I am reading Bart's book "The Triumph of Christianity" (I am into chapter 2) and am fascinated by it wildly. I want to know more about Bart and thus ended up here. This is an excellent podcast. I really enjoyed it. Subscribed! Cheers from Malaysia!

My revelation was that people tell you to have "a personal relationship with God," but then get real mad when you make that relationship personal to you. Learning the history, context, and evolution of the Bible has been a personally fulfilling experience, and I've been inspired by or can appreciate ideas from different phases and versions of Christianity and their views of the world. It's such a better experience than just being spoonfed a one-note Christianity.

@gmwillow

9 ай бұрын

That's a really great point. Everyone has their own experience with the Bible and spirituality. It isn't up to others to place their experiences on us.

Dr. Ehrman and scholars like him are such a breath of fresh air compared to what I was used to in fundamentalism, where the text could never be honestly evaluated because we were too busy trying to guard it (from both heretics and skeptics). Just being able to say something as simple as "Maybe Paul didn't really write this," removes a tremendous intellectual burden.

@davida.taylor8444

9 ай бұрын

Great point. Or even to be able to say, maybe they were wrong, answered a lot of questions.

@MB-mn8do

9 ай бұрын

Or maybe the 66 books were all written at different times by different people for different purposes, so of course they don't have to go together as a unified whole.@@davida.taylor8444

@MB-mn8do

9 ай бұрын

Assuming you're a protestant fundamentalist, like the family I was born into. I know others have different books! ;-)

@russellmiles2861

9 ай бұрын

Yes, Prof E. has asserted things like 1o Commandments @@MB-mn8do Yet, no where in the Bible is there any list of 10 commandments. They are construct by church authorities drawn from disparate text in the Bible and present as 10 sayings. But this is not in the Bible.

@bonifaceawa

9 ай бұрын

​@@russellmiles2861"The Commandments" are in the Bible, albeit that title for the passage is not Biblical. Different denominations number the Commandments differently and consolidate different clauses into "one commandment" in order to make the "number of commandments" come out to be ten.

That bit about the holy spirit telling different things to different people - you've got me thinking of the holy spirit as a merry prankster!

@nasonguy

9 ай бұрын

Very Good Omens-esque.

@dougmurphy1777

9 ай бұрын

@@nasonguy Thanks, but I have no idea what that means - sorry

@nasonguy

9 ай бұрын

@@dougmurphy1777 You should read the book Good Omens, it's not bad.

As long as they aren't Fundamentalists. It's tough to study anything honestly when you have preconceived beliefs of the subject that you are committed to keeping. If your mind isn't open to go wherever the evidence leads, you can't study the subject honestly.

@alangiaconelli2919

9 ай бұрын

Who does not have beliefs. Belief is the only thing we have to use to reason the unknown. Thats the point of belief. So your beliefs are also. Preconceived

@dancahill9585

9 ай бұрын

@@alangiaconelli2919 That isn't the Issue. The issue is whether you are willing to change your beliefs when confronted by evidence that is at odds with your beliefs. People in Science do that all the time. That's how we got General Relativity and Quantum Dynamics. People changed their beliefs based on evidence. In fact that may be the most exciting thing for Scientists, when an experiment can't be explained by the current paradigm. The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy basically states that if you find evidence that is at odds with the literal divine inerrancy of the Bible, your evidence is wrong or you are interpreting it wrong. That's the problem with fundamentalists. You have to literally take on a delusional mindset if reality is at odds with your beliefs, because reality must be wrong.

@brentkrohn3786

9 ай бұрын

​@@alangiaconelli2919belief is one thing. Theological Indoctrination is quite another.

@NotNecessarily-ip4vc

9 ай бұрын

[Genesis 1 Elohim vs Genesis 2 Yahweh Elohim]: "Deus" means "God", "Dea" means "Goddess", and "Dei" could either mean "gods" (plural) or "God's" (possessive) based on context. The Hebrew counterparts to the Latin above are El, Elah and Elohim. The Hebrews "syncretized" these three titles of God into all just meaning "El". I'd imagine this happened during the Babylonian captivity. The sheer amount of biblical contradictions that has caused is staggering. Yahweh is a Deity (Elohim), not Deus (El), and a false one at that (Yahweh was adopted). Yahweh says "I am Yahweh your Elohim (Deity)" like a thousand times in the Old Testament. What is the heresy of two powers in heaven? The basic heresy involved interpreting scripture to say that a principal angelic or hypostatic manifestation in heaven was equivalent to God. The earliest heretics believed in two complementary powers in heaven, while later heretics believed in two opposing powers in heaven. This "heresy" isn't a heresy at all since we're talking about Elohim (Deities in Latin), not El (Deus in Latin). The Septuagint and Vulgate somehow believed that Elohim should be translated as Theos and Deus, respectively. The Bible isn't mainly about El/Theos/Deus or whatever language you want to say the title (not a name) meaning God. The Bible is about Elohim (sons of El). This nullifies the "no two powers in heaven" heresy. Yahweh Elohim from Genesis 2 is the false Elohim. Good vs evil Elohim, True vs false Elohim, Chosen vs usurper Elohim, Necessary vs contingent Elohim, Genesis 1 Elohim vs Genesis 2 Yahweh Elohim. Bibles should note when Elohim is used as plural or possessive. They do not. Try reading the NOG translation on Bible Gateway website. Uncensored. El and Elah titles of God are also mentioned in the OT but not until much later in the story and far less frequently than the true and false Elohim from Genesis 1 and Genesis 2.

@Noneya5555

9 ай бұрын

​@@alangiaconelli2919There is a huge difference between belief and knowledge. I have yet to meet anyone who BELIEVES that 2 + 2 = 4. 😄

From Isaiah comes this phrase: " Come now, and let us reason together," There are times when our studies lead us to understandings that go against what we have been taught or a prior understanding. I like to think that as we learn more about God's word, we realize it is complex and requires reasoning and wisdom to apply. People, times, and circumstances may require love and, in others, tough love. That, I believe, is where too many people fail to understand what it means to image God. Your discussions are always insightful and thought-provoking. Thanks.

I'm always so excited for the videos you to make. Sometimes though I think to myself, "but I already think I know the answer to this! Darn, I wish this was on some weird arcane historical facts!" But every time I watch anyway, I'm always happy about it. Thank you both. You folks are so cool.

@russellmiles2861

9 ай бұрын

why do you imagine liberals are any more open and insightful about biblical studies. We all have our own view of the World and see thigs through those prisms. Liberals tend to assert God is about love. I don't know what I the Bible leads them to assume such an ideal. But i don't care what others folk believe.

@gloriab357

9 ай бұрын

Interesting. I've admired her appearance. But a person's physical appearance is so far down the list of attributes that bring my respect and admiration. It's what comes from their minds and the tones of voice they use that brings about greater understanding for me. Physical appearance usually doesn't stick with me at all. Seems as though it was just earlier today that I heard some discussion on NPR (Nat'l Public Radio) about how when a movie or TV show was being casted, the female primary character had to be gorgeous but the male primary character could be any sort of ordinary-looking guy. Once we're past ordinary grooming, I think it's time to rise above a person's outward appearance. It's information and insight I'm listening for, especially here. @@ObjectiveEthics

Always a pleasure to listen to you two😊

Thank you Megan and Bart for carving time out of your busy teaching schedules to continue with your podcast. You both are awesome. 👍🏼

Awesome. Always look forward to these!

I believe I did study the Bible honestly and for awhile found a way to work it out so I still was having what I thought of as a relationship with the God of Christianity. But eventually that belief faded because I just could not believe anymore that Jesus was God. I then tried just believing in a loving God who had my interest at heart, but that God I found could not stand up to the reality of the world and, most specifically, to the clear fact to me that I was going to die and that was it. No afterlife. So I realized I had this one life to live full stop. And I truly believe it was this simple acknowledgment that allowed me to live a much richer and rewarding life than I would have thinking my best life was going to occur after this one. Don’t get me wrong, pain and suffering has been a part of my life like everyone else and joy and pleasure and happiness too. But apart from all that I do not think I would ever have felt such a strong sense of meaning and purpose in existence if I had not let go of my belief in God and an afterlife.

@newtonfinn164

6 ай бұрын

Would you share that philosophy with the parents of a kidnapped, trafficked, then murdered child? I cling to God and the afterlife because both would be required to redeem this kind of excruciating tragedy that defies all human consolation. The problem of evil drives me not away from God but ever more deeply into His arms.

@longcastle4863

6 ай бұрын

@@newtonfinn164 To a parent in such a horrific situation, I would find no cause to tell them anything about my personal life philosophy, nor would I consider giving them un-asked for religious platitudes.

@CRoadwarrior

3 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 In other words, you cannot offer any hope or comfort to them.

@longcastle4863

3 ай бұрын

@@CRoadwarrior Comfort will come from friends and family. And if the only hope one can give is some made up story about an afterlife, then imo it’d be better not to give it. As far as humankind goes, instead of hoping for a better world after death, it’d be better to accept that the only life we have is this one and the only world we have is this one, so let’s go about making it the best possible world for ourselves and our children and for the generations that come after us as we can. Instead of putting wasted energy into the hope for a very unlikely afterlife, it would be better to put that energy into improving the living conditions and quality of life for all people living on this planet.

@CRoadwarrior

3 ай бұрын

@@longcastle4863 That is not an answer to the posed question, which assumes a "made up" story instead of very real and actual hope given from the God of the Bible, who knows more than we do about the afterlife. There's nothing wrong with trying to make the world we live in a "better place," but the reality is, according to the Bible, there is evil in the world, evil people, and evil spirits that make the world evil, and the solution to that problem cannot be found in man alone just blindly wandering about doing his best to deal with it without real hope or comfort.

Happy New Year!! Love the hair color Megan.

Great interview - fascinating, thanks. (Edinburgh's not in England, though!)

I love that Bart is such a smart man but he cant figure out how to wear his headphones right lmao

Always enjoy Bart and Meghan!

I'm looking forward to the conference, although time zone differences will prevent me from watching it live. Unless I take a couple days off work and stay up all night. :)

Hello Professor Ehrman. I found this to be a very wonderful discussion on this topic. It was frank, open an honest in my opinion. I thank you both for it. I'm working toward getting my ticket to the course. Thanks and good job.

Outstanding interview. Kudos. Truth is Truth.

Listening to both of you I soon find myself wishing I were younger and had the opportunity to attend the classes that you teach. As always thank you!

@Raz.C

9 ай бұрын

You're never too old to attend classes at university.

@zowzgraal

9 ай бұрын

Yes! never too old my friend. Some of my classmates are in their late 60’s! if you are passionate do it my brother.

“When the honestly deceived learn the truth, they either quit being deceived or quit being honest.” ~ Unknown “It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.” ~ Thomas Paine A lifetime atheist, I was challenged to 'learn the truth' about Christianity in the early 1990s. I ended up with quite a passion for the subject, spurred on in part by the new opportunity to compare normative Christianity to its roots as contained in the Dead Sea Scrolls and Nag Hammadi Library. I had a library card, and am a fast reader, so within a year or so I had read dozens, probably more than a hundred, books by so-called scholars of Christian and Judaic history. They weren't ALL biased - maybe one out of four made an honest effort to be honest. Two in four had stumbled on one uncomfortable truth or another, and just quit being honest rather than bear the contradictions. The other one in four never approached the truth, and I felt they were in the 'shrinks from inquiry' category. It's not a comfortable experience trying to find out the truth from people who tend so often to be liars, but ironically some of the best information came from dishonest sources.

@Amazing_Mark

9 ай бұрын

Extraordinary! 👌

absolutely must see the seminar but it starts at 7 am out here in Oregon. Maybe have to pick up the early lectures later

I REALLY appreciate this video. I have been trying to articulate he explains it's beautifully. Its difficult to explain this to fellow believers. Thorn in my side.

Vowel shifts, etc. look at the change between Old English to Shakespeare's Early Modern English with Chaucer in between in a relatively short period of time. When I took classical Latin in college I learned the difference between how they would pronounce veni, vidi, vici (Wenee, weedee, weeckee) versus church Latin, with the difference in pronouncing Vs and Cs. A small thing, but a thing none the less. I can't imagine comparing one ancient language with a different ancient variation of the same language.

One of the things that kept me a Christian for 2 more years was the phrase "by reason of faith..." which had me to suspend my logic because my logic directed me away from the religion, and to reason by faith had me to think logic was wrong. But faith was exhausting because it was impossible for me to totally believe everything the elders were saying.

It occurred to me during the conversation about the importance of minimizing bias that the emphasis on maintaining faith in (most? all??) Christian traditions seems actually to PROMOTE bias (unquestionable certainty about one’s own religious beliefs) as a virtue.

Yay, I was thinking that the conference was this past weekend and I missed it. I am interested (even though I am a Christian).

Another great show!

Really good points.

Thank you

I love the part where Megan asks Bart to summarize =D

Another great episode, and Megan's fashion is extra on point today - the way she contrasts her red orange hair with the green/yellow eye shadow - very nice touch!

Non-theist new testament/early Christianities academics led me to Christ. I'm very grateful. I dont understand the point of fundsmentalism, it seems very much about tribalism and social control and nothing actually spiritual.

What a terrific interview! Megan is a great interviewer and Dr. Ehrman is such a tremendous scholar. I first discovered his works 20-some years ago in some lectures I purchased from the Great Courses.

I liked the notion that God can inspire a myth or a meaningful story, a very interesting way to engage fundamentalist Christians. I've also heard it noted that a story can be highly meaningful while not being historical truth: a lot of things that are historically true have very little meaning; an accounting report can be 100% accurate, but of no further value. Yet there are a lot of stories that we all know are made up, but are incredibly meaningful and speak to historical human realities, stories like Robin Hood or A Christmas Carol.. Had Dickens lived in the first century AD it's quite possible his work would have made it into the Bible in some form.

@hurdygurdyguy1

9 ай бұрын

Iirc it was J.R.R.Tolkien (or maybe it was C.S. Lewis) who said (my paraphrase) “of course, the Christian story is Myth, but it’s the Myth that happens to be true” …. meaning labeling a story as a Myth doesn’t make it a Big Lie…

At his arrest Jesus is quoted _"Am I leading a rebellion?"_ *(Mark 14:48) (Matthew 26:55) (Luke 22:52)* Any hint of rebellion would be reason for the Romans to crucify Jesus, let him rot on the cross, and then dump his corpse in a pit. That should have ended Jesus's small ministry right there. It didn't. Who's got thoughts?

@TheDanEdwards

9 ай бұрын

"Jesus is quoted" - nope. However, the author of Mark has his main character make a statement (that the other gospel writers copy.) And the translation "leading a rebellion" is a modern English interpretation not a literal translation.

@SergeantSkeptic686

9 ай бұрын

@@TheDanEdwards Hi Dan! I think it's plausible the historical Jesus may have been an actual rebel chatting up an ill planned insurrection. The New Testament depicts Jesus as eccentric (a bit nuts), participating in mild violence and having armed Apostles. If there is any historical truth to those passages the Romans would have crucified Jesus as a threat to Roman security. I think there is _some_ historical truth in the Gospels. Do you have any thoughts as to why Christianity continued after it’s founder -Jesus- was dead? His crucifixion should have ended Christianity. It didn’t. Why?

@AnHebrewChild

9 ай бұрын

only, that's not what Mark 14:48 / Matt 26:55 says in the Greek, or in any reputable translation. "but..." Not even close.

@SergeantSkeptic686

9 ай бұрын

@@AnHebrewChild Why did Christianity not end with Jesus's death? That's the question.

@diahiskandarbinmohamadjani7674

9 ай бұрын

​@@SergeantSkeptic686i am going off tangent a little bit. I came across one youtube video titled "Jesus in India - presentation by Edward T Martin". Check it out. Basically, his point is, Jesus survived the crucifixation, fled to Kashmir, India with Mother Mary (Mother Mary died along the journey and was buried in a small village called Muree in present day Pakistan). Jesus settled down in Kashmir and died old age. Interesting huh!

I would love for Bart and Francesca Stavrakopoulou to do an interview for the podcast.

How can I take your Intro to Akkadian class?

I definitely find this material very interesting,I suppose I fancy myself a polymath I love to soak up knowledge and learning new languages and skills, have always been this way. I am an agnostic , military veteran and former private investigator/security consultant and work tangentially in the financial field these days. I have enjoyed this podcast immensely for some time now. I thank you for the knowledge.

I notice often for whatever reason that Dr. Ehrman's voice is not coming through as loudly as Megans. I'm an avid audio/recording hobbyist. Perhaps Dr. Erhman somehow needs to turn on auto leveling in the video program, or somehow turn his mic's input level up?

@BubbaNoze

9 ай бұрын

yes, his audio sounds very thin. Can you tell what kind of mic he's using? I can only see the top of it. Doesn't sound like a Yeti but might be.

When Dr. E gets animated or exasperated he sounds like Navin Johnson, Steve Martin’s character from The Jerk. “He *hates* these cans!”

How can one find a scholarly discussion of what the New Testament books themselves say, without any theological or interpretive framework applied to it? Very hard for an amateur to find such material in the flood of religious material.

I found that seminary was quite challenging for my faith. And it wasn't because I attended some crazy liberal seminary - it was an evangelical (though not fundamentalist) seminary. I really had to shed many years of indoctrination that I had been taught by my youth group and even my pastor (yikes! ⚠️).

@jamesbarringer2737

9 ай бұрын

I live right near Bart’s PhD school, and our church always has 4 to 6 PTS Seminarians as interns. They talk about this as real issue as well. It’s strange as the Bible itself makes no reference to its own infallibility - but it does assert inspiration, utility for instructing in righteousness - and that it “won’t be broken.” Those are all far cries from infallibility. I lean towards Sola Scriptura for various reason, and that makes it pretty impossible, in my view, to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy.

@jimbob3030

9 ай бұрын

@@jamesbarringer2737 If you want to believe in inerrancy all you have to do is never read the bible. Ignorance is bliss.

@jingojingo1

9 ай бұрын

Then you realize islam is the truth and now you are a Muslim 😺

Knowledge is power. Just not too much knowledge

Im surprised they didnt talk about how some colleges make their professors and lecturers sign an agreement thay they will not deviate from.a fundamentalist, literal, inerrant interpretation of the bible. Good otherwise though.

A related but perhaps complementary issue: How can one really trust the opinion of biblical experts who by definition operate in the shadow of their censors? Don't mean to be overly dramatic here, but a lot of conservative biblical scholars have formally agreed to some type of confessional arrangement with their affiliates (school, denomination, etc), and potentially face some form of theological censorship and/or critical scrutiny for expressing views and reaching conclusions that do not concord with that agreement. I know from experience that they often appear to be / are regarded as field experts -- and I know you can learn a lot from them. And of course there is a spectrum from "dogmatic"/ fundamentalist to "liberal," etc. But ultimately, how can you *really* trust the opinion of "experts" who otherwise have formal confessional agreements like that? [Joel/UNC]

@stevearmstrong6758

9 ай бұрын

Good point. I always wonder if their scholarship led them to their positions on issues or if their prior positions on issues led (or shaped) their scholarship. It’s really difficult to truly start with a blank sheet of paper.

@WayWalker3

9 ай бұрын

Fair points. The fact that supposedly educational institutions impose or demand formal confessional agreements on their members, would indicate a dogmatic outlook, and therefore not a truly educational one, namely, to promote rational thought and reduce ignorance in general. However, some individuals, once entering such institutions on the basis of only previously having access only to limited knowledge, may come to realise how such limitations on knowledge not only negatively affected their own perspectives by way of dogmatic thinking, but those of others, and that of society at large.

I think many Religious Studies professors see a historical Jesus at best. Few academic religious scholars (outside of divinity schools) are believers. As an undergraduate there was one believer who was a New Testament scholar. She was a Reform Jew. Those courses were some of the best I took in the Religious Studies department.

When I heard that someone made a quip of having no familiarity with pre-Columbian American archaeology at a lecture about Anaximander and the arrow of time, the novum was an oblique reference to not being the Grand Chawhee from All Dogs Go To Heaven. We cannot have possibly been in a fictitious personal profile that one can make of someone from the Racing Form's description of the Preakness Stakes.

24:00 great episode again. This is an interesting statement from Dr Ehrman, though. I left christianity because of historical research. When i learned that the original leader of the Jesus movement was James, but that christianity had been based on Paul and that James had basically been airbrushed out of christian history it shocked me, as a christian. How could god allow the original version of his religion to die out? How coukd the Pauline religion with all its historical problems (you know, the crusades, the inquisition etc) have been able to flourish if god is really in control? I later found out that's a weird way to leave christianity, but it is my true story, and it did come from a realisation about history. It's also funny to hear Dr Ehrman calling out arguments from consensus (and by implication from authority), and then go on to accuse mythicists of doing that, since those approaches are all I've ever heard him offer to counter the idea that Jesus didn't exist in history. "Nobody says that" (in the academy) he claims, when asked, as though that means anything even if it were the case. I mean, he did acknowledge earlier that even he has biases like everybody, so it's fair enough, in a way, but the cognitive dissonance on display is funny, when it's making itself evident as part of a piece about cognitive dissonance.

Thank you again. I was really excited that you addressed this question. Though I still feel that Bart dodged the big question. @23:50 Bart said 2 of his best friends are presbyterian ministers to study the bible critically yet continue to practise. (They may not believe everything other Christians believe but they still consider themselves Christians. It doesn't have to destroy a person's faith.) The big question is "what is a Christian". Many would assert assert belief in the atonement from Jesus' death. But then you might point to Luke and God's forgiveness for sins. Or a basic theism. What are the minimal criteria for being Christian? Like Bart, I jumped in with everything and was drawn to the Charismatic route - drawn by a strong desire for experience and 'proof' - "Taste and see that the Lord is good" bla bla. I wanted more than the reply to Thomas "Blessed are those you do not see yet believe". In the end I just found it nothing but empty words and warm feelings. I got burned out and have no time for belief in anything. Yet I call myself a follower of Jesus - broadly following his teachings but without any hang ups about his "deity" or messiahship. From what I understand of that shadowy historical Jesus, I'm as much a follower as many who call themselves "Christian" I did a BA course in Biblical and Intercultural Studies and sacrificed much for the faith before my ultimate disillusionment. But now I am on the outside because I can no longer play hypocrite. I can't be the agreeable diplomat yet I seek the truth in the sense of Augustine. So what is a Christian in the minds of these scholarly friends. Sorry for my lack of "agreeableness"! It's just a big issue. I really enjoy the podcasts. Thank you to all of you.

@micahhenley589

9 ай бұрын

Hello. A christian is anyone who trusts Jesus Christ alone for salvation and forgiveness. God creates a new living heart in them as 2 Corinthians 5:17 says "Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."

@ruefulradical77

9 ай бұрын

So then Luke the Evangelist wasn't a "Christian" by that criteria, according to Bart. I used to spout that stuff. I'm now 60. There are many mixtures of The Way, the Why, The Wow and The Worn. I was a Roman Catholic for most of the first half of my life but earnestly sought after God. I was then an evangelical (small "e" - never really bought into inerrancy and doctrine) and charismatic for about a quarter of my life. Things started to really unwind when I started to look at the bible critically at ANCC, an evangelical missional bible college in the UK , a third of a lifetime ago. Then I wandered in the wilderness for almost a decade, suffering the conceit of ultra-conservative Christians in an Asian country. I now try to walk in the light as best I can - ever suspicious of the stories of me. I thank both Bart Ehrman and Richard Dawkins for opening my eyes. "The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool.”, Richard Feynman. "All roads lead to Rome"! "This is my story. This is my song. Awestruck by Nature, all the day long. Photons exciting chlorophyll in leaves, creating the oxygen my body breathes."

@micahhenley589

9 ай бұрын

@@ruefulradical77 Thank you for sharing your story as it's always interesting to hear about people's background. As for Luke, yes Luke was a Christian. All 4 of the gospel writers were Christians. By God's grace, they understood that ALL of scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit. 2 Timothy 3:16 is very clear when it says that "all of Scripture is God-breathed." Now in Deuteronomy 19:15 it says it's important for a person to have two or three witnesses in regards to a trial or claim. And Jesus had four witnesses. Please allow me to briefly explain these four witnesses: 1st: John the Baptist was a witnesses. John the Baptist made it very clear that he himself was not the Messiah. He came only as a forerunner to the Christ. As Isaiah 40:3 says "A voice of one calling: “In the wilderness prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the desert a highway for our God.” 2nd: The scriptures bear witness about Jesus. The Old Testament was very clear that one day a great Messiah would be sent by God to save many people. He would suffer for the sins of others even though He Himself committed no sin. 3rd: The Father bears witness to His only Son. God said "This is My Son whom I love. With Him I am well pleased." For all of eternity the Father and Son have had perfect union, fellowship, and love. 4th: The next witness is the witness of the many miracles that Jesus preformed. These great signs testify that Jesus Christ is no ordinary man. He had the power to walk on water, heal the sick, open the eyes of the blind, raise the dead, and cause storms to cease.

@Aliali-vc3pk

3 ай бұрын

Where you get this nonesense 😅

1: love the show, keep doing what you're doing! 2: I feel this episode missed an opportunity to reverse the script. As Megan is a scholar and well versed in the tools of history and the views of secular bible scholars, I'd be very curious to hear how she holds on to her Christian identity.

@zapkvr

9 ай бұрын

Clearly she is deranged. How could ANYONE believe the story of the resurrection. Its so obviously made up. I like her and on this she is right down the rabbit hole.

@lisaboban

9 ай бұрын

I'm fairly sure these 2 very smart people have their reasons for not "flipping the script". Some people are more private about their faith than others.

@kenhilker2507

9 ай бұрын

@@zapkvr People believe in theologies for many reasons, there's no reason to jump to derangement.

@kenhilker2507

9 ай бұрын

@@lisaboban fair. 👍

@kenhilker2507

9 ай бұрын

@@r0ky_M I don't know the details of her faith, though I'm sure she has an interesting story. She's shared that she's Christian via Twitter a few times. I could be wrong, but I thought she'd mentioned it on this podcast at least once before.

It seems to me that you can't answer this question without considering the opposite question - is it possible for critical scholars to study the New Testament honestly? The answer depends on how you approach the corpus of books that make up the Bible as a whole. People who take critical scholarship seriously need to do some historical research on the discipline itself. Underpinning the approach is a set of assumptions which are specifically secular, sceptical, and in opposition to orthodox Christianity. The whole movement started in the early 19thC with a group of nonconformists with agnostic/atheist leanings. The objective - if one reads their own writing on the subject - was to secularize the text to see what you can do with it if you remove its religious underpinnings. The other objective - which is pretty obvious if you understand the position of people in this position within the churches at the time - is to give them a chance of staying in a job when they no longer believed in God in the way a minister of the (whichever) church was supposed to. The movement was swiftly taken over by Deists and sceptics, at the same time the Unitarians began inflitrating some of the nonconformist churches. As a result the developments in the field became increasingly antagonistic towards orthodox Christianity, to the extent of calling pretty much everything within the Bible into question. As a result it existed as a fringe part of Biblcal scholarship in general, and viewed with suspicion from the majority of scholars. It is worth noting that the Unitarians quickly found that the Bible, when taken as a whole and at face value, is an orthodox document, in that it teaches trinitarian doctrine when taken as a whole and at face value.It was after this point that the practice of separating the books and only treating each as a separate source, rather than a unified corpus, began to take hold. Why? Well, if you're going to try to undermine the orthodox understanding of the Bible, then the last thing you can do is take it at face value and in context. So the Unitarians started using pick-n-mix isegesis as part of their method, and this was then injected into textual criticism as a way of achieving something which honest exegesis couldn't. This changed progressively after the First World War, when new groups of people found themselves in seminaries which adopted the new discipline. For the first time you had atheists teaching Christians how to read the Bible, along with the carrot of being able to continue study in this new field if you towed the party line. Many did, and increasingly the ranks of these disciples found themselves in positions of authority within various churches, most notably the Anglicans and Methodists. So if you want to wonder why the Anglican church is full of people with scant regard for the Gospel, a good place to start is to look at the attitude towards critical scholarship among the bishops. So what is the problem with critical scholarship? Well, it's downright dishonest for one thing. The NT texts presuppose the existence of God, and that Jesus is God. This is what the Unitarians discovered, and as a result there aren't many Biblical unitarians around these days. Yet these scholars are quick to indulge interpretations of individual passages which fly in the face of the intention and beliefs of their authors. Which means that the conclusions drawn are only based on personal skewing of the meanings of the texts. In addition, scholars feel happy to find as many reasons as they can to pit one text against the other, as though they disagree fundamentally. When challenged with reasonable interpretations which allow the texts to stand side by side, these challenges are met with accusations of bias and a "conservative" mindset. These skewed and arbitary conclusions are then presented as "facts", when they are, in fact, unprovable suppositions. Sadly, Dr Ehrman tends to indulge in this overstatement. But there are far worse perpetrators. So why are there Christians involved in this field? Well, the field has some merit technically. There are techniques which are useful in textual analysis when it comes to investigating the composition of ancient texts. Yet the underlying assumptions which need to be made in order to move from the techniques to some sort of recognizable conclusions about these texts are tortuous. So for example, the argument around the anonymity of the Gospel writers is based on an a priori rejection of the surrounding writings of the Church fathers, and it is a rejection which is entirely based on an insistence that anyone writing a text is anonymous unless they have signed their own name on the text itself. This then goes forward to the claim that we don't know who the Gospel writers were. Which is a lie. We can be certain who the Gospel writers were, with a degree of certainty which outstrips that of any other contemporary writer. What is actually the case is that those who make the claim that we don't know are looking to sow doubt on the information written by the Church fathers on the subject, for entirely spurious reasons. Or rather, on the basis that all religious people are not to be trusted. Now, in practical terms, what does this mean? Well, it means you believe the contemporary written evidence, which is that Mark wrote Mark, Matthew wrote Matthew, and so on, Or you claim that we don't for entirely spurious and biased reasons, which are tied up in the underlying prerequisites of the historical criticism doctrine. To all practical purposes, the former method makes sense, and the latter is cloud cuckoo land. But it gives meat to the rabid anti-Christian crowd, and as such it sells a lot of books. Which sadly is what a lot of this is about. The primary difference in the way the text is treated between the two camps is that Christians treat the New Testament holistically, and critical scholars largely don't. In addition, Christians look at the text to draw out meaning from them, whereas critical scholars look at the different books almost as though they are separate and barely related. Many of them, at the outright atheist end of the spectrum, also specifically look for analyses which they can use to refute and belittle the Christian understanding of the Bible as a whole. To help them, the discipline rejects anything supernatural from consideration, and this obviously suits their purpose. They can ignore key passages on that basis alone, even though it removes a lot of context and allows for interpretations which, when taken in context, make absolutely no sense whatsoever. Sadly for them, this analysis is increasingly proving futile, to the extent that the more ardent atheists in the discipline now regard historical criticism of the Bible as a failed project, and are instead agitating for direct criticism of the Bible for ethical, doctrinal and cultural reasons rather than historical. In short, critical historical analysis is fine as a technique, but the output from it cannot be realistically taken as anything other than unprovable and spurious theories. The thing is the technique, not the conclusions. In practical terms (as noted by Prof Dale Martin in particular), the historical method does not produce anything of practical use in the real world. Which is why he can be part of the discipline and remain a committed Christian with a living ministry in the Church. The trouble is that this is not reflected in the public statements and books of the secularists in the field, who present their conclusions as verifiable facts which can be trusted. On that basis we have to conclude that, at least among this sector of critical historians, the historians cannot be trusted to study the New Testament honestly.

@Aliali-vc3pk

3 ай бұрын

What bullshit nonsense they written by people whom relied on other sources and eyewitness accounts. What nonsense you are own about. 😅

Feast of Trumpets!!

Why the “hi how are things “?

Do other faiths have similar critical textural analysis?

@jeffmacdonald9863

9 ай бұрын

Judaism does - and it's often many of the same scholars, since the basic texts of the Tanakh and the Old Testament are the same. I know there's some work done on the Quran, but there's not as much to work with, since the text reached its final form more quickly and was propagated by state power from nearly the beginning. If I understand correctly the Vedic texts were transmitted orally for a long period before they were written down, which puts them in another different category. Not really sure what the state of textural scholarship is there.

@McCainenl

9 ай бұрын

Yes, it also exists in eg Quranic studies. It also makes fundamentalists mad there.

@Bart D. Ehrman I heard you referenced on Relevant Radio this AM. I couldn't believe it. They were trying to refute and talk through/around how you've come across 200,000 - 400,000 anomalies in the New Testament. "...but they shouldn't worry." (Sometimes I get bored and need a laugh)

@Aliali-vc3pk

3 ай бұрын

They are crazy 😅

One thing I know for sure I came across one “Religion” if you want to call them a “Religion” that can answer these questions. Who were the Hebrews ? Who’s Esau / Edom ? Are we still under the mosaic law ? Are we in the New Testament ? Has there been a new covenant ? What’s the difference in gentiles ? Can you find America in the bible ? When is the 2nd coming of jesus ? Did the 12 tribes of Israel really get spread across the world and if so who are they & what do they look like ? Who are the false prophets in the world ? Does God say the moons are the months ? If so why is there 13 but the world operates off 12 ? These are questions Christian’s can’t answer honestly or choose like they don’t matter.

I think there are so many cognitive biases and logical fallacies involved when anyone wants to study a holy book (of any kind). The trick is using critical thinking and just allowing the process in looking for what's true and what's not. Another great episode.

No...yes...no...yes..That's a very confused question. Unclear confusing etc. Authentic or honestly? a very subjective premise. I can't resist of course because Barts is so damn good.

What does Dr. Ehrman think his old mentor, were he still living, think about his old pupil today? And could he argue Ehrman under the table?

@TheDanEdwards

9 ай бұрын

"And could he argue Ehrman under the table?" - nope.

@8mycake244

9 ай бұрын

@@TheDanEdwards I agree. I’d like to hear Ehrman respond, however.

It's tough . . . You have to put aside your worldview to truly look at it critically just like you would any other text. There are all these little excuses you make along the way, and it even affects some scholars.

I don't know if Bart will read this but I'm just wondering if he is using the names, Matthew, Mark, Luke... for ease of speaking even though we know the gospels were written by anonymous authors. Perhaps he is referring to the books as opposed to the actual people. 🤷‍♂️

Inspiringphilosophy recently did a video on regards to who wrote the gospels and he suggested Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John could have wrote them saying that many people who wrote things back in those days didn't put their name of the letter or what have you. He gave numerous examples too

@jeffmacdonald9863

9 ай бұрын

It's not impossible of course, but there's no reason to think they did. Not only did they not put their names on them, but they also didn't do anything to indicate how they were involved. Especially in Matthew, which doesn't treat the disciple Matthew any differently than the other disciples. John's a little more complicated and there was a recent episode on whether John was a forgery.

@twitherspoon8954

9 ай бұрын

_"...and he suggested Mark, Matthew, Luke, and John could have wrote them..."_ The Gospels According to Matthew and John literally state the opposite. Also, Jesus is a fictional character.

@toma3447

9 ай бұрын

I’d love to see Bart and IP debate. Just cause they are both awesome

@hantms

9 ай бұрын

I don't think it matters who wrote them. Although for John in particular that's such a long time after the actual events that it's unlikely the author could have met the historical Jesus. For Matthew and Luke, if fishermen from Galilee could write perfect Greek then great.

@twitherspoon8954

9 ай бұрын

@@hantms _"Although for John in particular that's such a long time after the actual events that it's unlikely the author could have met the historical Jesus."_ John reached its final form around AD 90-110. Like the three other gospels, it is anonymous. The Gospel of John was only attributed to John later in the second century when the Church Fathers were attempting to define who, in their opinions, wrote each of the gospels. There is no evidence that John even existed. The earliest Gospel fragment we have dates from the second century (John 18). More than 80% of New Testament manuscripts date to the 5th century or later. We know John was written anonymously because it is written in the third-person (John 21:24-25) referring six times to "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and "This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down. We know that his testimony is true." And John 20:3 reads, "Peter and the other disciple started for the tomb." That "other disciple" is John.

WRT: "All their scholarship proves they were right when they were twelve." Boy, I wish I was as sure of my worldview as I was at age 12 when I had it more or less all figured out!

The same argument can be made of academics who study Mormonism. Some believe you can't be a believer while others claim you can't be objective as a researcher of your own faith. I don't think good scholarship is tied to being a practicing Mormon. There has been great research done by both LDS and Non-LDS scholars. Currently most of the research chair positions in Mormon Studies are held by LDS church members. Patrick Mason at Utah State University is one of them. Claremont in California had a chair held by Richard Bushman at one time. Terryl Givens holds another chair.

I learned a lot of what Bart talks about in Catholic university religion class. In their Ethics class in the Philosophy department, a Catholic Priest taught a 100% secularly derived (a-theistic) system of ethics.

@hantms

9 ай бұрын

I also think that at a high enough level, Catholics understand very well just how the bible was compiled, that it was a very lengthy process with a lot of fairly arbitrary decisions. Compared to evangelical Christians who think the whole thing fell from the sky whole, and quite possibly in English. ;) Catholics are more open to interpretation and established doctrine without feeling the need that the bible needs to back that up 100%.

@andrewsuryali8540

9 ай бұрын

​@@hantmsCatholics have a good understanding of how flawed the Bible can be because we're the CAUSE, lol.😂

For assumptions and conclusions, Quran says: "And they have thereof no knowledge. They follow not except assumption, and indeed, assumption avails not against the truth at all. "

Im a christian but im studying n taking bart erhman course Theres no problem at all

27:50 - Edinburgh is the capital of Scotland. It is not in England. In any way, and it never has been. As a long term resident of Edinburgh, i have noticed this on many an occasion. I find it to be consistently several hundred miles away from England, in fact. On another note, I'm thinking of studying in the USA, you know, somewhere like Ontario or Quebec.

I'm impressed with how colourful Megan appears here. There's a whole galaxy of hues going on there.

The sign of an educated mind is the ability to hear a contradicting opinion without becoming angered.

The ones who think the Bible is inerrant show less faith in God

"All truth is God's truth." I was unaware of these words, but that sentiment led me to start reading other (non-KJV) versions because I wanted to know God better and have a broader understanding of the Bible. Once my husband found out that I was listening to an NKJV dramatization, and he freaked out a little because he thought I was listening to some Calvanist theology or something (for context, here are the verses) ¹ Jesus spoke these words, lifted up His eyes to heaven, and said: "Father, the hour has come. Glorify Your Son, that Your Son also may glorify You. ² "As You have given Him authority over all flesh, that He should give eternal life to as many as You have given Him." "Right there. 'As many as You have given Him.' They're teaching that only a certain few are destined to be saved." And me being well familiar with our church's doctrine and had a good idea of what the KJV said, I took out my KJV Bible (a little frustrated), turned to the same passage, and read it to him. ¹ These words spake Jesus, and lifted up his eyes to heaven, and said, Father, the hour is come; glorify thy Son, that thy Son also may glorify thee: ² As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him. To which he went, "Oh...Is that what it really says?" "That's what it really says." We had a brief conversation about it, he said, "If we read from the KJV, we don't have to worry about scholars changing the Bible" (which is what we were taught as fundies that biblical scholars do). I asked, "But isn't the Holy Spirit the one who leads us into all truth? Wouldn't God let us know what is true even if we did read another version?" He said, "They deliberately change the Bible to say something else. It's better to just stick with the truth." Oh the irony 😂 Edit: By the way, we're not together anymore. I left him and the cult 4 years ago. I'm also no longer a Christian (agnostic atheist).

@diahiskandarbinmohamadjani7674

9 ай бұрын

What is an agnostic atheist really? Do you believe there is a higher power that creates the universe?

@sassylittleprophet

9 ай бұрын

@diahiskandarbinmohamadjani7674 Basically, I personally don't believe that God exists, but I also acknowledge that I don't *know* that God doesn't exist. If I were to be shown proof of God's existence *(actual* proof), then I would accept that because it would be an undeniable fact.

@diahiskandarbinmohamadjani7674

9 ай бұрын

@@sassylittleprophet ooo now I know the definition of agnostic atheist. Thanks so much. Do you want to try something? Tonight before you sleep, in your bed, I want you to "assume" that God exists. And I want you to "talk" to God as if He is in front of you. Ask Him humbly, "O God the All Mighty, Master of the Universe, if You really exist, then please give me some sign, show me the right path". Then close you eyes and sleep. Hopefully you would want to play this "game" and share with me whatever that comes up after.

@sassylittleprophet

9 ай бұрын

@diahiskandarbinmohamadjani7674 no thank you. If God exists and wants me to know it, God will let me know. I'm not going to look for God because any attempts on my end to find God will be biased due to my own experiences

@diahiskandarbinmohamadjani7674

9 ай бұрын

@@sassylittleprophet i understand. It is hard to turn off all of our biases. Anyway, let say, someone shows up to you, and gives you a book (holy book) and claim that it is from God. He wants you to investigate the book (read it from cover to cover). Assuming that you can't find any errors and contradictions in the book, and the book itself claims it is from God, then, would you take that as a proof that God exist (because that book is from Him)?

The discussion brings up an interesting aspect here - can one continue in the faith having known that the gospels are not historically reliable or that Genesis creations stories are a myth ? Bart says one can, and rightly so. In fact, the reason why he left the faith wasn't necessarily due to his scholarly findings but rather a philosophical one involving evil and suffering. In contrast, his PhD advisor was a believer despite sharing the same scholarly conclusions as Bart. But to continue in faith under such circumstances is very difficult for people with an analytical or empirical bent of thinking.

@jeffmacdonald9863

9 ай бұрын

It also depends on where you start. If you're not a fundamentalist to start with, you might start knowing the gospels aren't historically reliable and that the creation stories are myth.

@deguilhemcorinne418

9 ай бұрын

​@@jeffmacdonald9863True. My parents were Christians with a very deep faith until their death, they attended Biblic seminaries, but they they never had to believe neither ask us children to believe the crazy things the creationists and literalists believe.

@diahiskandarbinmohamadjani7674

9 ай бұрын

I disagree. Let say I was born into religion X, and later discovered that the text of religion X (Book Y) has errors. If I still believe in God, then, it doesn't make sense to me that He would not reveal another Text (Book Z) to supersede Book Y. Then, I would continue to investigate other holy books available in the world until I find a holy book that is error free. I am sure one must exist!

@jeffmacdonald9863

9 ай бұрын

@@diahiskandarbinmohamadjani7674 That only makes sense if you start by believing that God has revealed his will to people in a flawless holy book. In other words, if you start as a fundamentalist. I know it's hard for some to understand, but that's not the only religious tradition. Not all religions are even based on holy books. (Or involve a singular "God" for that matter.)

@diahiskandarbinmohamadjani7674

9 ай бұрын

@@jeffmacdonald9863 o well Jeff. I am a fundamentalist. I can't fathom why not. Are you not a fundamentalist yourself (just curious)?

"Doesn't make any sense to me." Matthew 11:25

Going to the Father through the Son means beginning with the truth that is incarnate and imperfect and proceeding to what is a perfect, atemporal truth, or so I have been told.

4:06 it starts

40:13 … another question could be as AI becomes more sophisticated will it be used more and more in scholarly translation of Bible texts? Or a published edition of the Bible, the New AI Revised Standard Version? 😆

Yes, I study the not only New Testament but old testament too !

The whole Bible presents the notion of (God's) mercy as being the only true atonement for sin, rather than sacrifices or setting things right according to law or reason. We can argue over who wrote the Bible and apparent discrepancies in the text, but all of the stories lead to some version of God saying to an unrelenting judgmental world, "My grace is sufficient for you."

@Aliali-vc3pk

3 ай бұрын

God died for men killed by men lol not to punish man😅

Yes, many do, beginning with the Catholic Church, the Anglican Church too.

I was brought up to understand the Bible literally, but more recently I've also started thinking of it in allegorical, tropological and anagogical terms.

@billyhw5492

9 ай бұрын

I hope Bart can follow your lead on that sometime.

@nathanaelsmith3553

9 ай бұрын

I find it also helps to think of the context, pretext and subtext.

@kencreten7308

9 ай бұрын

@@billyhw5492 hehe. I think Ehrman should follow MY lead, along with everyone else trying to tell him what to do!

@JohnD808

9 ай бұрын

@@billyhw5492Bart is not trying to understand the Bible from a modern faith perspective.

@nathanaelsmith3553

9 ай бұрын

On balance I think Bart's considered and balanced views are most likely accurate from a historical and scholarly standpoint. I think there are also layers of meaning beyond that. Even distortions in the text convey some truth in the non literal sense as they persist because of the resonance they have with the human psyche on a deeper level. Much like great works of fiction. A point that I have also heard Bart make on occasion.

Small layout

Your podcast today inspired me to think about the systematic theology versus exegetical theology divide. The systematicians say, Why don't you cite our sacred theological summaries as an assistant authority of the Bible when propounding about doctrines that the summaries address? You could think of the Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas, the Book of Concord of the Lutherans, the 39 Articles of the Anglicans/Episcopalians. The systematicians always carp about this.

I'm not sure whether you said, agnostic, atheist or agnostic-atheist. If it's the latter then we should have a talk.

So... to be a critical scholar in the NT, you have to adopt the idea that Jesus' didn't say everything in the gospels. Got it.

15:59

Cognitive dissonance describes the response to having a strongly held belief contradicted by clear evidence, the response being to believe even more strongly. See When Prophecy Fails, by Leon Festinger.

@stevearmstrong6758

9 ай бұрын

“A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away. Show him facts or figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to logic and he fails to see your point.” Leon Festinger, When Prophecy Fails: A Social & Psychological Study of a Modern Group that Predicted the Destruction of the World

Does Megan believe in getting children Baptised

12:30

Thank you.

Well turkeys do have a tendency to vote for christmas…

What knoweth the things of man save the spirit that is in man ? Likewise then what knoweth the things of God save the Spirit of God “ The carnal mind cannot receive the things of God for it is st Emmitt with God” If no man can hear or understand a mans words if that man does not give his breath or life to his words how then can any man understand the word of God without the Holy Spirit? The letter killeth but the Spirit giveth life!

@draxthemsklonst

9 ай бұрын

Cooleth

I am what you might call a heretic. Which is, I don't literally believe in the bible, but I still consider myself a Christian. I read about how the bible was inaccurate when I was very young and lef the church. Recently, I just had a different approach to faith. I don't believe the bible is the word of God, or that Jesus literally was the son of God. However, I think there is something to the human experience of God that is important, and I like the idea of the Christian God - a forgiving, loving God who represents everything good. I believe that there is something approaching 'holiness', in the sense that if you walk that path in life, you and the people around you will flourish and approach something like heaven, which, in its simplest form, is being remembered positively after your death. And I think that there is a lot of wisdom in the old texts. For example, I don't think God will punish someone for committing adultery. But overall, I think statistics show quite clearly that most people who commit adultery are not happy, and that it leads to broken families, with less successful children, and more problems in society. That's not even just a Christian thing, most human societies have historically held similar views. I think Christian teachings have, historically, proven themselves to be very appealing and sustainable for the world. It is a naturally more egalitarian philosophy, and one that values mercy over brutality. Christians try to lead people to salvation, which ultimately is a way of leading them into a better life. It isn't about killing infidels. And, on top of that, you are to remind yourself that you are not God, you are not perfect, and that you need to be humble - not just in front of God, but in front of your fellow men. The juxtaposition of even a conceptual God who doesn't exist fully puts you in the place where you are more realistic about your own potential. And, the nature of God says that you need to be righteous in front of God. Some cultures value face more, and as long as someone doesn't find out what you did, it's okay, because social acceptance is the highest good. But Christianity teaches us that we need to have a clear conscience, and need to do what's right even when no-one is watching. Those things make it that I am an acting Christian. I don't believe in the literal gospel, but I kinda act as if I do, because I think it makes for a better world. Your podcast has been fascinating on an academic level, and I am happy to hear all the critique of the gospel. In the end, I guess you could call me a 'bad' Christian, but... I think that's the bridge between Christianity and rationality. In the end, here's the real suggestion I have - If God created the world, surely we can learn more about God by the rigorous and honest study of the world than we can of the ancient writings of humans. Even if they did hear the words of God, is it so strange to think that they might have introduced error? The universe does not lie. We can see just from observation what is real and what isn't, and what works and what doesn't. That should be the most important form of worship.

I sincerely request Bart Ehrman to study the belief of the early Christians and the teachings of Jesus including the Aramaic Gospel called Gospel of the Nazirenes, later to be known as "The Gospel of the Holy Twelve," which declares that in order to achieve eternal life, "The Law" must be fully obeyed, meaning that Jesus indeed, had shown his unequivocal focus on Torah that must be obeyed. Torah of the Jews is not the Old Testament but it refers to Tanakh which is the canonical collection of Hebrew scriptures.

Yes, I'm sure many, if not most Christians, don't believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, and many are still devout. However, can you name one atheist or agnostic who believes in the inerrancy of the Bible? If Bart had continued to believe the inerrancy of the Bible, despite contemplating all the suffering in the world and all the other reasons, I believe he would still be a fundamentalist Christian.

@russellmiles2861

9 ай бұрын

I doubt any Christian feels the Bible is "inerrant" well, rather they define "inerrant" to support their own ideology. They all take out selective text, ignore the great majority of teachings in the Bible and oppose a few too. No one takes the Bible as the "word of god" ... They mostly couldn't tell you how many books are in the King James version of the Bible.

@joetrapp9187

9 ай бұрын

@russellmiles2861 I agree. I think mine was the typical church going experience. Sunday sermons with Bible verses from both the Old and New Testaments to support it, with occasional Bible study, that again, was centered around the chosen moral lesson. So, the interpretation of the Bible largely depended on the leadership's objectives.

@WayWalker3

9 ай бұрын

@@russellmiles2861 It's truly surprising what people will think and say. I've heard some Christians say that they do believe in a heaven, but not in a hell. One supposedly very religious man, who admitted that he had never actually read or studies the Bible, claimed to be 100% certain that Jesus wrote all the books of the bible. This does not appear to be unusual, as some Christian denominations apparently follow selectively chosen stories read to them by their priests, or even from such things as 'church tradition', which are ideas and stories that were later added to the narratives of their religious texts. Just last week, a man I know adamantly claimed that the Dance of the Seven Veils by Salome, is actually in the gospels. He was unaware that this was a much later fanciful addition to the story of the execution of John the Baptist, based on a 19th Century play by Oscar Wilde, named 'Salome'. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_of_the_Seven_Veils#:~:text=It%20is%20an%20elaboration%20on,give%20the%20dance%20a%20name.

1st someone had to write it in the first place ???? where did the idea come from

@spankduncan1114

9 ай бұрын

Human imagination is the creator of god.

@Sportliveonline

9 ай бұрын

How you get so many people to agree on the same subject over such a large period of time @@spankduncan1114

@jeffmacdonald9863

9 ай бұрын

@@Sportliveonline How did they get so many people to agree on any ancient religion? How did the Greeks come to agree on Zeus? And later the Romans on Jupiter?

A mostly reasonable episode today. My one objection has to do with the analogy Bart drew between the NT scholar who wanted to accept the contested Pauline letters and the geologist who insisted on young earth theory. I think that analogy is overdrawn. I think a more strictly-speaking analogous situation would be the case of a scientist who insisted on accepting the fraudulent result of a scientific paper that was withdrawn. Proper scientists would accept the results and try to work them into their thinking, but then reject the results and try to reestablish their thinking on established results.

@jessknauftofsantaynezvalle4111

9 ай бұрын

The problem with “critical” scholarship is that they are working with a bias that their viewpoint on N.T. authorship is necessarily the correct view. But where is the freedom for dissent in publishing works that make a case, up front, for Pauline authorship of various letters included in the New Testament? For example, consider the case of 1 Timothy. Do the stylistic variations actually rise to the level of indicating fraud? Or, are there reasonable explanations for stylist variations? I don’t see variations rising to the level of creating reasonable doubt that the proper chain of custody made an error in their adoption of 1 Timothy being Pauline. After all, the early & proper chain of custody consensus was it was written by Paul - e.g. Ireneaus of Lyons (2nd c.) clearly identifies Paul as its author in one of his writings. His mentor, Polycarp quotes it, without attribution, around 140 A.D.

I don't think Bart did as good a job as usual with his explanation about why its difficult to be a scholar in this field as a literalist. The part around the 30 minute mark to me seemed to miss the mark a bit for me. I understand what he means (serious scholarship expects more proof of certain claims than 'it is the bible') but I think he could have given better exampls.

The real question is, can people like Bart study the NT honestly and objectively, especially after his "deconversion"? I think we all know the real answer to that question. Bart has made so many mistakes in interpretation and understanding, that some have begun to call him "Bart Errorman." He makes such outlandish claims that scholars have to chide him after every popular book he puts out, and then Bart pretends no detractors exist, and that everyone is wrong and he's right regardless of the facts.

Can a young earther be a paleontologist? Can a Catholic be a gynecologist? Can a Christian be a mortician? Can someone who is not a philosopher be?