Can Christians Study the New Testament Honestly?

Visit www.bartehrman... to shop from Bart Ehrman’s online courses and get a special discount by using code: MJPODCAST on all courses.
Many Christians think that a non-Christian simply can't understand the New Testament fully, since they don't agree with its major teachings. But could an argument be made for the opposite case, that those with a vested interest in the New Testament as a book inspired by God cannot get beyond their theological assumptions to understand what the text is really saying? It seems like an odd question, but can committed Christians really study their own Scriptures honestly? In this episode we consider the issue from several angles, not by assuming that outsiders are necessarily "objective" (is anyone objective?) but by thinking through the complications of the matter.
Megan asks Bart:
-I’ve heard it argued that people who are not Christians can’t actually understand Christianity, and by extension the New Testament. As an agnostic expert on the NT and early Christianity, what is your opinion?
-What do you think about people who insist that you can’t understand the NT without the guidance of the holy spirit?
-How can or should Christian academics go about understanding a text that they hold to be divine in an historical manner?
-How did you deal with that as you moved away from the faith?
-What factors do you think make it more likely for religious convictions to adversely impact academic research?
-Are there some religious backgrounds, or educational trajectories, that make this easier for academics to do?
-Does maintaining a Christian faith while studying the Bible in an academically rigorous and responsible manner require a level of comfort with cognitive dissonance, or is it really not that difficult?
-Does treating the Bible as an historical text say anything about one’s religious conviction?
-Do you think it’s possible to hold to that commitment of divine inspiration and inerrancy and still conduct rigorous academic research?
-What makes it hard for evangelical academics to do the kind of work that you’ve gone on to do?
-What kinds of methodologies require you to have that suspension of faith?

[@pinkcupcake4717]

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

[@gmwillow]

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

[@roberthawes3093]

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

[@davida.taylor8444]

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

[@MB-mn8do]

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

[@MB-mn8do]

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

[@russellmiles2861]

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

[@bonifaceawa]

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

[@diahiskandarbinmohamadjani7674]

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

[@dougmurphy1777]

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

[@nasonguy]

Very Good Omens-esque.

[@dougmurphy1777]

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

[@nasonguy]

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

[@dancahill9585]

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

[@alangiaconelli2919]

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

[@dancahill9585]

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

[@brentkrohn3786]

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

[@NotNecessarily-ip4vc]

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

[@Noneya5555]

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

[@Fwam95]

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

[@johnthompson2256]

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

[@kencreten7308]

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

[@russellmiles2861]

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

[@gloriab357]

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

[@marksibert305]

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

[@ryangooseling]

Always a pleasure to listen to you two😊

[@feebster11]

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

[@blyman4372]

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

[@Raz.C]

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

[@zowzgraal]

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

[@longcastle4863]

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

[@newtonfinn164]

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

[@longcastle4863]

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

[@CRoadwarrior]

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

[@longcastle4863]

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

[@CRoadwarrior]

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

[@PIA-tj5hc]

Happy New Year!! Love the hair color Megan.

[@COLDB33R]

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

[@Amazing_Mark]

Extraordinary! 👌

[@grit1679]

“When the honestly deceived learn the truth, they either quit being deceived or quit being honest.” I really, really like this.

[@ReedReed999]

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

[@robertnorth1681]

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

[@johnjohnson1657]

Outstanding interview. Kudos. Truth is Truth.

[@inktologist]

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

[@StingrayTomsFlorida]

Awesome. Always look forward to these!

[@alexanderweddle3948]

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

[@williampan29]

that"s what we called dogma

[@lazykbys]

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

[@meteor1237]

Always enjoy Bart and Meghan!

[@DJMarcO138]

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

[@robbabcock_]

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

[@simonbattle0001]

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

[@mistressofstones]

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

[@eurech]

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

[@T-Ingvarsson]

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

[@hantms]

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

[@hurdygurdyguy1]

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

[@timothyharmon9472]

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

[@Ulyssestnt]

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

[@booksoverload4291]

Love the series! One piece of advice though. Balance your microphones. Meghan always comes through much louder than Bart. I keep having to change my volume

[@integrationalpolytheism]

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

[@mikehutton3937]

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

[@Aliali-vc3pk]

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

[@BubbaNoze]

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

[@stevearmstrong6758]

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

[@WayWalker3]

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

[@kencreten7308]

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

[@BubbaNoze]

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

[@travisporco]

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

[@SergeantSkeptic686]

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

[@TheDanEdwards]

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

[@SergeantSkeptic686]

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

[@AnHebrewChild]

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

[@SergeantSkeptic686]

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

[@diahiskandarbinmohamadjani7674]

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

[@kenhilker2507]

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

[@zapkvr]

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

[@lisaboban]

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

[@kenhilker2507]

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

[@kenhilker2507]

@@lisaboban fair. 👍

[@kenhilker2507]

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

[@Amazing_Mark]

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

[@jamesbarringer2737]

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

[@jimbob3030]

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

[@jingojingo1]

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

[@TomByron-h7s]

Knowledge is power. Just not too much knowledge

[@moonpearl4736]

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

[@GrantLeeEdwards]

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

[@jillmorgan7309]

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

[@brokinsage7138]

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

[@integrationalpolytheism]

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

[@LevEakins1]

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

[@BunnyWatson-k1w]

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

[@MichaelYoder1961]

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

[@BunnyWatson-k1w]

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

[@ThatBoomerDude56]

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

[@hantms]

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

[@andrewsuryali8540]

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

[@timothyneumann6586]

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

[@patheticpear2897]

Saying that the guidance of the holy spirit is necessary for the truth does not mean it is sufficient.

[@nathanaelsmith3553]

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

[@billyhw5492]

I hope Bart can follow your lead on that sometime.

[@nathanaelsmith3553]

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

[@kencreten7308]

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

[@Jd-808]

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

[@nathanaelsmith3553]

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

[@BlueBarrier782]

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

[@joelschama1735]

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

[@tedclemens4093]

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

[@Aliali-vc3pk]

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

[@Est1995]

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

[@leonkennedy9754]

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

[@aprylvanryn5898]

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

[@wagsman9999]

Another great show!

[@matthewlawrenson2734]

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

[@RosaLuxembae]

I never properly studied the bible but even just reading it seriously (and the NIV that translates out contradictions) made me notice the problems with it and it was significant in my deconversion. It's not that the bible has to be inerrant or that small things like whether Jesus said a particular quote is important, but when all the gospels, Christian orthodoxy, and the historical Jesus all disagree with each other and you realise the bible isn't a reliable source of what happened then what basis of belief do you have? Why would I believe Jesus was God and died for our sins if he didn't even think that? Why follow Christianity and not another religion or make up your own religion. It's a little flippant to say make your own religion but genuinely attempting to achieve a mystical experience and basing a new belief system on that seems more logical to me than just picking whatever religion is most popular around you. That's not to tell Christians off for believing in something I don't believe but just personally I disagree with Bart in that I think learning about the problems is in conflict with faith, while acknowledging many of the experts do manage to believe both things at once.

[@mburland]

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

[@Robert_L_Peters]

Thank you

[@robinhood20253]

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

[@robertnorth1681]

Really good points.

[@Allothersweretakenn]

4:06 it starts

[@shihabshihabi375]

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

[@adamorly2971]

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

[@romanpierantozzi]

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

[@Aliali-vc3pk]

They are crazy 😅

[@icebag2]

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

[@stevearmstrong6758]

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

[@kencreten7308]

It depends on the person, regardless if they are a Christian.

[@txikitofandango]

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

[@nebuer54]

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

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

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

[@deguilhemcorinne418]

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

[@diahiskandarbinmohamadjani7674]

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

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

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

[@diahiskandarbinmohamadjani7674]

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

[@8mycake244]

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

[@TheDanEdwards]

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

[@8mycake244]

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

[@Wasserbienchen]

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

[@x2mars]

Why the “hi how are things “?

[@gbwhatswotb2068]

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

[@draxthemsklonst]

Cooleth

[@Mac_an_Mheiriceanaigh]

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

[@napoleonalbert1787]

Bart provided a good insight to even lay persons, however, too many ads - more than usual - disrupting listening 👍

[@nahshonpani6495]

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

[@Steven_Rowe]

Small layout

[@zdzislawmeglicki2262]

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

[@CRoadwarrior]

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

[@stylicho]

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

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

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

[@twitherspoon8954]

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

[@toma3447]

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

[@hantms]

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

[@twitherspoon8954]

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

[@nakeebissadeen1606]

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

[@glass-floor]

The idea that scholars should believe every idea that they explore seems completely anti-intellectual and unscholarly. One of the most important skills of the scholar is to be able to engage with ideas based on the evidence, not based on prior beliefs. Similarly scholars need to be able to deal with hypotheticals. Just because a scholar believes that only Paul's seven uncontested letters are genuine should not prevent them from exploring the implications of more than the seven being genuine. Any scholar worth their salt should be capable of working on ideas that don't align with their own personal opinions. There is no reason why a person whose personal belief in Biblical inerrancy cannot study the bible according to the methods and assumptions of the historical critical method. Just as those who believe in the historical critical method should be capable of study that assumes inerrancy.

[@stevearmstrong6758]

Can you really study something if you start out assuming inerrancy? If you’re not willing to critically examine everything and draw conclusions based on the evidence then IMO you are more in the mode of learning the right answers vs trying to understand. It is difficult to truly start with a blank sheet of paper (as we used to say when starting an event investigation) but with a good team you can get close.

[@glass-floor]

@@stevearmstrong6758We always make assumptions in any study. There are a whole bunch of assumptions in the historical critical method, such as that we will never consider a supernatural to be a valid explanation for any event. Given that the Bible describes many supernatural events, that's a pretty big assumption. If your basic assumption is that the supernatural explanations in the text are false, and you are not willing to even consider the possibility that they might be true, then it turns into a process of confirming your original conclusions rather than being willing to even consider the possibility that the text might be true.

[@stevearmstrong6758]

@@glass-floor I don’t think scholars assume there are no supernatural events, they just don’t see enough supporting evidence. The assumptions in this case are by those who assume supernatural explanations - not by those who view events as conforming to the laws of physics unless there is data to suggest otherwise.

[@josh2388]

The conflicting info in the 4 Gospels proves an important point: that ppl see & remember things differently even when discussing someone/thing they love. But, like a tree, it takes 4 different vantage points to get an accurate idea of its reality.

[@hurdygurdyguy1]

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

[@timothyneumann6586]

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

[@minto7699]

Does Megan believe in getting children Baptised

[@timothyneumann6586]

The Analogy of Faith principle: You find in the Bible what you presupposed to be able to find. Those who approach the Bible to try to find God: Do they find him? Do they need the Categorical Imperative of Immanuel Kant to bring God in through the backdoor when it is difficult to establish the need for good behavior as the ethical argument for God? When the need for divine truth is acute and you are supposed to find the Bible as a true exposition of him and his will, does the Bible have his Spirit investing his Word with power to convict the believer of his truth? This is an area of the Christian world that you as a textual critic don't really touch. This cluster of issues is not really epistemically appropriate to your emphasis.

[@timothyneumann6586]

I'm available for the Koine Greek. I might be helpful for the person. I've had the brain cramps from Attic and Classical that the Koine Greek (which is Hebraistic and Colloquial) does not really give. Check me out if that is a possible arrangement. I'm open to the possibility of an arrangement of a mentor/tutor. I'm not the best or the worst, but I'm not garbage either. Just enough to help the guy, right?

[@brokenrecord3523]

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

[@Ronlawhouston]

Always question your beliefs including the belief that you should question your beliefs. I really enjoy the podcast. At one point I thought Bart was a stuffy arrogant academic. Boy was I wrong. He is the opposite. I do have one question. Is it wrong that I like the podcast to see what style Megan is sporting each episode?

[@Sportliveonline]

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

[@spankduncan1114]

Human imagination is the creator of god.

[@Sportliveonline]

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

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

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

[@RobertThreet]

How can I take your Intro to Akkadian class?

[@Steven_Rowe]

I can understand why Bart lost his faith in the bible but does faih in thd bible underpin faith in God. You could say as do many that i beliveve in some form of eternal power I dont go with ehatcthr bible says about God. That is a topic i would love Bart to discuss

[@jeffmacdonald9863]

Bart has discussed it many times. In short, it was the problem of evil that led him to lose faith in God, years after he'd stopped being a Biblical literalist.