Bart Ehrman Contradicts Himself About Jesus’ Divinity in the Gospel of Mark

Skeptic Bart Ehrman contradicts himself about Jesus’ claims of divinity. In the first video clip he says Jesus never made a divine claim in Mark, but in the last clip he admits that Jesus did in fact make a divine claim in Mark chapter 14.

Bart Ehrman tries to trip people up with his claims about Jesus and the Bible, but when one looks at what he actually admits to (as well as his contradictions) and looks at the evidence, it is clear that his arguments aren’t much of anything.

[neptali_allane]

Praise God for giving His Church a brilliant theologian in the person of Dr. Brant Pitre. What an amazing question.

[lampkin]

The beginning of Mark simply states his deity

[elkhuntr]

Bart is so deceptive and contradictory in all his work. In his scholarly work, he says one thing. In his popular works, he leads you to believe he thinks something else. He is desperately wrong and you can see that he knows it. Of course claiming to be the messiah is blasphemy and the high priest knows it.

[nicbentulan]

3:35 please bart ehrman tell muslims that john 10:30 is a divine claim.

[reeseexplains]

I don’t think this is a contradiction since Jesus says he is the messiah. In this time period all messiah meant was the future king of Israel so he is saying ‘I am’ to that and when he is talking about the son of man he is being prophetic. He is referring to someone else when he speaks of the son of man, read mark 8:38.

[sjappiyah]

Sheikh Bart Ehrman pbuh has finally realized that Jesus DOES claim divinity in the synoptics.

Inshallah his muslim fans will stop quoting his earlier errors lol.

[pspspspssspspps]

i've ended in a congregation of evangelican christians who see contraddiction where there are none

[petercollins]

Sorry, but anyone who actually listens to this can hear that Bart does not, in fact, contradict himself. If you are desperate to find some possible way to support your bizarre claims, then you twist this into a contradiction. Congratulations - your desperation overcame all rationality. As usual.

[the.thinking.failure]

He doesn't contradict himself. He makes it very clear that Mark, the evangelist, is creating the story. Jesus never makes the claim himself in a historical context. Mark, in his theology, puts those words into Jesus' mouth himself for the story. And even if it was historical, Bart clearly states that while it is a divine claim it is NOT the same as if Jesus was saying he was God or Yahweh or equal to the father in anyway. You need to listen to the whole argument. It also helps to know the larger argument from Bart's books - How Did Jesus Become God?

[flyingscotsman]

He then just lazily claims it’s an invention of mark that’s just not great scholarship right there

[lindltailor]

You misunderstood his series of statements. He said those claims (Messiah, I AM, and sitting at the right hand) would have not been considered blasphemy at that time. The only way we can reason to the case for blasphemy is by reading even further into something that isn’t written down in Mark. Which is precisely what Bart says (you can watch his other videos on this subject for expanded clarity).

At the end he said we have no idea of what truly happened at Jesus trial because the book of Mark was written 40 years later and is obviously biased by whoever wrote Mark that Jesus did claim divinity.

So no contradiction, and even if you were to read some meaning back into Mark’s writing, there’s no way to know if that was the intention of Mark, or what actually was the justification for blasphemy. Could have simply been trumped up charges because as we know, the Sanhedrin already had it in for him, not like he’s gonna get out of this one!

[spkekillr]

Unfortunately there's no contradiction. Mark does not have Jesus make the same kind of claim as he does in John, which is Ehrmans point. Angels are also divine, but not God. So, claiming divinity is not saying you're god.

[munbruk]

The Christology in the making was very clear. Just read the Gospels yourself. The idea that Jews pick up stones to stone someone means he is God is ridiculous.

[pspspspssspspps]

where is the contraddiction, does jesus in mark state he is god? no

[goodknightcarolina]

You completely misread Bart’s argument. Mark’s author sees Jesus as divine—that’s part of the authors message. Bart’s point is that our earliest source never quotes Jesus as claiming divinity. That’s his point. He’s not contradicting himself.

[benjaminsaiken]

He says Jesus made no claims to be divine in Matthew mark and Luke but the author of mark draws that conclusion for us. Not the literal words of Jesus.

[rickkeith]

Erhmann did not contradict himself.

To be a Messiah is nothing more than the anointed one, as David was anointed as other Messiah were anointed. That doesn’t make them divine.
It’s only the Redefinition By Christian who thinks that being a king of Israel makes one divine.

Jesus claimed to be the Messiah but not the same as the father.

For those who live in the world of black-and-white, no wonder they can’t figure out the difference.

[iranianskeptic]

Subhanallah, Brother Ehrman made a good point.

[travestisocialista]

That is a misinterpretation of the argument. At that time, angels were considered to be divine. The king of Israel was considered divine in the old testament. To be divine is different from being God, and identifying the two terms as meaning the same is anachronistic.

It is a fact that, in that context, among Jews, to call yourself an angel was considered a blasphemy. The "Son of Man" was believed to be an angelical being (as in Book of Daniel and Book of Enoch), thus calling yourself "Son of Man" was a blasphemy. It is the world view of jews at the time of the author of the gospels.

The "Son of Man" was considered divine, as angels were considered divine, because he came from the divine real, the Sky.

[stevenclark]

Christ's adversary is Yahweh the jealous, angry, god of death!