(2 votes, average: 4.50 out of 5)
Loading...In case you missed this — I’ll be doing a FREE four-lecture course tomorrow (with long Q&A) on “Why I Am Not A Christian.” In it I will talk about my faith journey not for the sake of autobiography per se, but to explain one story of a person who came no longer to believe and decided to leave the faith. The course will include discussions of my scholarly endeavors but also of my wider struggles with the question of the existence of God and with the fears when I started wondering if I could continue to believe, the difficulties associated with leaving the faith, and, most important, the ways I and others have found meaning and purpose in a world without God.
I hope you can come! The first 3000 get in! But the course will later be available to anyone (with the lectures, q&a, questions for reflection, etc.) See the promo below; for more information and registration, go to https://www.bartehrman.com/courses/
Bart D. Ehrman (author of Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet)
Now, I believe God cannot be proven.
Steve Campbell (author of Historical Accuracy)
The Sun has been recognized as God. The Sun with its solar system governs Earth and individuals on Earth.
Apollo has been recognized as a god of Truth, Prophecy, Healing, and the Sun. Socrates was pious to Apollo. At the end of the dialogue, Gorgias (by Plato), Socrates speaks of–after death–being able to present himself with integrity to Apollo.
Bart D. Ehrman
Few of my many biblical-scholar friends agree with me about my decision [not to be a Christian and why].
Steve Campbell
You were a Christian who followed truth wherever it led. You are not alone, there.
The friends who are biblical-scholars and those who are authors should expect you to leave Christianity because of reasons of Christ, not for one or more theological reasons. Become an atheist for theological reasons. Leave Christianity for matters of the historicity of Christ and for Christological reasons; for example, the mistakes of Jewish Apocalypticism, a declaration proven false, hence its prophets were mistaken/false.
Bart, I have been listening to some of your debates about the resurrection and the burial. I have been resistant to accept that there was no tomb, but you have convinced me. I have conversed with you before about this, but I felt you dismissed my concern (no I can’t link to anything :-).
My question is this: When do you think the tomb stories were invented and why, and maybe how?
Jesus’s resurrection stories don’t need a tomb – he could have stepped off the cross, or climbed from the burial pit, or none of those. Jesus could simply have been portrayed as appearing. Why a tomb? Why invent a Joseph of Arimathea and why the “three day” period that ends up being so important?
I am an atheist, I think Christianity is a religion of denial of grief. The assessment bears out in my own family. A minister cousin literally told me upon the death of his brother from a heart attack that his brother met “glory” before him and he was jealous of that. Not a tear shed for the horrible loss – tears that I shed knowing my cousin was gone forever.
I’m not sure when they were invented. They were certainly firmly in place by the time of Mark (70 CE). Some people point out that since Paul says nothing about an empty tomb, that the stories were created after his day, but I don’t see that as very persuasive. Paul may just have decided not to say anything about it or maybe he hadn’t heard of it, out on the mission field. IN any event, the tomb *stories* are not necessary directly tied with the question of whether he was buried the day of the crucifixion (since he could have been put in a tomb, say, ten days later). (You could have a story of a tomb that didn’t specify it wsa empty three days later, if you see what I mean.
Hi Bart. Hope all is well with you and Sarah. I have signed up for this course and I’m really looking forward to it.
As an aside, you may be interested in knowing (then again, maybe not) that William “Lame” Craig is at it again. He did a critique / analysis ?? of your recent interview with Alex O’Connor. He seems to be obsessed with you, like you’re his white whale. I won’t watch this, as I find both the host and WLC quite insufferable. At any rate, here is the link if you’re ever in the mood.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv7mzTN0xpY
Yeah, others have told me, and I’m not sure I myself will ever be much in the mood….
Can U talk about how your views of the New Testament changed your life over the past 20 years.
Twenty years ago, the USA was global hegemone.
I’m afraid my basic views of the NT haven’t changed over the past 20 years, though I’ve certainliy acquired lots more knowledge and changed my understanding of lots of things.
I enjoyed hearing your story very much. Your books, courses, lectures and debates have influenced my views of all things spiritual these past several years. My question is, Was there a biblical scholar, class or writer that finally settled the question of Gods existence?
I’d say that is a theological question that cannot be answered by a historical scholar on historical grounds, and that, whatever people say, there’s no way it can ever be finally settled….
Thanks for the opportunity to see these lectures. I had not understood that it was a series of four lectures. I ended up at 2:00 p.m. still in my bathrobe!
Luckily participants weren’t on video!!
Since Paul, in his letters, was the first person by years to mention the main things brought out in the Gospels (such as the resurrection, baptism, last supper, Jesus dying for our sins, Passover lamb, miracles, love your neighbor as yourself, and Jesus returning) and Paul also made it clear that his information came only directly from Jesus; do you think that when Mark was written many years later, that he just enhanced the information into story form? Is this why Mark is so short? Did the other Gospels, with this information, add whatever was being learned by word-of-mouth or did they just make stories up? Would this explain why there is not a birth story in Mark because Paul only mentioned that Jesus was born of a woman?
I think Paul’s statement that his gospel came straight from Jesus is often misunderstood. He is not referring to the claim that Jesus died for sins and then was raised from the dead; Paul got that from others (probably those he wsa persecuting for saying it!). His “gospel” in the context of Galatians 1-2 (where he deals with this issue) is his message that all people can receive salvation from Christ’s death, Jew and Gentile, equally. Gentiles did not have to become Jews. That’s what he learned from Christ — that distinctive understanding of the salvation brought by Christ.
Thankyou so much for this course – just listening to it again now.
A tangential question arising from the 2nd lecture – concerning, as I will call it, the “evil of stupidity”, as you attribute to some of the very unsatisfactory justifications puddled by some to explain suffering. Have you read (& might you work up some biblically related post please – that’s my 2nd question) about Bonhoeffer’s Theory of Stupidity? It was written in 1943 & could just as easily have been written now, these 80 years later. Stupidity is truly the pandemic we should all fear – & fight.
If I have, I’ve forgotten it!
Could you please provide a link for those who were unable to attend live but want to watch the recording?
You can find it and all my courses at http://www.bartehrman.com (go to online courses).
Thanks for the course, Prof. Ehrman.
There’s much to digest, and I will listen to it repeatedly. The section on suffering was particularly poignant. There’s no rational solution to the problem, and I appreciate your honesty on the topic.
A superficial summary of your stance might be: suffering exists, therefore I cannot believe in the Christian god. I’m sure this does not do justice to your viewpoint, but many non-believers seem to espouse this “logic.”
But there is no logical connection here. It is just as logical to say: suffering exists, therefore I believe in Christ. See (disgraced evangelical) Larry Troxler’s book The Faith of Christopher Hitchens. One chapter is about his adopted daughter from Russia, who has HIV, epilepsy, and other horrible medical illnesses. She says that she is a believer because of her suffering.
I’m with Christ because he was a suffering God. I admit: bizarre, but it does give me comfort which I cannot explain, and there you have it. Admittedly, it’s absurd on an intellectual rational level, but it’s rational in a different frame: it’s a relationship that provide comfort.
Right, if you summarize it that way there is no logic in it. (!) disabledupes{aaf7b33fe81c740a5bd561ca52e55320}disabledupes
This is only indirectly related to the excellent lectures about your life / faith / intellectual journey but I might as well ask my questions here.
One of the aspects about your work that I find most encouraging is that you have no direct personal / financial / career interest in pursuing the conclusions you argue for (unlike just about all your debating opponents) – only that you apply academic rigour. I’ve asked you about this before – that although it doesn’t prove anything in itself, I think it ought to be declared by debaters every time.
So, concerning potential or actual self interest behind any person’s actions, is this taken into account when analysing the writings / words from antiquity (& up to the present day)? Maybe a twist on the “Criterion of embarrassment”? Scribes & their patrons? Bishops supported by the church they oversee? Apologists living off their believer funding base? Even right up to past Presidents peddling alternative facts to voters.
Perhaps there is something to be said for Paul remaining a tentmaker re less self interest prima facie in his writings & actions?
Oh, yes, the issue of “self-interest” is always front and center in historians’ thoughts when evaluating ancient writers/sources.