Hill Cumorah, it was literally dug full of holes and even caves, but nothing was ever found. (Joseph Smith told about a cave inside Hill Cumorah and how they - he and Oliver - went in and out of it. Supposedly it had wagon loads of gold plates, Laban sword, etc.) When people dig even for worms in the Holy Land, they make discoveries. In contrast to the Book of Mormon, cities, places, coins, clothing, swords, etc. mentioned in the Bible have been found by archaeologists, but not one single place mentioned in the Book of Mormon has ever been identified. There are still people in the LDS Church who believe that archaeology has proved, at least to a degree, the Book of Mormon. Some missionaries have shown pictures of ruins from Mexico and South America, implying that they prove the Book of Mormon, but they are from an entirely DIFFERENT TIME PERIOD and are ruins of idol worshipers who offered human sacrifices. further: www.namb.net/apologetics/the-truth-about-mormonism kzread.info/dash/bejne/p6eno7aOorS3eJc.html kzread.info/dash/bejne/eIl2s8d6lpmyksY.html www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002929707616292 #

@thenowchurch6419

4 жыл бұрын

Damn, you are thorough dude ! Keep it up.

@trybunt

4 жыл бұрын

Unfortunately, most people don't want to know about information that contradicts their beliefs

@rickelmonoggin

4 жыл бұрын

Pretty sure Mormon apologists have explanations for all these just as Jewish and Christian apologists have explanations for all the contradictions and absurdities in their books.

@Hamann9631

3 жыл бұрын

The Book of Mormon has no problems. The writers of The Book of Mormon made no claims about what language other Jews used. They wrote in Reformed Egyptian because it took up less space than Hebrew. The people with a problem are the ones who need to explain archeological findings of ancient Hebrew writings in Egyptian.

I never cease to be amazed by how little John Dehlin knows.

@coosoorlog

5 жыл бұрын

don't know the guy really but it sounds like a common strategy to make it easier for the audience and to give a lot of space to the guest instead of bringing forth one's own points and own understanding.

Mr Ehrman , your books are so expensive i can't buy them. any chance you will donate some??

Now I better understand that the written content is a subset of other Christian contents, and these written texts are descendants of previous unknown texts, and these unknown texts were based on historico-oral accounts, these accounts being disparate, inconsistent, contradictory yet synchronic to form an ostensible coherent text. Indeed, this was a long process to go from the disparate oral texts to written text to canonical texts. Fascinating. Now, it sounds like the oral texts were seen as problematic NOT because these texts were oral, but because of the sellew of oral texts that seemed to be vastly inconsistent and contradictory, thus that failing historico-oral textual standards. This would decenter the written text as the privileged text while putting oral and written text at higher standards to meet the scrutiny of history and archeology. It's REALLY, REALLY, REALLY important that people don't think the Bible is wrong because it stems from oral history or texts, but that oral history and oral texts would be subject to historical scrutiny like written text would be, albeit with the methods to determine veracity to be likely similar yet not implicitly written based.

Hey Bart you recently claimed you changed your stance on the early gospels not seeing Jesus as God what made you change your mind?( I couldn’t read the whole webpage coz I’m not subscribed)

@enlightedjedi

6 жыл бұрын

Bart always claimed Jesus in sinoptics was not claiming to be God in the Yahve/Elohim sense. But some sort of divine being :)!

@iechromefox

6 жыл бұрын

Although "seeing Jesus as God" in a very different sense from John (and in a different sense from one another), when Dr. Ehrman was doing the research for his book "How Jesus Became God" he realized what “adoption” meant to people in the Roman world. The implication here is that to Mark would mean Jesus became god at the baptism (where God adopted him), to Matthew when the holy spirit made Mary pregnant (Jesus didn't existed prior to that), to Luke I would say the same but I really can't tell if those first chapters were added latter. In any case this is views are very interesting because to Paul Jesus got his promotion only after his death (Jesus was a human being and God made him a divine being). You can read the full post of "Jesus as God in the Synoptic" on Bart's blog which is much more accurate than my reply. If I may add, since Jesus himself never claimed to be divine, the author of Mark needed it to be attested by an authority, by implicitly making the high priest believe that Jesus was "the son of man" (which apparently was considered to be a divine being by that high priest). Although Jesus never claimed to him he was the son of man, the author tries to have the reader get the same conclusion as the high priest. I should point out that in some parts of the gospels it is implicit that Jesus was the son of man, although in others the text preserves as it meaning someone else. In the end although the writers of early gospels saw Jesus as divine, each Jesus from those early gospels never claimed to be a divine being. It can be inferred that the writers believed he was, but the historical Jesus didn't share the same beliefs. In the book of John however, you don't mess with God Jesus.

@oxenbarnstokkriii8152

6 жыл бұрын

no he didnt

@FoamySlobbers

6 жыл бұрын

30+ years of study of the new testament books.

@feelegoode2067

6 жыл бұрын

Hmmm..... maybe he'll write a book or two on the subject?

"John" was written by the church. Known for centuries! Even ancient dudes ain't gonna gaslight me. GFYS.

OMG! 😲

25:25 The problem with that fundamentalist explanation is, why would Acts give such a strange explanation for a hanging? If the author thought Judas hung himself, he’d simply say so, and not give an account that can’t be understood. It’s as if the author is saying Judas died by decomposition.

@freddiereadie30

4 жыл бұрын

Because the author was not an eyewitness. He simply heard the story during campfire gatherings. I've heard Michael Jordan can really fly in the air, as in he can levitate and maybe fly up to the top of the Empire State Building - put that in writing, 'bro.

Bart erhman books are fantastic. A real source of information. I am not religious in the sense of going to churches or even believing in god, but I have most of dr. Erhman books and I enjoy reading it a lot. I would say most Christians don't even know about their own religion, they just believe in it because they were told to belief, it is inherited tradition. When u learn about these things it difficult to keep believing in it. Anyway, I don't believe That Jesus is anything else apart from a normal human being. I believe he existed, but the accounts told in the Bible about him was surely fabricated. Today I stand on the side of science and I demand evidence for everything peoples try to convince me. Education frees me from religion. By the way, I am from Brazil.

The Kingdom of god begins at the spring equinox and ends at the fall equinox (Light/Good greater than Darkness/Evil) the six "days" in Genesis one. We can also observe "the kingdom of god" at each and every sun rising from the dead (darkness).

@cymatti

4 жыл бұрын

What the hell are you talking about?

Oh, that’s just German for “D Bart D.”

There are only two independent accounts about Jezus. Paul and "Mark". "Matthew" and "Luke"clearly copied parts of Marc Gospel and at least one of them totally invented the story of Jezus' birth. John was to late to be considered independent. At least three of the four gospels invented their version of "the empty grave". PRobably all four of them did, as the first one bases it on women who "didn't tell anyone.

How do any of the apologist excuses for God allowing and causing suffering apply to animals?

@Imjustsayin99

4 жыл бұрын

I love animals, but unfortunately the Fall of mankind affected all of nature; including nasty germs and viruses. It’s the only reasonable explanation; otherwise, you only have haphazard evolution and the survival of the fittest mentality not permitting any sympathy for the gazelle as the lion’s jaws clamp down on its neck. Romans 8:18-22 [18] For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. [19] For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. [20] For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope [21] that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. [22] For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now.

What scholar that actually knows what he is talking about say that Luke doesn’t say anything. The writer of acts is Luke, it’s the sequel. Therefore the way to say is that the author of Mathew and Luke both have different ways of shows his death. Mark and John say nothing as they also say nothing about the birth.

Wish I had a role model like Dr. Ehrman when I was Young. Never find much to criticize with Bart, oh here is one: bad camera angle dear sir! I know I am Old too lol.

@theouterplanet

3 жыл бұрын

I wish John would interview Barrie Schwartz regarding the Shroud of Turin. Amazing stuff!

How do we get our history . the golden age, the revolutionary times,the circumstances surrounding the second world war,

@trikitrikitriki

3 жыл бұрын

When do you mean by the golden age?

When people made cartoons about Popeye and Olive Oyl, they weren't being dishonest, they were simply trying to entertain children. They knew that spinach was good for you, so the idea that Popeye gets strong when he eats spinach just grew out of the story telling. It's not a lie as such.

I don't think Jesus was mythical. I think Jesus's supernatural claims are mythical.

@pinball1970

4 жыл бұрын

@Unashamed Workman I suffer from SP and I have never used Jesus to wake up.

Crawling on the planet’s face. Some insects call the human race. Lost in time, lost in space and meaning.

Now apply these same criticisms to the BOM and see what you’re left with

57:00 Mr.Ehrman punch really hard when you show opening. Be careful!

Zoom before zoom was cool

Just curios what will happening if Bart get a discussion with CHRISTIAN PRINCE?

Did Santa Claus Exist? There's plenty of writing about him.

What is the evidence that Mark is based on an "earlier written source"?? Unless the earlier written source is the Old Testament, but I don't that is what Ehrman means.

@trikitrikitriki

3 жыл бұрын

He's probably referring to the Q source, which is hypothetical

I have heard of Ehrman, and have some of his books, and find them very interesting. I have heard of Dehlin too, but thought that he knew more about Mormons and Mormonism. He seems to not have a very good understanding of what Mormons believe about the Bible or how the Bible came about. And he tends to get the Book of Mormon pretty wrong as well.

I don't subscribe to man created religions but I am agnostic about a higher power. That being said, in regard to the comment Bart made about Matthew a tax collector not needing to know how to read or write to collect taxes, Wouldn't a tax collector need to know how to count money in order to make sure the correct amount of tax was being paid? seems to not be consistent to know how to count and understand basic math and a monetary system but not read or write. Numbers and math in a sense is a type of language. If he couldn't count or good luck getting paid the correct amount. Just my thoughts. And I don't believe the gospels were written by actual people called Mathew, Mark, Luke, or John. This is just a question for critical thinking sake.

There is plenty of doubt that Jesus existed. Most of the stories about him are just literary rewriting of earlier stories. BUT Bart Ehrman (who I have a lot of respect for in every other way) knows where his bread and butter comes from. He cannot reject the historical Christ without losing his teaching position in the Bible belt, nor does he want to piss off his position of favorite Christian’s pet atheist. “Look! This is our pet atheist who says there REALLY is a Jesus!. Therefore we are right!”. As if Bart would support their magic claims and god claims which he does not. I don’t blame jim exactly but Richard Carrier really got under his skin. Bart will never debate him. It is too risky.

Bart - thank you, have you ever sat back and asked the following question. What would religion be like today if it wasn't for the likes of you , as, Harris, Dawkins, Hitchens.

G-d did not create us so that we should walk in constant darkness and He did not condemn us to walk in a “light” that is not anchored in our sensitivity to truth

Gnostic writings and teachings of Jesus not included in the bible on youtube audio book click on "Pistis Sofia"

The silence after Bart Ehrman said the Book of Mormon was made up was so priceless. It felt the interviewer really desperately waited for some confirmation of its validity.

@Inkdrawing66

6 жыл бұрын

that silent was very long, l felt in Siberia just surrounded by ice mountains.

@drumguy1384

5 жыл бұрын

This is the only video I have seen from this channel, entirely because Mr. Ehrman was on it. However, I don't get the idea that the host is hoping for the validity of the BoM. It seems very much like he is an ex-Mormon that is trying to open the eyes of as many Mormons out there as he can. I think he is hoping that Bart will expound and make a significantly strong argument against the historicity of the BoM. I think the pregnant silence is because he really wants him to say MORE about why he thinks none of it is true. Hence why the first words out of his mouth are, "Anything else you would say?" He wants him to destroy the historicity of the BoM in the way only a historian can. With authority and mountains of evidence. He just happened to get the wrong historian to answer that question.

@noahheninger

5 жыл бұрын

Funny since Mr. Dehlin does not personally believe the Book of Mormon is true.

@TheSiimh

5 жыл бұрын

When is that, what min:sec? :) that is funny. It is also funny how this mormon-clown is laughing when Ehrman describes inconsistencies in bible.

@coosoorlog

5 жыл бұрын

yeah he asked for a quick reply and that certainly was brief :D

Very last part. Maybe at 100 minutes. Bart talking about the good things that religions do. Another issue however is the secrecy of religion. Pedophilia is a scourge in too many religions and too much effort is expended in covering it up. Exposing children to religion at early ages is very problematic. Many of the questions raised are the result of this exposure. Religion should be introduced in our adulthood when hopefully we have the intellectual skills to ask good questions.

@freddiereadie30

4 жыл бұрын

The technique in exposing children to Religion, is by simply picking out those things in Religion that can be good or useful (granting of course that you understand the Religion in the first place and not falling for the dogmatic brainwashing yourself). Most stuffs in Religion that can be useful for children, are commonly recognized morality. And leave out the hardcore dogmatic morality later in adulthood on their own.

... and it came to pass

the thing is, Ehrman clearly spells out that the gospels are untrustworthy, but then uses them to PROVE there was an historical jesus. still cherry picking.

@PhdAAA

4 жыл бұрын

I guess you could say that George Washington did not exist because the cherry tree story was false. But I think that would be silly. Legends do circulate around real people. It is not either all is true or all is false even in what we know about George Washington. Why should it not be the same for a person who lived 2 thousand years ago.

So, the question is: was Jesus a Palestinian, a Jew, a Judean or an Israelite? The answer would resolve other questions.

@user-uy6uc5ey5q

4 жыл бұрын

He was Palestinian in that he was resident in the Roman province of Palestine. He was a Jew - which, as now was both an ethnic grouping as well as a religious faith. The last two are more difficult. Judea and Israel where both geographic and political divisions. Basically Judea was the area west of the dead sea till the coastal plain. Israel was roughly north of Judea till the northern borders of the modern State of Israel. They had existed as separate kingdoms in pre roman period on and off, but not for centuries.

@harveywabbit9541

4 жыл бұрын

Jeus is still alive as the sun.

How did christianity survive the plagues in the Middle Ages? Anyone would think that god does exist under those conditions

I am a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saint I want to say a few things regarding this video. Right of the bat John Dehlin is completely missing representing the belief of the church. Do we claim that the Book of Mormon is greater than the Bible? Absolutely not! We say that Book of Mormon, Pearl of Great Price, Doctrine and Covenant and the Holy Bible are scriptures given by God. Yes, we do say that the Book of Mormon is the most correct book on the earth and from the doctrine that it teaches you will grow closer to God. In other words, the doctrine that the Book of Mormon is written for our day to understand the gospel in perfect clarity. While in the Bible it is too ambiguous to understand the doctrines that it teaches. This is why there is so many different interpretations that is found by reading the Bible. The Other thing that John Dehlin is claiming that no member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saint will bother looking into non-lds scholarship. This is a complete falsehood. The vast of majority of people do not take the time to even look in any sort of scholarship. Secondly, those who do decide to look into scholarships will only be going to look at the viewpoints that they agree with. Thirdly, it is rare that you will find people who will look at scholarships that are outside of their viewpoints. This is true for any group of people. As for me, I have been interested in a biblical scholarship for the past year. The more that I look into what scholarship preaches the more that strengthen that Joseph Smith was indeed a true Prophet. Even the thing that Bart D Erham teaches actually proves the teaching of Joseph Smith. I listen to multiple debates that he had and I have read some of his books. I am waiting for a few more. I am also reading another scholarly book from a Jewish sources talking about the Two-Power heresy. I have started reading the dissertation of Micheal Heiser. I also have spent the time listening to Catholic scholar and I am in the process of listening to the video series of David Bescott The point that I am making is that I do spend the time of listening of another viewpoint. Yet, you know what I find fascinating? All the doctrines that this scholar continues to proves Joseph Smith claims. Even regarding the most famous claim regarding that the Bible is the word of God as far it is translated correctly. Which mean that everything that Bart D Ehrman is saying regarding the textual criticism and the discrepancies between the Gospel continues to validate this claims that there are errors that are found in the Bible Now I do have a critism regarding Bert. As much I love the works that he does. He makes a fatal mistake. He decided that The Book of Mormon and the Pearl of Great Price to not be the historical base upon the time that he was a fundamentalist, Christian. He read the Book of Mormon once at that time. At that time he wasn't a Biblical Scholar and he was shooting the typical EV apologetic. I can guarantee that now that he is able to see a much larger picture. If he decides to look at our doctrine he will discover a truth we are the only church that teaches the closest doctrine that is taught by the Early Church. I am making this loud clear. Protestants do not teach the same doctrine that is found by the Early Church. In fact, doctrine such has eternal security and faith alone are doctrine that is taught by the Gnostic. Calvinism is essentially Gnosticism 2.0. Catholicism is closer but even their doctrine was changed after the council of Nicea. Many pagan teachings infiltrated at that time. I would say that the first doctrine that was corrupted was the Trinity doctrine. Yet, in the midst of all of that Joseph Smith was able to get so many doctrines that match the same as the early church. I got those understandings with non-lds sources. Also John Dehlin does not really care for the truth. He just wants to continue to spread his miss information regarding our faith. He also wanted to us Bart Ehrman as a way to disprove our claims. Which in reality he pick the wrong person. If he wanted to use a Scholar who had the interest to fight against the restore Gospel he should have pick, Robert Bowman. Then I again i am not really impressed with his scholarship. I put him at the same level as James White. I forget to mention another point. Bert D Ehrman also stated that the Book of Mormon needs to be taken as a historical document and need to analyze the Book of Mormon in that light. Ironically enough only the LDS scholar who are willing to do such an analysis. I have yet found people willing to do such scholarly analysis outside of the faith.

@willievanstraaten1960

4 жыл бұрын

Eric MacRae it is very interesting sitting on the sideline watching the different religious doctrines going at each other. Each believes that they are right and can talk and write about it at length to either defend or push their belief system. Eric, did you grow up as a follower of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saint or did you convert from one of the other religions?

@utah133

4 жыл бұрын

Yeah? I'm an ex-Mormon. The B of M is so very obviously a work of fiction that you must be indoctrinated to it as a child.. Or be incredibly gullible to believe it's true.

Jesus! (Expressed figuratively.) You got Bart Ehrman?? Congrats, John. Your podcast now has gravitas. I like Bart! (Even though I'm currently a Richard Carrier Christ Mythisist.) Fighting words! Those two are in opposition, apparently. One thinks Jesus was a guy. The other thinks he was likely a myth. Personally, I don't care. It's all BS in the end.

Does he believe there is a God, even though no one has seen him.

@UK_WMB

4 жыл бұрын

He is an agnostic atheist

it's high time dr.Bart to go through th quran and find facts about fictitious stories told in bible.Allah has made clear and answered your all questions you confuse or do not know

@dafflad1

4 жыл бұрын

Nonsense

@malikothman5381

4 жыл бұрын

Sami Haider He actually did but he is scared to revert to Islam after the way people reacted to the Bible getting exposed by him .

@malikothman5381

4 жыл бұрын

Sami Haider Look at these two idiots here they both flatly reject what you said even though they know nothing about the Quran ,, Now you see how easy it was for the church to mount these idiots

@mariod1547

4 жыл бұрын

I'm tired of hearing people say why he doesn't critique the Koran. Um here's a simple answer. He is not an expert/scholar of Islam period. No doubt he knows the general information that most people interested in history of religions knows. Some years ago in a Q and A I believe he made a off the cuff remark before about not discussing Islam because he would fear for his safety. However the fact is he has no degrees relevant to the study of Islam. He doesn't know Arabic, so can't examine the Quranic Manuscripts, Hadith etc. His field is Early Christianity and to an extent the Old Testament and 1 century Judaism. Not Mormonism, not Islam, not Buddhism, not Jehovah Witnesses, not Medieval Catholicism. He's not like other secularists who have a shotgun approach against religion, and who feel knowledgeable enough to expose and discredit the sources of every major religion.

Mormonism - Fort Knox theological cemetery

Ok well this Bart Erhman stuff really gets lousy I've heard many if his rebuffs from Dan Wallace and James White But he getting rich off of books sales so that shapes what he says Paul, write this greeting 2 Thessalonians 3:17 I, Paul, write this greeting in my own hand, which is the distinguishing mark in all my letters. This is how I write I don't think the host really knows what going on

@trikitrikitriki

3 жыл бұрын

Erhman didn't invent the idea that some of the letters attested to Paul were not written by him. This is an argument that has been going on among scholars for centuries now.

Bart's rationale for not believing in God due to the amount of suffering in the world is irrational. The existence of suffering in the world is not proof that God does not exist but rather raises the question of what kind of God created and maintains our Universe. What he says is similar to saying that since innocent people are punished by the US judicial system therefore the US judicial system does not exist.

@ThePinsa42

4 жыл бұрын

Sayyidilyas actually this is a horrible analogy - what you have illustrated is the judicial system makes mistakes and is fallible. Also by the way , man made. Why would you create a straw men that says “one would say the judicial system doesn’t exist, if it fails somebody”. Nobody would ever say that. I assume you are religious no?

Pappias acknowledges Matthew's Gospel......Irenaeus, who is in John's Disciple lineage acknowledges all of them. We have good sources. This man should not be your authoritative knowledge.

6,528 times in the OT God says his name is Yahovah. Isaiah 45 God says there is only him and there is no one else so he has no son.

@captainchazz42

4 жыл бұрын

Not only is there no son, but that god doesn't even exist to have a son.