It is all re-interpreted stuff nothing to do with Jesus. The Church is preaching strong stuff.

Jesus fulfilled zilch!! He was an impostor if he ever existed. The bible is a hoax!

@@ottosponring5534 An alternate, non fundamentalist view: Early in life, I became intrigued by Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount and began studying him carefully. Although I was then willing to believe the gospel accounts of Jesus’ miraculous birth, I soon realized that, contrary to several late gospel traditions, Jesus’ significance had not been revealed to anyone ahead of his birth - neither to his parents, nor to shepherds, nor to magi, nor to John the Baptist, nor even to Jesus himself as a child. Instead, according to the early Gospel of Mark, Jesus’ carpenter life in Nazareth had seemed quite ordinary to everyone, including even his mother and siblings, until the day he left to hear the fiery message of a self-professed prophet named John who was audaciously baptizing repentant people in the wastelands of Judea. Soon afterward, to all Nazareth’s surprise, Jesus suddenly appeared in nearby Capernaum proclaiming the nearness of God’s Kingdom while healing sicknesses and “casting out demons.” Thinking he had lost his mind, Jesus’ mother and brothers went there to try to fetch him home, and scholars came rushing from Jerusalem to accuse him of exorcising demons with the help of Satan. Nobody knew what had happened to alter Jesus’ life so profoundly - not even the baptizer at whose hands it happened! - and Jesus kept the experience shrouded in secrecy even from his closest disciples until finally they themselves concluded that, as Peter excitedly told him, “You are the Messiah!” whereupon Jesus strictly forbade them to tell anyone that, and then - to their horror - began insisting that he must soon be brutally executed, a statement Peter adamantly rejected, arguing that this could never happen to the Messiah, and causing Jesus to erupt at him, “Get behind me, Satan!” That anguished outburst suggests what really happened, for only then would Jesus have told his disciples that he along with others had humbly submitted to John’s baptism for sinners in the Jordan, and as he was emerging from the river, a voice revealed to him from heaven something so disturbing that he must struggle against it then and afterward. The voice told him that he not only was the glorious messianic Son of God expected by many, but also the sacrificially redemptive Isaian servant expected by no one - a revelation so shocking to Jesus that he would immediately be “tempted by Satan” against the necessity of his dying, and at the moment of Peter’s objection, and especially in Gethsemane the last night of his life. I am a retired pastor of The Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) now living in Normal, IL. I am willing to discuss these matters with anyone at any time in any venue, and may be reached at jamezbozwel@aol.com.

It's in common with pseudoscience. They don't have a single good piece of evidence, so instead they pile up plenty of very bad one. They don't seem to understand that 200 times 0 is still 0.

​@@ottosponring5534😢 ..

Well No!! when Isaiah is completely read you can't take out that portion 53 because all is explained , No Plot holes that allow the Christian misunderstanding.

What is "the window of faith "?😮

@@andrewmays3988 strange question. Are you a bot?

Is she getting intensely more attractive (brilliant women, wow) or is it just me? 😂

consider in every Son of man, the same?

@@dbaargosy4062 That does not make any sense!

​@@venenareligioest410 Does if you look at most people's prophesies!

We should have kept the prophets and got rid of the priests.

Did he say that though?

@Zachary_Setzer no. Lol. But by the end it's all about the projection of later Christians onto the original text. Isaiah never prophesied a martyred Messiah.

50 interesting minutes where you learned a great deal on how to argue against everything a fundamentalist evangelical Christian will throw at you to prove the prophecies were real

@rogeriopenna9014 oh no doubt! Watched the whole episode. Loved it. Was just being cheeky. Us brits can be that way sometimes.

@@rogeriopenna9014 Wondering if we watched the same video. The one I watched was focused on the historical context and what the author meant by what he wrote. A Christian fundamentalist would be happy to say Isaiah may not have intended or even known that he was prophesying about the messiah in addition to speaking to his own era. The author's intention doesn't rule out the fundamentalist view at all. Bart acknowledges as much around 20 minutes into the video. The context a fundamentalist is using is simply different from the original author's and original audience's context.

That's not what Bart said

Actually I think he is saying the opposite. Christians are not historically interpreting the Book of Isaiah. But the Bible is not a history book. It is a book meant to provide spiritual guidance to people who already believe, and in that sense, Christians are interpreting the Book of Isaiah correctly.

It's my understanding that quite a few (most?) Biblical scholars are Christians. I suspect it's mostly Christians of the Inerrant Bible school of thought who have problems with their faith after accepting that the Bible isn't 100% accurate.

Most devout Christians do and historically the Bible has always been interpreted on multiple levels and it never occurred to people to read it strictly literally until the 19th century.

​@@byrondickens Not the entire thing, but there are fanciful and contradictory aspects believed by every major denomination.

@@MichaelMcmanhory-ms9mr Yes the entire thing. Historically, the surface meaning has always been the least important. Anything fanciful, contradictory or otherwise problematic is supposed to be a clue to the reader that there is a deeper meaning. The ancient Israelites knew that snakes don't talk.

@@byrondickens The ancient Israelites knew that snakes don't talk, yet Christians in any era don't know that men don't rise from the dead. Edit: And the ancient Israelites likely did believe their own creation narrative. I am aware that modern Jewish people do not, but I do not see any evidence to believe that ancient Jews were any different than other ancient people in that regard.

There's a lot going on on Isaiah. Ezekiel too. You could write an entire book discussing each and I'm sure people have.

So true as Jesus never had offspring like Isaiah 53 says the suffering servant would

She must have a big collection of eye glasses.

@@user-og2wt3le4j As opposed to beer glasses? {:o:O:}

@@Jaymastia *_"still Isaiah points to Jesus"_* No he doesn't. Ancient kings employed prophets, sooth sayers and seers, not to hear obscure poetry of something that might happen in 600 or 1000 year's time, but to learn what to do *NOW* or in the next couple of months about that hostile king over there who is posing a very real, clear and present danger. {:o:O:}

@@user-og2wt3le4j *_"She must have a big collection of eye glasses."_* What, as opposed to beer glasses? 🤣🤣 Why the redundancy? You must be American, because everyone else knows from the context that "glasses" are worn for the eyes. 🤓 No one else says "eye glasses" in any language! 😄😄 I bet you don't say "eye monocle"! 🧐 {:o:O:}

I know right. Same here.

@@trina2100 Isaiah was always one of those books that I didn't get much from (I read it roughly every 9 months - 1 year in my daily Bible reading) because I felt like I didn't understand what it was talking about a lot of the time. I just read chapters 40-45 again, and it makes so much more sense when you realize it was written after the Babylonian captivity. I really think the Bible is much more interesting as a collection of literature when you take off the fundamentalist glasses.

/s

oh no - by watching them I guess you've reinforced the algorithm to show you even more!

Yes. That's why we have so many different denominations and even religions that draw on these same scriptures.

Getting Assyriology with Megan next week they said!

Only if you read it in a Christian translation. If you can read Hebrew you realize it doesn't say that at all. There are books by the hundreds or even thousands were Christian apologists are trying to explain why the words don't mean what they mean. But I gently recommend that you spend a few months starting to learn some basic Hebrew. You'll understand.

That sounds like a good question. Though of course, most biblical scholars are Christians yet hold to the consensus views that Bart discusses. Even Bart has claimed that none of his scholarly views changed when he stopped being a believer.

@@natew.7951 yeah, I’ve heard Bart and others say this kind of thing. But I don’t really get it. If you know that Jesus didn’t really resurrect, that he didn’t really say most of the things attributed to him in the Bible, that Paul was just hallucinating and what he believed was quite different from Jesus, etc., how do you go on being a Christian? I’m not even sure what being a Christian means if that’s your understanding of the world. So I would be very interested in hearing Megan explain how she sees all that.

​@@willmosse3684 But how can scholarship prove Paul was hallucinating?

@@willmosse3684I suppose it depends on what you base your faith on. If you believe that Jesus died for other people's sins (and as a historian, there really isn't any way of proving/disproving that) and that the New Testament was written by people who were inspired by his greatness but weren't concerned about getting the facts right, then I see no reason why you couldn't remain a Christian.

Valid point.

Jesus never mentioned a lot during his life. However the recorded history is all we have. It does not negate Christian beliefs that still function today.

Jesus was a first century Jew, so the idea of a suffering messiah wouldn't have occurred to him.

​@@lazykbys‭Luke 24:25-27 ESV‬ [25] And he said to them, “O foolish ones, and slow of heart to believe all that the prophets have spoken! [26] Was it not necessary that the Christ should suffer these things and enter into his glory?” [27] And beginning with Moses and all the Prophets, he interpreted to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning himself.

@@DasWortwurdeFleisch That bit comes after Jesus's resurrection, so as a non-Christian I find it unconvincing. Even if I did, the passage is so vague it could mean anything you want it to mean.

Especially considering she's a Christian.

him who was given dominion over fish of the sea, and fowl of the air blessed and told go, and ...more to now...Rate our grade, thus far.

They need to lie for money and power.

We have a switch next week. Bart interviews Meghan. To get into the spirit, he will dye his hair & wear outrageous glasses.

​@@joefromtheBronx😂

​@@joefromtheBronx Bart and hair?😅

"He's gotten too big for his britches" is the American equivalent.

In Maine my pellet stove is still coming on in the morning. But it’s about 75 by afternoon. Occasionally we see 90.

@@marymagnuson5191 I went to ninth grade in Presque Isle. 🥶 My dad was stationed there in the Air Force. Shoveling snow from our driveway, we had a pile that touched the telephone lines. It actually snowed a bit on Memorial Day. ❄️

It does say the suffering servant was to have offspring though. And Israel suffered on crosses in the lead up to 70ad.

Raised episcopal, but im not sure hes going back lol.

Especially when the suffering servant was to have offspring which Jesus never did.

@WH6FQE: What you are writing about, is the "Old Testament", and the "Deutero-Canonical" books which were originally not written in Hebrew (such as Tobit, Maccabees etc). Protestants call those books "Apocrypha", and do not consider them as inspired Holy Scripture. The question in minute 41:29 of the video, however, was about the 27 books of the "_New_ Testament", and these are the same for the Roman Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant churches; except the arrangement of Martin Luther's Translation, where "Hebrews" and "James" are shifted almost to the end.

@@Sealkiller He needn’t bother he is 2000 years late! Another failed ‘prophet’. When you ‘read’ prophecy, two things need to be remembered: a) prophecy comes always after the fact! b) prophecy aims at changing who ends up ruling!

​@@Sealkillerby that logic any self proclaimed prophet could be coming back... someday. Do you see the problem?

​@@Sealkillerchristians when they are asked about these things they reply by saying he is going to fulfil those prophesies in his second coming 😅😅😅

Because the book of Daniel 9:26 says the messiah will have to die first. Jesus will usher in what you say at his second coming.

@@Sealkiller No, the resurrection is just the resurrection and not kingdom empowerment.

He did an interview with a Mormon podcaster at one point. It was amusing when Bart was asked about textual criticism of the Book of Mormon and his response was basically that it was all nonsense.

@@godminnette2 Yes, I have watched the MS Podcast, but I feel like there is so much more material to talk about.

I take it you're LDS, or are an ex-mo. My guess is most scholars in Religious Studies (Ehrman included) don't take the Book of Mormon seriously.

I laughed at the whole Laminites story and how Levi or someone pushed off in a boat 600 BCE and popped over to the USA (convenient as that's all Joe Smith knew 😅).

When your eyes are opened to the truth about religious texts like the Bible, Koran, and Book of Mormon you can focus on the true messages found in Christianity. Your religious experience becomes much more satisfying.

Any "prophecy" allegedly fulfilled is either mundane, or, retroactively doctored to make it appear fulfilled.