Jesus Christ Before The Gospels And Christianity Altered His Teachings | Dr. Bart Ehrman

Comments · 41

• HI

  @History-Valley · 1 month ago · pinned

  ➡📚View\Purchase the book(s)!: [Sponsored Link] <a href="https://amzn.to/4wAAJjA">https://amzn.to/4wAAJjA</a>

• RE

  @ResilientTaurus · 1 month ago (edited)

  What I keep circling back to is any man capable of miracle level public performances would be written about extensively by many contemporary authors, both in the religious and secular spheres. And those accounts should largely corroborate each other, and definitely not contradict.

  7

• IM

  @Imknifes · 3 days ago

  Wish this guy and Ammon Hillman would do something together. Even if they don&apos;t like each other, I think it would be a great conversation.

• US

  @user-nm1zx6fk1z · 4 weeks ago

  Dr. Ehrman, here is my theory which gives the early Christians and the NT authors the benefit of the doubt: Mark wrote his gospel first and in Greek. &nbsp;Matthew wrote his gospel in Aramaic which Papias referred to as Hebrew language. &nbsp;Luke wrote his gospel using Mark&apos;s Greek version and Matthew&apos;s Aramaic version around the same time as Paul was writing his letters. &nbsp;In response to Luke&apos;s gospel, his readers asked for him to translate Matthew into Greek which he did lifting verses out of Mark where they wrote about the same topic or quoted Jesus. &nbsp;This type of quotation from a known Greek source was common and even Jerome used this for his new latin version. &nbsp;This eliminates the need for Q since there would not be a common document other than Mark&apos;s gospel, but instead a common translator who used known verses from Mark to translate Matthew into Greek. &nbsp;That would also explain the order differences and why some phrases are in both Luke and Matthew. &nbsp;It does require all three gospels to be written before the destruction of the temple, so skeptics will dismiss my idea, but Christians believe this by default so it&apos;s not beyond belief that this would explain the similarities. &nbsp;I pray you can find your faith again and God grants that to you.

  1

• NA

  @nathandavis9830 · 4 weeks ago

  I would love to hear a conversation between Marcus Vinzent and Bart Ehrman on the question of whether Marcion&apos;s gospel predates the canonical version of Luke.<br><br>I haven&apos;t done analysis myself, but I&apos;ve found the Patristica channel&apos;s explanations of how there are many words that show up in the Marcionite sections of Luke while rarely/never showing up in the canonical sections of Luke (and vice versa). Including function words. This seems to indicate that there were separate authors. On top of that, the fact that if Marcion was editing out material that went against his theology, then he was a very mediocre editor (since he left in many things that went against his theology).<br><br>Ehrman&apos;s brief dismissal of that position in this interview felt unsatisfying since it didn&apos;t seem to take the position seriously (seemingly with the reason being that the majority of scholars haven&apos;t been convinced by it). But have the majority of scholars rejected the Marcion-predating-Luke position based on a scrutiny of the argument, or have they rejected it because the majority of scholars reject it (which then becomes a self-perpetuating cycle)?

  3

• JO

  @josephmooney1265 · 3 weeks ago

  It is interesting to me that, when I first started paying attention to biblical controversies, I subscribed to Bart&apos;s blog. He seemed to be the real deal when it came to scholarship and he was a pretty radical dude, debating and arguing with evangelists and true believers. Now, it seems ironic that Bart is kind of conservative in his views of the early church. He is not a mythicist, he believes that Jesus and Paul were living, historic figures. I don&apos;t think that Jacob believes that Paul and Jesus were historic figures. Anyway, is Bart a radical or a conservative in early christian church scholarship?

• JD

  @jdaze1 · 3 weeks ago

  It&apos;s always been odd to me that the Tanak defines the Firstborn Son of God as Ephraim (Israel). &nbsp;Specifically Jeremiah 31:9 but in other places as well. &nbsp;THEN the gospel story comes along and makes the Firstborn Son of God as a man named Jesus which totally contradicts all the OT and even verses in the NT such as Revelation 21:7. &nbsp;<br>You have Hebrews 1:2 define the Firstborn blessing inherited by Jesus yet Revelation 21:7 gives it to many Sons confirming Jeremiah 31:9. &nbsp;My conclusion eventually led me to believe what others have said... The gospel story was concocted after 70 ad and were not historical events. &nbsp;But rather taken from spiritual allegorical writings about the New Birth and they were literalized by blind guides who did not understand their original meaning. &nbsp;For example the virgin birth, death, burial and resurrection were of spiritual meaning not literal. &nbsp;I think this is what led to so much early confusion, church schisms, and even later Protestant denominations by the hundreds. Not to mention all the wars, death and destruction fought over religion. &nbsp;Everyone was seeing something different because the NT is indeed incongruent with itself not to mention the OT. &nbsp;No matter how much Christian scholars insist they are without error. &nbsp;It&apos;s just no longer can be argued that the Bible is innerant. &nbsp;In fact, I just no longer take anyone serious who make such statements. It quickly just proves to me they aren&apos;t serious readers of the Bible. &nbsp;It will be interesting to see how this all plays out over the next 50 years and if the world ever comes to an agreement on the genesis of all ancient religious texts and who was behind their formation.

• GA

  @garyseven3528 · 1 month ago

  This is a repeat of an earlier podcast, no?

  8

• 00

  @00007Jack · 3 weeks ago

  1Tim 3.16<br>...without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

• JD

  @jdaze1 · 3 weeks ago (edited)

  Baptistism by Fire means to be washed anew by the Anointing. &nbsp;The chaff is burned burned away. &nbsp;The world is never destroyed by literal fire. &nbsp;The world is changed in the same way, the fire of the Anointing burns all the darkness out of people. They are washed in the water of the word as noted in the Epistles. &nbsp; Most of the fantastical prophecies and stories in the Bible were meant to be taken as symbolic, allegorical or metaphor. &nbsp;Trying to literalize symbolic literature has led to mellinia of ridiculous religious beliefs. &nbsp;Not to mention the lies inserted by scribes.

• BA

  @barnsweb52 · 1 month ago

  If Jesus told his disciples to teach others what he had first taught them - as the account in Matthew says - why pretend they didn&apos;t make their account for 40 years? &nbsp;It&apos;s patently ridiculous IMO. &nbsp;If a tomb was provided by a follower, it would be nothing for them to fund scribes so the 12 could make the account while it was fresh on their collective minds. &nbsp;No doubt its altered some by Rome - but the view of Ehrman, as held by many others, didn&apos;t even make consensus until after 1800 years - it&apos;s the new kid on the block - not &apos;fact&apos; or even reasonable.

• BA

  @Bacchante669 · 4 weeks ago

  Didn&apos;t make stuff up? Just telling stories? Memories?<br><br>But conveniently, the later the Gospel, the higher the Christology. <br><br>The later the Gospel, the more answers appeared.<br><br>The later the Gospel, the more was stolen from other Gods they competed with.<br><br>There were a few stories in the beginning, but obviously it was all expanded with lies. They&apos;re visible to the naked eye.

  1