Bart Ehrman v Glen Scrivener: Did Christianity give us our belief in equality, compassion & consent?

Glen Scrivener's book 'The Air We Breathe: How We All Came to Believe in Freedom, Kindness, Progress & Equality' makes the case that our belief in modern human rights & values are a direct product of the Christian story that shaped the West.
New Testament critic Bart Ehrman, whose own book 'The Triumph of Christianity' tells the story of how the faith swept the world, responds to Glen's view that our embrace of equality, compassion and sexual consent are uniquely Christian.
For 'The Air We Breathe': www.thegoodbook.co.uk/the-air...
For Bart's live April 9th event with Mike Licona: www.bartehrman.com/did-the-re...
• For Conference & live events: www.unbelievable.live
• Support us in the USA: www.premierinsight.org/unbelie...
• Rest of the world: resources.premier.org.uk/supp...
• Newsletter: www.premier.org.uk/Unbelievab...
• Get our 'Confident Christianity' course: www.premier.org.uk/course
• Blog: www.premierinsight.org/unbeli...
• For the podcast: www.premierchristianradio.com/...
• Facebook / premierunbelievable

[@Nicolae_Mew]

Bart's intellectual openness is always on full display and it gives my heart joy to see it in a world of hostile debates where people want to "destroy" their opponent.

[@gregorybezanson]

Everyone has presuppositions.

[@FrostinthePines]

Always a pleasure to hear Dr Ehrman!

[@mitchcerbu4662]

....with running to Judaism in order to get away from Jesus.... discounting the fact that neither Jesus or Biblical Christianity, never denied the continuation and connection, accomplished and fulfillment of the Old Judaism by the revelation of The MESSIAH. Jesus of Nazareth

[@eurech]

@@mitchcerbu4662 He fulfilled nothing. I challenge you to debate a Old Testament scholar. You Christians love to run your mouths and you choke when talking to a Rabbi or someone who can speak Hebrew.

[@Maurus200]

I think Glen is doing something that is very common today. He is making a post-hoc explanation in an attempt to tie social improvements to Christianity. If these truly were things taught by Christianity we would see it being taught throughout history. Unfortunately we do not see that at all. Not to mention there is A TON of reading between the lines with many of Glen's arguments. You really need to draw out far more meaning that what is actually written to follow his ideas. I would argue that that is a good proof that Christianity and its beliefs are molded a ton by the current social situation as opposed to what is found in the Bible.

[@joshridinger3407]

right, and the traditionalist/fundamentalist (i.e. real) christians even to this day are mostly opposed to these things, and quite overtly and explicitly in the cases of equality and consent.

[@AbandonedVoid]

It also neglects the fact that people pick and choose their interpretation of scripture to justify whatever they want, so most Christians don't even really follow the teachings of Jesus. When was the last time you saw a Christian cut off their own hand or gouge out their own eyes? How many Christians do you know that sold all of their things and voluntarily live homeless? How many follow the Torah? Yeah, there might be a few Torah-observant homeless Christians, but most Christians don't follow the New Testament at all

[@FarSeeker8]

OTOH, I would point to the places where Secularism rules alone and flips its middle finger at modern European culture. The PRC, a continent that has cultures millennia older than Europe's, finds Christian ideas like charity to strangers, equality before the law, the rule of law, honesty with people, and benevolence towards strangers and pets are alien concepts. China's government condemns the promulgation of those ideas as "cultural imperialism."

[@fukpoeslaw3613]

@@FarSeeker8 what's PRC?

[@FarSeeker8]

@@fukpoeslaw3613 The People's Republic of China. The CCP is the Chinese Communist Party - but Marxist outside of China decry it as just an oligarchical corporate/capitalist system running China. Either way, as the CCP Requires Atheism of All Members, China is run by Atheists.

[@bigboy9983]

Glen wants so hard for this to be true. He starts with the answer and then tries to twist the evidence to suit his conclusion. Bart wasn’t having any of it.

[@treich1234]

Glen also has a book to sell

[@FarSeeker8]

@@treich1234 How many books does Bart want to sell? You're just talking cheap shots.

[@treich1234]

@@FarSeeker8 Apparently truth hurts

[@FarSeeker8]

@@treich1234 What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

[@treich1234]

@@FarSeeker8 You'll get over it.....eventually

[@Marta-zm8oe]

I feel the pain of Bart hearing Glen's arguments about consent in the Bible

[@themysteryofbluebirdboulevard]

@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros if that automatically invalidates his expertise, watch people you agree with instead.

[@chrisdriver7776]

What was the perspective on consent in the Roman world outside of the Judeo-Christian tradition?

[@Marta-zm8oe]

@@chrisdriver7776 Consent (in terms of sexual consent) didn't exist in the ancient world(judeo-christan nor roman). Women were the husbands' property,hence their consent is not expected. It is assumed they need to "serve" their husbands in that way because offspring is the most important goal. Saying that other cultures weren't any better doesn't make the Bible look good. It makes look the bible a moral book with the moral values of the time, not a divine book with timeless teachings. If god was so concerned about consent why isn't rape a sin? according to the bible adultery is a worse sin, is among the 10 commandments! Rape is way worse than adultery.

[@chrisdriver7776]

@@Marta-zm8oe You state that sexual consent was not a value in the ancient world... And then you state that consent is not explicitly expressed in biblical teachings... My question would be... When do you think consent became a modern value, and what was the basis? It seems reasonable to suggest that the modern value of consent was derived from the biblical teaching that both men and women are created in God's image and contain a divine spark, which I think is Glen's point, and not unreasonable.

[@frankvandermerwe1487]

​@@psicologomiguelcisnerosYea he doesnt believe in a fairytale. Wow cant take that guy's word seriously!

[@willard73]

Ehrman provided some much needed clarity to the apologist’s rather fanciful reading of history

[@DarrylWhiteguitar]

Thanks for having Dr. Ehrman on your show.

[@paulrichards6894]

its sad we have to have such debates with these crazies

[@DarrylWhiteguitar]

@@paulrichards6894 Crazies?

[@paulrichards6894]

@@DarrylWhiteguitar anyone who thinks there is a god up there who not only knows what the 8 billion are saying and doing but also what they are thinking.....crazies

[@DarrylWhiteguitar]

@@paulrichards6894 No one in the video seems crazy to me. Why insult people who are discussing ideas important to them?

[@paulrichards6894]

@@DarrylWhiteguitar anyone who thinks they have an imaginary friend is crazy to me

[@edwardtheobald5574]

Poor Glenn he has had one idea and ran with it, eyes closed all the way.

[@23Hiya]

First, I really appreciate this program for platforming healthy disagreement. Second, I was a little disappointed that Justin moved on after Ehrman pointed to the original Hebrew and it's lack of tense that the NIV adds. What's so close to being discussed is the fact that Scrivener and so many others need to demonstrate how they are not sanctifying there own preferences by editing together bits of scripture that seem to agree with them. Scrivener is not just saying that the Bible has resources people can use to ground things like human equality, but is making the stronger claim that he knows that those principles are clearly and divinely enshrined in scripture. I think Scrivener's intuitions are much more helpful than those of a 19th century slave holding Baptist from the American south, but neither party seems to have any meaningful way to demonstrate special access to the 'true' teaching of the Bible on really any issue of community life. In the absence of that there is only a chicken or the egg style mystery. Does scripture primarily inform our moral intuitions or is it primarily used to justify them after the fact?

[@Philusteen]

This was a difficult thing to watch. I really admire Glen's heart; but so many of his assertions are so high level as to not even need religion (if you're feeling empathy, just run with it), and others are just so inaccurate it's clear that he either didn't do his research or he confined his research into the corral of "any conclusion must be designed to support the claim." Dr. Ehrman should be commended for his work in trying to get believers to more thoughtfully, rationally consider why and what they believe.

[@vhvjhb]

One of Ehrmans strengths is that he used to believe like glen did.

[@GeoPePeTto]

When I watch this kind of debates when the Believer says Christian’s did it and/or is in Christian context and time, so it must be because of the faith and the Bible, I always makes me chuckle because I remember Sam Harris and his plucked chickens analogy.

[@mylord9340]

Phil, I just expressed the same sentiment and then I saw yours. Yes, this was painful to watch. Did Glen get any historians or skeptics to critique his book or just believers like Justin?

[@christopherhamilton3621]

“… high level…” 🙄

[@SHIBBYiPANDA]

100% agree. I called these kinds of people Jesus masturbators. They need to get off Jesus’ d*ck. Jesus wasn’t about people worshipping the ground he walked on and obsessing over him. These fanboys simp so hard for J. Real bros chill ez with Jesus.

[@ariellalima7229]

We're so used to seeing Ehrman talk about religion that I simply forgot that he is a historian, period. It's interesting to see him elaborate on other topics.

[@eudyptes5046]

"The first century sexual revolution" This guy is crazy.

[@johnpetkos5686]

Bart Ehrman schooling people all day long here.

[@MoNtYbOy101]

It’s what he does best

[@jdnlaw1974]

Yes he does. Now that I’m no longer a believer, it all seems more and more ridiculous on a daily basis. No yoke is lighter than one removed.

[@MoNtYbOy101]

@@jdnlaw1974 the best thing about Bart and why apologists are so scared of him is because he always grounds his arguments in scripture, and his knowledge of scripture is fantastic

[@petethorne5094]

@@MoNtYbOy101 His knowledge of scripture is way higher than other skeptics, agreed. But he still surprisingly throws out odd straw men at times - perhaps due to ignorance of basic theology, or perhaps as a tactic against unwitting opponents.

[@MoNtYbOy101]

@@petethorne5094 he knows the scripture better than most the apologists he debates. And no one loves a strawman like an apologist

[@mrwallace1059]

Just a question, where was the equality from about 350 to 1500, when Christianity was the dominate religion for the "west"? Lets look at women, Jewish people etc.

[@vanessac0382]

You need time for humanity to learn equality but it has been a valuable teaching of Christianity. Male superiority has been ingrained since ancient times which is understandable why so and it's because males are physically stronger than females. It's human nature that the strong oppresses the weak

[@konyvnyelv.]

And slaves

[@mooshei8165]

Wars!!!

[@mooshei8165]

Christianity did more damage to the world than any other religion combine. Africa, the Americas, Australia, New Zealand, Hawaii, the two bombs and the body count is still growing and they love it. Christians think the whole is Going to hell and every denomination of Christianity is going to heaven. Evil religion.

[@eurech]

You see, they are not true Christians. Anytime Christians do good, theyre responsible for ALL good, but if they do bad, theyre just fake Christians. Christian arguments are RIDICULOUS.

[@jonnyw82]

Justin is usually very fair but he obviously intervened to save Glenn in the Genesis discussion 39:40

[@pannonia77]

As you can see that stupid arsehole Scrivener does not even understand what Bart Ehrman is talking about. Does this stupid arsehole know anything about the Documentary Hypothesis? Does not he know that there are two creation account in Genesis and they contradict one another? Does this stupid arsehole call himself a scholar?

[@abelpuerta3853]

"There is no pluperfect tense in Hebrew".

[@marincabac8942]

When it comes to discussing the scriptures It's very hard to find somebody at the level of knowledge, expertise and honesty as Dr. Bart D. Ehrman and this video is not an exception.

[@logosgaming1987]

Bart Ehrman has some charges of dishonesty against him.

[@marincabac8942]

@@logosgaming1987 Those charges are nothing compared to the dishonesty of the church that's been going on for centuries. The church modified and misinterpreted the scripture and preached only what benefited their limitless greed for money, power and control through their dogma. So compared to the most outright blatant lies exhibited by the church throughout it's entire history - Bart is a freaking Saint!

[@SavedSkeptic]

Wow! That is an upside down statement.

[@clintonsmith8215]

@@logosgaming1987 what charges?

[@timffoster]

I'm amazed at how many commenters are ignorant of the bible, and think that Erhman has a good grasp on scripture. Ephesians 5 clearly states that the husband is to love his wife, and lay down his life for his wife. He is to love his wife ** as he loves his own body**. This completely rules out any form of abuse or oppression. Erhman doesn't seem to know this, and I can only think that his fans are equally unlearned about the Bible. Sad, actually.

[@Yeobebes]

Good conversation but there’s a trend I see a lot that people exploit Christianity; write a book that favours Christianity and you already have a large market to tap into

[@johnpetkos5686]

I think by the way Bart Ehrman frowns during 90% of Glen's talking, we can safely assume that he's not buying Glen's new book anytime soon.

[@Prophet_Isaiah]

He already read it (said so in the intro) so he owns it 😂

[@jakejerrison5181]

@@Prophet_Isaiah Or he pirated it. I wouldn’t spend a cent on that shit.

[@desertboot9755]

I suspect he definitely will want to read it.

[@jeremywvarietyofviewpoints3104]

He looked like he had a toothache.

[@mihaelastanescu1483]

Looking at Bart Ehrman's frowing while Glen talks, is like looking at a professor while he listens to a confused student.

[@chrisdriver7776]

1:17:30 "I Don't treat it as an actual reality that Christ died for sins and was raised from the dead. I don't. I don't think that historically is what really happened. But I do think that story, is for me, the most powerful story that's ever been told." This is why Ehrman is special in my opinion.

[@tigerboy245]

As usual, Bart Ehrman is completely right.

[@PasteurizedLettuce]

@@psicologomiguelcisnerosthe only people who dislike Bart Ehrman are apologists, and they are not the mainstream anymore of biblical scholarship, which has become increasingly secular, and that’s a good thing. I’m a Buddhist, I understnad Buddhist texts in a certain way. But I don’t want scholars of the history of Buddhist texts to just adopt Buddhism necessarily, I want critical secular scholarship.

[@Cheryllyle]

Bart schooled Glen

[@EnRaiter14]

Bart has the patience of a Saint. Glen's arguments were so poorly thought out. I've never seen the host this biased to the degree of saving his guest that he agrees with. Glen had no answer for so many things that were what his book was directly about. Christianity led to consent? I'm a Christian and these were just terrible takes

[@hairymcnipples]

He literally just didn't ever respond to Bart pointing out that the new testament explicitly describes women as subordinate to men. Not one word on the subject. What a pathetic, weasely, evil, misogynistic scumbag. A genuinely horrible excuse for a human being. I am sitting here being repeatedly shocked by how awful this Glen guy is. Gross. I don't think I'm going to bother sitting through the rest, I'm thoroughly revolted.

[@Prophet_Isaiah]

Watching Glen with the same face as Dr. Ehrman that whole debate 😂

[@jonathanwilliams1641]

Mic drop moment: "Christianity has NEVER supported the sexual equality of women within a marriage. Never." This is evidenced by Christianity not believing marital rape is a thing. It really is kinda disgusting that Mr. Scrivener would even claim that Christianity has a history of promoting consent.

[@joshridinger3407]

of all the things one might attribute to christianity, valuing consent is by far the most far-fetched and insane.

[@timffoster]

Eph 5:28-33 28 In the same way, husbands are to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 For no one ever hates his own flesh but provides and cares for it, just as Christ does for the church, ..... 33 To sum up, each one of you is to love his wife as himself, and the wife is to respect her husband. There is *no* room for rape or abuse in this paradigm. You and Bart need to reacquaint yourselves with the Bible, and like the Bible, divorce abuse from hierarchy. (Bart erroneously conflates the two)

[@noahschulte7601]

@@timffoster As a believer in christ thank you for writing that.

[@nashwalker7]

read it again

[@mmore242]

Anti-Christians are always looking for anything they can to hate.

[@howardwatts769]

Some of Bart's facial reactions had me crying.

[@earlismarks7108]

Glen paints with such a broad brush leaving out the details.. 🙂💯

[@harrisonclark4382]

Very childish and unprofessional.

[@thucydides7849]

I literally made the same exact face as Bart when the Christian gave his radical interpretation of genesis 2 in that women are to be seen as further developed creatures because they come from a run bone while Adam comes from dirt. I wouldn’t call him intellectually dishonest, but that really was a quite convenient yet terrible response to Barts comments on genesis 2. Does the Christian really think that that’s how the ancient Israelites would’ve read that story? That women are advanced developed over men?

[@dentonhahn2907]

No not advanced but equal with men in worth to complete man no matter what culture says there is clearly a different between gender. That would be the biblical idea.

[@melissaschubert1653]

I’m a Christian, and I can definitely admit there was some faulty, unprepared thinking on Glen’s part . . .

[@thucydides7849]

@@dentonhahn2907 differences between the sexes is not a uniquely biblical idea.

[@dentonhahn2907]

@@thucydides7849 yes I was referring to the idea in our culture women and men are the same on every leave biology would show difference but as for being one better or more superior to the other no...where Bart pushes the idea that women are somehow a second thought or somehow less human the idea is disgusting. To be honest to the text you would have to take the whole bible on the topic I don't think Bart does that very well.

[@thucydides7849]

@@dentonhahn2907 Bart is not pushing that women are objects are property. He’s arguing that Christianity and Judaism is the grounding for most of the sexism in the western world

[@johnnysprocketz]

Ehrman de-converted me from Christianity, now my mother says the devil has the “upper hand” over me.

[@betsalprince]

Yeah... deconversions can be rough. Your mother is obviously saying those things because she loves and cares about you, so don't let that bother you (if it is).

[@johnnysprocketz]

@@betsalprince that is not how you show love..

[@vejeke]

@@johnnysprocketz She is scared, and also probably victim of religious indoctrination. Have you tried "street epistemology"?

[@Oners82]

@@johnnysprocketz You're right, that isn't how you show love but your mother is clearly a fundamentalist. Religion can make even good people behave very badly.

[@timffoster]

It's possible that your mother is saying it because it's true and you don't want to hear it, and your friends dont want you to deal with it so they dismiss it as harsh fundamentalism. But is it true? Do facts care about feelings? It would make for a good discussion. ...... 2Ti 2:24-26. 24 And the Lord's servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, 25 correcting his opponents with gentleness. God may perhaps grant them repentance leading to a knowledge of the truth, 26 and they may come to their senses and escape from the snare of the devil, after being captured by him to do his will.

[@grantegginton251]

This was a “David and Goliath” battle, except this time, Goliath (Bart) demolished David (Glen) with knowledge and reason.

[@EmeraldPixelGamingEPG]

Please show where.

[@ATOK_]

@@EmeraldPixelGamingEPG everywhere

[@kellymullen1482]

🤣

[@trumpetmaster83]

Couldn't agree more.

[@rebeccaqallaboutthefeminin1794]

Christianity became the widest path need I say more?

[@wingedlion17]

Love dude, but Bart overpowered him in this one, the other guy was not prepared to answer the touch questions. Still a good chat

[@onionbelly_]

If Glen wants to argue that Eve was "more developed" than Adam, then he's literally refuting his own argument about equality.

[@AbandonedVoid]

I think it's telling how he talks about how Christianity promoted equality while condemning sex workers and praising sexual repression. Yeah, that's Christian "equality" for you

[@jamesthompson316]

“The poor the weak the low and the poor should perish” - Nietzsche… sounds like the first Tory MP.

[@indisa099]

Bart almost died in this one lol

[@treich1234]

Almost died laughing

[@konyvnyelv.]

I'm from Italy and I am reading currently a book which demolishes modern claims of Catholic apologists. It is not just a simple atheist apology: it actually shows the texts written by popes, councils, theologians and saints to show what they were able to believe or practice. Examples: the church allowed slavery till 18th century. It had slaves itself, among whom disobedient priests. They encouraged superstition against witches. They were not infallible but changed completely opinions while lying and telling people that they always taught that. The book is 'Il cattolicesimo reale" (The real Catholicism) by Walter Peruzzi. It's a shame it's not translated into English.

[@khemingw]

The Catholic Church certainly can be criticized in the eyes of those who act as if every leader should have been perfect in times when the information to make better decisions just was not available. Nevertheless, it was the people of those times that had to do the suffering through the limitations of those times and by their suffering provided the wonderful developments of Christian society that we, their posterity, enjoy today.

[@AbandonedVoid]

@@khemingw If by "Christian society" you mean a society that adheres to the teachings of Jesus Christ, then, no, the Church does not represent a Christian society. Sure, they are religiously Christian, but their ideology is not from Jesus and it's certainly not from an infallible Holy Spirit that leads them to the proper understanding of scripture. They're an organization of a diverse number of people that have believed a wide variety of different, contradictory things. At that point, the concept of Christianity becomes almost meaningless, just because it can refer to virtually anything. I might point out that Western countries are mostly secular today, not theocracies, so the society we enjoy today would still be a secular one even if we grant that the Catholic Church developed a Christian society.

[@khemingw]

@@AbandonedVoid You're not saying anything that is not true, to one degree or another, about every Christian church. However imperfectly the adherents of the faith may have lived their faith throughout the centuries, no honest reading of history can truly say that slavery would have been eradicated without the faith motivated anti slavery movements of Christians, the Catholic Church being among those that influenced the culture to little by little realize that slavery was not the way and will of the Lord. The best single documentation I can offer you of that fact is in the Holland book, "Dominion".

[@tennicksalvarez9079]

Huh sounds dope

[@josipag2185]

Well what one can expect of Greek and Roman tradition( that threw people into arenas to lions just for fun, who did that really, Chineese for sure didn't as that tradition was so deeply barbaric and inhumane, )would do with the Bible and the good ethics and moral there? First, claim authority over them and them distort this, that while the basis and premise of the Bible is that no authority from this Earth can take away your freedom, and your rights and enslave you and even more, Jesus only make Judaism more inclusive but his main things were 1.commanmant and Leviticus 19:18. So, nothing new and the moat imporatnt rabbie agreed on Levitus 19:18. But this Roman herritage ofx twisted the story and Jewish contribution 3000yrs ago when this small tribe said no to the slavery. And that nothing on this Earth, no authority have right to take aways freedom of the innocents. I mean even in cultural sense, Alexander the Great burned down Persepolis in the most barbaric way. Now it is just this romantic version that is pure fantasy of societies before like of that Macedonian Greek. It took long time to evolve because we were total brutal savages. I mean just look WW1 and WW2. Not that long time ago.

[@davidbosch5079]

Loving your neighbour is not a uniquely Christian idea. Buddha once said: "Monks, even if bandits were to carve you up savagely, limb by limb, with a two-handled saw, he among you who let his heart get angered even at that would not be doing my bidding. Even then you should train yourselves: 'Our minds will be unaffected and we will say no evil words. We will remain sympathetic, with a mind of good will, and with no inner hate. We will keep pervading these people with an awareness imbued with good will and, beginning with them, we will keep pervading the all-encompassing world with an awareness imbued with good will - abundant, expansive, immeasurable, free from hostility, free from ill will.' That's how you should train yourselves.

[@jonathanwilliams1641]

I LOVE the look on Bart Ehrman's face at the 33:35 mark as he listens to the claim that Eve is a more developed creature than Adam is because she was created after him. Then his reaction when he says that Eve being Adam's 'helper' is like God being our 'helper.' He claims a helper is not a diminutive role. Just amazing how apologists will twist themselves into knots to try to justify the nonsense they proclaim. I have no doubt Mr. Scrivener would claim that women being forbidden from speaking in church is because they were so revered and so righteous that they weren't to demean themselves. I think Mr. Scrivener's view of equality for women is on par with the reasoning the Taliban use for their treatment of females: they aren't oppressing them, they are celebrating them. It's actually kind of disgusting what he is saying as he is justifying the mistreatment of women by saying they actually weren't being mistreated.

[@khemingw]

I agree that Scrivener did not quit himself well in this exchange but I have seen enough political debates to learn that just because one guy overpowered the other in a debate doesn't mean that he was right in his suppositions and statements. The results of their policies reveal the truth later on. Clinton (and almost every democrat) swore that he was not going to raise taxes, and every republican warned that that was exactly what they were going to do, and of course, history is history.

[@jonathanwilliams1641]

@@khemingw OK... but this wasn't a political debate. Your invoking Bill Clinton here is a textbook example of a red herring.

[@juliuscorazo5113]

This is like watching Muhammad Ali in his prime fighting Howard Cosell in his prime. Ali would destroy Cosell in a heartbeat. Erhman destroyed Scrivener. This is too embarrassing to watch. The host should have stopped this unfair cruel match in Round 1 like after 5 minutes of Genesis discussion. It was bloody till the end. Brutal. 😂

[@joshridinger3407]

my thought when i heard that was that he must be somehow conflating the bible with 'green grow the rashes'

[@khemingw]

@@jonathanwilliams1641 I apologize for the use of a political figure to make my point but it was very applicable because the one who was lying won the debate because he was more convincing than the one who lost the debate even though he would later be found to have been so right, it was prophetic.

[@davidkennerly]

Enjoyed Bart as I always do. He's so refreshing after hearing religion misrepresented by apologists all of my life. People like Glen, for example.

[@kellymullen1482]

Bart Ehrman is an apologist. He's an ex fundy Christian with an axe to grind and has a very unsophisticated view of Christianity.

[@cmpc724]

⁠​⁠@@kellymullen1482 He’s one of the world’s most eminent biblical scholars and somehow he’s “unsophisticated”. What are your credentials which entitle you to make such a claim?

[@gretareinarsson7461]

It would be very interesting to have a debate between Bart Ehrman and N.T.Wright on the historicity of the Bible.

[@davethebrahman9870]

That would be interesting; although a bit hard on Wright. He is more a preacher and bishop than historian.

[@Pseudo-Jonathan]

@@davethebrahman9870 N.T Wright has done some of the most exhaustive and seminal work on the Historical Jesus, Paul, and Christian origins. His massive Christian Origins series has received universal acclaim and recognition from scholars internationally. N.T Wright is a historian, yes. His degrees are all from the University of Oxford in history, classics and New testament studies. Bart Ehrman has an M.Div and a PhD in textual criticism. I wonder if you dismiss him so casually? So N.T Wright is one of the most qualified Early Christian historians, probably more so than Bart. He has held academic positions, almost all at secular universities teaching early Christianity, such as McGill University, Oxford and Cambridge, and St. Andrews. These are some of the leading institutions in the world for academic biblical studies. Marcus Borg, liberal and skeptical Jesus scholar commenting on "Jesus and The Victory of God says of N.T Wright": "With this brilliant and thoroughly argued book, N.T Wright has established himself as the leading British Jesus scholar of his generation." I think I've made my point.

[@machyndman9933]

@@davethebrahman9870 lol

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@Pseudo-Jonathan Have you read his work? It’s crap. Mostly just waffle and preaching.

[@davethebrahman9870]

@@Pseudo-Jonathan Perhaps if you want to be taken seriously you you could cite a single fact discovered by Wright, or a single position or approach he has refuted. The fact that he sits at the heart of the Christian establishment is irrelevant.

[@thiccmcchicken550]

Can we just admire for a second how happy everyone looks in the thumbnail 😭

[@thucydides7849]

Paul was in no way shape or form condoning an egalitarian worldview where current slaves are as equal as a free man and where women were equal to men in society. He is purely talking about how Jesus sees us in terms of salvation. He will look past you being a slave or a women and simply see you as his creation. This isn’t applicable to the real world we live in and people like Paul and early church fathers would be appalled about how actually equal we are today.

[@foodforthought8308]

What's appalling is that the divine Savior in Christianity willingly accepted a slave's death on the cross. And then calls us to pick up our cross, deny ourselves, and follow him.

[@MrBeautifulmountain]

The host made a rather timely intervention to save an on-the-ropes GS from an embarrassing early round KO. The discussion was very interesting, but GS's reading of Genesis 2 was as cringe-worthy as it was cringe-inducing on BE's face. Defend your religion but don't do so with lies.

[@khemingw]

Professor Ehrman had me confused saying the animals being created for man. The animals were created before man, contrary to the professor's statement so his reasoning that Adams’s being created before Eve giving Adam some superiority would not be reasonable. Eve, according to the creation story, was created or became a part of the work of the creation because it was not right for the man to be alone and man needed a helper. That absolutely does not infer (in and of itself) any inferiority on Eve. More to the point is says that man’s purpose is not complete or fully prepared without the helpmeet, woman. Eve’s position is commanded when Eve showed that she could be deceived and influenced away from God’s commandments by evil. Because the scripture says that Adam was not deceived. So as a consequence, Eve was commanded to no longer proceed with her desires before her husband. (Genesis 3:16) The good professor declared that Genesis 2:19 was evidence that the animals were created to be helpers to man but the verse only says that God wanted to see what man would name them. Now in the previous verse God does say that man still needs a helper. Well, the animals were already made before Adam so if their purpose was to be a helper then why is God still concerned with providing him with one? In fact, in 2:19 God says that there is not a helper on the earth for Adam despite the presence of animals and is only satisfied that he has provided one in the creation of Eve.

[@MrBeautifulmountain]

@@khemingw I haven't rewatched the video. However, if I recall correctly, Scrivener was making a point about Genesis 2, and Ehrman was saying rejecting his interpretation of that section. I think Ehrman concedes what you say about Genesis 1 but has doubts about whether Genesis 1 & 2 are consistent. E.g., in 1 men and women seem to be created simultaneously, but in 2 consecutively. .

[@khemingw]

@@MrBeautifulmountain I want you to know that I love the professor and his books. Absolutely love them. But I’m almost sure that the problem here might be solved to some degree if he would read Dominion. It might cause him to update some aspects of his conclusions and interpretations of his information.

[@joshridinger3407]

@@MrBeautifulmountain yes, actual bible scholars (not apologists) see genesis 1 and 2 as separate stories. the order of events in genesis 1 are completely irrelevant to what happens in genesis 2.

[@joshridinger3407]

bart also mentions, correctly, that it's a motif constantly re-used throughout the books of the bible: a strong and/or righteous man brought to ruin by the deceiving wiles of a woman.

[@daneumurian5466]

Thank you, Bart, for conceding points as you find them compelling.

[@enkido5838]

Those values emerged in the west, as people began to escape from church doctrine not because of the church.

[@homeskillet9802]

That's simply demonstrably false.

[@onionbelly_]

@@homeskillet9802 The Church reached a consensus condemning chattel slavery only in the late 1800s, and women's suffrage was consistently opposed by the Church. What do you mean it's demonstrable false...?

[@homeskillet9802]

@@onionbelly_ Christianity brought education, health care to the West. And because of Christianity, we have intrinsic human rights.

[@onionbelly_]

​@@homeskillet9802 Education and healthcare existed prior to Christianity, and the concept of human rights didn't originate from Christianity. Just do a quick google search on the history of human rights if you don't believe me. No one here is denying the Roman Catholic Church's significant impact and contribution on Western education and healthcare system, so I don't understand how your response is even relevant; it doesn't even attempt to address the 1,800 year-late condemnation of chattel slavery and the opposition of women's suffrage that I raised.

[@slimdusty6328]

In my view seems to be like as if Glen Scrivener has overlooked the fact that theres even plenty of sign of rudimentary trait of kindness and goodness among certain animals as well. Even among herds of buffalo, their law of existence is sociable to the extent that buffalo will choose to stand together in solidarity against an attack from predators. And even the fittest buffalo would be happy to put themselves on the line too, were they aware enough to sense that there was a weaker buffalo in grave need of help . Its a trait what arises naturally. Why do Christian like this fella Glen need to feel so determined to see their christian roots" ,as an only answer. I suspect they'd be far better off to learn to use some common sense a little more for a change. Its not as if the "kindness and compassion" within even the animal is something whats completely hidden or nothing. Id say it comes down to being "purposely" blind to it

[@samruggiero1778]

I think that is cherry picking one behaviour from one animal. The animal kingdom is rife with infanticide (chimpanzees, lions, blenny fish, prairie dogs, polar bears, sand tiger shark etc etc) and cannibalism (black widow spider, octopuses, praying mantis, hippopotamus, crab spiders, cane toads etc etc). I would encourage you to research what happens in the animal kingdom.

[@slimdusty6328]

@@samruggiero1778 of course there isn't just merely one method , for survival , among beings. Some being do exist in the way you describe. However, good and kindness certainly do arise at times "quite naturally" in our world. Without the requirement for beings to read holy books . Right?. And beside, if creation is a reality for real ,then who created the animals to react in the manner like this in which you pointed out Sam. Your God did?. Shame on this God then. What was he thinking?. Why did God go and create a world where so many animals would be forced to suffer in immense way like we observe ?. Sometimes being "eaten alive", often . Ripped to pieces by sharp teeth and claw, while still breathing, an while "aware" of it happening to them What type of God would want that ? Even this matter is way far more easier to understand, via naturalism (rather than creationism) .Isn't it?. If Christian were more observant they'd stop to wonder about these matters more. And they'd possibly cease with trying to pretend as if there'd be no natural method for reason why kindness and goodness might arise naturally . Reality is this, empathy has in fact been "a trait" whats served to help "allow for" a number of social beings to survive (rather than to go extinct). Humans, buffalo , elephants and more others too

[@samruggiero1778]

@@slimdusty6328 You seem to have just refuted your own point about "kindness and goodness among animals". My point is that getting our morals from animals is not a good idea with all the infanticide, cannibalism, genocide and extreme violence that exists in the animal kingdom. "Kindness & goodness in animals" is a fallacious statement.

[@slimdusty6328]

@@samruggiero1778 what are you talking about?. Where did i say we got our morals from animals?. Can you provide evidence i'd actually said anything like that?. Show evidence that i did. Or please have enough decency to apologise. And please learn to try to pay more better attention as well You seem to miss (completely overlook) the point, that due to naturalism, which is rather random, we might fully expect to see that different approaches, to the beings "ways of" survival , would be EXPECTED TO BE noted Which is in fact the exact situation what we do see However, us human are not learning our morals from the animal. That's not whats happening. Our morals have reason to arise naturally. Similar way that it may also randomly happen with the elephant , the buffalo and others Had human not turn toward social existence, what naturally leans toward sharing and caring and kindness and goodness , then human might have very likely succumbed to the attack from larger stronger predators with large sharp teeth and claw, very quickly. And gone extinct "getting our morals from animals" What the hell are you even on about mate? . I never ever said anything like that Far from it

[@polarisnorth4875]

Dawkins Argues for the evolution of altruism as a survival mechanism in the selfish gene. This is where the idea of objective morality comes from, although it's often misplaced by the religious as being attached to humanity from a higher power rather then an evolved attribute.

[@simonthompson2764]

Although dr Ehrman agrees with a few points, his rebuttal of most points raised was damning to scrivenger's overall argument. Still Christianity gave us some good things. The worth of an individual is one I have problems with, since Christianity focusses so much on negatives such as original sin and sinfulness.

[@paneahsolomonii2129]

Doesn't that (original sin and sinfulness) all boil down how we navigate through the lenses of salvation? Why would you have a problem with the concept of original sin / sinfulness and not have one with salvation?

[@tophersonX]

What a coincidence that, Christianity rules for millennia and nothing much improves. But the last two centuries, where humanity has become capable of improving the legal lot of more of humanity than at any stage in the past of the west, coincides with the decline of Christianity and the rise of secularism.

[@JohnusSmittinis]

Secularism really did not take off until the 1920's in the U.S, and maybe 30 years before that is when secularism took off in Europe. Before then, roughly 90% of the western world was religious, or culturally religious. You know what immediately followed this decline? The 20th century. Need I say more? Also, did secularism promote progress or did progress promote secularism? See how this correlation=causation reasoning works? Not very great, eh? You know what Christianity did? Played large part in starting the renaissance, which revived the classics and brought about humanism, which then played a big part into the reformation (start of modern democratic thinking), which then all played into the age of reason, which brought classical liberalism and science. Nietzsche in the 1880's was disgusted by the rise of secularists pretending they could have a wonderful world without relying on religion. Nietzsche argues, in fact, everything these supposed secularists rely on is embedded down to the core with Christian tradition, yet they deny it. You can try to equate secularism with our progress, but many, including Nietzsche, would argue it is in fact Christian tradition that did so.

[@tophersonX]

@@JohnusSmittinisi guess what I'm getting at is that the fruits of the 20th century (let's say secular century) was a child of the scientific and enlightenment ideas (which the video dude denies). I agree that causation and correlation are important, but in this case is not that important, since I'm happy to accept either direction of the causal arrow. Yes the 20th century was awfull, but people alive in that century suffered proportionally less than on previous centuries ( of course, the number of ppl alive was an order of magnitude greater). You've lost the argument if you bring Nietzsche up - you cherry pick precisely the worst example of available philosophies of the past two centuries and pretend like it in any way represents enlightenment thinking.

[@samuelmorales2344]

Secularism comes from Christianity. Christians always viewed religion, state, and church as distinct. Religion apart from the secular. You can't have the secular without religion because without religion, secularism has no meaning. In other languages, no such word exists for religion including Chinese languages and the Chinese were sophisticated thinkers. Nietzsche himself argues that Christianity undid itself with mankind given the permission to exercise their domain on earth which created modern science and that is from the luck of Christian theology that had Christians thinking of the natural world with set of laws. Christians were infused with reason which allowed them to think in philosophical terms. Christianity itself was influenced by neoplatonism and may be even other types of philosophy. Europeans have little leftover from the pre-Christian Romans and ancient Greeks. The language and even script survived but modern European culture is not culture of Roman Republic or of polytheistic (pre-Christian) Roman Empire, but almost entirely shaped by Christianity. Before Christianity, the sense I get from the ancient world is that a person had to prove their own worth instead of having inherent worth. Doing proper tradition. Proving your masculinity. Cultivating your honor. Protecting yours and your family honor. Prove yourself to others. In other words, Romans had no concept of equality in the social structure. Far from it, their entire society was divided into emphatic rigid hierarchy. This was the ancient world and it still exists today. In Christianity, not only did it did away with sacrifices, it did away with many other things. Christians in reality don't really believe in a lot of things. Culture itself can take thousands of years to form. Moral framework takes time to make people to be morally conscious. It is one thing to know what is expected for you to answer what is right to a question but it is another to "feel" what you are doing is right. People either do right according to what the law might set in store to punish them if they commit wrong, or what people in the environment expect from them, but quite a different thing to do what you feel is right without any of those inputs. That is conscience and contrary to the certain opinion, it is not with everybody. A person who is above the law has no law to fear ,and if he has the power to dominate others, without conscience, he will do so according to his own needs. A autocrat can rule justly or he can rule unjustly. It is debatable whether the Romans had a conscience. They were a shame-based society, not the trademark guilt of modern Western society. That is not to say the Romans didn't have their own good emperors relatively speaking such as Marcus Aurelius. A true test of a man's sense of what is good is to give him absolute power and observe what he does with it. The world currently is filled with despots who bring injustices to their own people. They take advantage of their power for their own gain. I think that is proof enough to the question of whether everybody has a conscience. It is typical of Westerners to try to obfuscate human nature by saying people behave badly because of poverty, or they have the wrong system of government, while at the same time saying everybody has a conscience, they "know" what is right and wrong.

[@tophersonX]

@@samuelmorales2344 such ideas already existed in epicurean and stoic ideas - Christianity is itself a Mish mash of Jewish and greco-roman ideas. The rise of the west had more to do with the conquest and shameless exploitation of the Americas and Caribbean...

[@educationalporpoises9592]

Stating that secularism is what has accomplished all the "good" we see today is very tenuous and assumes much about the world, the nature of good, or rather, the absence of any sort of good whatsoever. We live in a relatively peaceful and prosperous age. This seems more the consequence of technology than secularism, and it seems that the child of these two might be our very undoing. Secular visions of the perfect world tend towards anti human totalitarianism. Even if peaceful, whether or not it is "good" is completely debatable. I also think the statement that Christianity does not or has not led to good is questionable at best, and needs thorough examination. What do you mean by Christianity? What do you mean by improved? What variables are you excluding from your calculus? What values have been transmitted from Christianity to today's secularism that would otherwise not have been transmitted? Is it technology, or religion/irreligion that is responsible for the effects you're observing? I think the first question is definitely what Christianity means and under what circumstances we can say it has spread as Christianity unadulterated, instead of a fashion for some political or nationalistic glob. What Christianity teaches and is is very different from what faculty Christians have done with it. This is why the saints are so important to look at as representatives of Christianity, rather than "Christian nations" or some other more corruptible state of affairs.

[@jonnyw82]

Bart is making the same face I was making while listening to Glenn try to argue that Genesis is saying man is more primitive than woman 33:30

[@sabriya7647]

🤣🤣

[@nickydaviesnsdpharms3084]

I love the way he talks about the other ancient myths as myths but then calls the genesis account an account lol I wonder if having just written a book, he's now thinking ''ooops, shit, iv'e fucked up'' having hear Bart e explain how incorrect he is in his interpretation lol This was really good, very interesting

[@pappapiccolino9572]

As far as apologists go, Glen is at least tolerable. But I still agree way more with Bart.

[@BruceWayne-ri4wr]

If any of you people are christians on here agreeing with barred airmen you need to have your head examined this man is a staunch astaunch acknowledged and has said bad things about Christopher so and God so why would you support this man because he wrote a bunch of books that means he somehow the standard for everything screw this guy

[@Prophet_Isaiah]

I guess, the bar is really low....

[@joshridinger3407]

he's tolerable because he's not a real christian at all (he thinks liberal values are good).

[@TrentSolo]

There is a tendency to say one side or the other "won" in these conversions /pseudo debates....rather I think a better approach is to see what one can learn and/or observe from these exchanges. Certainly one can make the obvious claim that Christianity shaped the West's morality over the past 2000 years, if for no other reason then because for most of that time it permeated every corner of it. But of the three values up for discussion here, it's equally obvious that for women, "consent" and "equality" couldn't be more demonstrably lacking in Christianity. It seems almost embarrassing to defend these two. Patting oneself on the back for creating a culture of "equality" and "consent" where women were de facto chattel for centuries - and weren't even allowed to vote in elections until a few generations ago - congratulates a very dark indeed vision of "equality" and "consent." Why Scrivener even had a go at this is beyond me. A good watch regardless!

[@michaelhenry1763]

Excellent point.

[@michaelhenry1763]

@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros wow, you said all that from my post “ excellent point”. Dr. Ehrman is still considered a serious critical scholar. Debates do not make the scholar; writing and research do.

[@creone]

Bart is just an amazing teacher isn't he. Always good faith, fun and just a fountain of knowledge. I continue to be more and more impressed.

[@melissaschubert1653]

I would love it if Scrivener would have another opportunity to research some of the dynamics in the Bible about men and women and come back and talk to Ehrman again using the Bible more fully - it seems to me that Ehrman was honestly looking for a better argument from Scrivener - not trying to belittle his opponent, but he didn’t have much to work with - not because Scrivener isn’t a sharp guy, But didn’t seem to prepare for this aspect of the discussion… Which would be very hard as Dr. Ehrman a worthy opponent! Praying for both!

[@onajomoakemu6215]

Anytime I listen to Bart Ehrman, I feel my IQ increase by five points. What a scholar!

[@ATOK_]

The other guy didn't stand a chance

[@ATOK_]

@Psicólogo Miguel Cisneros No!

[@treich1234]

@1:17:55 Bart really says it all ....."I don’t think it’s one that any of us really emulate I don’t know anybody who actually does what jesus tells them to" To those who disagree, try practicing Luke 14:33

[@mylord9340]

This was painful. Dr. Ehrman revealed the shallowness of Mr. Scrivener's scholarship and the flawed thesis of Mr. Scrivener's book. Bart was already showing that the thesis of the book were wrong when Glen made an incredible assertion. Glen asserted that Eve being created after Adam meant that Eve, women, was a more developed creature than Adam. And then there was the controversy about when the animals were created. Again this demonstrated the Glen's shallow scholarship. In Genesis 2 the story clearly has god creating the animals after Adam because he was alone on earth. Yet Glen believed in Genesis 2 that the animals came before Adam. Here Justin showed that he was not an impartial moderator. This controversy could have been easily settled on air by reading the verses. 18 And the Lord God said, “It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him a helper comparable to him.” 19 Out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to Adam to see what he would call them. And whatever Adam called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So Adam gave names to all cattle, to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper comparable to him. 21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall on Adam, and he slept; and He took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh in its place. 22 Then the rib which the Lord God had taken from man He made into a woman, and He brought her to the man. 23And Adam said: “This is now bone of my bones. And flesh of my flesh; She shall be called Woman, Because she was taken out of Man.” Bart's response was perfect. If as Glen said woman being created last meant that she was a more developed creature than Adam (men) then the animals were more developed creatures than Adam. The sad thing is many Christians and Protestants are going to read Glen Scrivener's book and think it is based on sound scholarship. Justin indicated that he was one of the reviewers of the book prior to it being published. Did Glen have his thesis and the book critically investigated by any skeptic?

[@hogreeIC]

Just to flag up - it's useful to compare with the tenses in the ESV version of chapter 2. Certainly not the clear-cut issue that you're putting forward 18 Then the LORD God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him.” 19 Now out of the ground the LORD God had formed every beast of the field and every bird of the heavens and pbrought them to the man to see what he would call them. And whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. 20 The man gave names to all livestock and to the birds of the heavens and to every beast of the field. But for Adam there was not found a helper fit for him.

[@mylord9340]

@@hogreeIC ah, the last refuge of the scoundrel. :) When the meaning does not suit one's theology, play with the tenses of the verbs. My friend, one should appeal to the original Hebrew text, and not simply look for a suitable English translation. Read again, verse 2:18..."It is not good that man is alone, I SHALL or WILL make him a helper." Then the animals were formed after Adam. My dear sir, it is very "clear cut", unless you think the words "shall" or "will" are references to a past action. Cheers.

[@khemingw]

Have you read Scriveners book? No you haven't and yet you are making an absolutist statement against Scrivener's scholarship based on how Ehrman appeared to prevail in a debate.

[@mylord9340]

@@khemingw I made my judgement based on Scrivener's presentation and answers during the discussion.

[@johnstanp9692]

@@mylord9340 "Read again, verse 2:18..."It is not good that man is alone, I SHALL or WILL make him a helper." " Actually, the text never says that God created the animals in order to make a helper to Adam. That is an interpretation... I've always understood the text in this manner: before making a helper to Adam, God made all the animals pass before Adam in order for him to REALIZE that he has no helper, among the animals created. God wanted Adam to realize that he is ALONE first and after that, create the "perfect" helper. This is of course an interpretation. But if we have to strictly stick to the text, the reason why God made the animal pass before Adam, was for him to name then. And finally, if Hebrew doesn't have the past perfect, then Bart cannot use that fact as an objection. The very fact that Hebrew doesn't have a past perfect tense, is the greatest argument for using a past perfect tense in the translation.

[@1keller866]

in the add for Unbelievable I wanted to know why he said "to help sceptics to explore faith and christens to share their faith with confidence". Why can't it be a two-way street of sharing how they have learned to view the world and works it works through their own life experience?

[@kaiju4238]

You literally have to ignore all of human history before Christianity to think Christianity gives us anything.

[@christiang4497]

A fabulous book on this topic is Tom Holland's Dominion. By no means exhaustive on the subject, but TH beautifully lays out some of the cultural and societal effects of Christianity as it emerged from a Greco-Roman culture.

[@emilyrodda7615]

Glen know's the book and has interviewed Tom Holland twice I think

[@emilyrodda7615]

o I just listened to the beginning and they reference it 😂

[@davethebrahman9870]

He’s wrong. He ignores an enormous amount of reality. Great writer, though.

[@christiang4497]

@@emilyrodda7615 Haha guess I should have waited to comment😂

[@emilyrodda7615]

@@christiang4497 you and me both 😂

[@onajomoakemu6215]

Listen whenever Ehrman speaks because school is in session.😊 37:30 - 39:25. Brilliant

[@samty54]

Way to go Bart!

[@paganiyah]

Dr Bart leads the conversation through topics that only reason can debate

[@benjamintrevino325]

Progressivism, by definition, is what has moved Western societies away from religious fundamentalism. Modern human rights evolved in spite of religion, not because of it.

[@michaelhenry1763]

Could not have said it better.

[@battlerushiromiya651]

33:37 Dr Erhmans face is hilarious

[@azophi]

Man’s doing the rock eyebrow

[@nathanfranckhauser]

Please have Ehrman send his bibliography info. Great stuff all around.

[@Prophet_Isaiah]

I almost can't watch Glens anxiety, you can hear it in his voice, I get like that too sometimes... 😬 (But I had to bc Bart is a historian and he makes learning about these issues exciting!)

[@christopherflux6254]

Yes. Fair point. Glen did say he isn’t a historian, whereas Bart is a professional historian.

[@Prophet_Isaiah]

@@christopherflux6254 pretty lopsided debate then it seems. Or not, I mean Glen does make a LOT of claims in his book so I guess he had this coming...

[@pannonia77]

I did not see any anxiety on Scrivener. On Justin Brierly, yes, when Bart Ehrman said that Christianity did not improve the situation of women, rather made it even worse by not allowing divorce. Scrivener is a dumb arsehole, he could not realise almost everything he said was bullshit. But I think Justin Brierly wanted to believe Christianity did cause the notion of equality emerge, and he is not so dumb as Scrivener (or can listen to the arguments of his opponenents), so he did not look so happy.

[@abelpuerta3853]

"There is no pluperfect tense in Hebrew". Just a simple demonstration of high academic standards about mastery over a subject before engaging in a discussion. Ehrman is not just an example for biblical studies: I wish economists were as well informed about their own subject like Ehrman is about the Bible.

[@aang7295]

Man this was good. I really wish they would debate again, especially on this show again. A couple more hours, and then maybe a couple more 🙏🏽

[@prairiegal3056]

I grew up Catholic, and through my parents’ generation there was no equality, compassion or consent for women. Women were taught that they could not deny their husbands and were forbidden to use birth control, resulting in a lot of children very close together for some families. Many women could not physically and emotionally handle the stress of such a large family.

[@ngusumakofu1]

And that’s the era America’s theocratic political movement is trying so hard to drag us back to. If Christianity really did contribute to any of the values embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, it sure isn’t the Christian Evangelicals that are keeping alight the Christian spirit.

[@ungas024]

LMAO, if you are a Catholic you do know that Mary is revered higher than the Saints. It's just your father is a control freak, in my country i saw a Fearless Machismo Guy cower in fear whenever he saw his wife.

[@ungas024]

@kimberlybradshaw128 Yeah, like the Protestants used the Bible to justify slavery?

[@camdawg1984]

Ehrman made good points. Both Judaism and Christianity were patriarchal, as was the rest of the world, for most of history. Ehrman was correct to point out that Genesis 2 is a separate creation account, and Paul seems to interpret both Genesis 2 and 3 in patriarchal terms in 1 Timothy. Other passages in the NT also reveal or assume patriarchal cultural mores. This is not surprising given the cultural context. (Although the same word "helper" used for Eve is also used for God as well.) However, what Glen could have perhaps made more clear is that there are also egalitarian seeds within both the Old and New Testaments, particularly in the New Testament -- Jesus challenging social mores by inviting and advocating for women to learn alongside men, women presented as the ones who stayed by Jesus in His passion and presented as the first witnesses of Jesus' resurrection (when women's testimonies were not considered legally as viable in a court room), and the mention of female leaders in the early church (i.e., Phoebe and Junia). Even difficult passages such as 1 Timothy 2 by critiquing female leadership show that there was a force within Christianity pushing in the egalitarian direction, a force started by the revolutionary ministry of Jesus. Nevertheless, Ehrman is right that throughout much of Christian history these egalitarian seeds have not been realized (though there are exceptions). Most of history has been patriarchal.

[@joshridinger3407]

finally, a good critique of bart's arguments. he should know better; i think he just gets a bug in his craw sometimes and decides to be adversarial for the sake of it. i agree with almost all of this.

[@RLBays]

Seriously, I don't know how Glen can say with a straight face, that Christianity has been good for women and minorities...that statement requires one to absolutely ignore entire millennia of history.

[@tonev89104]

I know exactly how Glen can say Christianity has been good for women and minorities with a straight face.... He is selling a book.

[@mypublicchannel3884]

Christianity. A system of morality that lets everyone off the hook for everything they've done wrong and will ever do wrong. No price to pay for our transgressions. The damage we do, the people we hurt are of no consequence to us. All ramifications of our actions no longer tie back to us. Tell us all how this system of morality makes the world a better place. Is this what we teach our children? That they are no longer responsible for what they do?

[@Nicolae_Mew]

As we know, everything good ever done by Christians was because of Christianity, and everything good ever done by non-Christians was also because of Christianity, and Mr. Scrivener certainly proved that in this debate.

[@jaiteim]

The moderator is biased towards Glen due to his faith alignment. When Bart Ehrman was iterating that the women in the bible was created through a man rib as an addition to support man rather than an equal. He just brush aside and say"lets put it aside and let the theologian to comment and let's talk about compassion instead"! Stop been an apologist, be fair been a moderator or else do not invite opposing ideas.

[@nickmaliha983]

Fabulous discussion. I like Glen's overall argument. He was great in reflecting the teachings of Christianity which can be summarized by love and compassion. By the way, the Old and the New Testaments are inseparable at least in our Eastern-Antiochian Orthodox Church --we use both in our church and daily prayers. I should mention that in Christianity each family is considered a smaller church, where man, contrary to dominance, is assigned a greater responsibility to look after the well being of his wife and children using the teachings of God i.e., love, compassion, sacrifice, etc…

[@ibelizjoel]

Yeah , Glen thinks people are stupid. The way he twisted the sayings in the bible are really good.

[@annettemd8106]

@@ibelizjoel Agree. I loved how Erhman called him out on all the mental gymnastics Glen was twisting himself in to make his analysis fit. It’s very odd how he doubled and tripled down on his blatant misinterpretation of Genesis.

[@ecyranot]

I think Glen's response to Bart as to helpmate reveals an illogical argument formed by his faith rather than reason, and this is always a fatal weakness of the faithful in debate. You cannot begin with the conclusion and work backwards to an argument, and you lose credibility.

[@andrewjohn2124]

""Why would you believe anything on faith? Faith isn't a pathway to truth. Every religion has some sort of faith, people take things on, you know, - if faith is your pathway, you can't distinguish between Christianity, Hinduism, Judaism, any of these others. How is it that you use reason as a path to truth in every endeavor of your life, and then when it comes to the ‘ultimate truth’ - the most important truth - you're saying that faith is required. And how does that reflect on a god (who supposedly exists and wants you to have this information); what kind of god requires faith instead of evidence? I have reasonable expectations based on evidence. I have trust that has been earned. I will grant trust tentatively. I don't have faith. Faith is the excuse people give for believing something when they don't have evidence."--Matt Dillahunty

[@martifingers]

@@annettemd8106 Yes it does seem strange . I hope if I were a Christian I would be very concerned at the slightly desperate tone of these apologetic arguments. As if they must be true or the faith is in question and that would be intolerable. It's not edifying is it? But then I am persuaded that adherence to faith in this way is basically a psychological defence so in a way this is entirely predictable.

[@ukcowboy014]

I was hoping for a better debate. Unfortunately, this is usually what happens when an apologist debates a historian. The apologist makes too many historical assumptions based on their modern understanding of religion, and the historian points out how flawed those historical assumptions are. So much of modern Christianity seems to conclude that because they believe Christianity is reality (as in, God's ineffable plan and kingdom are an eternal design and all of human existence is the story of this plan and kingdom) everything must fit into the Christian narrative. It would be nice to see apologists look at history for what it is rather than what they believe it to be.

[@AbandonedVoid]

Glen's understanding of Nietzsche is the distortion of his philosophy that his sister promoted for political reasons, and is pretty far from what Nietzsche actually spoke about. Nietzsche never said that we should just let sick people die.

[@magorzatasajnok7484]

Brilliant conversation, fantastic guests. Thank you!

[@davethebrahman9870]

Moral opinions feel very real, but they change like fashions in jeans. Within my own lifetime, homosexuality has gone from being widely despised to morally impeccable. Sexual promiscuity is now all but obligatory. Even fundamental categories like ‘male’ and ‘female’ are opposed.

[@ronron9019]

[33:10] Scrivener is saying the bible teaches that women are "more developed" than men. That is, not equal. This would then be against the proposition that Christianity gave us our belief in equality.

[@erisboxxx]

Bart makes glen look like a child as far as sophistication of his ideas

[@philpaine3068]

Every idea that Mr. Scrivener attributes to Christianity can be found in Muslim writings, often before they appeared in Christian thinking, and often their Christian versions were clearly borrowed from Muslim sources. They also appear in Buddhist, Zoroastrian and even Hindu sources. In all these religions, people who attempted to use reason to develop ideas of human equality, liberty, etc. struggled to make them fit into these religious systems... with the exception of Buddhism, since Buddhist doctrine was firmly egalitarian and democratic. In most cases, this was done by finding some little passage in their scriptures that could be twisted to fit into the ideas that actually came from essentially secular modes of thinking. Mr. Scrivener makes all sorts of overblown statements about how none of these ideas existed in the other religious communities. This is absolutely false. It's apparent that he has no serious level of familiarity with any of these other religions. The Central Asian Enlightenment of the 5th to 11th centuries, where Christian, Jewish, Zoroastrian, Buddhist, Muslim and Hindu scholars lived and worked together, produced not only advanced concepts of science and mathematics, it also produced prominent skeptics, and even a few genuine atheists. In that time and place, there were public hospitals open to the poor run by doctors who adhered to a code of medical ethics. In some Central Asian states, public education for peasants was promoted and practiced by both Zoroastrian and Muslim rulers. Buddhists produced, long before Christianity, not only clear affirmations of human equality, but detailed and practical theories of democracy. Early Buddhist scriptures are very clear in attributing to the Buddha declarations that women should be treated as the equals of men, should be educated as well as men, and should be equal partners in marriage. Of course, the reality seldom lived up to these doctrines, but if we are talking about the ideas, there was never anything similar in the Christian world until the Enlightenment. Mr. Scrivener peddles the ludicrous (and currently propagandized) notion that Enlightenment values were "produced" by Christianity. This is like saying that modern democracy in Czech Republic was "produced" by its previous Communist and Nazi conquerors, because they wouldn't have rebelled against them if they hadn't been oppressed by them. This notion is pure snake oil. Claiming that we now "all believe in ideas of freedom, kindness, progress and equality" is patently absurd when we see a huge chunk of modern Christians pursuing a fanatical movement promoting theocratic dictatorship, barbaric violence, systematic cruelty, a return to a dark age of censorship and conformity, a total rejection of science, and a racial caste system. And this movement is explicitly and loudly proclaiming itself as the purest form of Christianity. In all these religions, there was a constant conflict between reason and revelation, between equality and aristocracy, and between freedom and slavery. Simply slapping the words "there is something unique" onto things that are not even remotely unique does not make an impressive argument.

[@gretareinarsson7461]

Bart Ehrman is such a great scholar and his books are a must read. Slightly arrogant at times but makes one look at Christianity from a fresh perspective.

[@Peter-dr9ch]

How don’t you look “slightly arrogant” when (successfully) questioning someone’s deeply held beliefs? Surely the more arrogant, is anyone that suggests they have a omnipotent god on their side?

[@robinrobyn1714]

@@Peter-dr9ch Nope. The arrogance is completely on the Atheist

[@robinrobyn1714]

@@Peter-dr9ch Pathologically ranting and letting everyone know:' Hey!!! Look at me!!! I don't believe that something exists!!!!!!!'... Is extremely telling.

[@gregzade5202]

@@robinrobyn1714 What an arrogant remark.

[@robinrobyn1714]

@@gregzade5202 ??!!! Arrogant?!! That's exactly what Atheists do.

[@wmccormack98]

Re: Gen. 2:19 (specifically NIV "had formed" versus "formed" }- Did Prof. Ehrman state there is no past perfect tense in biblical Hebrew? Audio was not clear.

[@richardpeterson1383]

I often feel sorry for anyone who has to debate Bart Erhman. He is the world's foremost authority on the New Testament and it is useless to spar with him. He is too knowledgeable and too. prepared.

[@foodforthought8308]

Sorry you are mistaken. That would be NT Wright

[@normandybeach9230]

The discussion on the topic doesn't start until 25 minutes in!

[@joelbartley2]

Wow, this bit about feminism. Glen should know that feminism emerged from Christianity only in the sense that womens' treatment therein was so egregious that they had to create an entire new social movement just to start approaching equality.

[@joelbartley2]

@@nickright7747 How so?

[@ibelizjoel]

@@nickright7747, of course you think is ridiculous, because you are not a woman. You have not had put up with the impositions on women from Christianity.

[@ibelizjoel]

@@nickright7747 by nature you mean God?

[@joelbartley2]

@@nickright7747 Your comments prove my point. This kind of misogynistic thinking is both factually incorrect and amply exemplified throughout the Christian tradition and history. Please come join the rest of us in the 21st century.

[@joelbartley2]

@@nickright7747 What makes it misogynistic is the implication that the way things have been in the past is the way things ought to be. That turns a simple statement about the way things have been into a very limiting statement about what options are "ok" for woment to strive for. It's undeniable that in the West, Christianity has been a driver for maintaining this status quo for 2,000 years and that the burden of this status quo has fallen disproportionately on women.

[@pigetstuck]

Bart Erhman speaks with such confidence about all history. Is he a teacher of history and of the philosophy of science and religion?

[@redandblue323]

Like most apologists, this Glen guy talks well, has a great haircut, and has no clue what he’s talking about.

[@areconstructionstory4770]

I’m late to this, so someone has probably already said it, but what does Bart say to people who say they’ve witnessed miracles today? People still make these claims and it’s much more convincing to hear it from a friend vs a 2000 year old account.

[@eurech]

They'd have to demonstrate the miracle.

[@timffoster]

@@eurech no, they wouldn't. A person's inability to furnish proof of a miracle does not prove the miracle did not take place. All it does is prove they don't have proof, and that's not the same thing. Granted, it won't satisfy a cynic, but it is still not proof that a miracle did not take place.

[@jakegreen5081]

Genesis 3:16 "And he will *rule* over you". Not you shall be equal with him. Fails right there. (Video time 33:37-46) If God is the helper. Then there is no need to make another helper if God is adequate.

[@iknowyourerightbut4986]

Do you think it’s exactly the same type of help? Names can be the same without having exactly the same meaning depending on context. That is the case here.

[@iknowyourerightbut4986]

Also… God did help man here, by making the woman.

[@SloppyTransistors]

Prof. Ehrman's opponents are invariably expert practitioners of motivated reasoning. Those aiming for eyeballs, confirmation of faith, and money want so badly for it all to be true, but the truth only takes them so far.

[@SHIBBYiPANDA]

I’m utterly revolted by the Christian debater, here.

[@jonathanwilliams1641]

Surprised Glen's hair isn't wet by the end of this video... because Bart mopped the floor with his ridiculous claims.

[@ayashimsha329]

Can you please ask dr Bart if there is anything in the New Testament he believes it happened historically other than Jesus was crucified ? Thank you 🙏🏽

[@henryosuji9962]

Yes! Bart always accept the fact that there are "Pieces" of historical information's in the new testament and there are a lots of none historical facts as well. All of Bart arguments is against those( bible believers) who find it difficult and embarrassing to accept the fact that there are none historical information's in the new testament as well.

[@paulrichards6894]

all the NT is made up accept a few people such as pilate and placenames

[@ayashimsha329]

@@paulrichards6894 but if it was all made up why would someone like Dr Bart and many atheist scholars keep taking and writing huge books and debating about it !? I think there is some things that happened and people tell these stories from generations to generations.

[@paulrichards6894]

@@ayashimsha329 $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

[@ayashimsha329]

@@paulrichards6894 You’re right actually and unfortunately

[@iamsalaya]

Anybody checked on Glenn😂 I don’t care where you stand if his positions are what his book is about…it is rooted in nothing with a double sprinkle of if I want it to be true, it’s true! ~insert lovely feelings~

[@markborok4481]

On the subject of belief in miracles: Mark Twain, in "Around the Equator" tells the story of a missionary he met in India who told him of the trouble he had converting the locals. For every miracle in the Bible, the Hindu could come up with one from the Ramayana. Moreover, whereas he had no evidence of a burning bush, he could point to the evidence that the monkey god Hanuman had moved a mountain, because the mountain was right there, in front of him. (This is quoted from memory, but that's the general gist of it).

[@christopherflux6254]

The same Hebrew word translated as ‘Helper’ in Genesis to refer to Eve, is the same Hebrew word used elsewhere to describe God.

[@davethebrahman9870]

So what? I can describe my horse as my ‘helper’, does that have some particular implication?

[@christopherflux6254]

@@davethebrahman9870 My point is that the claim that the word ‘Ezer’ (meaning ‘Helper’)is intended to be derogatory is unfounded. Even in English, I think the connotations the word ‘helper’ has with someone being condescending is a recent one.

[@ashamanbrian]

Who is God a helper to. Helper as used in Genesis is someone to do part of your work, a servant. Eve isn't ask to be Adam's "helper" she is made for that purpose. Bart is able to read Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. He understands the context and since Hebrew had no vowels it take someone familiar with mesopotamia languages and history to understand the intention of the word.

[@jesusislord3117]

For the one who sees this comment I would like to Share my experience I was born to a Christian family from India. and in India people from all backgrounds are accepting to Christ ( not Christianity ) not because they believe in resurrection of Christ or the Good news at the first place but through miracle. And trust me I use to be sceptic about it, but later I witnessed many miracles some are called medical miracle. So yess for me my Lord Jesus is awesome.. I am working on this to make documents of this event so please pray for me, as there are many problems hindering to do so..

[@midlander4]

You're just making it up. How come you witnessed medical miracles... yet none of the dozens of medical professionals I know have ever 'witnessed' a single one.

[@eurech]

I doubt that but good story.

[@daviboechatnunes1187]

And how is that going?

[@travisf1120]

I just love watching Bart stop and ask them to actually read a specific chapter and verse.

[@alexanderweddle3948]

At 36:16, Glen starts arguing that we look back through a kind of prism to the past at all sorts of things to explain why things are as they are today without seeming to recognize his own post hoc reasoning, which BE had pointed out. Glen is reshaping Bible stories from Eve to “radical monogamy” to mean something different than what they actually said to support his argument based on what he wants to be true. Glen, not “we,” is looking for particular things (equality, ethics, etc.) as arising WITHIN CHRISTIANITY, because HE is coming from a Christian mindset.