DID JESUS EXIST? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth by Bart Ehrman

Large numbers of atheists, humanists, and conspiracy theorists are raising one of the most pressing questions in the history of religion: "Did Jesus exist at all?" Was he invented out of whole cloth for nefarious purposes by those seeking to control the masses? Or was Jesus such a shadowy figure—far removed from any credible historical evidence—that he bears no meaningful resemblance to the person described in the Bible?

In DID JESUS EXIST? historian and Bible expert Bart Ehrman confronts these questions, vigorously defends the historicity of Jesus, and provides a compelling portrait of the man from Nazareth. The Jesus you discover here may not be the Jesus you had hoped to meet—but he did exist, whether we like it or not.

[jesusisking]

Either I'm extremely observant or there is a cross in the middle of this mans forehead.

[edwinchanx]

Matthew 24
Do you see all these things(the Jewish Temple)?" he asked. "Truly I tell you, not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down."
As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately. "Tell us, " they said, "when will this happen, and what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?"
Jesus answered: "Watch out that no one deceives you.

For many will come in my name, claiming, 'I am the Messiah, ' and will deceive many.
You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.
Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places.
...
At that time many will turn away from the faith and will betray and hate each other,
and many false prophets will appear and deceive many people.
Because of the increase of wickedness, the love of most will grow cold,
but the one who stands firm to the end will be saved.
And this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.
So when you see standing in the holy place 'the abomination that causes desolation, ' spoken of through the prophet Daniel--let the reader understand--
...
For then there will be great distress, unequaled from the beginning of the world until now--and never to be equaled again.
If those days had not been cut short, no one would survive, but for the sake of the elect those days will be shortened.
At that time if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Messiah!' or, 'There he is!' do not believe it.
For false messiahs and false prophets will appear and perform great signs and wonders to deceive, if possible, even the elect.
See, I have told you ahead of time.
...
For as lightning that comes from the east is visible even in the west, so will be the coming of the Son of Man.
...
"Immediately after the distress of those days "'the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light; the stars will fall from the sky, and the heavenly bodies will be shaken.'
Then will appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven. And then all the peoples of the earth will mourn when they see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of heaven, with power and great glory.
 I tell you, this generation will certainly not pass away until all these things have happened.

Yeshua never said 'this generation' is the disciple generation. He was saying the generation where those above takes place.

[UpdatedAmericanStandardVersion]

Well, I guess we have reached the end of this conversation. I appreciate your respectful tone, and that we were able to exchange thoughts without delving off into heated words.

[scottbignell]

LOL. That's pretty much been Ehrman's main focus of his career - "exploring the possibilities" of what the historical Jesus probably said and did. I think any attempt to reconstruct the historical Jesus will be unable to answer all questions. But that goes for the reconstruction of anyone from ancient times. I think Ehrman's portrayal of Jesus as some sort of Jewish Apocalypticist is very compelling. Indeed it is the most common academic portrayal that many others have come to independently.

[Cloudsorrow]

You: trying to sell me a book
Me: not interested

[LogosTheos]

Actually that is still disputed today. There are a minority of textual critics who hold to the view that Matthew may have been written in Aramaic since it does at times read like a typical Greek translation and is filled with Aramaic 'flavor', also It wasn't just Irenaus it was Origen and Papias who affirmed this view as well. I myself hold to the view that it was written in Greek but am open to this idea. You should check out the arguments

[aZrevolution]

Depends on how you interpret that verse in context.

[edvardzv]

Reading the books of the New Testament, we probably asked ourselves more than once: *"Why 2000 years we do not see those miracles that accompanied the Сhurch of Christ in the I century, as described in the New Testament?"* Why do the so-called preachers of Christ have to prove that Jesus really existed and atheists boldly deny the historicity or divine origin of Christ? Maybe because the Сhurch of Christ has not existed for 2000 years?
The Сhurch does not exist in the form in which it is presented in the books of the New Testament, but there are Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and other christian sects claiming to be the place of the Church, but they not have the only thing that distinguishes the divine from the human and is characteristic of just the Сhurch of Christ -the reinforcement of the word with signs, that is, miracles (Mark 16:15-20). Therefore, some researchers doubt the historicity of Christ, and some of them are not opposed to declaring him a an ordinary philosopher, teacher. But even if Jesus were an ordinary philosopher, his disciples would be ordinary followers of Jesus. And they would not dare to write about the miracles that not only Jesus, but also his disciples, could perform. In this world, the great fertility of atheism can be explained by the fact that there is no main opponent of critics of the Bible - the Church. If there were the Church in our time as described by the authors of the New Testament books, where miracles are performed, the sick are healed, where prophesied, and the dead are raised, no one would doubt the historicity of Christ. Then there would be the same controversy throughout the world as in the first century - Jesus the Son of God or the false prophet who seduces the world by miracles. As a result, we can say that the emergence and development of christian sects and atheism was the result of the fact that over the 2000 years the Сhurch of Christ did not exist.

Find *"The Mystery about the Church of Christ"* video on YouTube, which shows the real causes of Christian sects and atheism. The video reveals a prophecy about the disappearance and reappearance of the Church of Christ before the end of the world. Watching this video will bring joy to all who sincerely seek God and will interest those who are not too lazy to think freely. (The video is in Russian, but English subtitles are included)

[sybite]

"Bart DOES prove Jesus existed"

Hardly! Obviously you don't know the difference between proof and hearsay.

[WBFbySteefen]

I'm the author of The Greatest Bible Study in Historical Accuracy (Insights on the Exodus, King David, and Jesus by Steefen). I am currently working on the second edition of my book. I last heard Bart Ehrman speak in Dallas in 2011 at a debate held at SMU. I am very interested in comparing his reading of Josephus to my reading of Josephus. I wish my second edition was in the hands of a mass market publisher as well with my joining him in conversations on this topic.

[GibbonsTalksBoxing]

A great read. Very informative without needing to be a bible expert.

[Christianjr]

I should add that I couldn't even find anything on the last two where they even denied or debated whether Plato wasn't a real figure. In any case, the major point of mine would still remain. The existence of all these figures are not seriously challenged in academia, and such is the case with Jesus. As Bart Ehrman nicely puts it in his book (page 4):

"the view that Jesus existed is held by virtually every expert on the planet"

Indeed, no historian who denies his existence has a teaching job.

[EzerEben]

0:05 MANY question whether Socrates existed. And each time the answer is: he may or may not have existed. No one knows for sure. No one really cares. We won't lose sleep if we realize he was made up because the IDEAS attributed to him are infinitely more important to history than the existence of the person.


0:12 There is so much controversy around the existence of Jesus because the very act of questioning His evidence sends billions of people into rage. If He didn't exist, they're worshiping a character that is completely made up by Paul and Mark. How demeaning would that be?


The evidence for Julius Caesar is rock solid. A historian cannot pretend that the two J.C.s are in the same category. Hercules and Jesus, however, are more in the same ball park. And there is actually some evidence that each of them may have been loosely based on actual historical figures (Heracles and Y'shuah, respectively). But, unlike with Jesus, we don't even ask the question: "Did Hercules really exist?" We understand that he did not, but we remain open to the idea that his legend may have started with a strong guy in Athens, whose reputation grew to mythical proportions. This DOES NOT MEAN that Hercules might have existed.

[boblackey]

@WBFbySteefen I've been an agnostic since a teen but interesting in Christianity because I was raised in a protestant denomination. So fellow skeptic Bart Ehrman is one of my favorite Bible scholars & historians. In an earlier book, Ehrman does the same as Whealey, Gary & others. He removed the part that they think is the "tampered" part & left the rest which still has the account of christians, Jesus & his execution by Pilate. Pines showed the Arab version reads differently as does Jerome's.

[Cognitive_player]

there is one thing intresting about this vidoe:



8 year old comments are actually seen here

[UpdatedAmericanStandardVersion]

Archaeologist Albright “All we can say is that a period of between twenty and fifty years is too slight to permit of any appreciable corruption of the essential content and even of the specific wording of the sayings of Jesus.” Dr Habermas “The Gospels are quite close to the period of time which they record, while ancient histories often describe events which took place centuries earlier. Yet, modern historians are able to successfully derive the events even from these ancient periods of time.”

[dookdawg]

@CadaverSplatter
Yes, Paul was writing two to three decades after Jesus' death. But that wasn't my point. By the time he started writing the epistles, he had already founded several churches and the conflict between the Petrine Christians was already in full swing. Paul's supposed conversion happened in 36 AD and he was aleady travelling and evangelizing with Barnabas in the mid-40s. This is all very contemporary.

[Dzonrid]

His earliest followers were jewish. Read the Gospel of Mark, disciples don't seem to have a clue who he is. If anybody at that time in that region said Jesus was god, it would have been a blashemy and his ministry would have ended in five minutes.

[waxworse]

(1:46) Not what he meant. He was speaking about the generation at the time to come WHEN all THESE THINGS HAPPEN.
Luke 21: 31 So likewise ye, WHEN YE SEE THESE THINGS COME TO PASS, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand.
32 Verily I say unto you, THIS GENERATION shall not pass away, TILL ALL BE FULFILLED.(KJB)

[Dzonrid]

Irenaeus said something about the gospels which (the majority of) scholars don't agree. Matthew (at least that Matthew in the Bible) is written in Greek, not in "hebrew" (Irenaeus refers apparently to aramaic). Also his datings are bit off. All the Gospels were written after the Disciples had died. I think Irenaeus had a purpose to create a unified movement so he tried to reconcile the differences among the christian communities.