Jesus and the Law.

I am sometimes in two minds about some of the stuff Ehrman believes but this video lecture is very good. It answers several pertinent questions ( a couple I was previously unsure about) but leaves plenty of room for others.

He even includes information about Marcion which always gets my attention and discusses the sermon on the mount.

As the preamble to his talks is often repetitious of other lectures you can skip the first five minutes or so (if you’ve listened to him before)



60 thoughts on “Jesus and the Law.

        1. I might be able to help with that John. 🙂 First to know is that Dr. Ehrman is a former born-again, fundamentalist Christian who in under-grad studies was planning to go directly into the ministry. From the Wikipedia page:

          I did my very best to hold on to my faith that the Bible was the inspired word of God with no mistakes and that lasted for about two years … I realized that at the time we had over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament, and no two of them are exactly alike. The scribes were changing them, sometimes in big ways, but lots of times in little ways. And it finally occurred to me that if I really thought that God had inspired this text … If he went to the trouble of inspiring the text, why didn’t he go to the trouble of preserving the text? Why did he allow scribes to change it?[1]

          He remained a liberal Christian for 15 years but later became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.[1][2][5]

          From Bart’s personal blog:

          Among his fields of scholarly expertise are the historical Jesus, the early Christian apocrypha, the apostolic fathers, and the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.

          Personally, I find his background, education, and current world-views and belief-system POIGNANT for us non-Christians. He his a treasure-trove of expertise and knowledge, especially against American Xian zealots and apologists, more so against Southern Conservative Christian denominations! 😈

          Liked by 4 people

  1. It has been a long while since I watched this particular video Ark, but if I remember correctly about this particular subject Dr. Ehrman covers—bear with me a bit:

    and a subject I am always a HUGE advocate of pointing out about Jesus’/Yeshua’s Sectarian Jewishness, more specifically his Homeland or Palestinian/Judean Sectarian Jewishness during a very high-intensity era of Jewish Messianism in large part due to and in response to the Roman Empire and their ‘no tolerance policies’ for ANY dissension or threats to imperial rule and Roman Provincial peace!—

    …Ehrman wonderfully emphasizes this critical historical context to accurately understand and decipher Jesus’/Yeshua’s REAL message, teaching, and reforms he and his Sect wanted changed about Jerusalem and the Temple worship, Judaism and properly incorporating the Diaspora, and how to better manage Rome’s oppressive policies against them. I can never seem to emphasize this full proper backdrop to the time-period of Jesus’ adult life and execution. It is all PARAMOUNT to grasp the real truth about this Jewish figure, icon, and distorted caricature by the later Hellenic Early Church.

    Nevertheless Ark, I will need to watch again this video to tease out what YOUR point is in posting his video. 😉


    1. I watched again this/Bart’s entire 1-plus hour video-lecture. Here’s my own summary Ark of Bart’s lecture in FOUR categories/bullets:


      • How to understand 1st-century CE Messianic Judaism from a Sectarian Jew/Rabbi.

      • Why it is critical to understand correctly ONE 1st-century Jew’s/Rabbi’s teachings/reformations within Second Temple Judaism. And…

      • How the previous two bullet-points fit accurately within all known & verified contextual evidence, sources, and Palestinian sectarianism INSIDE the Roman Empire and their ‘no tolerance policies’ of foreign dissension and/or rebellion to Rome’s complete authority, ESPECIALLY by conquered peoples.

      • Understanding the psychological pathology of later Greco-Roman adherents, i.e. Gentiles and their modified, hijacked version of a (very Greek) Christ or Apotheosis as it is known in Hellenistic culture… pushed/sold by a Herodian Jew named Saul of Tarsus, or Paul. Or as Bart Ehrman explains it: Paul’s “New [Greek Gentile] Covenant.” Sidenote: Enter anti-semitism, especially of the intolerant Roman kind.

      Bottom-line? The vast majority of modern Christians, particularly the average layperson and pew-sitter, know very little to NOTHING about their own proclaimed “Lord and Savior’s” factual background and mission only to his Jewish people. Why? Primarily because their ONE source—the 3 Synoptic Gospels in the current Canonical 4th-century New Testament—are severely amputated, modified, and Greco-Roman-served (versus Jesus’ Torah-loved Judaism) portrayed, or are completely absent of word-for-word quotes straight from Yeshua bar Yosef’s (Jesus) mouth.

      Therefore, as this is indeed the verified full context of a 1st-century CE Jewish man/rabbi named Yeshua bar Yosef, the ONLY credible method to hope to decipher what exactly this Rabbi taught is to incorporate equitably ALL sources, evidence, historiography, available—INCLUDING all pertinent independent (i.e. non-Christian) non-Greco-Roman sources, evidence, historiography!!!—into your derivative. One example? The Dead Sea Scrolls of Qumran; a direct contemporaneous textual source of Jesus’ life and immediate surroundings, events, and expanded explanation of his execution.


      1. In other words …
        Paul invented Christianity.
        Aaah ….. but who invented Paul?

        Marcion: ”Cooee, did someone mention my name? And you can keep the bloody donation for all I care I’m going back into shipping.”

        Liked by 1 person

          1. City/West Ham rescheduled game has just started.
            Was NOT happy with Liverpool’s performance last night in Champions League.
            Went to bed sulking! 😉

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Oh damn! I missed that game. 😦 I see now they lost away at Atletico 1 – 0. Darn it. I need to see if I can find the/a replay of the game. Or is it worth it? Was it at least an exciting game for the neutral spectator?


  2. Erhman may be able to influence the gullible- but I find his knowledge of scripture history, law, and Saul/Paul’s commission severely lacking. Severely.

    It is precisely because of this lousy trifecta, that he is more lost than London fog- yet it is humorous that his work has been translated into ‘so many tongues.’

    There is a market for itching ears- always has been. People are not satisfied with scripture- so they need men such as he to assuage their conscience.

    His take on Paul is laughable. Paul went to the Jew first/ per his orders from He who sits on high- and there was a written record of the Jews FINAL act of rebellion as the once chosen people- but their own indictment sealed a temporary fated last centuries.

    Acts 7 proves this, and Erhman is smart to avoid it. And btw, Christ broke no law- as scripture asserts ‘the law was not made for a righteous man……’

    And there is only One who is above and blameless and who cannot be charged with malfeasance if any kind.

    And because of this – He was rejected/ and MADE sin- under the crushing demands of broken law- and here again, Erhman falls miserably short- he is a fine teacher of teacher of that which he despises- but still clueless as to the teaching.


      1. I can see why people despise the Acts.

        Been saying for years that the 7th chap. demolishes all imposters who tamper with the history and accuracy of the entire word of God.

        Don’t feel bad though- even Jews don’t believe the account either for the incrimination. Stephen’s command and memory of scripture was unequalled- and all lying teacher’s or atheists do well to avoid it.

        Facts are most uncomfortable, and Stephen merely presented unchallengeable truth.

        But my credibility? Ha! Been the same rock of consistency since day one. And btw, any believer worth his salt would gat a free meal as his class questions were simple.


          1. Sort ark- but people who ‘study’ the Bible and dismiss it- may be ‘researchers,’ but rest assured they are not scholars.

            You want scholarship? Read Acts 7. Case closed.


          2. As opposed to those scholars who enter the fray Faith First and build upon presupposition.
            Oh, and indoctrinated half wits like you, of course.
            Ehrman has probably forgotten more than you will ever learn in this field.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Ha, Tkx for the laugh.
            If I sat in his ‘class’ no doubt he would hang his head in shame for being exposed to the dereliction he assigns to others.


        1. And the 6th chapter demolishes all current day imposters because it states that Stephen performed great wonders and signs among the people — a power today’s self-proclaimed Christians lack.


    1. CS writes: Erhman may be able to influence the gullible- but I find his knowledge of scripture history, law, and Saul/Paul’s commission severely lacking.

      Funny, I haven’t read anything by the esteemed ColorStorm, whereas Ehrman has published numerous books related to “scripture history, law, and Saul/Paul’s commission” and has been quoted by other highly qualified and esteemed biblical scholars because of his vast knowledge of scripture.

      Could it be that perhaps his knowledge is just a tad above CS’s?

      Oh Horrors! Say it isn’t so!

      Liked by 4 people

    2. For context, Acts 7 is the chapter where Stephen regurgitates the stories of Abraham and Moses and gets executed for his troubles. It’s one of the parts of Acts used to show how Jews rejected Jesus, and thus were deserving of the punishment that they received. The killing of Stephen is intended to draw a parallel between the rebelling Jews in the New Testament and the rebelling Hebrews of the Old Testament.

      Acts 7 doesn’t refute anything. At best it shows the writer of Acts was aware of the Old Testament.

      Liked by 4 people

          1. Of course it has EVERYTHING to do with the topic at hand.

            But fiction? Right, like Steve Spielberg is capable of writing Genesis in all its glory.

            You must have had one awful experience as a ‘past’ believer to revoke something so unworthy of your scorn.

            Return again. Start with the book of Proverbs and look for yourself in the precepts.


          2. Yes, fiction. Spielberg might not be able to write Genesis, but the writer of Gilgamesh certainly did. Are you familiar with the Epic of Gilgamesh? It’s a better version of Genesis, and much older.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Of course I know of Gilga-
            There were many accounts- many cultures- word travels fast doncha know.

            But only scripture tells you WHY the great flood occurred- and gave details otherwise unknown.

            But better version than Genesis? That’s a joke right?? Your greater concern should be why there were first hand accounts in the first place.


          4. Well we know Mr and Mrs Noah was there. Then we have God scribing through Moses, so yeah, God was there. That’s pretty reliable.

            After all, the windows of heaven were opened…and it rained.. and it rained…. and it rained.

            Ever been in a flood nan? Have you seen what 10 minutes of torrential downpour can do? So yeah, firsthand.


          5. Except Gilgamesh precedes Genesis. So word travels, but in this case it’s a popular fictional story that other cultures borrow for their own uses. And since it’s fiction, “first hand accounts” aren’t relevant because the story isn’t real.

            Liked by 2 people

          6. That’s exactly correct that gilga precedes Genesis. That’s the point.

            It happened, but only the word of God supplied the details. For God’s sake. do you think you are smarter than Peter who confirmed it?

            I dare you to read his first and second epistles, and then come crying that he is writing fiction. Go ahead, applaud your own ignorance.

            And btw, he writes of people like you who speak with forked tongues. Doubleminded simpletons and all that.


          7. I have no idea …. and neither does anyone else.
            Very much like the gospels and at least 6 of the Pauline epistles. Anonymous gospel authors and forged epistles.
            Stock in trade for the bible.
            Go on … tell me someone called Moses wrote the Pentateuch!


          8. 5 sighs ark. You are asking me to admit the greatest documents known to man are forgeries? Now that is funny.

            Paul certainly had an amanuensis due to his eyesight, rest assured, they are his words dictated by the hand of God. As I said, no mere mortal could have written Romans.

            As to Peter, quite a change from an unlearned fisherman eh?

            But we have long strayed. The law was ‘not written for a righteous man.’

            Liked by 1 person

          9. If that was your point, CS, then you’d be acknowledging that Genesis was plagiarized from the Epic. You’re trying to tell everyone here that a catastrophic flood was more likely to to have happened than a group of people taking a famous story of their time and making it part of their own religious narrative.

            Peter’s epistles – like everything else you’ve been going on about here – have nothing to do with anything. They’re a rant about holding onto empty promises of a second coming, changing Jesus’s promise that he’d return before some of the people listening to him had passed away.

            Sometimes I forget that you don’t read your bible. Maybe if you cracked it open and read it, you would be aware of your own ignorance.

            Liked by 1 person

          10. Sirius can’t help that he is intelligent and uses critical thinking.
            Please excuse him for he knoweth not wot he does … or doeth or something.


          1. That’s right- you should forever be silenced for your gripes against the Flee-

            Btw- I have long released u from mod- seems u are only moderated because u have me in mod- a WP quirk maybe


          2. I kept you in moderation solely because you moderated.
            And Robertson can screw himself for the disingenuous sod that he is .
            A truly horrible individual,


  3. “…became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering…”

    What’s to struggle? God is almighty and omniscient etc etc so everything that happens anywhere anywhen is all His doing. Given that God is the Ultimate Good in the universe, and as such can do no wrong … where’s the problem?

    (For any that miss the point—whatever happens is entirely in accord with God’s will and desires, ergo is intrinsically good despite appearances. No? Cannot be otherwise …

    I think nice man’s struggle was due entirely to his limited abilities. Poor sod.

    Liked by 2 people

    1. I reckon he does’t actually believe Jesus ever existed and is just waiting until he’s about ready to retire before he releases a book on it and gets aboard the mythicist bus.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Ooooohhhh … naught-ee! But God doesn’t mind, He knew it would all flow along these lines, squillions of years ago.

        His Great Plan is working out, just as it always has — exactly as He ordained. Blessed is the power of God, and since He is infallible then although I personally cannot marry the ends into an acceptable knot, Adolf Hitler and Uncle Mo and Stalin and all the other antisocials likewise are part of His Plan. He made ’em, no?*

        I guess God is happy, and so long as She is we are meant to be too … those of us who never question. Furthermore, yeuch~!

        * No. That was ol’ Satan made them bad guys. (But when I ask where did Satan come from, all I get is blank stares incapable of answering. Funny, that …)

        Liked by 1 person

  4. Just curious, and maybe I missed a comma here or there, but if you (the peruvial you) don’t believe in Jesus, or God, or the Bible-as-writ by the invisible God, how can you discuss it as being real enough to BE discussed? Isn’t that a lot like taking Santa seriously enough to appreicate his writings that someone else wrote down?

    I’m sorry, that gave me a headache. I think I’ll go have a lie-down. Hug CS for me, I think he needs hugging. All that fur. All those teeth.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s