I took a class that Bart was teaching at Rutgers in the mid 1980s. He was going for his Phd at Princeton, just down the road. I found him to be very serious, intelligent and kind. He just happens to go wherever the facts take him. The religious zealots have a preconceived idea of what the world is all about, then they try to find evidence to support their ideas.
They work ass-backwards to what Reasonable people would do.
@harpo103 I envy you for having had the chance to take a class with him, even before he got to be sort of famous.
I'm not sure that I'd say "reasonable people" in your final sentence. I think that I'd say the zealots aren't doing particularly good scholarship, if they don't go where the facts take them. It might be hard to not have a preconceived idea. But if one doesn't go where the facts take you, it seems intellectually dishonest.
@crucisnh I mean that the zealots work ass-backwards. Which is the opposite way that a reasonable person would work.They already have their minds made up as to what the answer is. They just need "evidence" to support their "facts". Nobody knows all of the answers. Most people don't even understand the questions! They just nod their empty heads in unsion and bow down to whatever authority figure they deem worthy of praise. They NEED a scolding daddy figure to tell them what to do.
@harpo103 I understood what you're saying. My point is that I don't think that that has anything to do with reasonableness. I think that it has to do with good scholarly practices, regardless of whether it's in biblical research or physics or astronomy. I can see an honest researcher having an opinion about where his research might lead, but if that researcher is using proper scholarship, he should also be willing to let the data lead him wherever it goes.
@harpo103 I agree that they find him difficult to debate, because they can't honestly claim that he doesn't know the Bible as well as they do. What I find frustrating is in some of Ehrman debates about "can X be proven historically?", the Christian debaters constantly try to ignore accepted scholarly historical practices to justify their side. What's the point of a debate on whether something can be proven historically if historical practices are ignored? It's silly.
You should repent. Moreover, you should ask God for eternal forgiveness through applying the death and resurrection of Jesus to your life of sin within the quietness of your bedroom tonight. As an unrepentant sinner myself, I made this decision around 15 years ago. This is the most important decision that you could ever make. - Romans 10:9-10
@EnnoiaBlog I just can't accept that, because I can't see a bunch of guys (i.e. the apostles) spreading across the world for something they knew was a myth and getting themselves killed for preaching about this "myth". Oh, sure, I won't say that the theological Jesus is true, but I don't doubt that the historical one existed.
@EnnoiaBlog Jesus was a REAL flesh and blood person. He did actually live. Whether he was the messiah or was divine, is totally up for speculation. Its up to an individual to decide that point. Nobody should be able to tell you what to believe. You really have to figure it all out for yourself.
- I Love Jesus. And i Like Every Religion and every Culture. And i Respect All the Culture. Like my Comment if you Agree that The Common Human Should Be Like it.!
In the thoughts of Marcus Aurelius (written by him between 170-180) only one short reference to christianity is found, and scholars agree that that too is put in at a much later date. The Nazarene was "Photoshopped in", as we would say now.
I'd like to know why Bart Ehrman insists that there has to be an historical Jesus. It's very curious why he is not mentioned by name in the Qumram scrolls, why Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum appears to be a rank forgery, and why Paul in Philippians appears to be saying that "Jesus" was the NEW name given to the one who died a slave's death of the 'stauros' after he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.
@EdM021 Ehrman just finished an internet book where he presents why he is convinced Jesus was historical. BTW, Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum is not a forgery but written by Josephus is seems but later a zealous Christian scribe added a few minor interpolations. Dr. Gary Goldberg site wwwdotjosephusdotorg provides the best proof of this. Also I recently was intouch with Alice Whealey, PhD who is a Josephus/Tacitus expert and she also informed me he research shows Josephus likely wrote it.
@boblackey1 Problem is, Josephus wrote antiquitues at a time when Domitian was allegedly persecuting Xians. Even a neutered version of this would have gotten him into deep trouble with the Emperor. If he wrote any of this, he must have bracketed it with arguments explaining why it just ain't so: either a HJ who wasn't what Xians said he was or there was no HJ at all. Either way, he got the info from Xian hearsay same as Luke did for the Ch 24 summary. Yes, I've read Goldberg's site.
@EdM021 Dr. Goldberg is convinced (I've written him and he defends this with great vigor and feels no one can shoot him out of the water) what Josephus wrote was negative about Jesus being the Messiah and the TF is just part of Josephus' larger narrative about Pilate which began earlier. Dr. Whealey confirmed to me that she and Dr. Feldman also find it is far more likely that Josephus wrote the TF and a zealous Christian dressed it up a bit later.
@boblackey1 Dr Goldberg's argument sounds almost exactly what I said bracketing the "TF" with arguments why it just wasn't so. Assuming he wrote it, Xians must have radically altered it; it sounds like Xian talking points. Yet after I wrote the first post of this chain I found in the Lexica available at the Tufts Perseus website that alternate meanings of the Greek give it an undercurrent of Jewish polemic indicating he was a disreputable fellow. Curioser and curioser.
@EdM021 Dr. Goldberg, I later found out, is an amateur Josephus scholar as his PhD is in physics. But he has been carefully researching Josephus for over 20 years. His site is wwwdotjosephusdotorg and he has an Email address. You can write him and he will respond. He is an interesting person who is dug in as to his position. Do you have Alice Whealey. PhD book "Josephus on Jesus" she IS a professional Josephus and Tactius expert. But experts can be wrong. They are human too:-)
i dont hv to be historian to do this comparison. it is verses by verses comparison and there come about discrepancies. and a lot of them. (according to what i hav listened frm this video)
the angels r called Sons of God and "God" themselves, as a Holy SURNAME, for belonging to YHWH´s Family and Household.
the Bible uses the Name of a tribe Family´s Father to call his sons: Juda, Israel, Jacob .. et etc .. same other nation´s names. they d call themselves as their most important ancestor when talking to another nations etc.
so when angels r called YHWH or Yeshua is, they r refering to Their Surname, the Household Name. itmust b understood in its own cultural environment =) !
only the Matthew and John´s Gospels r written by Yeshua´s Real Apostles and Witnesses.
Mark and Luke never met Yeshua in their entire life. they were paul of tarsus' disciples.
although Mark and Luke prove themselves to be persons interested in Yeshua´s Facts and Life and they paid full attention to everything that was said from ppl who really knew Him. we can´t say same from their "leader" paul, who never quoted Yeshua and refused to listening to the Apostles whom he bitterly despised
Why would you only include one side of a debate? Why not at least put links to parts 1 through 12 on your video "Show more" info section?
watch?v=aUMsCKlIBAo
And since when are mathematics necessarily divorced from calculating probability?
beholdthebeast. com/mathematical_precision_of_prophecy. htm#daniel_70_weeks
PeteWaldo 1 week ago
Jesus was a real person.
But, was he also a God?
Was he THE Messiah?
Thats up to an individual to work out for themselves.
Bart's only telling us what History already knows.
harpo103 2 weeks ago
I took a class that Bart was teaching at Rutgers in the mid 1980s. He was going for his Phd at Princeton, just down the road. I found him to be very serious, intelligent and kind. He just happens to go wherever the facts take him. The religious zealots have a preconceived idea of what the world is all about, then they try to find evidence to support their ideas.
They work ass-backwards to what Reasonable people would do.
harpo103 2 weeks ago
@harpo103 I envy you for having had the chance to take a class with him, even before he got to be sort of famous.
I'm not sure that I'd say "reasonable people" in your final sentence. I think that I'd say the zealots aren't doing particularly good scholarship, if they don't go where the facts take them. It might be hard to not have a preconceived idea. But if one doesn't go where the facts take you, it seems intellectually dishonest.
crucisnh 6 days ago
@crucisnh I mean that the zealots work ass-backwards. Which is the opposite way that a reasonable person would work.They already have their minds made up as to what the answer is. They just need "evidence" to support their "facts". Nobody knows all of the answers. Most people don't even understand the questions! They just nod their empty heads in unsion and bow down to whatever authority figure they deem worthy of praise. They NEED a scolding daddy figure to tell them what to do.
harpo103 5 days ago
@harpo103 I understood what you're saying. My point is that I don't think that that has anything to do with reasonableness. I think that it has to do with good scholarly practices, regardless of whether it's in biblical research or physics or astronomy. I can see an honest researcher having an opinion about where his research might lead, but if that researcher is using proper scholarship, he should also be willing to let the data lead him wherever it goes.
crucisnh 5 days ago
Evangelicals are scared sh*t of Ehrman!
harpo103 1 month ago
@harpo103 I agree that they find him difficult to debate, because they can't honestly claim that he doesn't know the Bible as well as they do. What I find frustrating is in some of Ehrman debates about "can X be proven historically?", the Christian debaters constantly try to ignore accepted scholarly historical practices to justify their side. What's the point of a debate on whether something can be proven historically if historical practices are ignored? It's silly.
crucisnh 2 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Let’s put an end to all religion.
Cut and paste URL into browser address bar:
endallreligions.blogspot.com
paularenas26 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You should repent. Moreover, you should ask God for eternal forgiveness through applying the death and resurrection of Jesus to your life of sin within the quietness of your bedroom tonight. As an unrepentant sinner myself, I made this decision around 15 years ago. This is the most important decision that you could ever make. - Romans 10:9-10
paularenas26 1 month ago
*REV.13:18.-ANTICHRIST! Christ Was BLACK.REV.1:14-15..REV.2:18.REV.2:9.REV.3:9.And *AMOS 9:7.~
nasteeboy101 1 month ago
Jesus is a mythological construct, not unlike Frankenstein. They stitched multiple Savior stories together into a mega-Savior motiff.
EnnoiaBlog 2 months ago
@EnnoiaBlog I just can't accept that, because I can't see a bunch of guys (i.e. the apostles) spreading across the world for something they knew was a myth and getting themselves killed for preaching about this "myth". Oh, sure, I won't say that the theological Jesus is true, but I don't doubt that the historical one existed.
crucisnh 2 weeks ago
@EnnoiaBlog Jesus was a REAL flesh and blood person. He did actually live. Whether he was the messiah or was divine, is totally up for speculation. Its up to an individual to decide that point. Nobody should be able to tell you what to believe. You really have to figure it all out for yourself.
harpo103 5 days ago
I found the description you wrote for this video to be just as informative and important as the video itself.
Monkofmagnesia 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You are all going to hell....
wellsbranchdude 3 months ago
- I Love Jesus. And i Like Every Religion and every Culture. And i Respect All the Culture. Like my Comment if you Agree that The Common Human Should Be Like it.!
SherryPakistani 4 months ago
In the thoughts of Marcus Aurelius (written by him between 170-180) only one short reference to christianity is found, and scholars agree that that too is put in at a much later date. The Nazarene was "Photoshopped in", as we would say now.
whauffend 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.( Qur 'an 4:82.)
The only religious scripture that claims to be authored by God and sealed by Him with a falsification test for any learned men to prove otherwise.
The challenge has been open for 1400 years. Can Dr Bart Ehrman consider the challenge, I'm sure most Christians will appreciate it.
mfaume46 4 months ago
I'd like to know why Bart Ehrman insists that there has to be an historical Jesus. It's very curious why he is not mentioned by name in the Qumram scrolls, why Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum appears to be a rank forgery, and why Paul in Philippians appears to be saying that "Jesus" was the NEW name given to the one who died a slave's death of the 'stauros' after he rose from the dead and ascended into heaven.
EdM021 4 months ago 2
@EdM021 Ehrman just finished an internet book where he presents why he is convinced Jesus was historical. BTW, Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum is not a forgery but written by Josephus is seems but later a zealous Christian scribe added a few minor interpolations. Dr. Gary Goldberg site wwwdotjosephusdotorg provides the best proof of this. Also I recently was intouch with Alice Whealey, PhD who is a Josephus/Tacitus expert and she also informed me he research shows Josephus likely wrote it.
boblackey1 1 month ago
@boblackey1 Problem is, Josephus wrote antiquitues at a time when Domitian was allegedly persecuting Xians. Even a neutered version of this would have gotten him into deep trouble with the Emperor. If he wrote any of this, he must have bracketed it with arguments explaining why it just ain't so: either a HJ who wasn't what Xians said he was or there was no HJ at all. Either way, he got the info from Xian hearsay same as Luke did for the Ch 24 summary. Yes, I've read Goldberg's site.
EdM021 1 month ago
@EdM021 Dr. Goldberg is convinced (I've written him and he defends this with great vigor and feels no one can shoot him out of the water) what Josephus wrote was negative about Jesus being the Messiah and the TF is just part of Josephus' larger narrative about Pilate which began earlier. Dr. Whealey confirmed to me that she and Dr. Feldman also find it is far more likely that Josephus wrote the TF and a zealous Christian dressed it up a bit later.
boblackey1 1 month ago
@boblackey1 Dr Goldberg's argument sounds almost exactly what I said bracketing the "TF" with arguments why it just wasn't so. Assuming he wrote it, Xians must have radically altered it; it sounds like Xian talking points. Yet after I wrote the first post of this chain I found in the Lexica available at the Tufts Perseus website that alternate meanings of the Greek give it an undercurrent of Jewish polemic indicating he was a disreputable fellow. Curioser and curioser.
EdM021 1 month ago
@EdM021 Dr. Goldberg, I later found out, is an amateur Josephus scholar as his PhD is in physics. But he has been carefully researching Josephus for over 20 years. His site is wwwdotjosephusdotorg and he has an Email address. You can write him and he will respond. He is an interesting person who is dug in as to his position. Do you have Alice Whealey. PhD book "Josephus on Jesus" she IS a professional Josephus and Tactius expert. But experts can be wrong. They are human too:-)
boblackey1 1 month ago
"Why would evangelicals spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on manuscript projects if it doesn't matter?"
They spend the money so they can lie and claim that the Bible is true on historical grounds, obviously.
darkmiles22 5 months ago
can i please download this??
SuperMaryam16 5 months ago
i dont hv to be historian to do this comparison. it is verses by verses comparison and there come about discrepancies. and a lot of them. (according to what i hav listened frm this video)
jenchen81 6 months ago
fuck you jesus sum 41 \,,\
salleslocoepoco 7 months ago
im here because of sum 41
momo182AT 7 months ago 6
I doubt sum 41 watched this.
FrederikThelin 7 months ago 8
why sum41 ? why? :P
Ritsoz 7 months ago 44
yes finally ha ha ha i love ha ha ha ha ha
cyberdarkdragon1 7 months ago
the angels r called Sons of God and "God" themselves, as a Holy SURNAME, for belonging to YHWH´s Family and Household.
the Bible uses the Name of a tribe Family´s Father to call his sons: Juda, Israel, Jacob .. et etc .. same other nation´s names. they d call themselves as their most important ancestor when talking to another nations etc.
so when angels r called YHWH or Yeshua is, they r refering to Their Surname, the Household Name. itmust b understood in its own cultural environment =) !
SuperBoomboon 9 months ago
only the Matthew and John´s Gospels r written by Yeshua´s Real Apostles and Witnesses.
Mark and Luke never met Yeshua in their entire life. they were paul of tarsus' disciples.
although Mark and Luke prove themselves to be persons interested in Yeshua´s Facts and Life and they paid full attention to everything that was said from ppl who really knew Him. we can´t say same from their "leader" paul, who never quoted Yeshua and refused to listening to the Apostles whom he bitterly despised
SuperBoomboon 9 months ago
@SuperBoomboon
The four gospels of "Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John" are anonymous. They do not claim to be written by "Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John."
ZOGcorp 9 months ago
christianity is an insult to basic human intelligence.
glower125 9 months ago 32
@glower125 YOU'RE the insult to basic human intelligence you low-life, criticizing idiot.
garfieldfatass 7 months ago