Don't go back to that church. They are doing their own thing

“Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they're sure trying to do so, it's going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can't and won't compromise. I know, I've tried to deal with them.” - Barry Goldwater November 1994

@@terryreynolds200 This quote surprised me because, in 1964, he was considered a conservative's conservative. What he feared largely happened, too. Today, MAGA would banish him as a RINO.

stay away from those evangelical churches in my opinion

Evangelicals and the republican right are joined at the hip

Yea Bart said Jesus didn't say he is God and so he couldn't be God. In that case, if Tabor said he is God, Bart would immediately worship him.

Same here john

It's difficult to see the benefit of leaving a cult until you've actually left the cult.

Likewise! I'm truly amazed at the overwhelming relief and joy I feel again.

Repent, you rejecting the spirit.

@@Phi1618033 man I could not agree more. My life has had much more meaning and purpose once my chains were broken.

Read my book about it, Jesus Failed and Finished in Disaster

Ttttt

Jesus never said that the end of the world would come in his generation or even close to the next generation. Megan Lewis put up this false question and Bart did not correct her. When some people asked Jesus he replied that no one knows when the end will come. Matthew 24:36

Bart Erhman should be debating with a Catholic theologian like Scott Hahn, or apologists like Jimmy Akin and Trent Horn. They know their stuff.

David cottage Dr Ehrman covers that. Didn't you listen ? The Gospels were written at different times and as the years passed the message shifted, adjusting to circumstances, as it became increasingly obvious that Jesus wasn't going to come back "in their lifetimes ". I seem to remember reading Christ saying, "before this generation is out" or similar, although I'm not enough of a scholar to quote chapter and verse. As the years passed Christianity spread and became more organised. They had local bishops, deacons and what have you. I'm sure there was a lot of money involved as well. Christianity had to be marketed effectively. Marketing is not a recent invention, by any means.

@@AndriyValdensius-wi8gw Wrong, the apostles kept notes of what he said, nowhere in the bible does it say they did not take notes, they could not rely on just their memories. They passed what was preached on to others in the church hierarchy of those times. Jesus didn't leave a bible but he told the apostles that not one word (Jesus meant the true meaning) must be changed from what he said. He also said that the Holy Spirit will tell them what to say and do. Jesus could have got highly educated Jews to be his apostles, instead, the twelve he picked were fishermen and from other simple professions.

@@AndriyValdensius-wi8gw "Before this generation will pass away" does not mean the time of those Jews who were living 2000 years ago. Read Matthew 24 entirely and you will see that Jesus meant the end times, as he also said there will be wars and earthquakes in various places (on Earth) meaning it will be a long time to come.

Can you blame them, really? They're told their whole life that they're essentially perfidious cowards who will be tortured in a fire for all of eternity if they don't "believe in Jesus" (whatever that means---seeing as it means many different things to many different people.). It's hard to turn away from something taught so strictly to you and to turn away from the belief of your family, friends and most of the people around you.

@@Willie_Wahzoo 👍

Oh wow I thought "plebs" was solely a Trinidadian word 😅 thank you for using it in this comment

You find what you are searching to.. internet gives you the answer you want

@@BrunoCardoso-dp3bd Internet? No. Academic scholarship? Yes.

Let's not assume Erhman goes unrefuted here. Daniel Wallace give a fine balance to Erhman. Watch the debates.

Hahaha nice joke

@@pamalickkujabi3461 There's only one cult thats still practising bloody sacrifice, apostacy kills.. etc Wake up, abdul boy. Yours is the funniest among existing religious books.

@@Endrin911 It will be good if you talk on matters you have knowledge on or else you make a fool of yourself! My humble advice to you

@@notanemoprog Oh okay standup comedian I heard you

@@pamalickkujabi3461 the koran is full of stories that people had heard and attributed it to mohammed, but, in honesty, since neither jesus or mohammed ever thought to write anything down (unfortunately god didn't think writing important as most people of that time were illiterate) we can not know what either one actually said.

If you are speaking of oral tradition, story telling, Erhman does talk about this in some of the other podcasts and debates he has done. Very interesting indeed.

It's often commented that ancient writers of religious texts were more concerned with conveying a message than they were with actual historical facts --- kinda like nursery rhymes - The doomsday death cult known as Christianity was, for the most part, plagiarized from several more ancient 'resurrection cults' collectively known as 'The Mysteries' - which was acknowledged very early on by Christians. Justin Martyr, considered the earliest Christian Apologist, said in an open letter to the Roman Emperor, Antoninus (circa 150 CE), - "And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter." This is one of the reasons the Church was so adamant about burning books - to destroy the evidence that there was nothing special or novel about the Jesus Myth

he shouldn't be assuming that jesus even had a mouth, much less what the guy said

@@scambammer6102 😂 amen!!

"Putting words into the mouths" of various historical figures was standards practice during the Greco-Roman period. Historians like Tacitus, Livy or Cassius Dio wrote about people who lived a hundred or more years before them. Yet they write what someone supposedly said. As Dr Bart explained, they just made it up. They wrote what X might have plausibly said on such and such an occasion given the circumstances.

Oh and Megan! Your joyful “Goodbye” at the end of every podcast.

Don't need the pronouns though.

Boring

Why does Megan have a (she/her)?

You know very well why she has "she/her" pronouns in her chyron, and you are being passive-aggressive. Hair dyed pink & cut short, bluestocking glasses, nose-piercing, pronouns; young, female, British academic. From this we can say with 90%+ certainty that she is: From a well-heeled family in the Home Counties; Went to Oxford or Cambridge; Is a 3rd or 4th wave feminist; Is pro-choice; Voted Remain in the Referendum; Votes either Labour or Liberal Democrat - and is, as chance would have it, quite similar in appearance to Lib Dem MP Layla Moran (and if she has dual American citizenship, she also votes Democrat); Reads the Guardian; Supports Just Stop Oil & co.; Is most emphatically the ideological opposite of a TERF; Believes that Nigel Farage, Boris Johnson, Douglas Murray etc are all literally Nazis; Has certainly read her Foucault & Derrida, etc; In short, she is a far-left ideologue. Which is obvious & doesn't need to be slyly inferred with feigned wide-eyed innocence as per your question.

That's a good word, 'christianism', I might have to adopt that.

Annointism, Yahwehism, Abrahamism, Paulism, Scripticism. The possibilities are endless.

​@@garrybooker churchianity, Paulianity lol

Jesus ben Ananias in Josephus's _Jewish War_

Josephus Flavius

But as he is as sharp as a razor, it must simply be that he is highly experienced as an interviewee.

Ironically, it was German theologians who kicked the entire critical New Testament scholarship off, such as David Friedrich Strauss and Albert Schweizer. Gerd Ludeman was German too, and even Bart Ehrman has German roots.

@@Nexus-jg7ev you are right😊👍🌻

The truth about our cherished beliefs can be very painful. Few love to hear the sins they love to act.😇

We are primates with primate brains.

How can they when huge medical organizations like the APA come up with utter nonsense like having a delusion is a mental illness unless it is in a group.

It's amazing!!

It can't be said often enough, loud enough. Jesus swung... and missed! That there came a massive following after his death... purely because people who invested in his ideas, couldn't let it go! The inventors of the resurrection and whatnot.

@@theobolt250 Actually the only way it took off was due to Roman Society at the time. Basically, if Paul, who was a Roman Citizen, had not taken up the gauntlet for Christianity, it never would have gotten off the ground. If you weren't a Citizen, you were ignored. So it was political, as many things are.

Definitely would love to see Bart's take on James.

I think an episode about Jesus’s and the early church’s relation to economics (the root of all evil, etc.)-and how church positions on that matter of wealth acquisition has changed or varied over the centuries-would be much more useful.

James Tabor has some interesting things to say about Jesus family

Read my book about it, Jesus Failed and Finished in Disaster

James is written about Israel and the law ....if u read it u would of understand that .... Paul was apostle to the gentiles ( non new ) yet many people get confused and can't able to discern between the two You have to see that dispensational

Too short-should'veread: that answer is not useful, because scholarship is not designed to answer the question of god's existence. Dr Ehrman answers the more useful questions "Did Jesus consider himself a prophet" and "Was he seen as a false prophet in his day".

Never, they still believe it’s coming soon and very possibly in our lifetime!

Yes, the apostle Peter said: "But beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day"" 2 Peter 3 : 8. KJB Now it's good for yourself to know that even in the Old Testament, God had already testified: "For a thousand years in Thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night" Psalms 90 : 4. KJB

Mock not Jesus-Christ, following Dr Bart Ehrman in such a way of loss. He (Bart) doesn't know what he is doing... or knows it but can't go back !

@@WilsonCBrou LMAO - okay Loony….

in 2 Peter I've heard that the question of a delayed coming is addressed

it's apocalyptic to anyone that doesn't believe in these archaic immoral fairy tales - IF true

Only in the later gospels does it become that the kingdom is within you. This is an apologetic to the fact that Jesus’s predictions didn't come true. For the Son of man shall come in the glory of his Father with his angels; ***and then he shall reward every man according to his works.*** Truly I tell you, ***some who are standing here will not taste death*** before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom Matthew 16:27-28 *CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC RATIONALIZATIONS* *Rationalization #1: Matthew 16:28 refers to Jesus’ transfiguration, not his second coming.* The transfiguration of Jesus is a story recorded in Matthew 17, Mark 9, and Luke 9. The first problem is that these Gospels place the transfiguration at different times. In Matthew, it occurs after Jesus made the prediction about his second coming. That might make it seem reasonable to think that it was a fulfillment of the earlier prediction. However, Mark and Luke place the transfiguration event before Jesus made spoke the prophecy. Laying aside the obvious discrepency in timing, we can say for certain that an event occurring before a prediction is made can’t be fulfilling the prediction. The “prediction” wouldn’t be a prediction at all. *The preceding verse (verse 27) starts off the description of Jesus’ coming by saying he would come “in glory” with angels to dole out judgment to “every man”. That is not what happened in the transfiguration stories. Therefore, the explanation doesn’t work.* Some try to make it work by separating verse 28 from the preceding verse so that the two verses talk about different “comings”. This is a baseless tinkering with the passage in order to make a doctrine fit the scripture. The same Christians who do this will accuse other of taking verses out of context when they disagree with an interpretation. Yet, this is exactly what they do here. *Rationalization #2: The word translated “generation” can mean “race”. So, Jesus meant the Jewish race would not die out before he returns.* This is a manufactured definition to suit doctrinal purposes. *When you see “generation” in the New Testament is means just that - people living in a particular era, not a race of people.* Elsewhere when he speaks of the Jews, he does so by saying “Jews”. It’s rather strange that he would speak cryptically in just this one instance. *Rationalization #3: When Jesus said “this generation shall not pass away” he meant the generation living at the time of the end times tribulation.* *Correct! Jesus told his followers that they would go through persecution. So, he apparently thought they would be the generation living at the time of the end.* It is evident in the writings of the New Testament that first century Christians saw the tribulations they were going through as a fulfillment of Jesus’ prediction about the end times and the tribulation. If they saw it as such, modern Christians have no real justification not to see it that way as well. Notice that Jesus didn’t say “that generation” - which would be the normal way of referring to a future generation. *He said “this generation”.* ***Besides through a plain common sense reading of the text, we know he meant the people alive while he was speaking because he said that some of his listeners (and the high priest at his trial) would still be alive to see his return to Earth.*** *Rationalization #4: When Jesus said that some of his listeners would be alive to see him return, he was talking about the Day of Pentecost when the Holy Spirit descended on the church.* This is another explanation that is so far from rational that is it hard to accept that anyone sincerely believes it. The Book of Acts tells the story of the Holy Spirit appearing over the heads of the saints as tongues of fire endowing them with the magical ability to speak in unlearned languages. *There is no mention of them seeing Jesus in the clouds with angels. The supposed event did not accompany the final judgment. None of the things Jesus said would occur at his return happened on the Day of Pentecost.* *Rationalization #5: When it was revealed to John in his visions that Jesus would come quickly, it is to happen on God’s time scale, not a human time scale. “The time is near” and “coming quickly” are not to be taken literally. To God a thousand years is a day.* This is actually the first Christian attempt (found in 2 Peter 3) to explain away the fact that Jesus had not come as expected. *Believers of the time had begun to waver in their faith because Jesus had not come back as promised.* The writer tells them not to listen to people who say, “Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” (2 Peter 3:4) By “fathers”, he evidently means the founding fathers of the faith who had all died by that time. *This is evidence that almost from the start of Christianity, believers have been wrestling with the apparent failure of their savior’s end times prophecy.* In verse 8, the writer tries to reassure them by saying, “with the Lord one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day” and continues in the next verse to say that the Lord is not slacking on his promise. He basically tries to make the argument that time is meaningless to God. *This passage is in obvious contradiction to what Jesus himself said about his return and everything else written in the New Testament about it.* This contradiction raises the question: Did the Simon Peter, one of Jesus’ personal disciples, actually write this book? The most truthful answer: Not likely. When reading 2 Peter, we must keep in mind when it was written. It is well-known that many of the writings floating around the early church were not written by the people claimed to have written them, but were forged by believers to push their particular doctrines. This is most likely the case with the book of 2 Peter. *The first clue is that the writer acknowledged that “the fathers” have died. Since Peter was one of those founding fathers of the church, he couldn’t have written this book.* It has proven difficult for scholars to pinpoint exactly when the book was written, but they all place its origin sometime between 60 and 160 A.D. This means that it was written at least 30 years after Jesus’ crucifixion is believed to have taken place when he was 33. Assuming his disciples were somewhere around his own age and taking into account average life expectancy of that time and that, according to church tradition, the apostles were all killed, none of them would have likely been alive in 60 A.D. (the earliest date scholars say the book would have been written). *So, what can we make of the fact that this is in the Bible? It was written by a believer who didn’t want Jesus’ failure to come to cause the faith to die out.* Knowing that Peter was a founding apostle and a personal disciple of Jesus who was deemed to be the first Pope of the Christian faction that came to be known as the Roman Catholic Church, the writer forged this book in Peter’s name. It seems likely that this was an attempt to keep believers in the nascent Catholic churches in the fold. This is not the only case of forgery to uphold Catholic doctrine. (There are other forgeries in the New Testament that have been recognized by scholars as such.) *Whether written by the apostle Peter or something else, it is an obvious rationalization to try to deal with the failure of a prediction that came to be central to the Christian religion.* We do not accept similar rationalizations from modern-day doomsdayers and we shouldn’t accept them from ancient religious people either. *Rationalization #6: In Matthew 16 when Jesus said some of his listeners would see him “coming in his kingdom”, he was talking about his coming into his kingdom in Heaven after his resurrection when he went back to Heaven. Many saw this event through visions.* *This fails to take into account what Jesus said his “coming in his kingdom” would be connected to the day of judgment when he would “reward each according to his works”.* As far as I know, no Christian apologists say the judgment occurred when Jesus supposedly went back to Heaven in the first century. Everything in the New Testament places judgment day at the end of the world. Even if we were to throw the Matthew 16 passage completely out of the Bible, there would still be the problem of other passages where Jesus said *“this generation will not pass”* before he comes and New Testament writers testifying to their belief that he would come in their lifetime. *It is no wonder that this rationalization has largely been dropped by Christian theologians.* *Rationalization #7: Maybe in our human understanding we don’t know what Jesus meant when he said “this generation would not pass away” and that “some of those who are standing here who will not taste death until they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom”. He couldn’t have meant he was coming in the first century because he hasn’t come back yet and that would make him a false prophet.* This rationalization is nothing more than interpreting the Bible by a doctrine you want to be true. If you’re going to believe in the Jesus of the Bible, shouldn’t you base your doctrines on what the Bible actually says? It is self-deceit to look at Jesus’ “prophecy” detailing his return in the lifetime of his disciples and rationalize why it didn’t happen. Only a mind interested in maintaining the illusion of faith could twist and mangle the plain words of the Bible the way Christians have in an attempt to make the incredible credible. An honest mind looking at the facts would have no choice but to admit that Jesus’ prophecy of the end of days has failed to come true.

Much of the Christian mythology was plagiarized from several more ancient 'resurrection cults' collectively known as 'The Mysteries' - which was acknowledged very early on by Christians. Justin Martyr, considered the earliest Christian Apologist, said in an open letter to the Roman Emperor, Antoninus (circa 150 CE), - "And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter." This is one of the reasons the Church was so adamant about burning books - to destroy the evidence that there was nothing special or novel about the Jesus Myth

The gospels were written AFTER the destruction of the Temple. No wonder they take that in account.

Or the _Jesus_ in the gospel is a character, given the gospel story is a constructed story. Whatever real person or persons inspired the character, the _Jesus_ character in the gospel is playing an apocalyptic role for a culture (Roman era Judaism) that was in turmoil over the Roman occupation.

@@TheDanEdwards Where is your evidence for this?

Brian.

​@@jeffryphillipsburns That's true. Thanks for the reminder.

Only naughty boys.

I thought it was a strange choice of words as well. Adding the word “false” is quite unnecessary. We don’t say false wizards or false leprechauns.

Needless to say, what I say above is very different from the last part of Ehrman's interview. I am basically in agreement with everything Ehrman says right up until he says he does not think Jesus expected to be put to death in Jerusalem -- which is certainly not what the early gospel of Mark says from 9:31 on. For a very different (and in my opinion, better) view, see Dale C. Allison's "Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History" (2010), paying special attention to Allison's fifth chapter wherein he argues that Jesus expected he would be put to death, and that this was God's will for him, and for that reason Jesus did not resist death. But what I said in the post above goes further than Allison does, for I am convinced that the historical Jesus' expectation that he must die was influenced by Isaiah 53, an understanding which was difficult even for him, as we can see in Mark 9:31-33 where he lashed out at Peter, and later in Mark's Gethsemane scene where Jesus himself struggled with the necessity of his death (14:32-36) as he apparently had found it revealed in Isaiah 53:10. I do not see how anyone can doubt the historicity of that Gethsemane scene wherein Jesus, who had earlier told his disciples that they must be prepared to die with him and warned them that if they sought to save their lives, they would lose their lives (9:35-36), seeks to save his own life even while stating that his will and the Father's will are not one and the same (14:36), though he subordinates his will to that of his Father -- as reveaed in Isaiah 53:10. How different from the Gospel of John in 10:30 where the Son and the Father are one and the same in perfect harmony. (See also John 12:27-28a.) Even so, what Jesus expected to happen did not happen. And so I refer again to my last sentence in the post above.

@@jamesboswellii2034 i think it’s impossible to reflect on the past without ‘inserting’ certain knowledge of the dominant view in a person’s present. All NT writers lived in a present were Jesus was crucified and raised from the death as fulfillment of prophecy and a Divine plan….so they thought. Since all of them believed this outcome was ‘God’s secret will/plan’ they of course concluded that Jesus had fore knowledge of this plan. Therefor in the gospels Jesus foresees his own crucifixion and gives hints about it in certain places. The problem lies with Jesus early mission. Especially in Matthew Jesus urges the people to be perfect like their Father in heaven and seriously undertake actions to fulfill the law in a new way like Jesus taught. In true love for God and thy neighbor without scoffing at any detail. Jesus himself claims that a house divided in itself cannot exist. The same applies to a mission this important. You cannot proclaim a message like Jesus did in early Matthew , with so much conviction and fire, when you secretly are running a different agenda hoping people won’t listen in the end because otherwise they may refuse to crucify you and the prophecies remain unfulfilled. The bible is a collection of religious opinions that are very often in conflict with one another. You cannot preach a message like Jesus did with true honesty , fire and conviction and at the same time knowing they won’t listen and they really shouldn’t because otherwise a higher agenda would be blocked. That’s the philosophical tirannie of biblical scholars AND parts of scripture that has misguided ordinary people simply asking for a clear direction and instructions for centuries. We were promised a kingdom, but all we got was church… a true wise man once said.

@@andrevanderschoot842 Thank you for this. I just want to point out to you that Jewish scholar Amy-Jill Levine is in disagreement with several present-day historical Jesus scholars in that she thinks it was NOT the later church, but probably Jesus himself who believed that he would suffer a God-willed death which would result in righteousness for many, a concept she says he "quite likely" derived from "Isaiah's Suffering Servant songs, particularly Isaiah 53." (The Historical Jesus in Context, p. 37). Dale Allison also thinks that Jesus himself 1) believed he would have to die, 2) thought this death was willed by God for a good purpose, and therefore 3) did not seek to escape from death but went toward it. Against those who do not think Jesus went to his death willingly, Allison says, "I think it much more likely that, in this particular, our sources are not bereft of memory. Jesus' decision to die, whenever made and whatever the motivation and whatever his precise interpretation, left a vivid impression [on his followers]. Indeed, next to the fact that Jesus was crucified by order of Pontius Pilate, his acquiescence to his fate is probably the best attested fact about his last days. At some point, he determined to assent to his miserable end, accepting it as the will of God": Constructing Jesus: Memory, Imagination, and History, p. 433.)

Liberals and progressives (one of which I consider myself to be) tend to dismiss any sense that Jesus himself believed his death was necessary as God's will for him. I myself used to climb right up the wall at the merest suggestion that Jesus himself was in any way into some sort of self sacrificial or atonement (ugh!) thinking. As I grew older, I had to change. Many years ago Joachim Jeremias helped me get my head clearer on this matter, and today Amy-Jill Levine and Dale Allison offer added support for my conviction that Jesus himself was into something like that sort of thinking. I suppose I would change my mind if anyone could convince me that Mark 1:13 and 8:27-33 and 10:35-45 and 14:22-25 and especially 14:32-36 are in no way historical.

@@jamesboswellii2034 so you need someone to convince you that archaic immoral fairy tales that include talking snakes and donkeys,, and unicorns, and zombies crawling out of their graves and roaming the city, are in no way historical? --- grow up

I agree. Judaism rejected Duelism. Even in Job, Satan is the great Accuser of man . However, he is under the power of Hashem.

Exactly. God is ONE and God has created everything.

_[" Reason being in Judaism we don’t view “evil” as an independent entity."]_ Your modern Judaism. Not Second Temple Judaism. Your religion has metamorphized over the centuries. _["The concept of dualism where evil is independent of G-d or that Satan is an opposing power to good ie G-d steps outside of ethical and strict monotheism of the Torah."]_ The Torah reveals plenty of polytheistic roots. The oldest manuscripts we have show that Jehovah was once a god subordinate to another. Monotheism was a later development.

@@Kyeudo Corret, but the Ethical parts seem Original Yes Hammarabis Laws are old, but they lack various moral or ethical commands. I knew a out Judaisms earlier development from professors. Jesus is a retrograde money back to Polytheism, especially the Trinity

@@1DaTJo Are you Jewish?

Yea, but dispensational doctrine teach it's future event ...Israel coming back ...okay ...does that mean the apostle ??? They have be resurrected ...and go through the tribulation ...well that doesn't make sense

Longinus was my first idea (since there is a Gospel of Judas). But I aiming now for the Gospel of the Fig Tree.

I wrote a gospel this morning. The gospel of rectus.

I would love to read such a gospel where Longinus starts out his recollection of the feat of his great grandfather, Cassius Longinus, who delivered the fatal stab wound in the assassination of Julius Caesar and witnessed Caesar's funeral, and ties it all in with his own witnessing of the passion and crucifixion of Jesus.

Jesus couldn’t write lol

Where is your evidence there is no God?

@@notanemoprog Extraordinary evidence? For what extraordinary claim? The claim is not extraordinary. Only to the ones who presuppose naturalism, which has precisely zero evidence in support. NDEs, documented miracles in peer-reviewed journals, fine tuning, all sorts of evidence has been presented. You need to get with the times. Atheism is dying.

​​@Zephyr-117's Dropzone NDEs? Yeah, they're so credible. 🙄 Actually atheism is on the rise. "By contrast, the dominant religious imagery of India is Hindu, and predictably NDEs from India typically involve encounters with recognizably Hindu religious figures. Satwant Pasricha and Ian Stevenson provide us with the following case from one of the largest surveys of non-Western NDEs conducted so far: Four black messengers came and held me…. [T]he clerks had a heap of books in front of them…. *Yamraj was there sitting on a high chair with a white beard and wearing yellow clothes.* He asked me, “What do you want?” I told him that I wanted to stay there. He asked me to extend my hand. I don’t remember whether he gave me something or not. Then I was pushed down [and revived] (Pasricha and Stevenson 167). *Here an NDEr is seated near Yamaraj, the Hindu god of death, whose appearance also corresponds to the god’s portrayal in Hindu tradition.* While Western NDErs tend to encounter dead friends and relatives more often than religious figures, Hindu religious figures are prominent in NDEs from India. Additionally, we see that NDErs from different cultures also give different reasons for why they are sent back. Western NDErs are often ‘sent back’ in order to take care of immediate family or for some assumed purpose unknown to them; NDErs from India report meeting clerks in an impersonal afterlife bureaucracy who process the dead and send them back because they have been sent the wrong person due to paperwork mistakes (Pasricha and Stevenson 168-169). *While OBEs are rather common early on in Western NDEs, being visited by a Yamatoot is “the most common initial phase” of Thai NDEs (170).* Where OBEs do occur, “OBEs in Thai NDEs tend immediately to precede meetings with Yamatoots” (171). Tunnels are “largely absent in Thai NDEs” (with one exception unlike Western tunnel experiences), and feelings of peace or euphoria and experiences of light have not been reported at all (172). Thai NDErs are sometimes judged, but their deeds are recounted by reviewing written records of their lives or the testimony of others. The following case is typical: *I … found myself in the judgment hall of Yama’s palace.* I knew that they were ready to judge me for my sins. A giant rooster appeared who told Yama that I had killed him. He emphasized that I had tried to kill him again and again. The rooster also said that he remembered me exactly. An entire flock of roosters also [appeared] and testified that I had killed them, as well. I remembered my actions, and I had to admit that the roosters had told the truth. Yama said that I had committed many sins, and sentenced me to many rebirths both as a chicken, and many other types of birds as well…. But, quite suddenly, an enormous turtle appeared. It screamed at Yama, saying “Don’t take him; he is a good human, and should be allowed to live.” Yama answered the turtle “What did he do to help you?” [ellipses original] (Murphy, “Thailand” 167)." From: *"Hallucinatory Near-Death Experiences » Internet Infidels"*

@@zephyr-117sdropzone8 "Fine tuning" LMAO That we find life, living where there is conditions that allow life to to exist isn’t "fine tuning" and "miracles" doesn’t happen!

@@gorillaguerillaDK Ok, then name 1 other world with advanced species born with the belief in God and the afterlife, which have both been proven by scientists. Babies know about God and the afterlife, so where does this knowledge come from?

Yes, I'd love that too. Especially Last Temptation is such a fascinating Jesus depiction to discuss! He should also talk about Mel Gibson's take as well as newer movies that focus on specific aspects, like Risen, Mary Magdalene, or 40 Days in the Desert. And what about the adaptation of Bill O'Reilly's Killing Jesus? Nah, just kidding about the last one. ;)

Ha this is a great idea

I would love to hear this!

King Jesus is a fictional novel and graves was not a scholar.

Yes, but Bart is even cuter.❤

if love exists then so does God

Oh shut up

My friend, I too left evangelical church. It’s totally compromised nowadays and so often the last place you’ll find God. But we must not escape the ditch one side the road and fall into the ditch on the other side like these guys have on this video. In England we say ‘we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater’. The truth is out there but it’s so hard to find it nowadays. Check out a guy called Derek Prince. Keep seeking, God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. These guys on this video sadly misinterpret so much of the bible. So often they are educated to degree standard by a compromised system, the same system that’s compromised our churches.

I started losing my faith during deployments in the Balkan region in the mid and late 90's and early 00's. I know Bart Erhman lost his faith partially due to the question of evil - and in a way, although less intellectual and more real world experience based, this was what drove me to question the existence of a god! I was on patrol south east of Tuzla when the first refugees from Srebrenica started pouring in - being hunted by militia groups of Serbs and Russian volunteers roleplaying "crusaders"… You’ve probably heard the saying that there’s no atheists in foxholes - this is absolutely untrue - and I have to question how anyone who has witnessed war can continue to believe in a god like the Abrahamic god! Coming from a very religious family, with all men and most women on my maternal side were either priests or otherwise involved with the Church, or a Christian approach to their line of work as nurses, teachers, or social workers, it wasn’t easy "coming out", but luckily my family is also very liberal humanist oriented, and as losing my faith also moved me towards a more progressive humanist take, I was soon "forgiven" and invited to family events again…

To think hell is a real thing and to be at the whim of a callous deity has to be awful. I can only imagine. I wish you the best.

@@bertrandrussell894 , thanks, buddy 👊

@@larrybikedummy The truth is still the truth whether you believe it or not. If you remain related to Adam YOU will face the wrath of God. If you accept Gods invitation to his family by choosing to ditch your Adamic past and get related to Christ, then He took your punishment for you. Come on my friend, it’s a no brainer. You’ve just been taught about the wrong God, that’s what’s happened. I don’t like the god you talk about either. Please get to know the true God that the god of this world keeps hidden from so many.

And of course, we believe everything we read, instead of trying to use the brains god gave us to think for ourselves. That's how research works -- just believe everything you read.

fairy tales also confirm that Goldilocks broke into a house owned by a family of bears

Loll me too. And the pink hair. These liberal lefties are so stereotypical.

Then you are easily trigged, aren't you, snowflake?

And so, Jesus who drove demons out of people and brought mental health to people - he completely misjudged where he stood with the different authorities ?

Eh, not without addressing what it would take to get rated higher…

@@gorillaguerillaDK Well, the semester is over so Bart has probably already forgotten the material covered. Not only that, but I have 300 other students. If I only had say, 30 students I could give him more attention. He can console himself on the fact that grading is SO important for his education.

@@elzoog Do you have an actual point?

@@jeffryphillipsburns If getting an 85% isn't clear enough for you as to what Bart is getting wrong, then you must not be well educated.

@@elzoog Any teacher worth their salt doesn't just give a grade, they also explain what the student needs to do to improve. Formative feedback is immensely more important than quantitative feedback.

Wow I know her and I have also been trading with her, She's such an amazing woman with good skills keeps me happy all week knowing I earn 15thousand extra income trading with her.

Her trading income stream is mind blowing, I also trade with her. I've made $62,000 so far trading with her guidance/advice.

​@percyferguson5840 There is her whats Apk line 👎🏾👎🏾👎🏾

It's amazing how she's influencing lives positively with her trading and management skills. I started trading with $2,000 and now I've made over $10,000 in just one week.

Wow, I'm surprised you mentioned and recommended Mrs Paula Mary Allen well I don't have much to say about her but I'll advice newbie to place their trade under her services.

Jesus knew he was going to die

Jesus would have seen no reason to think he would be put to death, because there was no reason for that. Except for politics. He committed no crime against the Law. He was an Orthodox Jew and there was no legal reason to stone him. He was crucified by the Roman authorities for sedition, with maybe the help of some Jewish top brass who wanted to get rid of a trouble maker. But how some Rabbi preaching in a remote place of Palestine, with a handful of followers, could have foreseen that?

Because he was God incarnate? I mean, yes you could say I have a bias since I believe Christ was God, but if we take that proposition as our A Priori starting point then the Biblical evidence for that is consistent throughout The Old and New Testament. @@chefchaudard3580