Were the Apostles of Jesus All Martyred?

[@LordMerlic]

Dr. Erman is an incredible mind, and brilliant scholar. I could listen to him speak all day!

[@agumperz]

Agreed! I will see your all day and raise you all week! What a great team Megan and Bart make together. Megan adds so much with her intelligent questions and her background in the earlier cultures of Mesopotamia. It is a pleasure to watch the interaction between these two fascinating scholars who clearly enjoy each other's conversation and sense of humor.

[@fretnesbutke3233]

The story behind the "Jesus movement" and Professor Bart's scholarship brings to it makes for an irresistibly fascinating combination.😮

[@LordMerlic]

@Fretnes Butke I find the scholastic approach to the New Testament riveting, intriguing, and compelling for additional content.

[@jdclarke47]

Truth always sounds good..

[@AndreBentrup]

Screwtytize him more

[@longcastle4863]

Regarding stories of martyrs not feeling pain, I remember hearing a story about some saint being barbequed alive on a metal rack, calling his tormentors over and saying, "Can you turn me over? I think I'm done on this side."

[@MaryLWickre]

St Lawrence.

[@JamesAgans]

It's called a gridiron, you know, just like a football field, the other place you get to experience pain. Lolol

[@davidmeehan4486]

Wouldn't Native American warriors suggest worse methods of torture to their tormentors when they were being tortured?

[@longcastle4863]

@@davidmeehan4486 Wow.

[@Hamann9631]

Thanks for pointing out the definitions of disciple and apostle. Many people don't know those differences.

[@JoriztheGreat-Invictus]

I'd like for Prof. Erhman to tackle soon the cult of the Marcionites. This would be a fantastic and informative to discuss for your future topics in this podcast.

[@dancahill9585]

He touches on it in kzbin.info/www/bejne/ZpLGd5l8gtOLfdU

[@laythadrian5705]

He has covered them before in a lecture about early Christianity. So far, I’m not aware of him giving a lecture dedicated entirely to them.

[@goodtoGoNow1956]

I am a person who believes in God and Jesus Christ, but I am not not an advocate for Bible perfection. I like how Bart, who is apparently an atheist or agnostic, is nevertheless very respectful toward Christian beliefs and people. I value that. Perhaps I am not representative of many believers -- but Bart has never, to my knowledge -- said anything that offended or overly challenged my faith. And he is considerate of others.

[@alahatzaifat1872]

WHY do you believe in god and Jesus if there is NO good convincing evidence to support that belief? That is the whole point of Bart's and others' work in this arena of study... he WAS a christian, until he started actually studying the NT of which he is one of the world's paramount experts in... it was the NT that convinced him that god/jesus do not exist...where is HE wrong and YOU right? Why do YOU believe still? Just curious... not intending any shade...

[@justarshad8354]

The moment you accept & admit the bible is not in its correct form, your whole faith becomes fallible.. Just follow something that your parents and great grand parents taught you to, without questioning is called blind faith..

[@robbieg.3462]

⁠@@alahatzaifat1872 even Bart will admit that the disciples of Jesus truly believed that they saw Christ risen after his death. One of Barts main issues with the Bible is he claims that since there are variants of words and verses in different ancient manuscripts of the New Testament then therefore we cannot know what it originally said, but naturally there will be variants over hundreds of years of hand written copying of the word. For a true Christian this is not a problem, the overall message of the gospel has not changed. Bart thinks that since God did not keep perfectly each word exactly the same as it was written (which is impossible to do when translating one language to another) then therefore the word cannot be true. The Bible is the most reliable of any book in antiquity.

[@alahatzaifat1872]

@@robbieg.3462 *******even Bart will admit that the disciples of Jesus truly believed that they saw Christ risen after his death I do not think he would say this, but even if he did… all it means is they believed, that does not mean that it is true. Just like those of other religions claim this or that for their gods… miracles that cannot be verified, just as Jesus’ resurrection. There is ABSOLUTELY no good or convincing evidence that gods exist, therefore, yahweh, does not exist and if there was a historical yeshua ben mariam, he was 100% human and thus could not resurrect. ************Bart thinks that since God did not keep perfectly each word exactly the same as it was written (which is impossible to do when translating one language to another) then therefore the word cannot be true. The Bible is the most reliable of any book in antiquity I do not think this is why he is a nonbeliever, but that is your opinion and again, does not matter. As to your claim that the bible is the most reliable book in antiquity even though much of it has changed, I guess you don’t know that the quran has a more robust claim that that… since the muslims have worked extremely hard to make sure the quran has not changed even a word in it’s history… that is one of their claims to justify belief in their god, since he promised to preserve and protect the quran, his LITERAL word, as opposed to the bible which is just ‘inspired’ by god. However, that does not prove that allah is real any more than the bible proves yahweh is real… the books are the CLAIM, not the PROOF of these gods’ existence… You are looking at this through the biased lens of a believer… you already believe, so you will cherry pick, justify, and cognitive dissonance your way through all the issues with the text… but in the end, there is NO good and convincing evidence that gods exist. Do you HAVE anything, other than the text to prove your god exists? If not, we are done here, as the book does NOT prove a god.

[@diansc7322]

​@@alahatzaifat1872Bart absolutely believes that Jesus existed

[@rolandwatts3218]

A billion cheers to all you scholars who bother to come out into public and explain your thoughts. Well done to both Megan and Bart.

[@brandonmass3787]

The way that Bart summarized Daniel made it sound a lot like the Titanomachy, the war between the Gods and the Titans, which, by the hellenistic period, was widely interpreted by Platonists to be an allegory for the triumph of the rational part of the soul over the appetitive part of the soul.

[@theobolt250]

Syncretism was an important influence during the period since the restoration of the Temple and it was certainly an influential factor during early christianity. Folks like Philo of Alexandria and Paul of Tarsus are good examples.

[@strappedfatman7858]

The myth of the 4 elephants of a giant turtle or tortoise supporting or containing the world occurs in Hindu mythology, in Chinese mythology and in Native American mythology. This is the World and kingdoms that the four kingdoms of Alexander the Great could not conquer. It was prophesied in the Book of Daniel. Alexander the Great died after attacking India and his Kingdom was divided into four. And Rome became the 6th Kingdom in the Book of Revelation. There was other Kingdoms in the world. Matthew 4:8 Again the Devil took him along to an unusually high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory. 9 And he said to him: “All these things I will give you if you fall down and do an act of worship to me.” 10 Then Jesus said to him: “Go away, Satan! For it is written: ‘It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.’”

[@d.m.collins1501]

@@strappedfatman7858 Alexander didn't die after attacking India. He died about 3 to 4 years later, all the way over in Babylon. And his kingdom wasn't broken into 4 parts. It was divided into dozens of Satraps, and later those coalesced into about 5 kingdoms--Kingdom of Ptolemy, Epirus, Kingdom of Cassander, the Seleucids, and Lysimachus--plus a bunch of now-independent Greek cities and islands, parts of Armenia, etc.

[@strappedfatman7858]

@@d.m.collins1501 The four kingdoms that emerged following Alexander the Great's death were Ptolemaic Egypt, Seleucid Mesopotamia and Central Asia, Attalid Anatolia, and Antegonid Macedon. Daniel 8:21 The hairy male goat stands for the king of Greece; and the great horn that was between its eyes stands for the first king. 22 As for the horn that was broken, so that four stood up instead of it, there are four kingdoms from his nation that will stand up, but not with his power.

[@strappedfatman7858]

@d.m.collins1501 Alexander the Great's four generals who divided his empire were Ptolemy, Cassander, Seleucus, and Antigones. When Alexander the Great died suddenly at 32, he left no clear successor and his four generals assumed control of different regions of his empire. My point was showing the myth and Rome became the 6th Kingdom of the World in the book of Revelation!

[@pannonia77]

Yes, the books of the Macchabees are authoritative in "certain circles". They are part of the Old Testament in the Roman Catholic canon. :)

[@feelin_fine]

And the Eastern Orthodox and to some Anglicans :)

[@scambammer6102]

@@feelin_fine splinters!

[@diansc7322]

​@@scambammer6102huh

[@tontoschwartz3666]

Relying on Clement for Peter being mytyred is sillier than relying on William Lane Craig for Jesus being resurrected.

[@dennythedavinchi3832]

Ehrman is awesome, but he makes too much compromise with traditional churches view and early christian text even though he knew there was no evidence to prove it.

[@AdamBror]

Why is clement not reliable? Is it because he was so late? Also he mentioned the part about Jesus "predicting" that Peter will be martyred, isn't that evidence?

[@daniyalrazakazmi7249]

Great podcast. Bart and Megan are stars. I am a big admirer of Bart. He is my source to learn about Christianity. His Christian fundamentalist background with his scholarly background makes his book highly readable. I just read his Jesus, Interrupted it was really great!

[@syedasimali668]

The Arabic equivalent for martyr is “shaheed” شھید which also means witness.

[@StormOracle]

You two make a wonderful team, great questions and clear answers. I've been a student of Bart's for years and take all of his workshops and a member of his blog. So happy he is doing a podcast too.

[@MichaelYoder1961]

Always look forward to these podcasts. Bart explains things in plain language and Megan is a gracious and thoughtful host.

[@crookedclassic]

Very disappointed that KZbin has taken down the most recent episode, thankfully it is still available on Spotify.

[@ji8044]

Wow, how do you know that is what happened?

[@crookedclassic]

@@ji8044 Because I saw it when it was first uploaded yesterday and by the time I went to watch it I couldn't find it. I had to go listen to it on Spotify, but I just checked and it appears it may have been removed from there now also. The episode was called 'Is The Gospel of John Anti-Semitic?'.

[@peterroche2727]

The title, "Was the Gospel of John Anti-Semitic?", or something like that, does not fit what seemed to be the actual subject. What I saw before it disappeared was about whether the gospel of John was a "forgery".

[@PDG1956]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/aXWaeoiGr7utqZI

[@wiaamhaddad8550]

I sense a lot is being cut... Please don't remove sections... We'll listen even if it's 3 hours long...

[@eqprog]

I’d really like hear more about the authenticity of the book of Daniel. Dr Ehrmans answer was quite evocative.

[@joemedley195]

How does anyone who lived through 911 believe that dying for beliefs proves they’re true?

[@nancymeehan3874]

Yes, indeed. The terrorist believed they would go to Heaven with 72 blackeye virgins. I wonder how that worked out for them. People have died for bad causes all through history

[@jimmcculloch5825]

An interesting point.

[@osr4152]

Come on. That's not the point. Dying for a belief proves YOU believe it is true. People dont generally die for something they dont believe in. The argurment is that the disciples were dying for something they believed was true and unlike every other Christian since them they were in the unique position of KNOWING if it was true or not as they started the religion with their testimony.

[@crede9427]

​@@osr4152 no, they couldn't have known

[@HkFinn83]

How on earth did you get that, from this?😮 I hope Bart doesn’t read these comments and get down about this sort of thing

[@thescoobymike]

Thankful for scholars like Bart who are able to communicate the scholarship to a general audience

[@ji8044]

I haven't read all of his books, but at least 2-3 are indispensable. Also for a different take try the work of James Tabor, who has supplementary ideas on Jesus's family.

[@termination9353]

He communicates fraud not scholarship.

[@real.evidence]

@@termination9353Dr. Ehrman communicates fraud, not scholarship? Please enlighten all of us on the TRUE academic scholarship regarding the Christian martyrdom tradition. Please include names of those true scholars and citations to true academic scholarship on this subject.

[@briendoyle4680]

hahaha

[@termination9353]

@@real.evidence None of the Apostles were martyred and Jesus own crucifixion wasn't a martyrdom. Everything reported as Church history is lies fabrication. The Roman Catholic church is NOT the Church of Peter. The Gospel of Jesus was originally one book, written by Lazarus in consultation with the Apostles [John 21:24] and published soon after Jesus left them on their own. The religion was hijacked by Rome, the Gospel was broken up scrambled adulterated into a bunch of competing narratives. Later four of those adulterated gospels were canonized with falsely ascribed authorship and a Gnosticism cover-story. It was the finding of an original Gospel of Jesus scroll in Jerusalem that gained the Knights Templar power over the Church and their eventual undoing when the church finally retaliated against them Friday 13th.

[@bryancharlebois]

best professor at the university

[@gmmarcum]

Great Podcast Megan/Bart. Tom Bissell's book Apostle: Travels Among the Tombs of the Twelve. It is an interesting exploration of the mysterious legacies of the twelve apostles. I think I found the book and read it after it was mentioned in the comments section of one of Bart's excellent blog posts on this topic.

[@katew.9402]

Great interview, thanks!

[@averageskyfatherworshipper9342]

The one constant in human history is that the victors write it

[@joannecassell8825]

Excellent! So clear, great references.❤

[@karlemmrich]

Super interesting topic choice! Looking forward to it!

[@bareit98]

Dr. Sean McDowell had an interesting book called "The Fate of the Apostles" that looks at the evidence and probability of each Apostle's martyrdom or death. Any thoughts on the book are greatly appreciated.

[@Ken_Scaletta]

Sean McDowell is non-scholar, just an amateur Christian apologist who is basically wrong about everything. We have no information about what happened to any of the disciples. There is no "evidence." The martyrdom;s are all from 2md and 3rd Century legends. There is zero evidence that any of them were martyred for their beliefs. If you are genuinely curious and interested, you should be reading more actual scholars like Bart Ehrman and steering clear (or at least look at some of the rebittals to) apologist grifters like McDowell.

[@stuartdryer1352]

Part of what makes this so interesting is that Megan asks great questions that really let Bart expound in such an informative way.

[@shock_n_Aweful]

I would just like to point out that nobody did sacrifice to the emperor it was to his Genius, Not to be confused with our word genius referring to intelligence. It was a spirit that guarded over a family. To the Romans making a sacrifice to the Genius was like paying the spiritual guards. The Romans were actually really paranoid about anyone making themselves out to be a living god. Even the emperors that was deified were never thought of in the same way as the gods. It was more like special honour paid to them mostly for political reasons, either to suck up to their allies or the plebs that had become fanatical loyalists.

[@whereisjoe3697]

Where’s the gospel of John vid?? I was like halfway into it and now it’s gone

[@peterroche2727]

Ditto.

[@vincentcross9148]

I love these episodes and find Dr Erhman absolutely brilliant. Megan is a great host and very knowledgeable in her own right. She is also absolutely beautiful! There is something about her with those glasses and necklace that come together for a stunning look!

[@johnnastrom9400]

Stop simping.

[@JSizzlicious]

You forgot how stunning it is that she is virtue signalling with her pronouns now.

[@ramieal-hazar2438]

@@JSizzlicious agreed the she her garbage confirms how woke she is.

[@LukasOfTheLight]

​@@JSizzliciousAnother very thick-skinned offensive warrior triggered by basic pronouns, I see. Classic.

[@RadicalCaveman]

@@johnnastrom9400 Stop bullying. He can express his feelings if he wants to.

[@Omzzz85]

This was an excellent episode!

[@billh7760]

Dr. Ehrman, would you address the issue of saints. What exactly are they? Are they simply Christians that won the posthumous Academy Award, or are they humans who through good works have been elevated to sub-god? If there is only one God, why do many people prey to the various saints? Thank you for this wonderful series!

[@alahatzaifat1872]

Saints are only really important in the three oldest sects of xtianity... coptic, orthodox, and catholic xtians have saints as intercessors between the one praying and jesus/god... I think (but not sure) that no protestant church venerates saints. The followers of those three denominations will pray to god/jesus through the saints or the virgin... asking them as helpmates in putting in a good word, so to speak, to jesus... the saints all have areas of 'influence' for lack of a better term... a common example (though I don't think he is fully canonized) is praying to St. Christopher for safe travels as that is one of his areas of influence... and he is then supposed to put forth this request to the big guy... hahaha... sort of like a prayer switchboard or some such... In these various churches, you will see either icons for the copts and orthos...or you will see statues in catholic churches... as representations of the various saints. One can also do novenas, a kind of 9 day prayer ritual, in the catholic church, or you can leave silver tokens in the ortho church to get more specific help to get the words across... I hope my rambling helps in clarifying a bit about what the saints are /how they are viewed and used in these denominations.... and just to be clear... they are NOT worshipped...nor is the virgin worshipped... they are venerated and used as intercessors between the mortal world and the divine... just so I don't get yelled at by someone misconstruing my words.... I am atheist, just to make that clear, as well... hahaha

[@ZiglioUK]

It never occurred to me to ask myself whether Sumarian grammar is hard. Not before breakfast anyway

[@SirTristan50]

I know some sincere Christians who really take the Book of Revelation seriously and live their entire lives around it. Having seen the follies of Y2K , 24 years ago, I wondered about the authenticity of this part of the New Testament. It made sense that it was written sometime after Nero. Question: where did the idea that the "harlot" (Rome) represented the present Roman church come to be, if this book was written probably during Domitian's reign?

[@ji8044]

What happened to today's video about John's Gospel? It was fascinating and then it just disappeared.

[@doomhermit]

Came back to listen to it again and I couldn’t find it either. I wonder if someone flagged it or the poorly made YT mod algorithm sniped it for its title.

[@beastshawnee]

I need a break down of the whole “son of man” ambiguity..,

[@ji8044]

"Son of Man" equals very human, not divine, Jewish messiah.

[@bobSeigar]

Jesus, 'Barabbas' Son of Man Jesus, 'the Christ' Son of God Pontius asks the crowd: Do I kill the Son of Man or the Son of God? (There is only 1 Being there, it is a Roman Joke) The Jews respond; Crucify Christ. (Son of God) View 1) Son of God fulfilled Messianic Prophecy View 2) 'God is Dead' View 3) The other Jesus was a Different person and the Typical Narrative

[@ji8044]

It was Bart who opened my ideas to the idea that there were no first hand "eyewitness" accounts of seeing Jesus after the crucifixion except for Paul. Luke is not a first generation follower of Jesus and writes about what others supposedly saw. Peter, James and Jude, never mention it in their epistles, presuming those epistles were actually written by the people named.

[@dannyhuskerjay]

Well they were illiterate we have to go by what we have. Remember Paul left Antioch forever because the Christians there chose peter. Ignatius suggests peter believed this. Plus we know Peter was in Corinth and visited the church. Plus the incident at Antioch makes it seem Paul was mad that Peter changed his view (more didn’t side with him) so it means most likely peter believed in the death and resurrection of Jesus. But the rest we don’t know.

[@str8nauto]

I always love hearing Bart explain things the way he does. He’s forgotten more than most of us will ever know. However, sometimes it is difficult listening to him with Megan sitting there. SHE’S A LOOKER!!!! 🔥

[@JamesRichardWiley]

No one knows what happened to the Apostles. We need volunteers to make up stories that we can use to bolster our faith.

[@robbo916]

Great podcast! But I want to hear Bart's take on the idea that the disciple whom Jesus loved was none other than Judas Iscariot!

[@scambammer6102]

you mean, loved in the biblical sense?

[@robbo916]

@@scambammer6102 as opposed to?

[@0nlyThis]

In the final chapters of his gospel narrative, the author of "Luke", inexplicably and without precedent, takes to referring to the predominantly illiterate disciples of Jesus as "apostles", the term with which the lettered writers of the earlier Epistles would customarily refer to themselves and to each other - a practice not taken up by the other gospel writers but which the author of "Luke" nonetheless continues into his aptly titled "Acts of the Apostles". If there were,in fact, any "Apostles of Jesus" martyred, it would have had to have been reported only in "Acts" - and nowhere else.

[@gabrielmiller1226]

In one of the gospels Jesus alludes to Peter becoming a martyr . It was likely already a belief that he had died for the faith by the time it was written

[@JamesAgans]

Potential Employer to college grad: So what can you do? I can speak summerian, aint that special? Lolol

[@KorKhan89]

Not technically a disciple, but I guess you can add James, the brother of Jesus, who according to Josephus (a non-Christian source) was executed by stoning on the orders of high priest Ananus.

[@Chad-xs2de]

I think he must have been a disciple because he because leader of the Jerusalem church, but it was left out of the gospels. He's also the only one of the disciples who has a historical record outside of the NT of his death.

[@justarshad8354]

There were many other gospels during the first decade of christi... But were washed off or destroyed due to not being in-accordance with the greeks doctrines and understanding of jesus.. James and the real disciples(jews) did not see jesus same way paul & greeks did.. Thats why paul and the real disciples often fought.. Their gospels taught jesus as a prophet only vs the pauline jesus who was a son of god,divine etc.. Thats why they killed the real disciples and advanced their own fictional narrative jesus teachings..

[@CristianoRonaldo-li9gu]

​@@justarshad8354how true is what you said now brother?

[@justarshad8354]

@@CristianoRonaldo-li9gu you can easily find these infos on the net.. And many scholars suggest this is the way it happened.. Or you can simply do some reading..

[@owlnyc666]

Traditions, legends, mythology, history "actual evidence". People d not suffer and die for lies. They will for sincere belief.

[@DJMarcO138]

Love this podcast! Bart is always entertaining to listen to, and Megan is such a fabulous host - plus, her style is always on point, love it!

[@briendoyle4680]

hahahaha

[@JesusLordOfLords455]

Lol 🤦

[@RadicalCaveman]

Even her drink is color-coordinated.

[@HowardJohnson-r3f]

I just asked about this and you answered my question.

[@DDSpiritual]

The more and more I learn about the early followers, the more it sounds like “Christ” was not limited to the preacher Jesus, but similar to the modern idea, since they didn’t have science, that it is a Consciousness. “Born again”, “resurrection” “transformation” “transcendence”. Christ Consciousness (word, logos, the Son, the spirit). It’s not a historical person. It’s a transformed enlightened identity, one’s true soul Self. Jesus and Buddha have more in common from a historical viewpoint than a religious one.

[@craigfairweather3401]

Thank you Dr Ehrman. I would like to challenge the statement: ‘by the end of 1st century most followers of Jesus were not Jews’. What is the evidence for this? Even works like Revelation and John are saturated with subtle allusions to the Hebrew Scriptures. The main instructors of the congregations that read them must have had intense training and years of reading these scriptures.

[@CyaNinja]

I'm enjoying the show, but just ask for an edit in the video when someone needs to clear their throat. Otherwise, I'm really enjoying it!

[@erisboxxx]

Get topic choice! Can’t wait to get into this one

[@russellmiles2861]

That was a workable Definition of Apostle and Disciples and where is overlap. But Mark mentions almost 80 disciples: with Mark buried in Venise, James in Santiago de compostela and Peter in Rome; well most are buried somewhere in Italy. Bartholomew and Jude somewhere in Arminia. What more can be said.

[@Chad-xs2de]

Nothing you wrote is historical.

[@russellmiles2861]

@@Chad-xs2de this is as historical as what Professor Ehrman said.

[@pauldaigle2344]

@@russellmiles2861 How so? Taking you literally, you wrote that Mark detailed his own burial site, which is certainly not historical.

[@russellmiles2861]

@@pauldaigle2344 I been to Venise and the locals tell you that Marks remains are in their cathedral. What more evidence do you want?

[@andrewmays3988]

When did the practice of circumcision begin and why was it important in Judaism?😮

[@connerdiamond7746]

It was to set them apart from the pagans they were around in the wilderness and promise land. Thats also where the tattoo thing comes from

[@LyleFrancisDelp]

If memory serves, the only martyr named in the NT is Stephen.....not one of the apostles. Otherwise, the deaths of Paul, Peter, James, and the other disciples is pretty much church tradition. They may be alluded to in other writings, but not in the NT.

[@MultiCappie]

I think it's important to realise also that up to 45% of the Mediterranean basin at the time were followers of Epicurus (i.e., practically atheist) and the three Epicurean leaders of Rome -- Caesar, Octavian, and Trajan -- didn't persecute anyone for their religion. Furthermore, that the surviving works of Epicurus and his followers (especially Lucretious) once recovered, formed the basis of the modern Enlightenment.

[@MultiCappie]

@@r0ky_M Why do you ask?

[@MultiCappie]

@@r0ky_M To be honest you're asking for more work than I'm willing to give you, given that you're not giving me anything. I can't even tell if you dispute any of what I've said or if so, which parts. Whatever.

[@MultiCappie]

@@r0ky_M Okay, the problem I have here is that you're either not reading what I've written or that you're intentionally putting words in my mouth (i.e., strawmanning). Your phrasing of "basically athiest Epicureans" is different in two fundamental ways than my phrasing "followers of Epicurus (i.e., practically atheist)": 1. "practically" versus "basically". 2. Your word order. If what you are writing is what you think you are reading, then I apologise, but learn to read, and then ask me a coherent and relevant question. If you are intentionally strawmanning, you're going to have to do better to impress me.

[@MultiCappie]

@@r0ky_M Actually a third important way you're misquoting me (I'm [ *_edit_* ] -stopping- _not bothering_ to look for more): 3. "Epicureans" vs. "followers of Epicurus"

[@MultiCappie]

@@r0ky_M Again, that's your wording, not mine, and if you can't tell the difference then there isn't much point in my answer. Good luck in life. I'm certain that's the only thing that will help you if you won't help yourself.

[@marvagardner]

I would love to hear your take on the book, Trail of Blood!

[@menacingowl]

Most people don’t claim it MUST be true. It’s an awfully compelling argument to die a slow, terrible death for a belief.

[@JayBandersnatch]

I love this podcast, one of the ones i can't wait to listen to every week. Side note, another podcast i can't wait to listen to which has nothing to do with Christianity is "Office Ladies", which if someone claimed i had a religion it would probably be the show "The Office" because i can pretty much relate many aspects of life to some aspect of an episode.

[@LukasOfTheLight]

The original Office is a classic. The American remake is fine for the simpler among us.

[@WotansKarl]

Is there a way to submit questions?

[@lookingforonetruechristian7396]

You can put a lot of books on a kindle or nook or phone....it's not very heavy. 😊

[@ApocalypseHere]

Where is the Hugo Mendez ep?

[@VSP4591]

Some of the 12 Apostles have different names in the 4 Gospels.

[@java97]

Correct. If you add Nathaniel and Thaddeus, it totals to 14 disciples

[@Chad-xs2de]

Almost like the gospels are fictional...

[@lh7550]

But what about all those that were thrown to the lions at the circus... are there also "allegedly" accounts.... or how much importance you'd give to slaves discarded to the beasts... should there be "historical" accounts about them so you can acknowledge the fact?

[@danielhooke6115]

Dr. Bart Ehrman mentions the "two hundred years before Christ" in this episode and several previous as an explanation of why things are during Christ's time. Can we have some sort of précis of this two hundred year period?

[@DrustZapat]

Does anyone have any suggestions as to which of his books to begin with?

[@JeremeK]

Either Forged or Misquoting Jesus

[@MiCajaDelIdiota]

Has Prof. Ehrman considered taking digitalized books (like Kindle eds) for his trips abroad, instead of physical books? The Kindle Scribe is just over 15 oz...

[@nsbd90now]

"Knowledge is a tricky thing when it comes to history!" lol!

[@Wong-Jack-Man]

People can sacrifice themselves for an idea. Many examples throughout history it does not necessarily mean it’s because of some objective truth it just means it’s an expression of some personal virtue they hold. Many Christians were killed in antiquity though we will never know the numbers, Christian’s are still getting killed and martyred today in areas where Christianity is illegal or frowned upon.

[@dancahill9585]

Yes, people sacrificing themselves for a religious idea, true or not seems to be pretty common. Unless you think David Koresh, Joseph Smith, Jim Jones, Marshall Applewhite, etc. had some particular truth to their madness. It appears to be pretty common that a cult leader will choose to die rather than admit they were full of nonsense. As far as followers, we have many examples of Christians, Muslims and Jews "martyring" themselves.

[@JeannieSoko]

You have to say the REAL problem why Christians are killed, they are ruled under Islamic countries, and dictators in North Korea, but mostly under Islamic countries where Christians are treated as second class citizen, especially they pay taxes, and thats where muslims get their wealth because of christians paying taxes, christian women get raped, their homes invaded, their churches burned and they are prohibit to rebuild their churches, or build a new church, also to the point of forcing them to convert muslims.

[@JeannieSoko]

@dancahill it seems you can't differentiate between cultists, religion, and sects.

[@dancahill9585]

@@JeannieSoko Just matters of degrees. All religions start as cults. There truly isn't much difference other than the number of followers. In the case of Joseph Smith's movement, the Mormons, it still appears very cult like despite its size.

[@JeannieSoko]

dancahill Not for the amount of followers, it is by deviant beliefs, and religion is a more conventional organization, the problem is how believers deviate from that

[@scripturaltruth7636]

It was Yhwh that fell it is in 2 Samuel 22. Yhwh is the fallen one his name means "destruction" as a noun and "he will destroy" as a verb. 2Sa 22:8 Then the earth shook and trembled; the foundations of heaven moved [רגז angered] and shook [shaken up or reeled back and forth], because he was wroth. 2Sa 22:9 There went up a smoke out of his nostrils, and fire out of his mouth devoured: coals were kindled by it. 2Sa 22:10 He bowed [נטה preverted/twisted/distorted] the heavens also, and came down [וירד was brought down, lowered; reduced; removed] ; and darkness was under his feet. 2Sa 22:11 And he rode upon a cherub, and did fly: and he was seen upon the wings of the wind. 2Sa 22:12 And he made darkness pavilions round about him, dark waters, and thick clouds of the skies. 2Sa 22:13 Through the brightness before him were coals of fire kindled. 2Sa 22:14 The LORD thundered from heaven, and the most High uttered his voice. 2Sa 22:15 And he sent out arrows, and scattered them; lightning, and discomfited them. 2Sa 22:16 And the channels of the sea appeared, the foundations of the world were discovered, at the rebuking of the LORD, at the blast of the breath of his nostrils. 2Sa 22:17 He sent from above, he took me; he drew me out of many waters; 2Sa 22:18 He delivered me from my strong enemy, and from them that hated me: for they were too strong for me. 2Sa 22:19 They prevented me in the day of my calamity: but the LORD was my stay. 2Sa 22:20 He brought me forth also into a large place: he delivered me, because he delighted in me. 2Sa 22:21 The LORD rewarded me according to my righteousness: according to the cleanness of my hands hath he recompensed me. 2Sa 22:22 For I have kept the ways of the LORD, and have not wickedly departed from my God. 2Sa 22:23 For all his judgments were before me: and as for his statutes, I did not depart from them. 2Sa 22:24 I was also upright before him, and have kept myself from mine iniquity. 2Sa 22:25 Therefore the LORD hath recompensed me according to my righteousness; according to my cleanness in his eye sight. 2Sa 22:26 With the merciful thou wilt shew thyself merciful, and with the upright man thou wilt shew thyself upright. 2Sa 22:27 With the pure thou wilt shew thyself pure; and with the froward thou wilt shew thyself unsavoury. 2Sa 22:28 And the afflicted people thou wilt save: but thine eyes are upon the haughty, that thou mayest bring them down. 2Sa 22:29 For thou art my lamp, O LORD: and the LORD will lighten my darkness. 2Sa 22:30 For by thee I have run through a troop: by my God have I leaped over a wall. 2Sa 22:31 As for God, his way is perfect; the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all them that trust in him. 2Sa 22:32 For who is God, save the LORD? and who is a rock, save our God? 2Sa 22:33 God is my strength and power: and he maketh my way perfect. 2Sa 22:34 He maketh my feet like hinds' feet: and setteth me upon my high places. 2Sa 22:35 He teacheth my hands to war; so that a bow of steel is broken by mine arms. 2Sa 22:36 Thou hast also given me the shield of thy salvation: and thy gentleness hath made me great. 2Sa 22:37 Thou hast enlarged my steps under me; so that my feet did not slip. 2Sa 22:38 I have pursued mine enemies, and destroyed them; and turned not again until I had consumed them. 2Sa 22:39 And I have consumed them, and wounded them, that they could not arise: yea, they are fallen under my feet. 2Sa 22:40 For thou hast girded me with strength to battle: them that rose up against me hast thou subdued under me. 2Sa 22:41 Thou hast also given me the necks of mine enemies, that I might destroy them that hate me. 2Sa 22:42 They looked, but there was none to save; even unto the LORD, but he answered them not. 2Sa 22:43 Then did I beat them as small as the dust of the earth, I did stamp them as the mire of the street, and did spread them abroad. 2Sa 22:44 Thou also hast delivered me from the strivings of my people, thou hast kept me to be head of the heathen: a people which I knew not shall serve me. 2Sa 22:45 Strangers shall submit themselves unto me: as soon as they hear, they shall be obedient unto me. 2Sa 22:46 Strangers shall fade away, and they shall be afraid out of their close places. 2Sa 22:47 The LORD liveth; and blessed be my rock; and exalted be the God of the rock of my salvation. 2Sa 22:48 It is God that avengeth me, and that bringeth down the people under me, 2Sa 22:49 And that bringeth me forth from mine enemies: thou also hast lifted me up on high above them that rose up against me: thou hast delivered me from the violent man. 2Sa 22:50 Therefore I will give thanks unto thee, O LORD, among the heathen, and I will sing praises unto thy name. 2Sa 22:51 He is the tower of salvation for his king: and sheweth mercy to his anointed, unto David, and to his seed for evermore.

[@sherwinsy7250]

I wish you do this more than once a week😅

[@cygnustsp]

30:50 i grew up Jehovah's Witness and there were always stories of the Holocaust or other persecutions where the brothers were flogged and beaten but felt no pain...... Yeah, they were in shock

[@dalex60]

Its funny that Bart's interpretations are inline with what Jehovah's Witnesses have been preaching since their inception, yet they get called a cult for it...

[@owlnyc666]

No one would do for a lie. But would die for a belief. What ideology would you die for? What ideology would you kill for?

[@RadicalCaveman]

When a man volunteered to be a martyr, it could produce a complicated situation if his wife had life insurance.

[@greatcaesarsghostwriter3018]

Martyrdom stories could be used as a bureaucratic tool. Ex. "The apostles endured unspeakable acts without so much as a whimper! Stop moaning about your monthly allocation!"

[@charlesbaer8681]

What about later martyrdoms, such as that of Dietrich Bonhoeffer? Do you consider his death at the hands of the Germans to be unrelated to historical Christianity?

[@Kyeudo]

It doesn't matter because that guy never claimed to have seen a resurrected Jesus. That is the only reason that early Christian martyrdom matters. Supposedly these people were in a position to know if their religion was correct and died rather than recant. However, only two of the twelve can be reasonably shown to have died, none of them can be shown to have claimed a direct experience with a resurrected Jesus, and none of them can be shown to have had the chance to recant to save their lives.

[@alasdairwhyte6616]

people all over the world are and have died for one lie or another and they thought it was true

[@Hamann9631]

There is a difference between dying for a lie which one doesn't know is a lie. There have been many martyrs who believed a lie. The Apostles who claimed to have seen Jesus Christ resurrected would have known it was a lie. Some of them would have cracked.

[@srenkongstad2992]

You are right. But who saw the risen Jesus, and were later given the choice to repent or be killed. If they were not killed it's not martyrdom. If they were mistaken in their belief of swing Jesus after his dead, they believed they died for the truth. And lastly if they were never given a chance to repent then even if they had consciously lied, they could not have chosen life. The founder of Mormonism was killed by a mop. I am sure he was a charlatan. However he didn't admit that before his dead, probably because it wouldn't have changed anything.

[@davidchamberlain4466]

It puzzles me why scholars act as though the "apocryphal" Acts are purely legendary, but the one book of Acts that actually made it into the Bible contains at least some real history. Is there anything that sets apart "our" Acts as more reliable than the others? Obviously, there are many things in it that are purely legendary (e.g., an earthquake freeing Paul from jail, etc.) and some things that are clearly propaganda that outright contradicts the guy who was really there (e.g., Paul going directly to Jerusalem rather than Arabia). How do we know that any of it is real history?

[@zaybali]

Where's the one with the hugo mendez???

[@3ddjohn]

Would you consider doing a podcast on NDE's or your thoughts on them? I am not a followers of organized religion...but I feel thete can be some truth in the NDE experience...and I have watched some well documented ones...the most convincing from the neurosurgeon Eben Alexander...

[@robertjimenez5984]

Assuming that John wrote the gospel of John is impossible. If the gospel of John was written at the end of the first century or the beginning of the second century, this means that John was over 100 years old. Even if he was alive at this age, he will need to have Greek knowledge, his mind clear and the capability to see and write. This is not possible.

[@Kyeudo]

Christian tradition is that John was young during the ministry of Jesus, in his 20s, and died at the age of 95. Such a scenario does technically make it possible that John was alive when the gospel of John was written. What makes it clear that John didn't write that gospel is the lack of first person narrative and the exaggerated details that wouldn't be expected for an actual living witness recalling the events that did take place.

[@robertjimenez5984]

@@Kyeudo very interesting

[@strappedfatman7858]

Bible scholars say a lot. Was the writings of the New Testament written in Aramaic. Was all the letters in Aramaic. Peter and Paul was writing letters to the congregations before the Gospels was even written. The Gospel of John has Jesus dying on a different day. They also say Matthew, Mark, Luke and John didn't right the Gospels. The Gospels came about at the time Peter and Paul and Jerusalem was destroyed by 70 AD. Jesus and the apostles spoke Aramaic. It's because the only commonly circulated manuscripts are in Greek. The strong consensus of modern scholars is that Revelation was not written by either the apostle John nor by the author of John’s Gospel. To distinguish the author, they now refer to him simply as ‘John of Patmos’. Patmos was a Greek island and naturally the book was written in Greek to be read by Greek-speaking Christians. But for the record, this is why when the boy Jesus taught at the Temple in Hebrew translating it into perfect Aramaic that the Rabbis were astounded. This was the first time a boy did what the priests could not do. The four gospels is associated with the four living creatures Matthew the man, Mark the lion, Luke the ox, and John the eagle. John has Jesus dying on a different day. It's the Day of Preparation not the Day of Preparation for Passover. It was the day they prepare the lambs for sacrifice. While at the same time Jesus is prepared for sacrifice. Jesus is the Lamb of YHVH Yehovah Jehovah The Apostle John who was the last Apostle. Who I believed received Revelation was the Q source for the gospels that scholars argue about. John would have been an eyewitness to all.

[@robertjimenez5984]

@@strappedfatman7858 John would of been close to 100 years and that’s very unprovable. The stories are not from eye witness as we know. It’s a very good story for it’s time, but nothing more than a fairytale.

[@strappedfatman7858]

@@robertjimenez5984 Why didn't Peter and Paul flee to the mountains. They were writing letters to the congregations before the Gospels was written. Jesus is the Lion of the Tribe of Judah. To the mountain of Jehovah. When Nero who was 666 or 616 destroyed Jerusalem in 70 AD and executed Peter and Paul. The Roman Empire the 6th Kingdom hunted all who worshiped God. John was the last man standing and congregations that received Revelation. Jesus told Peter and John what was going to happen them. Jesus does choose who rules with him in his Kingdom. John 13:6 Then he came to Simon Peter. He said to him: “Lord, are you washing my feet?” 7 Jesus answered him: “What I am doing you do not understand now, but you will understand after these things.” 8 Peter said to him: “You will certainly never wash my feet.” Jesus answered him: “Unless I wash you, you have no share with me.” After Jesus was resurrected these sealed ones was told to feed his sheep. The faithful slave. John 21:17 He said to him a third time: “Simon son of John, do you have affection for me?” Peter became grieved that he asked him the third time: “Do you have affection for me?” So he said to him: “Lord, you are aware of all things; you know that I have affection for you.” Jesus said to him: “Feed my little sheep.18 Most truly I say to you, when you were younger, you used to clothe yourself and walk about where you wanted. But when you grow old, you will stretch out your hands and another man will clothe you and carry you where you do not wish.” 19 He said this to indicate by what sort of death he would glorify God. After he said this, he said to him: “Continue following me.” 20 Peter turned around and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following, the one who at the evening meal had also leaned back on his chest and said: “Lord, who is the one betraying you?” 21 So when he caught sight of him, Peter said to Jesus: “Lord, what about this man?” 22 Jesus said to him: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you? You continue following me.” 23 So the saying went out among the brothers that this disciple would not die. However, Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but he said: “If it is my will for him to remain until I come, of what concern is that to you?” The Apostle Peter and Paul was writing letters to the congregations before the Gospels were ever written. By about 70 AD they were executed and Jerusalem was destroyed. As long as the Apostle John was alive they believed Jesus was returning. But about 25 or 30 years later John received Revelation for the congregations. John probably was the Q source for the Gospels because he was an eyewitness to all about 70 AD.

[@rungavagairun]

Great topic. Thanks.

[@jamesstaplesv]

forgive me, but megan, you should really model for hottie PHd's yearly clasrroom edition.

[@Bronco541]

The assyrian monarch made it illegal to circumsize? Good for him! Shame that notion didnt catch on and last.... Totally stupid and pointless medical proceedure.

[@robinstevenson6690]

Only in Paul's own epistles - - not even in the book of Acts - - was Paul referred to as an "apostle." Jesus only had 12(11) named apostles. The other so-called apostles discussed here (e.g., Junia) were not the disciples or apostles of Jesus, but of Paul.

[@richspring1]

I wonder what Megan and Bart think about the AI programs to translate Akkadian and other ancient languages.

[@TankUni]

Given I don't think Jesus was seen after his execution, I expect a number of the followers fell away from the movement and returned to their previous lives. If so, this likely explains the vagueness around their later fates.

[@fernly2]

Jesus continued to forgive and give the golden rule to all including into North and So. America although the tribes there kept the faith until some leaders began administrations that followed satanic principles. This may be true or not but it makes sense that going up into the clouds He went down the other side as His education in Alexandria included maps and navigation to China and transpacific crossing to the Americas. There are Mormons who believe that He walked the Americas and Mary sailed over to England in a tin importing vessel. IDK🤷🏽‍♂️however empires are a lot like Mafia justice in that they brook no sympathy for justice within their borders.

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

Yeah, it's not just that we don't know that all the disciples were martyrs, we don't even have Biblical evidence (much less hard historical evidence) for anything most of them did after Jesus's death. It's quite possible that some of them went back to their old lives and just vanished into obscurity.

[@LeoAnimationsTMNT]

Again, this in entirely false. The apostles were already terrified after Jesus was killed. They went into hiding, this is known. 3 days later, they came out of hiding and started preaching. Christianity wouldn't have even existed if this weren't the case. You also forget that the bible names very specific names and leaders, meaning that if they were lying about anything in that time, the religious leaders would've called it out. Christianity had no basis to stand on anyway, it all came from the fact that people had seen him risen. They said 500 people seen him. This would be easily debunkable, considering the NT came out at a time where everyone was still alive. It would have been easily refutable if they were lying about the eyewitnesses, and they wouldn't have added it in unless it was true that that amount of people saw him.

[@TankUni]

@@LeoAnimationsTMNT I thought the story was Jesus appeared to them three days after his death, but the apostles stayed 10 days in the upper room until Pentecost? But then I expect it depends which source you choose. Regards the NT, the scholarly consensus is that the first gospel came out 35-40 years after Jesus and Matthew/Luke 10-20 years later (respectively), John up to 70 years after Jesus. Acts was probably written about 50 years after Jesus. The NT was formally canonized a couple of centuries later again. The 500 reference is from a single letter Paul wrote to a fledgling Christian community in Greece, around twenty years after Jesus's death. The gospels do not mention these witnesses. Personally I think Paul gave this nice round number in order to give the community a boost. I doubt that anyone would be much motivated to fact-check Paul and I don't think Jesus manifested; I think Paul's meaning is that a group accepted the religion, perhaps at a mass gathering.

[@LeoAnimationsTMNT]

@@TankUni Jesus had ascended to heaven while they were in Pentecost. While, yes, they were canonized, many of the scholars fail to admit that the earliest mention of the gospels is in 125-185 AD, where Justin Martyr and Irenaeus, who mentioned there being only four, and many others acknowledging those like Mark and Matthew writing the gospels. Not to mention that the early church fathers had no dispute on who wrote them. Usually, they had disputes on these things, but on this, there was no debate. Probably because they had relations with the authors. After all, they WERE written in their lifespan. The NT is filled with eyewitness statements, that, once again, would have been verifiable. It would have been incredibly dumb to add that in and not have backing evidence to it. References: Ignatius, Letter to Polycarp, Ch. 2, Polycarp, Letter to the Philippians, Ch. 2, Re: Basilides see Schaff, History of the Christian Church, see the section on Basilides. Clement, Letter to the Corinthians, Ch. 13, 46, Barnabas, Ch. 4, Justin, Dialogue 103:8, 1 Apology 61:4, First Apology, ch. 67

[@murph8411]

Peter saying you come out head first so saying you see the world upside down from the start sort of falls flat given how eyes work and that the image projected on the back of our eyes is upside down and the brain corrects this. This obviously doesn’t happen from birth and it takes some time before babies see things the right way up or as we do.

[@KamranSher]

The word martyr itself derives from the Greek for “witness”, originally applied to the apostles who had witnessed Christ's life and resurrection. Later it was used to describe those who, arrested and on trial, admitted to being Christians.

[@KamranSher]

Interesting Commonly used word for martyr in Arabic is Shaheed which literally means "witness"

[@arnoldjohnson3317]

@@KamranSher that’s is interesting.

[@jeffryphillipsburns]

Didn’t Bart Ehrman just say this at the beginning of the video?

[@danodenthal8635]

Thank you Megan. I’ve been wondering this whole time what you are. It was such a mystery. 🙄🙄🙄

[@LukasOfTheLight]

You're welcome!

[@racsooj456]

Wait. You said an author went through the sources to show that Christians weren't getting martyrd left right and centre, and you seemed to agree. But then two seconds later you said that we don't know how often it happened. ?

[@coreyc490]

Read what you wrote S L O W L Y and then think about it critically.... Knowing that it did NOT happen all the time is not the same as knowing how often it DID.

[@racsooj456]

@@coreyc490 If you don't know how often it happened then you also cant say it wasn't happening left right and centre

[@pauldaigle2344]

@@racsooj456 This is not true. To take a very simple example, let's turn to a game with blind dice rolling. We both roll dice, and there is a fair referee to judge the outcome. The game is to see who rolls the highest number. We both roll. I roll a 2, you roll a 4, and the referee declares you the winner. I know you must have rolled more than 2, but I don't know if you rolled a 3, 4, 5, or 6. You know I rolled less than 4, but you don't know whether I rolled a 1, 2 or 3. We both have certainty about our own roll, and certainty about what the other person did not roll. What we don't know is what the other person actually rolled. We can have certain knowledge without having precise or complete knowledge. Let's take a more complex example: pickpockets. If we define "left, right, and center" as saying that... oh, I don't know, you have a 50% chance of getting your pocket picked in a modern American city in any given year. I know this is not true. Most people you meet have not had their pockets picked, most people don't have the skill to pick a pocket, and crime statistics don't support the idea that pockets are being picked "left, right, and center". I do not know, with precision, how often it actually happens. I could look up the statistics but I still would only have a general idea, because some people might not report the crime, some people might report the crime but in fact simply dropped their wallets, etc. So I can say that a thing does not happen "left, right, and center" and yet not know how often if happens. Taking that to the case of Christian Martys, if we say that what we mean by "left, right, and center" is that the average christian had a reasonable expectation that they would be martyred for their faith, we can say with some certainty that this is not true by the fact that most Christians were not in fact martyred for their faith. However, we do know that Christians were a favorite target of the state (eg, Nero blaming the Christians for the fire in Rome and then killing many Christians). So we can say that for most Christian citizens of Rome and particularly those not in the city of Rome itself, martyrdom was not an expected outcome, but at the same time, we don't know how many Christians were martyred.

[@racsooj456]

@@pauldaigle2344 Thanks for that. I concede your point. Upon reflection the thrust behind my initial comment wasn't so much about the technicality of the statement (though I didn't expressly say it so I completely understand your comment) so much as the fact that there was such confidence and uncertainty mixed together. Erhman gave the impression that Martyrdom was a bit of a Christian myth and says it can be shown with confidence that it didn't happen very much, but then admits that, below the threshold of 'left, right and centre' we don't know how often it happened. I found that a bit vague and convenient. Left right and centre compared to what? Living as a normal Jew or Roman? At what point does the threshold of deaths become 'left, right and centre'? 1 in 100?1 in 1000? It seems to me that it doesn't need to be at genocidal levels to be significant in regards to the general point he was making about the Martyrdom being a bit overblown..

[@dianadeejarvis7074]

Look at it this way. They don't think martyrs were killed every day, but they don't know if it was one a year or three a year.

[@DrVictorVasconcelos]

Funny how that story for being crucified upside down tries to deal with the criticism that Christ couldn't be God because he was crucified. It tries to make crucifixion dignified.

[@tedgrant2]

So we don't know how the apostles died. And in any case it doesn't matter.

[@fairclothjm]

@17:00 interesting info on disciples!

[@jackfrosterton2530]

Someone buy this man a Kindle

[@michaelbedford8017]

I say two martyrs, you say...

[@skat1140]

I noticed something when Bart was talking about Peter's explanation of his own upside-down crucifixion. You have to turn your thoughts upside-down to have true appreciation of reality, as if there are exactly two modes of thought: upside-down/rightside-up, forward/reverse, right/wrong, true/false, good/evil. But it perfectly exemplifies the Christian (and pre-Christian) inflexible addiction to dualism. Everything is either/or, good/evil. Consider mind/body, soul/earthly. And if the soul is good, body must be evil. Does this work? Is Geo Costanza correct when he says: "If every instinct you have is wrong, then the opposite would have to be right." (Also, Peter says that man is born upside-down and, from birth, "sees the reverse of what's true": _did_ most women at that time really give birth standing up? I feel like Peter wasn't thinking this through.)

[@DTR89]

She / her, thanks for clarifying

[@LukasOfTheLight]

You're welcome ❤

[@charlesloeffler333]

Megan, watch your eyes when Barts says what Peter says during his crucifixtion about babies being born upside down, head first. What were you suddenly thinking?

[@welcometonebalia]

Thank you.

[@rafaelbrgnr]

Why the upsidedown cross is viewed as satanic? So, the normal cross is divine? I don't get the point of some christians who consider the inverted cross as satanic.