Podcast appearances and mentions of bart ehrman

"But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed."  That's a passage from the book of Isaiah, and I can't read that without my brain screaming “it's Jesus!” to me… but does it actually predict Jesus' crucifixion, or did Jesus come to be understood as a sacrifice because of the familiarity early Christians had with this book of the Hebrew Bible? Today, Dr. Bart Ehrman talks to me about second Isaiah, Jewish prophecy, and whether the writers of the New Testament were influenced by their knowledge of the Hebrew Bible.

In today's episode of the Atheist Experience, Secular Rarity and JMike dive into various arguments for belief, including personal, historical, and philosophical claims, challenging callers to define their terms and defend their positions against logical scrutiny and internal contradictions. They also explore the practical applications of critical thinking in constructing a secular moral framework.Marianne in NJ calls in to present personal experience, scientific, and historical evidence for Christianity, focusing on the Bible's supposed singular narrative written over 1500 years by 40 writers. The hosts challenge this idea with the Documentary Hypothesis, noting the Bible's internal contradictions, and quickly identify her reasoning as circular. They question the utility of her "Google this" approach and dismiss her car crash analogy as not representative of the Gospels' discrepancies. Why does the God of the Bible continue to be described as loving when his actions are anything but?Sam in AZ initially seeks to discuss scientific and historic arguments for God, but quickly pivots to advocating for a "general theism" and then the ontological argument. The hosts challenge the coherence of arguing for a God about whom nothing is known, using a "bare designer" analogy to highlight the lack of predictive power in such a vague concept. They press him to provide a specific version of the ontological argument, which he struggles to articulate clearly. What distinguishes a "general theism" from other unsubstantiated claims?  Unable to actually carry on an intelligent conversation, Sam resorts to racial and anti-lgbtq+ slurs before rage quitting, but thanks to the magic of editing, you won't hear the slurs! We did however leave in the hosts justified ridicule of this immature tactic.  You're welcome!Rich in CT questions the Council of Nicaea, believing it's where "the whole Jesus bullshit started" and wonders why it isn't discussed more. Hosts explain that while the Council does not inherently disprove Christianity, its historical context should invite skepticism. They note that many self-professed Christians are not knowledgeable on this history and recommend Bart Ehrman's work for deeper insight. Can historical skepticism lead to a more honest understanding of religious origins?Watcher in PA presents life, love, and goodness as evidence for God. Focusing on "God is love" from 1 Corinthians 13:4, the hosts construct a modus tollens argument, contrasting this definition of love with God's actions in the Bible, such as commanding the slaughter of innocent infants. They highlight the special pleading involved in Watcher's justification of such acts as "judgment," challenging him to admit the contradiction inherent in his definition of love. Does the Bible's portrayal of God align with any consistent definition of love?Lord in CA introduces his secular moral framework called "compression logic," which aims to ethically remove contradictions from systems by focusing on reducing suffering, recognizing all variables, preserving existence, and allowing mobility. The hosts question the foundational basis for these four moral pillars, discussing the long-standing debate between moral realism and anti-realism. They also push for a more precise definition of "collapse" in his framework, differentiating between tangible and conceptual failures, and suggest exploring the works of Immanuel Kant and constructivism. Can a moral framework truly avoid collapse if its foundational principles are not universally accepted or clearly defined?Thank you for joining us this week! We will see you next time!Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-atheist-experience--3254896/support.

Gary responds to a video clip of Bart Ehrman about various laws from Leviticus. Ehrman tries to equate same-sex relationships with wearing clothes of mixed fabrics because they happen to be stated near each other. His tactics are typical in the non-Christian bubble of atheists and skeptics. Gary shows how his "argument" doesn't actually hold water.

Has Christianity been a net positive or negative for humanity? If you wander into an online debate between an atheist and a Christian apologist, you may hear an enthusiastic discussion on just this topic, with the Christian arguing that Jesus' teachings led to the development of charity, hospitals, and orphanages - among other things. Are claims like that correct? Today, Dr. Bart Ehrman and I continue our discussion on the influence of Jesus' ethical teachings on the Western world, diving into just that question.

The Way by Larry Jordan integrates religion and science and reconciles Eastern and Western worldviews, confirming with the mystics and the scientists that everyone is related, and everything is connected. Reading The Way is like having a cup of coffee with Bart Ehrman, Eckhart Tolle, Thich Nhat Hanh, and Albert Einstein.Meaningful Spirituality for a Modern World"The Way" by Larry Jordan - Book PReviewBook of the Week - BOTW - Season 8 Book 26Buy the book on Amazon https://amzn.to/4knT4ZVGET IT. READ :)#spirituality #theway #awareness FIND OUT which HUMAN NEED is driving all of your behaviorhttp://6-human-needs.sfwalker.com/Human Needs Psychology + Emotional Intelligence + Universal Laws of Nature = MASTER OF LIFE AWARENESShttps://www.sfwalker.com/master-life-awareness

Matt, hey, my friends, welcome to the off the wire podcast. My name is Matt Wireman, and with over 25 years of coaching experience, I bring to you a an integrated approach to coaching where we look at mind, body and soul. So this being my little corner of the universe, welcome we cover everything from spiritual formation or the interior life all the way to goal setting and how to make your life better with life hacks, and I cover everything in between. So whatever it fits my fancy, I'm going to share with you, and I'm so thankful for your time, and I hope this episode helps you. All right. Well, hey, welcome, welcome to another episode of Off The Wire. This is Matt, still I haven't changed, but I do have with me, my friend. Really proud to call him a friend. And from seminary days, Dr Josh chatro, who is the Billy Graham chair for evangelism and cultural engagement at Beeson. That's a mouthful. Josh, well done. And then he is also, they just launched a concentration in apologetics at Beeson, which is really exciting. They got a conference coming up this summer. Is that also an apologetics Josh,its own preaching and apologetics? Okay? Awesome.And, and largely, you're also, you're also part of the Tim Keller Center for Cultural apologetics, and then also a, they call them fellows at the Center for Pastor theologians as well. That's right, yeah. And you in, you have been at Beeson for a couple years, because prior to that, you were at a you were heading up. And what was it largely an apologetics group, or was it, was it more broad than that in Raleigh?Yeah, it was. It was much more expansive than that. Evangelism and apologetics is part of what we were doing, but it was the Center for Public Christianity, okay? It was also very much in the work and faith movement. And I was also resident theologian at Holy Trinity Anglican in Raleigh. We were there for five years,excellent and and you don't know this because you don't keep tabs on who bought your book, but I've got every one of your books brother, so every every book you put out, and I'm like, I love this guy, and I'm gonna support him and buy his book. So it started all the way back, if you remember, with truth matters, yeah. And I use that book for one of the classes that I built here where I teach. And then then I want to go through the Litany here and embarrass you a little bit. And then it goes to apologetics, at the Cross Cultural Engagement, telling a better story, surprised by doubt. And then one that you just released called the Augustine way, retrieving a vision for the church's apologetic witness. So do you write much on apologetics? Is that kind of your thing?Yeah, I've written a few books on that.So why? Like, what is it about apologetics that has really captured your heart, in your mind and like, as opposed to just teaching theology, yeah, it's a certain it's a certain stream. If folks are first of all, folks are curious, like, What in the world is apologetics? Are you apologizing to folks? Like, are you saying I'm sorry?Well, I do have to do that. I'm sorry a lot. That's a good practice. That's not quite what apologetics is. Okay. Okay, so we, one of the things I would say is, and when I meet, when I meet up with old friends like you, sometimes they say, What have you been doing? Because we didn't see this coming. And when we were in seminary together, it wasn't as if I was, you know, reading a lot of apologetic works. And so one of the things is,and you weren't picking fights on campus too much. You were always a really kind person. And most, most time, people think of like apologists as, like, real feisty. And you're not a feisty friend. I'm not. I actually, unless you start talking about, like, soccer and stuff like that, right? Yeah,yeah, I'm not. Yeah, I don't. I don't love, I don't love, actually, arguments I'd much rather have, which is an odd thing, and so I need to tell how did I get into this thing? I'd much rather have conversations and dialog and kind of a back and forth that keeps open communication and and because, I actually think this ties into apologetics, most people don't make decisions or don't come to they don't come to any kind of belief simply because they were backed into an intellectual corner. And but now maybe I'll come back to that in a second. But I got into this because I was doing my PhD work while I was pastoring. And when you do yourpH was that in in Raleigh, because you did your PhD work at Southeastern, right?That's right, that's right. But I was actually, we were in southern, uh. In Virginia for the first half, we were in a small town called Surrey. It was, if you know anything about Tim Keller, it was he served in Hopewell, Virginia for seven or nine years before he went to Westminster and then to New York. And we were about 45 minutes from that small town. So if you've read Colin Hansen's book, he kind of gives you some background on what is this, these little communities, and it does, does kind of match up the little community I was serving for two years before moving to another little community in South Georgia to finish while I was writing. And so I pastored in both locations. So these aren't particularly urban areas, and yet, people in my church, especially the young people, were asking questions about textual criticism, reliability of the Bible.Those are any topics forfolks like, yeah, something happened called the Internet, yes. All of a sudden now, things that you would, you would get to, maybe in your, you know, thm, your your master's level courses, or even doctoral level courses. Now 1819, year old, 20 year olds or 50 year olds had questions about them because they were reading about some of this stuff on the internet. And because I was working on a PhD, I was actually working on a PhD in biblical theology and their New Testament scholar, people would come to me as if I'm supposed to know everything, or you know. And of course, of course, when you're studying a PhD, you're you're in a pretty narrow kind of world and very narrow kind of lane. And of course, I didn't know a lot of things, but I was, I kind of threw myself into, how do I help people with these common questions. So it wasn't as if, it wasn't as if I was saying, oh, I want to study apologetics. I kind of accidentally got there, just because of really practical things going on in my church context. And and then as I was reading and I started writing in response to Bart Ehrman, who is a is a agnostic Bible scholar. Wrote four or five New York Times bestsellers, uh, critical of the New Testament, critical of the Bible, critical of conservative Christianity. I started writing those first two books. I wrote with some senior scholars. I wrote in response. And then people said, so your apologist? And I said, Well, I guess I am. And so that, yeah, so I'm coming at this I'm coming at this area, not because I just love arguments, but really to help the church really with really practical questions. And then as I began to teach it, I realized, oh, I have some different assumptions coming at this as a pastor, also as a theologian, and trained in biblical theology. So I came with a, maybe a different set of lenses. It's not the only set of lens. It's not the it's not the only compare of lenses that that one might take in this discipline, but that's some of my vocational background and some of my kind of journey that brought me into apologetics, and in some ways, has given me a little bit different perspective than some of the dominant approaches or dominant kind of leaders in the area.That's great. Well, let's go. Let's get after it. Then I'm gonna just throw you some doozies and see how we can rapid fire just prove all of the things that that are in doubt. So here we go. Okay, you ready? How do we know that God exists?Yeah, so that word no can have different connotations. So maybe it would be better to ask the question, why do we believe God exists? Oh,don't you do that? You're you can't, you can't just change my question. I was kidding. Well, I think, I think you bring up a great point, is that one of the key tasks in apologetics is defining of terms and understanding like, Okay, you asked that question. But I think there's a question behind the question that actually is an assumption that we have to tease out and make explicit, right? Because, I mean, that's, that's part of you. So I think sometimes people get into this back and forth with folks, and you're like, Well, you have assumptions in your question. So go ahead, you, you, you go ahead and change my question. So how do we knowthe issue is, is there is that when we say something like, you know, we people begin to imagine that the way Christianity works is that we need to prove Christianity in the way we might prove as Augustine said this in confessions, four plus six equals 10. And Augustine, early church father, and he's writing, and he's writing about his own journey. He said I really had to get to the point where I realized this is not how this works. Yeah, we're not talking about, we do not one plus one, our way to God.Yeah. And when is Augustine writing about When? When? So people are, yeah, 397,at. This point. So he's writing right at the, you know, right right before the fifth century, okay? And, and, of course, Augustine famously said, we have to believe to understand, for most believers, God is intuitive, or what? Blaise Pascal, the 17th century Christian philosopher He called this the logic of the heart. Or I can just cite a more contemporary figure, Alvin planeta, calls this basic belief that. He says that belief in God is a basic belief, and and for So, for for many believers, they would say something like this. And I think there's validity in this so is that God just makes sense, even if, even if they haven't really worked out arguments that they they say, Well, yeah, this God makes sense to me. Now I can kind of begin to explore that. I will in just a second, but I just want to say there's, for most of your listeners, it's something like, I heard the gospel and this and the stories of Jesus, and I knew they were true, right? And as kind of insiders here, we would say that's the Spirit's work. The Holy Spirit is working, and God speaks through creation and his word, and people believe. And so that's that's why we believe now, of course, once we say that people have these kinds of intuitions, or as theologians would put it, this sense of God kind of built into them, I would want to say, as an apologist, or even as a pastor, just a minister, you don't have to be apologist to say this is that we can appeal to those intuitions and make arguments in many different types of ways. Well,hold on one second. Isn't that a little too simplistic, though? Because, I mean, you have the Greeks who believed in all the different gods, and the Romans who adopted those gods and changed their names and like, how do we assimilate that? You know, where, you know Christopher Hitchens or Richard Dawkins famously say, Well, I don't, I don't believe in Zeus. So does that make me an atheist? It would have made me an atheist back in, you know, you know Roman and Latin and Greek times. So, so there's an intuition, but, but how do we delineate that? Well, that's not the right object of that intuition.Like, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. So we have this intuition, you know, we could say Romans, Romans, one is pointing us to, this is what I would argue, this sense of God, and yet we're, we're fallen, according to the Christian story. And so even though we have this sense of God, we suppress that, and we worship false gods, or we worship the created, rather than the Creator. So the Christian story as a as a Christian, helps make sense of both the kind of why? Well, although we have this sense this, there's this common sense of God, it goes in many different directions and and I would argue that even if you deny kind of transcendence altogether, you're still going to have you're going to still make something kind of a god. You're going to you're going to want to worship something. And I think that's that's part of the point of Romans, one, you end up going to worship the created rather than the Creator. So does that get out what you're asking Matt or Yeah,I think so. I think sometimes the arguments that are real popular, even now is like, well, I just don't, I just don't, I just don't believe that God exists, just like I don't believe that Zeus exists, like, what's, what's the big deal? Why? Why are you so adamant that I believe in that God exists? Like to because I don't, I don't know that God exists because I don't see him. So how would you respond to somebody who says, Well, this Intuit intuition that that you say we all have, and that Romans one says we have, I just don't buy it, you know, because, I mean, I'm, I wouldn't believe that Zeus exists, because there's no empirical evidence to show me otherwise. So how would you respond to somebody that's equivocating or saying that, you know, Yahweh of the Old Testament, the God of the, you know, the God of the Bible is, this is just a tribal deity, just like Zeus is. So, how should we? Iwould, I would say so. So I think we can make kind of arguments for some kind of for transcendence. So there's ways to make arguments against naturalism. That's that's what's being promoted. And there's various different kinds of, you know. So sometimes these kinds of arguments that are in the Christian tradition are used to say, hey, we're going to prove God's existence using these arguments. I think I'm not. Are typically comfortable with the language of prove and how it's used in our context today, again, we get into the math, kind of two plus two equals four. Kind of thinking, yep. But I think a lot of those arguments are appealing to both intuitions and they they work much more effectively as anti naturalistic arguments. Not so much saying, Okay, we know a particular God through, say, the moral argument, okay, that we're but, but it's arguing against simply a naturalistic, materialistic. You know, even Evans, who's a longtime professor at Baylor, makes this argument that those, those types of arguments are really good against pushing back against naturalism. So plan again, has a famous argument that says, if naturalism and evolutionary theory are both true because of how evolution theory works, it's not about right thinking, but right action that you perform certain things to survive. Then, if both of those are true, you have no reason to trust your kind of cognitive faculties.Can you tease that one out a little bit? I kind of lost on that one. He said,What planet is arguing? Is he saying? Look, if, if all of our kind of cognitive faculties are just a product of evolution, okay? And by the way, not only does it's not just a plan. Ago makes this argument, it's actually kind of interesting figures who were like Nietzsche and others made this argument that basically, if, if evolution and naturalism is true that all we are is energy and manner and this product of evolutionary process, then we would have no reason to actually trust kind of our rationality, and that's what rationality is actually mapping onto reality. All of our our brains and our minds are really just producing certain conclusions to help us survive. So it would undercut the very foundations of that position. Now again, yeah, being able to observe, yeah, yeah. So, so with that, again, I think that's an example of an argument that doesn't so much. You know, say this is the Christian God. This supports the belief in Christian God. But what it does is it from within their own thinking. It challenges that. It undercuts their own way of thinking, which is what you're assuming and what you're kind of pushing back on, is a kind of naturalistic world. And I think we can step within that try to understand it and then challenge it on its own terms. And I think that's the real strength of planning this argument. What he's doing now, go ahead.Well, that's it, yeah, in his, in his, like, the the Opus is, uh, warranted. Christian belief is that what you're referencing the the big burgundy book.I can't remember where he makes this argument? Yeah, I can'tremember exactly. But like, if all your cognitive faculties are working, somebody who believes that God exists does not mean that they does not negate all of the other cognitive faculties that they're like if they're in their rational mind, that they have warrants for their belief. But, but that's what I what I think, where I'm tracking with you, and I love this is that even like, it still holds true, right? Like there's not one silver bullet argument to say now we know, like, that's what you were challenging even in the question is, how do you know that you know that you know that God exists? Well, you have to layer these arguments. And so this is one layer of that argument that even the Greeks and the Romans had a sense of transcendence that they were after, and they identified them as gods. But there's this other worldliness that they're trying to attribute to the natural world that they observe, that they can't have answers for, and that we can't observe every occurrence of reality, that there has to be something outside of our box, so to speak, out of our naturalistic tendencies. And so even that can be helpful to say, well, that kind of proves my point that even the Greeks and the Romans and other tribal deities, they're after something outside of our own experience that we can experience in this box. Yeah, that'sright. And there's a, I mean again, this, this argument, isn't intellectually coercive, and I don't think any of these are intellectually coercive. What I mean by that is you can find ways out. And so the approach I would take is actually called an abductive approach, which says, Okay, let's put everything on the table, and what best makes sense, what best makes sense, or what you know, what story best explains all of this? And so that way, there's a lot of different angles you can take depending on who you're talking to, yep, and and so what one of the, one of the ways to look at this and contemporary anthropology? Psycho psychologists have done work on this, to say, the kind of standard, what we might call natural position in all of human history, is that there's there's transcendence. That's, it's just the assumption that there's transcendence. Even today, studies have been shown even people who grow kids, who grew up in a secular society will kind of have these intuitions, like, there is some kind of God, there is some kind of creator, designer. And the argument is that you actually have to have a certain kinds of culture, a particular culture that kind of habituate certain thinking, what, what CS Lewis would call, a certain kind of worldly spell to to so that those intuitions are saying, Oh no, there's not a god. You know, there's not transcendence. And so the kind of common position in all of human history across various different cultures is there is some kind of transcendence. It takes a very particular, what I would say, parochial, kind of culture to say, oh, there's probably no there. There's not. There's, of course, there's not. In fact, Charles Taylor, this is the story he wants to tell of how did we get here, at least in some secular quarters of the West, where it was just assumed, of course, there's, of course, there's a God to 500 years of to now, and at least some quarters of the West, certain, certain elite orsecular? Yeah? Yeah, people. And even then, that's a minority, right? This is not a wholesale thing, yeah.It seems to be. There's something, well, even Jonathan height, uh, he's an atheist, says, has acknowledged that there seems to be something in humans. That's something like what Pascal called a God shaped hole in our heart, and so there's this kind of, there's this deep intuition. And what I'm wanting to do is, I'm wanting in my arguments to kind of say, okay, given this as a Christian, that I believe we have this sense of God and this intuition of God, these intuitions, I want to appeal to those intuitions. And so there's a moral order to the universe that people just sense that there is a right and wrong. There's certain things that are right and certain things are wrong, even if a culture says it is, it is, it is fine to kill this group of people, that there's something above culture, that even there's something above someone's personal preference, that is their moral order to the universe. Now, given that deep seated intuition, what you might call a first principle, what makes best sense of that, or a deep desire, that that, that nothing in the universe seems to satisfy that we have. This is CS Lewis's famous argument. We have these desires, these natural desires for we get thirsty and there's there's water, we get hungry and there's food, and yet there's this basically universal or worldwide phenomenon where people desire something more, that they try to look for satisfaction in this world and they can't find it. Now, what best explains that? And notice what I'm doing there, I'm asking that the question, what best explains it? Doesn't mean there's, there's not multiple explanations for this, but we're saying, What's the best explanation, or profound sense that something doesn't come from nothing, that intelligence doesn't come from non intelligence, that being doesn't come from non being. Yeah, a deep sense that there's meaning and significance in life, that our experience with beauty is not just a leftover from an earlier primitive stage of of evolution. And so we have these deep experiences and intuitions and ideas about the world, and what I'm saying is particularly the Christian story. So I'm not, I'm not at the end, arguing for just transcendence or or kind of a generic theism, but I'm saying particularly the Christian story, best, best answers. Now, I'm not saying that other stories can't incorporate and say something and offer explanations, but it's a, it's a really a matter of, you know, you might say out narrating or or telling the Gospel story that maps on to the ways we're already intuiting about the world, or experiencing or observing the world.Yeah, so, so going along with that, so we don't have, like, a clear cut case, so to speak. We have layers of argument, and we appeal to what people kind of, in their heart of hearts, know, they don't have to like, they have to be taught otherwise. Almost like, if you talk to a child, they can't, they kind of intuit that, oh, there's something outside, like, Who created us? Like, who's our mom? You know, like, going back into the infinite regress. It's like, okay, some something came from nothing. How does that even how is that even possible? So there has to be something outside of our. Experience that caused that to happen. So, so say you, you go there, and then you help people. Say, help people understand. Like, I can't prove God's existence, but I can argue that there are ways of explaining the world that are better than other ways. So then, how do you avoid the charge that, well, you basically are a really proud person that you think your religion is better than other religions. How, how could you dare say that when you can't even prove that you're you know? So how? How would you respond to somebody who would say, like, how do you believe? Why do you believe that Christianity is a one true religion? Yeah, um,well, I would say a couple of things. One is that, in some sense, everyone is staking out some kind of claim. So even if you say you can't say that one religion is true or one one religion is the one true religion, that is a truth claim that you're staking out. And I think it's fine that this for someone to say that they just need to realize. I mean, I think they're wrong, but I think they're they're making a truth claim. I'm making a truth claim. Christians are making truth so we're, we all think we're right, and that's fine. That's fine, but, but then we but then once you realize that, then you're not saying, Well, you think you're right, but I just, I'm not sure, or it's arrogant to say you're right. I think, of course, with some some things, we have more levels of confidence than other things. And I think that's the other thing we can say with Christian with as Christians, it's saying, Hey, I believe, I believe in the resurrection. I believe in the core doctrines of Christianity. It doesn't mean that everything I might believe about everything is right. It doesn't even mean all my arguments are are even 100% always the best arguments, or I could be wrong about a particular argument and and I'm also not saying that you're wrong about everything you're saying. Okay, so, but what we are saying is that, hey, I I believe Jesus is who he said he was, and you're saying he's not okay. Let's have a conversation. But it's not, rather, it's not a matter of somebody being air. You know, you can hold those positions in an arrogant way. But simply saying, I believe this isn't in itself arrogance, at least, I think how arrogance is classically defined, yeah. And what is this saying? I believe this, and I believe, I believe what Jesus said about himself. And I can't go around and start kind of toying with with, if I believe he's Lord, then it's really not up to me to say, okay, but I'm gonna, I'm gonna, kind of take some of what he said, but not all of what he said. If you actually believe he rose from the dead and he is Lord and He is God, then then you take him at his word.What is it, as you think about cultural engagement, cultural apologetics that you've written on like, what is it in our cultural moment right now where people you say that thing, like Jesus said, You know, he, he, he said, I'm God, you know, not those explicit words, right? That's some of the argument. Like, no, but you look at the narrative he did, and that's why he was going to be stoned for blasphemy. That's why all these things. But that's, that's another conversation for another day. But, and then you talk to someone, you're like, Well, I don't believe he was God. I don't believe His claims were. Like, why then do you do we oftentimes find ourselves at a standstill, and people just throw up their hands like, well, that's your truth, and my truth is, I just don't, like, just don't push it on me. Like, why do we find ourselves in this? And it's not new. I mean, this is something that goes back to, you know, hundreds of years ago, where people are making arguments and they're like, Well, I just don't know. So I'm gonna be a transcendentalist, or I'm gonna be a deist, or I'm gonna whatever. So how do we kind of push back on that a little bit to say, No, it's not what we're talking about. Is not just a matter of preference, and it's not just a matter of, hey, my truth for me and your truth for you. But we're actually making it a claim that is true for all people. Like, how do we kind of encourage people to push into that tendency that people have to just throw up their hands and say, whatever? Pass the piece, you know? Well,okay, so I think let me answer that in two ways. One's philosophically, and then two are practically. One philosophically. I do think it's, you know, CS Lewis was on to this, as he often was way ahead of the curve on certain things, but on an abolition of man. When he talked, he's talking about the fact value distinction and how we've separated. You know, you have your facts, and then everything you know, where, classically, you would kind of recognize that courage, you know, is a virtue, and that's, it's a, it's a, it's also a fact that we should pursue courage and rather than just my preference of kind of and so there's actually. Be this, but now we have, well, that's a value, kind of courage, and say you should do something, but it's, it's, that's your value and and so we have this distinction between facts, which is, follow the science, and then values over here. And as that has opened up. You have both a kind of, on one hand, a very, very much, a people saying in a very kind of hard, rationalistic way, you know, science has said, which, that would be another podcast to kind of dive into that more science is good and, yeah, and, but science doesn't say anything. So I'm a fan of science, but it doesn't say anything. We interpret certain things, but, but so you can kind of have a hard rationalism, but you also combine with a kind of relativism, or at least a soft relativism that says, Well, this is my truth, because values become subjective. So that's the philosophical take. But the kind of practical thing, I would say, is they need people. One of the reasons people do that is because, it's because they've seen kind of these to reference what you're talking about earlier this hey, this person's coming in wanting to talk about my worldview, and it just becomes this fierce, awkward encounter, and I don't want anything to do with that type of thing, like I don't, I don't want to go down the dark corners of of the Internet to have these, to have these intellectual just like Charles Taylor says, a lot of the kind of arguments are, I have three reasons why your position is untenable. He says something like untenable, wrong and totally immoral. Now, let's have a conversation. It just and so it's kind of like, no thanks. I don't think I want to have that conversation. You do you. And so there's, there is a part that, culturally, something is going on which needs to be confronted. And Lewis was doing that work, and a lot of philosophers have followed him in that but there's also a side of of maybe where our own worst enemies here, and the way that we try to engage people, and where we start with people, and we think, Okay, let's start in this kind of, you know, apologetic wrestling match with people. And a lot of times, people are just looking to cope. People are just looking to survive. They have mental health issues going on, and they don't want another one to pop up because of the apologist. And so they're just looking to try to skirt that conversation and get to feeding their kids or dealing with their angry neighbor. And so we've got to kind of take stock on kind of where people are at, and then how to engage them with where they're at. Now I'm going to apologize. I think all of those arguments are helpful in a certain context, but a lot of times, we've been our own worst enemy, and how we try to try to engage so what I what I encourage students and ministers to do is is start talking about people's stories, and you know how life is going and where what's hard, and asking really good questions, and kind of having a holy curiosity and and often, I was in an encounter with a guy who came up to me after a kind of a university missions thing, and he was an atheist, and he wanted to talk about the moral argument. And I was happy to do that for a few minutes, but then I just asked him. I said, what you know, what do you love to do? Tell me about yourself, and where do you really find joy in life? And he looked at me, and he started to tear up, and he said, You know, I'm really lonely right now, you know, go figure this moment in our world, the kind of fragmented world we live in. And he said, what's really meaningful to me is my is my pet, because he provides solace. And there's this moment where, of course, I mean, here's an atheist wanting to show up at a Christian event, right? And because Christians were nice to him, and he's deeply lonely, and we got to have a pretty meaningful conversation about, you know, the benefits of following Christ in the community, communion with not only God, but with others, yeah, but if I would have just left it at, let's go to the more we would have never got there. But it took me kind of asking the question, which is, in essence, what I was trying to ask is what, I didn't put it like this, but what are you seeking? What are you really after here? And where are you really getting joy in life, and what's going on? And I if we can learn to go there, I think we'll have much more productive conversations. And then just kind of, I heard chatro talk about the, you know, ontological argument. Now let me throw that out there at somebody. I think that's why apologists and apologetics have sometimes been given a bad name. But if you. Actually look at the tradition, the the larger tradition. There's so many resources, and there's so many people, apologists, doing lots of different things, that I think gives us kind of way to actually engage people where they're at.Yeah, yeah. No, that's great. Well, I It reminds me, I believe it was Schaefer who talked about the the greatest apologetic, at least his time, and I think it stands true even now, is welcoming people and being hospitable towards people, welcoming the questions, not looking at folks as adversaries, but fellow pilgrims. And then you welcome them into that space, into that community. And then they're they see that, quite frankly, the faith works. The Christian ethic actually works, albeit imperfect, by imperfect people in imperfect ways. But you know, as we go through pain and suffering, as we go through, you know, elation and disappointment, like there's still a lot that that we can demonstrate to the world through our testimony that it works. You know, so to speak. So I'd love to hear you kind of help walk us through how the Christian story tells a better story about pain and suffering, because that's that's a fact of every person listening is that there's some modicum of pain and suffering in their life at any moment. And then you look at the grand scale of the world and all these things, but just even we can go down to the individual level of the why is there pain and suffering in my life and in the world and, you know, in general. But I like, like for you to just kind of riff on that for a little bit for us, to helpus, yeah. And in some ways, this question, and the apologetic question is a kind of real, a snapshot into the into what we're talking about with, how do we respond to that? Not just as Okay, an intellectual question, yeah, yeah, but it's also a profoundly experiential question. And there's youmean, you mean, and how, in the moment when you're saying, in the moment when somebody asks you the question, not getting defensive, but being being willing to listen to the question, Is that what you mean by that? And yeah,well, what I mean is, that's certainly true. Matt, what I was really thinking, though, is how this is not just something kind of an abstract, intellectual question. Oh, okay, but it's a profound experiential and there's different angles that we might take into it. But I mean, as a kind of snapshot or a test case in our apologetic is, I think there's ways to answer that question that are sterile, that are overly academic, and I and that also, I would say, rushes in to give an answer. And I would want to argue that Christianity doesn't give an answer to evil and suffering, but it gives a response. And let me make, let me explain that, yeah, is, is an answer. Tries in the way I'm using it, at least tries to say, I'm going to solve this kind of intellectual problem, and the problem of evil and suffering in the world, of why a good God who's all powerful would allow the kind of evil and suffering we see in the world is, is one that we might say, Okay, now there's the problem. Now let me give the solution. And this is often done, and we've you maybe have been in this if you're listening into a certain context where a kind of famous apologist says, Here is the answer, or famous Christian celebrity says, Here is the answer to evil, and this solves all the problems, until you start thinking about it a little bit more, or you go home, or three or four years, and you grow out of that answer and and so I think we need to be real careful here when we say we have the answer, because if you keep pushing that question back in time, or you start asking questions like, well, that that bullet that hit Hitler in World War One and didn't kill him? What if the God of the Bible, who seems to control the wind and everything, would have just blown it over and killed Hitler. It seems like maybe it could have been a better possible world if Hitler, you know, didn't lead the Holocaust. Okay, so, so again, I think, I think pretty quickly you begin to say, Okay, well, maybe some of these theodicies Don't actually solve everything, although I would say that some of the theodicies that are given things like free will, theodicy or or the kind of theodicies that say God uses suffering to to grow us and develop us. And I think there's truth in all of that, and there's but what it does. What none of them do is completely solve the problem. And so I think that there's value in those theodicies in some extent.Hey, did you know that you were created to enjoy abundance? I'm not talking about getting the latest pair of Air Jordans or a jet plane or whatever that this world says that you have to have in order to be happy. Instead, I'm talking about an abundant life where you are rich in relationships, you're rich in your finances, but you are rich in life in general, that you are operating in the calling that God has for you, that He created you for amazing things. Did you know that? And so many times we get caught up in paying our mortgage and running hither and yon, that we forget that in this world of distractions that God has created you for glorious and amazing things and abundant life. If you would like to get a free workbook, I put one together for you, and it's called the my new rich life workbook. If you go to my new rich life.com my new rich life.com. I would be glad to send you that workbook with no strings attached, just my gift to you to help you. But here'sthe thing, here's what I want to go back to with a question. Is that the Odyssey as we know it, or this? And what I'm using theodicy for is this, this responsibility that that we feel like we have to justify the ways of God, is a particularly modern phenomenon. I think this is where history comes and helps us. Charles Taylor talks about this in that the kind of way we see theodicy and understand theodicy was really developed in the middle of the 1700s with figures like Leibniz, and then you have particularly the Lisbon earthquakes in the middle of the 18th century. And that was this kind of 911 for that context. And in this 911 moment, you have philosophers being saying, Okay, how do we justify the ways of God? And are trying to do it in a very kind of this philosophical way to solve the problem. But from for most of human history and history of the West, of course, evil and suffering was a problem, but it wasn't a problem so much to be solved, but it was a problem to to cope with and and and live in light of, in other words, what you don't have in the Bible is Job saying, Okay, well, maybe God doesn't exist. Or the psalmist saying, maybe God doesn't exist because I'm experiencing this. No, they're ticked off about it. They're not happy about it. They're struggling to cope with it. It is, it is a problem, but it's not, then therefore a problem. That says, well, then God doesn't exist. Yeah. And it didn't become a widespread kind of objection against God's very existence, until certain things have happened in the kind of modern psyche, the kind of modern way of imagining the world. And here is what's happened. This is what Charles Taylor says. Is that Taylor says what happened is kind of slowly through through different stages in history, but but in some sorry to be gloved here, but it's, it's a very kind of, you know, long argument. But to get to the point is, he says our view of God became small, and our view of humans became really big. And so God just came became kind of a bigger view of version of ourselves. And then we said, oh, if there is a reason for suffering and evil, we should be able to know it, because God's just a bigger kind of version of us, and he has given us rational capacities. And therefore if we can't solve this, then there must not be a god. That's kind of where the logic goes. And of course, if you step into the biblical world, or what I would say a more profoundly Christian way of looking at it is God. God isn't silent, and God has spoken, has given us ways to cope and live with suffering and ways to understand it. But what he what he doesn't give us, is that we're going to he actually promises that, that we're not going to fully understand His ways that, that we're going to have to trust Him, even though we can't fully understand why he does what he does in history all the time. And so this leads into what, what's actually called. There's, this is a, this is a weird name if you're not in this field, but it's called skeptical theism. I'm a skeptical theist. And what skeptical theists Are you is that we're not skeptical about God, but we're skeptical about being able to neatly answer or solve the problem of evil. But we actually don't think that's as big of a deal, because, simply because. I don't understand why God, God's simply because I don't understand God's reasons. Doesn't mean he doesn't have reasons. Yeah, yeah. Andso just beyond your the your finite, uh, temporo spatial understanding of things, right? Like you don't understand how this horrible situation plays out in a grander narrative,right? So it's Stephen wickstra. He had this famous argument. I'll riff off of it a little bit. I mean, just metaphor. He says, if you have a if you have a tent, and we go camping together, Matt and and I open the tent and say, there's a giant dog in there. And you look in there, there's no dog, you would say, Yeah, you're either crazy or a liar. But if I open the tent and say there's tiny bugs in there, and they're called no see ums, you wouldn't, you wouldn't know. You wouldn't be in a position to know. You wouldn't be in an epistemological position to know whether there's a bug in there or not. So you would simply have to decide whether you're going to trust me or not. And then, you know, the claim of the non Christian might be, well, yeah, why would I trust the God given the kind of crap that I see in the world? And I would say, well, a couple reasons. One is most profoundly because God has entered into this world. He has not sat on the sidelines. So even though we don't fully understand it, he has in the person of Jesus Christ, he has suffered with us and for us. So this is a God who says, I haven't given you all the answers, but I have given you myself. And that's I think both has some rational merit to it, and profoundly some intellectual merit to that. I'd also say that the Christian story actually gets at some deep intuitions, kind of underneath this challenge or this problem. It was CS Lewis, who was an atheist in World War One, and and he was very angry at God because of the evil and violence and his his mom dying at an early age, and was an atheist. But then he realized that in his anger against God, that he was assuming a certain standard, a certain kind of moral standard, about how the world should be, that there is evil in the world and that it shouldn't be so, and this deep intuition that it shouldn't be so that certain things aren't right. Actually, you don't have if you do away with God's existence, you just you have your preferences. But in a world of just energy and matter, why would the world not be absurd? Why would you expect things not to be like this. Why would you demand them not to be like this?So a deeply embedded sense of morality that can't be explained by naturalism is what you're getting, yeah?That that we have a certain problem here, or certain challenge with not fully being able to answer the question, yeah, but they have, I would say, a deeper challenge, that they don't have even the kind of categories to make sense of the question. So that's those are some of the directions I would go, and it's first stepping inside and kind of challenging against some of the assumptions. But then I'm as you, as you can tell, then I'm going to say how the Christian story does make sense of these deep intuitions, our moral intuitions, that are underneath the problem, or the challenge of evil and suffering. And then also going to Jesus in the Gospel. And the Gospel story,one of the questions I had on our on the list of questions was, how do we know the Bible is true? But I want to delve into more of this understanding of doubt and how that plays, because you've written a lot on this. But I'd like, could you just direct us to some resources, or some folks, if folks are interested in, how do we know the Bible is true? I'm thinking real popular apologist right now is Wesley. Huff is a great place to go. But are there other like, hey, how do I know that the Bible is true? Because you keep appealing to Christianity, which is in for is the foundation of that is the Bible. So could you give us a few resources so people could chase those down.Peter Williams has written a couple little good books on the Gospels. AndPeter Williams Williams, he's in Cambridge, right, orTyndale house, over there and over the pond. And he's written a book on the Gospels. And I can't think of the name, but if you put it on the internet, it'll show up. And the genius of Jesus as well. Okay, little books, and I think both of those are helpful as far as the Gospels go. Richard, Richard balcom is really good on this, Jesus and the eyewitnesses. As well as a little book that most people haven't heard of. It's a, it's an introduction to the Gospels in that off in an Oxford series, which is, you know, kind of a brief introduction to the Gospels. And he, especially at the very beginning, he gives us John Dixon, who's at Wheaton now, has written a lot of good books on on on this. And it's got this series called skeptics guide to and it does both Old Testament and New Testament kind of stuff. So that little series is, is really helpful. So those are some places I would start. And in my books, I typically have, you know, chapters on this, but I haven't, haven't written, you know, just one book, just on this. The early books, truth matters and truth in a culture of doubt, were, were engaging Bart airman. But really, Bart airman not to pick on on Airmen, but just because he was such a representative of a lot of the the views that that we were hearing, he ended up being a good kind of interlocutor. In those I would just say, I know you didn't. You just asked for books. And let me just say one thing about this is I, I think if you are trying to engage, I think if you take the approach of, let me prove the Bible, let me take everything and just, yeah, I don't think that's the best way. I think you often have to give people some you know, whether it's, you know, the beginning of Luke's Gospel, where he's saying, This is how I went about this. And I actually did my homework to kind of say, this is at least the claim of the gospel writers say, and then, but the real way that you you come to see and know, is you have to step into it and read it. And I think one of the apologetic practices I would want to encourage, or just evangelistic practices, is is offering to read the gospels with people and and working through it. And then certain things come up as you read them, apologetically that you'll, you'll want to chase down and use some of those resources for but I think often it's, it's saying, hey, the claims are, at least that, you know, these guys have done their homework and and some of the work Richard welcome is doing is saying, you know, the Gospel traditions were, were were pinned within the lifetime of eyewitnesses and this. And so that's some of the work that that balcom has helpfully done that kind of help us get off the ground in some of these conversations.Would that be your go to gospel Luke or, like, if you're walking with players, or a go to like,some people say more because of the shortness or John, I I'm happy with them. Allfour should be in the canon. Yeah, no, that's great. And I think a couple other books I'm thinking of Paul Wagner's from text from text to translation, particularly deals with Old Testament translation issues, but then text critical pieces, but then also FF. Bruce's canon of Scripture is a real, solid place to go, if people are interested in those big pieces, but those, I mean, yeah, Richard Bauckham work was really helpful for me when I was like, How do I even know, you know the starting place is a good starting place. So, yeah, thank you for that. Sowhat the challenge is, people have got to make up their mind on Jesus. Yeah. I mean, I think that's where I want to kind of triage conversations and say, Hey, I know the Bible is a big book and there's a lot going on. First things you gotta make a call on. So that's where I'm going to focus on, the Gospels. That'sgreat. No, that's great. Well, you know, a lot of times you, and you've mentioned this earlier, that sometimes in our attempts to give reasons for our faith, we can come to simplistic answers like, Okay, this is, here you go. Here's the manuscript evidence, for example. Or, hey, here's the evidence for the resurrection. Oh, here. You know, this is pain and suffering, Romans, 828, you know, having these quick answers. And I think it stems from a desire to want to have a foundation for what we stand on. But a lot of times, and I think what we're seeing in our culture, and this is not anything new, this topic of deconstruction is not really a new topic is, you know, it's what's been called in the past, apostasy, or just not believing anymore. But now it's gotten a more, you know, kind of sharper edges to it. And and I would love for you to you know how you would respond to someone who is deconstructing from their faith because it didn't allow for doubt or because they were raised in perhaps a really strict Christian home. So how would you respond to somebody who says, I don't I don't like the. Had answers anymore, and I don't, you know, it's just too simplistic, and it doesn't, it's not satisfying. So how would you, because I encounter a lot of folks that are in that vein, the ones who are deconstructing, it's, it's not, you know, there's definitely intellectual arguments, but there's something else in back of that too, I think. So I'd love to hear you just kind of, how would you respond to someone who is deconstructing or has deconstructed in their faith?Yeah, yeah. And of course not. In that situation, my first response it's going to be, tell me more. Let's, let's talk more. I want to hear, I want to hear your story. I want to hear your deconversion story, or where you're at and and to have some real curiosity. Rather than here, let me tell you what your problem is. And let me tellyou, yeah, you just don't want to believe because you got some secret sin or something. Yeah? Oh, goodnessno. I mean, it's right faith, unbelief and doubt is complex, and there's lots of forms of doubt. And we use that word I mean, it has quite the semantic range, and we use in lots of different ways. And of course, the Bible, by no means, is celebrating doubt. The Bible, it's, you know, that we is saying we should have faith. It calls us to faith, not to doubt, but doubt seems to be a couple things to say. We talk about, we talk about ourselves as Christians, as new creations in Christ, but we also recognize that we still sin, we still we still have sinful habits. We're still sinful, and in the same way we we we believe, but we can struggle with doubt, and that's a reality. And it seems to me that that doesn't mean, though, that then we celebrate doubt, as if doubts this great thing, no, but at the same time, we need to be realistic and honest that we do. And there's certain things culturally that have happened, because we now live in a pluralistic world where people seem very sane and rational and and lovely, and they believe radically different things than we do. And just that proximity, Peter Berger, the late sociologist, did a lot of work on this area. This is just it. It creates these kinds of this kind of contestability, because, well, we could imagine even possibly not believing, or kids not believing, in a way that, again, 500 years ago, you know you Luther was wrestling with whether the Roman Catholic Church had everything right, but he wasn't wrestling and doubting the whole the whole thing, yeah, God. So that creates certain pressures that I think we need to be honest about, and but, but with, and part of that honesty, I think, in that kind of conversation to say, Hey, you're not alone and you're not just simply crazy because you're you're raising some of these things because, I mean, that's in many ways, understandable. Yeah, okay, yeah. I'm not saying it's good, I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it's understandable. And I hear what you're saying, and I'm, let's talk about it now. The the kind of metaphor that that I use is to think about Christianity as a house. Of course, that's not my metaphor. I'm I'm borrowing from CS Lewis, who talked about Christianity as a house and in Mere Christianity, Lewis said he wanted to get people through non Christians into the hallway, and so he wanted to get them into the door so that they would and then they could pick up a particular tradition, they could enter a room. But his approach in Mere Christianity was to represent kind of the whole house. And what I think is happening in many cases is that people, now, I'm riffing off of his metaphor, people in the church. People have raised in the church, so they've grew up their whole life in the house, but it's actually in the what I would call the attic. And the attic as as I talk about it is, is in the house. It's, it's a Christian community, but it was, it was many times they're built out of a kind of reactionary posture against culture, without a deep connection to the rest of the house. It's kind of like, Hey, we're scared, and understandably so, the kind of decadent morality, certain shifts happening in the west with Can you giveus a couple examples of what you're thinking like? What would a person living in the attic like? What would their tradition kind of. Look like,yeah. So a couple of things. One in response to, in some cases, in response to the kind of intellectual movements, the kind of sex, secular and, you know, thinking they would say, you know, intellectualism is bad, that would be one response from the attic, like, don't worry about, you know, thinking. Just believe your problem is you're just thinking too much. So that would be one response, a kind of anti intellectualism. The other response is what I would call a kind of, depending on what kind of mood I'm in, I would call it a kind of quasi intellectual that, and that sounds harsh that I say what kind of mood I'm in, but a kind of quasi intellectual response, which is like, Oh, you want arguments. You want evidence. We'll give you two plus two equals equals God, and we'll kind of match, you know, fire with fire, and we can prove God's existence. And oftentimes, those kinds of apologetic reactions, I would call them, sometimes they're kind of quasi intellectual, because I don't think that's how the kind of bit we come to the big decisions. I don't think it's rational enough about a rationality about kind of what type of humans we are, and how we come to the big decisions and the big truths and and so I think that's one response, and that's why you have a kind of industry of apologetics sometimes. And the way they do it, I'm not saying in some ways it can be helpful, but in other ways, it can cause problems down down the road, and we've seen that at least, like, for instance, with the evil and suffering kind of conversation we were having before. If people say, actually, those arguments actually don't make, don't fully do what they were. We you claim too much for your arguments. Let's just say, like that. Okay, so that's one kind of, so there's a there's a kinds of, well, Christianity, in that side can kind of become this kind of intellectual, sterile work where you're just kind of trying to prove God, rather than this, than this way of life, where does worship come in? Where does devotion come in? What is And so very quickly it becomes, you know, this intellectual game, rather than communion with the living God. And so the emphasis understandably goes a certain way, but I would say understandably wrong goes a certain way, and that argument should be part of this deeper life of faith that we live and so we again, I'm wanting to say the motives aren't necessarily, aren't wrong, but where we get off because we're too reactionary, can go off. Let me give you one other ones. And I would say, like the purity culture would be another kind of side of this where we see a morally decadent culture of sexuality, and we want to respond to that we we don't want our kids to grow up believing those lies. Yeah, as as a friend of mine says, you know that the sexual revolution was actually and is actually bad for women, and we need to say that. We need to say that to people in the church, absolutely. But in response to that, then we create what, what has been called a purity culture, which, which has, has kind of poured a lot of guilt and have made have over promised again, if you just do this, you'll have a wonderful life and a wonderful marriage if you just do this, and then if you mess up, oh, you've, you've committed this unpardonable sin, almost. And so there's a lot of pressure being put on, particularly young women and then, and then over promising and so all of this,can people see that the House of Cards is coming down because they're like, Yeah, my marriage is horrible.It creates this pressure, right where you have to. You have to think a certain way. You have to behave this very kind of way. It's reaction to want to protect them. So again, I'm saying, Yes, I understand the reactions, yeah, and, but, but, and this is, I think, a key part of this, because it's not connected well to the rest of the house. It often reacts, rather than reflected deeply on the tradition and helps fit your way, the centrality of the Gospel, the centrality of what's always been, Christian teaching and coming back to the main things, rather than kind of reacting to culture because we're nervous, and doing it in such a way that, you know, well, people will begin to say, That's what Christianity is about. Christianity is really about, you know, your politics, because that's all my pastor is talking about, interesting, you know, and this is all they're talking about. So that becomes the center,even though the ethic is is, is, becomes the. Center, as opposed to the the philosophy and theology guiding the ethic, is that, would that be another way to put it, like how you live, become, becomes preeminent to, you know, wrestling with doubt and and trying to bring God into the space of your doubt and that kind of stuff is, that, is that?Yeah, I mean, so that, I think one of the things that the the early creeds help us to do is it helps us to keep the main thing. The main thing, it helps us to keep, rather than saying, well, because culture is talking about this, we're going to, you know, kind of in our churches, this becomes the main thing, is reacting or responding, maybe, whether it's with the culture and certain movements or against the culture, yeah. But if you're anchored to the kind of the ancient wisdom of the past you're you do have, you are at times, of course, going to respond to what's going on culturally, yeah, but it's always grounded to the center, and what's always been the center, yeah? And I think so when you're in a community like this, like this, the pressure of, I've gotta think rightly. I've gotta check every box here, yes, and oh, and I've, I've been told that there is proofs, and I just need to think harder. I just, you know, even believe more, even Yeah, if I just, if I just think harder, then I'll eliminate my doubt, but my doubts not being eliminated. So either I'm stupid or maybe there's a problem with the evidence, because it's not eliminating all my doubt, but this creates this kind of melting pot of anxiety for a lot of people as their own Reddit threads and their Oh, and then this, trying to figure all this out, and they're Googling all these answers, and then the slow drip, oh, well, to be honest, sometimes the massive outpouring of church scandal is poured into this, yeah. And it just creates a lot of anxiety amongst young people, and eventually they say, I'm just going to jump out of the attic, you know, because it looks pretty freeing and it looks like a pretty good way of life out there. And what, what I say to people is two things. Number one, rather than simply jumping out, first look what you're about to jump into, because you have to live somewhere, and outside the attic, you're not just jumping into kind of neutrality, you're jumping into cultural spaces and assumptions and belief. And so let's, let's just be just as critical as, yeah, the attic or house as you are will be mean, be just as critical with those spaces as you have been with the attic. So you need to explore those. But also, I'm wanting to give them a framework to understand that actually a lot of the ways that you've kind of grown up is actually been in this attic. Why don't you come downstairs, and if you're going to leave the house, explore the main floor first.And what would be the main floor? What would you say? The main floor?Yeah. I would say themain orthodox historic Christianity, like, yeah. Orthodox historic Christianity, Apostles Creed, the Nicene Creed, just kind of go into the Yeah. And whatI would say is, for instance, the apostle creed gives us kind of what I would call load bearing walls in the house. So it gives us the places where you don't mess like load bearing walls. You don't you don't knock those down if you're going to do a remodel, and, and, and. So you would recognize the difference between load bearing walls, walls that are central versus actual different rooms in the house, and how? Well, these aren't load bearing walls, but they're, they're, they're, they're how certain people in Christian communities, churches at particular times, have articulated it and and some of these, you could deny certain things, but you could, but those are more denominational battle lines, rather than the kind of load bearing things that you if you pull out the resurrection of Jesus, if you pull out the the deity of Christ and the full humanity of Christ, If you pull out the Trinity. So let's go back to the core. And if you're going to reject, if you're going to leave, leave on the basis of those core things, not okay. I've had these bad experiences in the church now, yeah, what I think this to kind of wrap this up on this is what often happens, or what can happen if someone says, Well, yeah, I've done that, and I still don't, I don't believe Okay, yep, that's going to happen. Yep. But one of the things I suggest, in at least some cases, is that the addict has screwed people up more than they realize, and that the way that they approach. Approach the foundation and the the main floor, it's still in attic categories, as in, to go back to our first question, well, I can't prove this, yeah. And I was always told that I should be able to prove it. Well, that's not how this works, yeah. And so they they reject Christianity on certain enlightenment terms, but they don't reject Christianity as Christianity really is. So people are going to interact with Christianity, I would say sometimes your people are investigating, say the resurrection, and reflecting more on on these central claims, but they're still doing it as if, if it doesn't reach kind of 100% certainty that I can't believe. And that's just not how this works.Yeah, that's, that's food for thought, because there, there's so many people that I interact with that I try to encourage. Like, yeah, your experience was really bad, like I'm affirming that, and that was messed up. That's not That's not Christianity, that is a branch on this massive tree trunk that stinks and that needs to be lamented and grieved and also called out as wrong. So I'm using another metaphor of a tree instead. But I love the because the house metaphor is something that you use in the telling a better story. Isn't that surprised bydoubt? Surprised by doubt? Yes, that's that's what we use, and we march through things, and we use that as, really our guiding metaphor through all the chapters. And that's what I would encourage if you're if you have somebody who's struggling with this, or you're struggling with this yourself, that's That's why a friend of mine, Jack Carson, that's why we wrote the book together, because obviously this is a we had a lot of friends and acquaintances and people who were coming to us and we weren't fully satisfied with all of the kind of works, yeah, that were responding and so this, this was our attempt to try to helppeople. Well, the book right after that was, is telling a better story. And one of the things I've really appreciated in your emphasis over the last few years has been, I would call a more humane apology, apologetic in that, you know, not giving into, okay, we're gonna give you want evidence. We're gonna give you evidence, as opposed to like, okay, let's just talk about being a huma

Jesus' ethical teachings are often touted as being revolutionary in the ancient world. The pagan cultures that preceded Christianity are commonly understood as being immoral, full of sex, drugs, and rock ‘n' roll. Well, 2 out of three isn't bad… But just how close to historical reality are these views? Today, Dr. Bart Ehrman joins me for the first of a special two-part episode to dive into ancient ethics, and whether Jesus actually changed anything.

One of the main tenets of Christianity is Jesus' divinity - most denominations hold him to be fully divine (and also fully mortal, but what's a whole other conversation). History is littered with humans who claimed to be gods - think Egyptian kings, for example. Is this something that applies also to Jesus? Was he walking around, telling people that he was, in fact, god? Today, Dr. Bart Ehrman joins me to talk about the line between divine and mortal in the ancient world, and to examine Jesus' self-presentation within the gospels.

If God exists and Jesus rose from the dead, then Christianity is true. Case closed! However, there are still those who offer alternative explanations for the empty tomb despite the evidence for the resurrection. What are these theories and do they withstand critical analysis?This week, Frank sits down with Dr. Gary Habermas, the world's leading resurrection scholar to discuss, 'On the Resurrection: Refutations', the second volume of his magnum opus--a massive 4-volume project nearly 40 years in the making. From second-century texts that seem to challenge the resurrection to modern skeptical scholars like Bart Ehrman, Gary will uncover why naturalistic explanations for the empty tomb simply don't hold up. Tune in as Frank and Gary answer questions like:Who was David Hume and why do so many modern atheists still lean on his centuries-old arguments?What was Hume's actual argument against miracles, and how did C.S. Lewis respond?Are there any good arguments for naturalism or materialism?Why did former skeptic Antony Flew become a theist before he died?What are the top 5 reasons naturalistic explanations for the resurrection fail?What are the 4 best arguments in favor of an afterlife?If you're looking for the most well-researched scholarship to refute common resurrection objections, you won't find a better resource than this! Be sure to pick up your own copies of Gary's amazing work and stay tuned for the next podcast where he'll return to discuss even more insights from his life's work on the resurrection!Resources mentioned during the episode:PODCAST: Did Jesus REALLY Rise From the Dead? - https://bit.ly/3VnrtiDOn the Resurrection: Evidences (Vol.1) - https://www.amazon.com/dp/1087778603On the Resurrection: Refutations (Vol.2) - https://a.co/d/48jozEvOn the Resurrection: Scholarly Perspectives (Vol.3) - https://www.amazon.com/dp/1087778646Gary's website - https://www.garyhabermas.com/There is a God by Antony Flew - https://a.co/d/eOhWkSTSignature in the Cell by Stephen C. Meyer - https://a.co/d/5XLmVhc

How can Archeology provide fresh information about Jesus' life and death and what do biblical archaeologists really do in the Holy Land? Books by Jodi Magness available at https://amzn.to/44awNts Misquoting Jesus podcast with Bart Ehrman available at https://amzn.to/46zMgCx Did Jesus Exist? by Bart D. Ehrman at https://amzn.to/455AEqu Bart Ehrman books available at https://amzn.to/46EU0U4 Biblical Archaeology books at https://amzn.to/4l3UDgi ENJOY Ad-Free content, Bonus episodes, and Extra materials when joining our growing community on https://patreon.com/markvinet SUPPORT this channel by purchasing any product on Amazon using this FREE entry LINK https://amzn.to/3POlrUD (Amazon gives us credit at NO extra charge to you). Mark Vinet's HISTORY OF NORTH AMERICA podcast: www.parthenonpodcast.com/history-of-north-america Mark's TIMELINE Video channel: https://youtube.com/c/TIMELINE_MarkVinet Website: https://markvinet.com/podcast Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mark.vinet.9 Twitter: https://twitter.com/HistoricalJesu Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/denarynovels Mark's books: https://amzn.to/3k8qrGM Audio Credit: Misquoting Jesus podcast with Bart Ehrman (Episode 71, 27feb2024, Archaeology in the Time of Jesus with Jodi Magness). Audio excerpts reproduced under the Fair Use (Fair Dealings) Legal Doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, teaching, education, scholarship, research and news reporting.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

There exists a popular myth among skeptics and non-believers that Jesus did not really rise from the dead. What may have happened, they suggest, is that Peter and/or Paul experienced some kind of hallucination or vision of Jesus after His death. Our guest again this week on the Profile, resurrection scholar Dr. Gary Habermas, argues however, that in order for this hypothesis even to get off the ground, the skeptic must first establish the truth of a purely naturalistic worldview, which, Gary believes, cannot be done. Naturalistic refutations of Jesus' resurrection fail to provide any significant challenge to the narratives found in the four Gospel accounts of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Dr. Gary Habermas has dedicated his professional life to the examination of the relevant historical, philosophical, and theological issues surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus. His extensive list of publications and debates provides a thorough account of the current state of the issue. He has also contributed more than 60 chapters or articles to additional books, and over 100 articles and reviews in journals and other publications. In recent years, he has been a visiting or adjunct professor at about 15 different graduate schools and seminaries in the United States and abroad. Dr. Habermas is a Distinguished Research Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy. He is married to Eileen and they have seven children and 11 grandchildren. https://www.liberty.edu/divinity/seminary/faculty/gary-habermas/Gary's Books  (2024), On the Resurrection: Refutations, Vol 2 of 4, Broadman & Holman, Academic, ISBN: 978-1-0877-7862-4, https://www.amazon.com/on-the-resurrection-volume-2/dp/108777862X Free Profiles from Watchman Fellowship!  Watchman Fellowship 4-page Profile on Bart Ehrman by Dr. Rhyne Putman: watchman.org/Ehrman Watchman Fellowship 4-page Profile on Atheism by Dr. Robert M. Bowman: watchman.org/Atheism Watchman Fellowship 4-page Profile on Agnosticism by W. Russell Crawford: watchman.org/Agnostic Watchman Fellowship 4-page Profile on Mythicism by Dr. Robert Stewart and Marilyn Stewart: watchman.org/Mythicism Additional ResourcesFREE: We are also offering a subscription to our 4-page bimonthly Profiles here: www.watchman.org/Free.PROFILE NOTEBOOK: Order the complete collection of Watchman Fellowship Profiles (660 pages -- from Astrology to Zen Buddhism) in either printed or PDF formats here: watchman.org/notebook. SUPPORT: Help us create more content like this. Make a tax-deductible donation here: www.watchman.org/give.Apologetics Profile is a ministry of Watchman Fellowship For more information, visit www.watchman.org © 2025 Watchman Fellowship, Inc.

In this episode of Transfigured, I sit down with Dr. Jim to delve into a range of pressing intellectual and spiritual topics. We explore his recent writings on his Substack, "Around the Corner," his perspective on the "re-enchantment" narrative currently popular in some online spaces, and a critical engagement with modernism. Using Carlos Eire's book "They Flew" (about the levitating St. Joseph of Cupertino) as a springboard, we discuss the nature of evidence, the moral responsibilities tied to metaphysical claims, and the vital role of institutions (like those in science, medicine, and education) in fostering self-correction and upholding human values. Dr. Jim shares his thoughts on the "scientific image" versus the "manifest image," the limitations of evolutionary biology's common framing, and why he considers himself a "reactionary modern," wary of prematurely discarding the hard-won insights of the Enlightenment and classical liberalism. Join us for a deep and nuanced conversation! We mention Dr. Jim, Sam (Transfigured), David Bentley Hart, Paul Vander Klay, Jonathan Pageau, John Vervaeke, Carlos Eire ("They Flew"), St. Joseph of Cupertino, Ross Douthat, Bart Ehrman, David Hume, Sam Harris, Wilfrid Sellars (Scientific Image vs. Manifest Image), Richard Dawkins, Bach, Mozart, Galileo, Michael Servetus, John Calvin, Rod Dreher, Bethel McGrew, Benjamin Boyce, Jesus Christ, Hermes, Chad (the Alcoholic), Julian, Aristotle (Four Causes), and more.Dr. Jim's Substack "Around the Corner": https://substack.com/@aroundthecorner1Midwest Apologetics Conference (August 22-24, Chicago, IL): https://www.midwestuary.com/Email for scholarship inquiries: info@midwestuary.com

What do biblical archaeologists really do in the Holy Land and how can Archaeology provide fresh information about Jesus' life and death? Books by Jodi Magness available at https://amzn.to/44awNts Misquoting Jesus podcast with Bart Ehrman available at https://amzn.to/46zMgCx Did Jesus Exist? by Bart D. Ehrman at https://amzn.to/455AEqu Bart Ehrman books available at https://amzn.to/46EU0U4 Biblical Archaeology books at https://amzn.to/4l3UDgi ENJOY Ad-Free content, Bonus episodes, and Extra materials when joining our growing community on https://patreon.com/markvinet SUPPORT this channel by purchasing any product on Amazon using this FREE entry LINK https://amzn.to/3POlrUD (Amazon gives us credit at NO extra charge to you). Mark Vinet's HISTORY OF NORTH AMERICA podcast: www.parthenonpodcast.com/history-of-north-america Mark's TIMELINE Video channel: https://youtube.com/c/TIMELINE_MarkVinet Website: https://markvinet.com/podcast Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mark.vinet.9 Twitter: https://twitter.com/HistoricalJesu Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/denarynovels Mark's books: https://amzn.to/3k8qrGM Audio Credit: Misquoting Jesus podcast with Bart Ehrman (Episode 71, 27feb2024, Archaeology in the Time of Jesus with Jodi Magness). Audio excerpts reproduced under the Fair Use (Fair Dealings) Legal Doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, teaching, education, scholarship, research and news reporting.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Visions of supernatural beings or places are relatively common in the bible and early Christian writings - from wheels within wheels, to visions of the risen Jesus, to trips to the afterlife, writers record a whole array of fascinating experiences. Today, Dr. Bart Ehrman joins me to talk about one of the less flamboyant, but nonetheless intriguing visions - Paul's trip to the “third heaven”. We'll get into the role of visions in ancient communities, what exactly a “third heaven” is, and why Paul chose to write about it.

If Jesus did not rise from the dead, as skeptics claim, then our faith in Christ is worthless and we are still in our sins (1 Corinthians 15:17). So do arguments rooted in naturalism, aimed at criticizing and casting doubt upon the resurrection of Jesus from the dead, pose any significant challenge to the Christian faith? According to our guest this week, the world's leading scholar on the resurrection of Jesus, Dr. Gary Habermas, the answer is "Absolutely not!" Dr. Gary Habermas has dedicated his professional life to the examination of the relevant historical, philosophical, and theological issues surrounding the death and resurrection of Jesus. His extensive list of publications and debates provides a thorough account of the current state of the issue. He has also contributed more than 60 chapters or articles to additional books, and over 100 articles and reviews in journals and other publications. In recent years, he has been a visiting or adjunct professor at about 15 different graduate schools and seminaries in the United States and abroad. Dr. Habermas is a Distinguished Research Professor of Apologetics and Philosophy. He is married to Eileen and they have seven children and 11 grandchildren. https://www.liberty.edu/divinity/seminary/faculty/gary-habermas/Gary's Books  (2024), On the Resurrection: Refutations, Vol 2 of 4, Broadman & Holman, Academic, ISBN: 978-1-0877-7862-4, https://www.amazon.com/on-the-resurrection-volume-2/dp/108777862X Free Profiles from Watchman Fellowship!  Watchman Fellowship 4-page Profile on Bart Ehrman by Dr. Rhyne Putman: watchman.org/Ehrman Watchman Fellowship 4-page Profile on Atheism by Dr. Robert M. Bowman: watchman.org/Atheism Watchman Fellowship 4-page Profile on Agnosticism by W. Russell Crawford: watchman.org/Agnostic Watchman Fellowship 4-page Profile on Mythicism by Dr. Robert Stewart and Marilyn Stewart: watchman.org/Mythicism Additional ResourcesFREE: We are also offering a subscription to our 4-page bimonthly Profiles here: www.watchman.org/Free.PROFILE NOTEBOOK: Order the complete collection of Watchman Fellowship Profiles (660 pages -- from Astrology to Zen Buddhism) in either printed or PDF formats here: watchman.org/notebook. SUPPORT: Help us create more content like this. Make a tax-deductible donation here: www.watchman.org/give.Apologetics Profile is a ministry of Watchman Fellowship For more information, visit www.watchman.org © 2025 Watchman Fellowship, Inc.

We continue investigating the mid-to-late second century apocryphal Infancy Gospel of Thomas. E107. Misquoting Jesus with Bart Ehrman podcast at https://amzn.to/46zMgCx Bart Ehrman books available at https://amzn.to/46EU0U4 Christopher A. Frilingos books https://amzn.to/3KnIMsQ Infancy Gospel of Thomas https://amzn.to/3wIW9ko Protevangelium or Gospel of James available at https://amzn.to/3ZwTm81 ENJOY Ad-Free content, Bonus episodes, and Extra materials when joining our growing community on https://patreon.com/markvinet SUPPORT this channel by purchasing any product on Amazon using this FREE entry LINK https://amzn.to/3POlrUD (Amazon gives us credit at NO extra charge to you). Mark Vinet's HISTORY OF NORTH AMERICA podcast: www.parthenonpodcast.com/history-of-north-america Mark's TIMELINE Video channel: https://youtube.com/c/TIMELINE_MarkVinet Website: https://markvinet.com/podcast Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mark.vinet.9 Twitter: https://twitter.com/HistoricalJesu Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/denarynovels Mark's books: https://amzn.to/3k8qrGM Audio Credit: Misquoting Jesus podcast with Bart Ehrman (episode 56, 14nov2023, titled: He's a Very Naughty Boy: The Infancy Gospel of Thomas) with guest Christopher A. Frilingos. Audio excerpts reproduced under the Fair Use (Fair Dealings) Legal Doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, teaching, education, scholarship, research and news reporting. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Alistiko oikeaoppinen kristinusko ihan yhtä alkuperäiset "heresiat" lopulta vain keisarin miekalla, kuten mm. Bart Ehrman väittää? Jaksossa käydään läpi tämän teesin heikkouksia Köstenbergerin ja Krugerin kirjan The Heresy of Orthodoxy avulla.

The Sermon on the Mount is probably one of the best-known speeches of Jesus, and if you've spent any time in a church service, then the odds are that you've heard at least part of it. It contains the beatitudes - “blessed are the meek” - the Lord's Prayer, and a whole host of teachings that are held sacred by Christians the world over. But… did the writer of Matthew fabricate the whole thing? Today, Dr. Bart Ehrman joins me to talk about this amazing sermon, whether anything like it exists elsewhere in the New Testament, and whether Jesus is likely to have uttered a word of it.

Let’s further explore the Infancy Gospel of Thomas—one of the most peculiar and intriguing non-canonical accounts of Jesus' life from outside the New Testament. E106. Misquoting Jesus with Bart Ehrman podcast at https://amzn.to/46zMgCx Bart Ehrman books available at https://amzn.to/46EU0U4 Christopher A. Frilingos books https://amzn.to/3KnIMsQ Infancy Gospel of Thomas https://amzn.to/3wIW9ko Protevangelium or Gospel of James available at https://amzn.to/3ZwTm81 ENJOY Ad-Free content, Bonus episodes, and Extra materials when joining our growing community on https://patreon.com/markvinet SUPPORT this channel by purchasing any product on Amazon using this FREE entry LINK https://amzn.to/3POlrUD (Amazon gives us credit at NO extra charge to you). Mark Vinet's HISTORY OF NORTH AMERICA podcast: www.parthenonpodcast.com/history-of-north-america Mark's TIMELINE Video channel: https://youtube.com/c/TIMELINE_MarkVinet Website: https://markvinet.com/podcast Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mark.vinet.9 Twitter: https://twitter.com/HistoricalJesu Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/denarynovels Mark's books: https://amzn.to/3k8qrGM Audio Credit: Misquoting Jesus podcast with Bart Ehrman (episode 56, 14nov2023, titled: He's a Very Naughty Boy: The Infancy Gospel of Thomas) with guest Christopher A. Frilingos. Audio excerpts reproduced under the Fair Use (Fair Dealings) Legal Doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, teaching, education, scholarship, research and news reporting. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Infancy gospels or protoevangelions are a genre of religious texts that arose in the 2nd century. They are part of New Testament apocrypha, and provide accounts of the birth and early life of Jesus. The texts are of various and uncertain origin, and are generally non-canonical in major modern branches of Christianity. They include the Gospel of James, which introduces the concept of the Perpetual Virginity of Mary, and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (not to be confused with the unrelated Gospel of Thomas), both of which cover many miraculous incidents from the life of Mary and the childhood of Jesus that are not included in the canonical gospels. E105. Misquoting Jesus with Bart Ehrman podcast at https://amzn.to/46zMgCx Bart Ehrman books available at https://amzn.to/46EU0U4 Christopher A. Frilingos books https://amzn.to/3KnIMsQ Infancy Gospel of Thomas https://amzn.to/3wIW9ko Protevangelium or Gospel of James available at https://amzn.to/3ZwTm81 ENJOY Ad-Free content, Bonus episodes, and Extra materials when joining our growing community on https://patreon.com/markvinet SUPPORT this channel by purchasing any product on Amazon using this FREE entry LINK https://amzn.to/3POlrUD (Amazon gives us credit at NO extra charge to you). Mark Vinet's HISTORY OF NORTH AMERICA podcast: www.parthenonpodcast.com/history-of-north-america Mark's TIMELINE Video channel: https://youtube.com/c/TIMELINE_MarkVinet Website: https://markvinet.com/podcast Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mark.vinet.9 Twitter: https://twitter.com/HistoricalJesu Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/denarynovels Mark's books: https://amzn.to/3k8qrGM Audio Credit: Misquoting Jesus podcast with Bart Ehrman (episode 56, 14nov2023, titled: He's a Very Naughty Boy: The Infancy Gospel of Thomas) with guest Christopher A. Frilingos. Audio excerpts reproduced under the Fair Use (Fair Dealings) Legal Doctrine for purposes such as criticism, comment, teaching, education, scholarship, research and news reporting. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today's title may seem a little bit odd - how many Jesuses are in the NT? I'm sure there are going to be several comments on YouTube from people who didn't stay to watch the episode because the answer is clearly “one”. For those who want to see where we go with this, Dr. Bart Ehrman is going to be answering my questions on the different ways early Christians and writers of the NT viewed and understood Jesus, and whether all of those views and perspectives can be embodied in a single figure.

Randy Alcorn spends an entire chapter discussing Bart Ehrman and his best-selling book God's Problem. Ehrman denied his faith because he couldn't reconcile evil and suffering with God's goodness. purchase book here I'm Gary Zacharias, a professor of English, avid reader, and passionate follower of Jesus Christ. This podcast is for anyone curious about the intellectual foundation of the Christian faith. Each episode, I feature a key book on topics like the existence of God, the historical evidence for Jesus, science and Christianity, or the reliability of the Bible. These are the books that have earned a permanent place on my apologetics bookshelf—and I want to share them with you. contact me: theapologistsbookshelf@gmail.com

If you have a passing familiarity with the Christian Bible, then you probably know that it's split into two parts - the Old and New Testaments. The New Testament is the part with all the stuff about Jesus, while the Old Testament is drawn largely from Jewish religious scriptures. Today, Dr. Bart Ehrman is joining me to talk about why early Christians insisted on keeping the Old Testament… despite not being Jewish.

Watch BONUS episodes on Patreon: https://patreon.com/dannyjones Bart Ehrman is a New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. He has written and edited 30 books, including six New York Times bestsellers. SPONSORS https://drinkag1.com/dannyjones - Get a FREE bottle of AG D3K2, AG1 welcome kit + 5 travel packs. https://americanfinancing.net/jones - Use the link or call 888-995-2440 today. https://whiterabbitenergy.com/?ref=DJP - Use code DJP for 20% off. EPISODE LINKS https://www.bartehrman.com https://ehrmanblog.org Bart's YouTube channel: @bartdehrman FOLLOW DANNY JONES https://www.instagram.com/dannyjones https://twitter.com/jonesdanny OUTLINE 00:00 - Ancient languages 11:35 - Septuagint Greek vs Hebrew 22:34 - Did Jesus really exist? 27:00 - Thomas Payne's Age of Reason 31:37 - Early Christian drug influence 37:13 - 'Christ' as a drug term 42:18 - Euripides Phaedra 'christ' drug term 44:52 - Drinking death poisons 54:28 - Christos drug term in Euripides 57:53 - Jesus arrested in park references 01:00:43 - Ancient virgin birth & c-section 01:08:33 - Greater questions of Mary 01:16:47 - John Marco Allegro 01:25:02 - Ancient dictionary unreliability 01:30:06 - The Secret Gospel of Mark 01:39:08 - Biblical scholar bias 01:42:54 - Satan & The book of Job 01:48:45 - Ancient Mug containing psychedelic drugs 01:55:42 - Younger dryas hypothesis Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

In 1833, Thomas Starkie observed, “It so rarely happens that witnesses of the same transaction perfectly and entirely agree in all points connected with it, that an entire and complete coincidence in every particular…engenders suspicion.” On this special Easter edition of the podcast, Shane airs an interview he recorded with Lydia McGrew about differences that exist between the four Gospels related to Jesus' resurrection, and whether those differences can be reconciled.SHOW NOTESArticlesConsidering Alternatives to the Resurrection, Shane RosenthalJoanna: Luke's Key Witness? Shane RosenthalBart Ehrman on Jesus & The Claim of Resurrection, Shane RosenthalPassover & The Last Supper, Shane RosenthalWhere Was Jesus Crucified?, Shane RosenthalAre We Witnessing a Paradigm Shift on John's Gospel? Shane RosenthalThe Compelling Nature of Corroborated Testimony, Shane RosenthalSimon of Cyrene: An Intriguing Archaeological Discovery, Shane RosenthalThe Authenticity & Genuineness of the Fourth Gospel, J.B. LightfootIs Luke a Trustworthy Historian?, Sir William RamsayCan We Trust Luke's History of the Early Jesus Movement? Shane RosenthalWhat is the Most Important Thing Taught in the Bible?, Shane RosenthalBooksTestimonies to the Truth, Lydia McGrewHidden in Plain View, Lydia McGrewThe Mirror or the Mask, Lydia McGrewJesus & The Eyewitnesses, Richard BauckhamEaster Enigma, John WenhamThe Doubters Guide to Jesus, John DicksonCan We Trust the Gospels? Peter J. WilliamsOn The Resurrection Vol. 1: Evidences, Gary HabermasOn The Resurrection Vol. 2: Refutations, Gary HabermasAudioFake or Authentic? with Lydia McGrewAuthenticating the Book of Acts, with Lydia McGrewThe Messiah's Redemptive Mission, Shane RosenthalStories of Jesus: Can We Trust Them? with Peter J. WilliamsAre The Gospels History or Fiction? with John DicksonIs John's Gospel Late & Unreliable?, with Daniel WallaceThe Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, with Richard BauckhamLocating Golgotha, with David RohlEvidential Reasoning, with Craig PartonDealing with Discrepancies, with J. Warner WallaceThe Jesus of History & The Gospel CreedVideoThe Resurrection of Jesus, Peter J. WilliamsPeter J. Williams vs Bart Ehrman on the Reliablity of the NTThe Tools & Rules of History, with Gary Habermas, David McIlroy & Shane RosenthalMark Lanier moderated this panel discussion at the Lanier Theological Library in Houston Texas. The forum was inspired by the release of two exhaustive volumes on the historicity of Jesus' Resurrection by Dr. Habermas: On The Resurrection Vol. 1: Evidences, and On The Resurrection Vol. 2: Refutations.Who Is Jesus? Bridging Diverse Voices, St. Louis, MO, April 24th.Shane Rosenthal and Michael McClymond will be defending the historic Christian view of Jesus at this Christian / Muslim conversation which will take place at St. Louis Community College Meramec (located at 11333 Big Bend Rd, in Kirkwood, MO). The purpose is to highlight some of the differences between Christian and Muslim perspectives related to Jesus' identity and mission and to take questions from students. This event is brought to you by St. Louis Community College in partnership with ReThink315. Click here for more info.Share with Friends & FamilyIf you're a fan of the show, please share with others and consider posting a link to this episode via your social media feed. Just copy the URL of this page, paste it into your feed, and write a few words. Also, consider writing a positive review of this podcast via the Apple Podcast app, or your preferred podcast portal. The more reviews we get, the more exposure we get! Thanks for your help!Make a One-Time Gift or Upgrade to a Paid SubscriptionConsider supporting The Humble Skeptic podcast by making a one-time gift or upgrading to a paid subscription via Substack ($5.95 per month, $59 per year). Tax-deductible giving options are also available. Get full access to The Humble Skeptic at www.humbleskeptic.com/subscribe

This week, in honor of the world giving lip service to The Resurrection at Easter, your host Fred Williams and co-host Doug McBurney condescend to entertain secular alternatives to the bodily death, burial & resurrection of Jesus Christ by listing the top 10: * Jesus Died by Crucifixion: The resurrection means nothing if Jesus didn't actually die. But virtually all scholars — even skeptical ones — agree Jesus died by Roman crucifixion. Why? The Roman method was brutal and efficient.   The Journal of the American Medical Association published a medical study affirming death by crucifixion.   Eyewitness accounts, including Roman historians like Tacitus, confirm it.   Jesus wasn't resuscitated. He was dead. The resurrection wasn't a near-death experience — it was a reversal of death.     * The Tomb Was Empty: The empty tomb is reported in all four Gospels, and it's confirmed by: Jewish leaders never produced the body. Instead, they said, “His disciples stole the body” — confirming the tomb was empty.   Even critics like atheist historian Bart Ehrman admit the tomb was likely empty — the question is why.     * The Disciples Believed They Saw the Risen Jesus: Something transformed a group of cowardly fishermen into bold proclaimers of a risen Christ. After Jesus' death, they were in hiding.   Then they claimed to have seen, touched, and eaten with the risen Jesus.   Many of them were martyred — not for what they believed, but for what they claimed to have seen.   People don't generally die for a lie they made up, especially when they get nothing in return but beatings and exile.     * The Rapid Spread of Christianity: How did a tiny, persecuted sect become the largest religion in the world? No political power. No money. No military. Just the message: He is risen.   Within weeks, thousands of Jews — fiercely monotheistic — believed Jesus was Lord and worshipped Him as God.   That doesn't happen unless something earth-shaking occurred.       * Testimony of Enemies: Who testified to the resurrection? Not just friends — enemies. James, Jesus' own skeptical brother, didn't believe in Him during His ministry. After the resurrection, James becomes a leader of the Jerusalem church and is martyred.   Paul was a violent persecutor of Christians. He had every reason to stop this movement — until he says he saw the risen Jesus himself.   Enemies don't convert unless they believe something really happened.     *The First Witnesses Were Women: All four Gospels say women were the first to find the tomb empty. In a culture where a woman's testimony didn't even count in court, this detail would never be invented. If the story were fabricated, the writers would've said Peter or John found the tomb.   The only reason to include women is because that's how it happened.   This is what scholars call the criterion of embarrassment — details that are awkward but truthful.   * I Corinthians 15: Paul lists post-resurrection appearances in I Cor 15. This shows belief in the resurrection wasn't a legend that developed decades later — it was immediate.   He names witnesses: “He appeared to Peter… the twelve… over 500 at once… James… and last of all to me.”   Paul is essentially saying: Go ask them yourself.     * The Martyrdom of the Apostles: Nearly all of the apostles suffered and many were killed for proclaiming Christ's resurrection. James: Certainly Beheaded in Jerusalem. Paul: Likely Beheaded in Rome. Peter: Likely crucified (allegedly upside down) Thomas: Allegedly Speared in India. Tens of thousands of Christian martyrdoms witnessed privately by millions of average people over the past 2,0000 years, (God knows and will bring the record on Judgment Day) They didn't die for abstract beliefs — they died for claiming they saw or believed in the risen Jesus. Liars make poor martyrs.     * The Conversion of Saul (Paul): Paul went from persecuting Christians to becoming Christianity's most influential missionary. He lost status, privilege, safety.   He was beaten, imprisoned, and eventually executed.   And he writes about meeting the risen Christ with personal conviction and detail.   What changes a man like that? Something real. Something undeniable.     * Bodily Resurrection from the Dead Fits All the Fact: When you put all the evidence together, there is no plausible alternative theory: The Swoon theory? Jesus didn't just faint — He was executed and His heart pierced.   The Hallucination theory? Hallucinations are individual — not shared by 500 people.   The Stolen body? The disciples would've had no motive and no success against the Roman guards, (who witnessed the theft while asleep)?   The Legend theory? Legends take generations. Christ's Resurrection was being preached and believed among hundreds in just days and weeks. The resurrection isn't just plausible — it's the only rational explanation regarding the earthly life, death ministry and legacy of Jesus Christ. The Bible teaches us that the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ was essential for the salvation of the world and the reconciliation of all things in Heaven and Earth back to God. So any other theory is to be dismissed.

This week, in honor of the world giving lip service to The Resurrection at Easter, your host Fred Williams and co-host Doug McBurney condescend to entertain secular alternatives to the bodily death, burial & resurrection of Jesus Christ by listing the top 10:   * Jesus Died by Crucifixion: The resurrection means nothing if Jesus didn't actually die. But virtually all scholars — even skeptical ones — agree Jesus died by Roman crucifixion. Why? The Roman method was brutal and efficient.   The Journal of the American Medical Association published a medical study affirming death by crucifixion.   Eyewitness accounts, including Roman historians like Tacitus, confirm it.   Jesus wasn't resuscitated. He was dead. The resurrection wasn't a near-death experience — it was a reversal of death.   * The Tomb Was Empty: The empty tomb is reported in all four Gospels, and it's confirmed by: Jewish leaders never produced the body. Instead, they said, “His disciples stole the body” — confirming the tomb was empty.   Even critics like atheist historian Bart Ehrman admit the tomb was likely empty — the question is why.     * The Disciples Believed They Saw the Risen Jesus: Something transformed a group of cowardly fishermen into bold proclaimers of a risen Christ. After Jesus' death, they were in hiding.   Then they claimed to have seen, touched, and eaten with the risen Jesus.   Many of them were martyred — not for what they believed, but for what they claimed to have seen.   People don't generally die for a lie they made up, especially when they get nothing in return but beatings and exile.     * The Rapid Spread of Christianity: How did a tiny, persecuted sect become the largest religion in the world? No political power. No money. No military. Just the message: He is risen.   Within weeks, thousands of Jews — fiercely monotheistic — believed Jesus was Lord and worshipped Him as God.   That doesn't happen unless something earth-shaking occurred.       * Testimony of Enemies: Who testified to the resurrection? Not just friends — enemies. James, Jesus' own skeptical brother, didn't believe in Him during His ministry. After the resurrection, James becomes a leader of the Jerusalem church and is martyred.   Paul was a violent persecutor of Christians. He had every reason to stop this movement — until he says he saw the risen Jesus himself.   Enemies don't convert unless they believe something really happened.     *The First Witnesses Were Women: All four Gospels say women were the first to find the tomb empty. In a culture where a woman's testimony didn't even count in court, this detail would never be invented. If the story were fabricated, the writers would've said Peter or John found the tomb.   The only reason to include women is because that's how it happened.   This is what scholars call the criterion of embarrassment — details that are awkward but truthful.   * I Corinthians 15: Paul lists post-resurrection appearances in I Cor 15. This shows belief in the resurrection wasn't a legend that developed decades later — it was immediate.   He names witnesses: “He appeared to Peter… the twelve… over 500 at once… James… and last of all to me.”   Paul is essentially saying: Go ask them yourself.     * The Martyrdom of the Apostles: Nearly all of the apostles suffered and many were killed for proclaiming Christ's resurrection. James: Certainly Beheaded in Jerusalem. Paul: Likely Beheaded in Rome. Peter: Likely crucified (allegedly upside down) Thomas: Allegedly Speared in India. Tens of thousands of Christian martyrdoms witnessed privately by millions of average people over the past 2,0000 years, (God knows and will bring the record on Judgment Day) They didn't die for abstract beliefs — they died for claiming they saw or believed in the risen Jesus. Liars make poor martyrs.     * The Conversion of Saul (Paul): Paul went from persecuting Christians to becoming Christianity's most influential missionary. He lost status, privilege, safety.   He was beaten, imprisoned, and eventually executed.   And he writes about meeting the risen Christ with personal conviction and detail.   What changes a man like that? Something real. Something undeniable.     * Bodily Resurrection from the Dead Fits All the Fact: When you put all the evidence together, there is no plausible alternative theory: The Swoon theory? Jesus didn't just faint — He was executed and His heart pierced.   The Hallucination theory? Hallucinations are individual — not shared by 500 people.   The Stolen body? The disciples would've had no motive and no success against the Roman guards, (who witnessed the theft while asleep)?   The Legend theory? Legends take generations. Christ's Resurrection was being preached and believed among hundreds in just days and weeks. The resurrection isn't just plausible — it's the only rational explanation regarding the earthly life, death ministry and legacy of Jesus Christ. The Bible teaches us that the bodily resurrection of Jesus Christ was essential for the salvation of the world and the reconciliation of all things in Heaven and Earth back to God. So any other theory is to be dismissed.

With Easter fast approaching, the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus are on the minds of many Christians. While it has been a lynch-pin in Christian theology since the formation of the religion, Christians - both early and modern - disagree on how it happened, why it happened, and the implications it has for human life after death. Today, Dr. Bart Ehrman elucidates us all on early debates around the resurrection, why these debates happened, and what pagan authors thought about the whole thing.

What is Easter really about? In this video, we walk through 10 life-changing truths every Christian must rememberduring Holy Week. From the cross to the empty tomb, these truths are meant to ground your faith, encourage your heart, and push back against cultural confusion.We also respond to common critiques and Easter controversies:⛔ Is Easter just a pagan holiday?

Unless you have sworn off social media, you're probably familiar with the existence of “tradwives” - women who live their lives according to traditional, conservative gender roles. They often describe themselves as living biblically, or having a biblical marriage, celebrating that they are subservient to their husbands. Today, Dr. Bart Ehrman provides insight into what the New Testament actually says about gender roles and marriage. Is this style of patriarchal living actually biblical, and how would women at the time have been expected to live?

Everyone loves Jesus. But who was Jesus? Was he just a historical figure, or was he someone you can have a relationship with today? Joseph Holmes and Nathan Clarkson discuss with beloved author John Eldredge Americans positive view of Jesus: https://www.barna.com/research/openness-to-jesus/   Americans belief in Jesus divinity: https://www.barna.com/research/what-do-americans-believe-about-jesus-5-popular-beliefs/   Bart Ehrman on Jesus: https://ehrmanblog.org/who-was-jesus/   Personal relationship with Jesus not in Bible:

Are there contradictions between the gospel accounts? If so, how can we trust the central tenet of Christianity--the Resurrection of Jesus? J. Warner Wallace returns to share how he used his skill set as a detective to investigate the claims of the New Testament gospels and compares his findings to those of atheist/agnostic New Testament scholar, Bart Ehrman.Together, Frank and Jim answer questions like:What's necessary to prove an event occurred in the past?Why weren't first-century historians bothered by textual differences found in the Gospels?Why is it better to have four different gospel accounts vs. one harmonization?Why would God allow these textual differences?What surprised Jim the most the first time he read the Gospels as an atheist?Why do detectives separate eyewitnesses?When doing detective work, why does Jim prefer it when the stories are "messy"?Does the evidence always determine the verdict? In other words, why do Jim and Bart come to different conclusions when it comes to the Resurrection of Jesus?Why is bias against the supernatural a double-standard for materialist atheists?What's the best way to test an eyewitness?If the Gospels are contradictory and can't be trusted, why do critics like Erhman conclude that much of the New Testament is true and that the disciples really believed they saw the resurrected Jesus?How are atheists disagreeing with themselves and agreeing with Christians when it comes to alternative explanations for the resurrection?And so much more! If you normally listen to podcasts on 2x speed you may need to slow it down for this one and take some notes!Resources mentioned during the episode:Jim's website - https://coldcasechristianity.com/Cold Case Christianity - https://a.co/d/dABS4uACase Files: Murder & Meaning - https://casefilesgraphicnovel.com/

It's not every day that you get to talk about an exciting new discovery in biblical studies - the ravages of time mean that it's rare for a text to survive, especially a complete text! Even rarer is a complete text that records an entire sermon given by Jesus. Well, I'm excited to say that today is one of those days! Dr. Bart Ehrman is with me to talk about his take on a fascinating new text discovered recently in Egypt!

The foundational narrative behind Christ's death, burial, and resurrection is the story of Exodus. After all, Jesus is presented in the Gospels as “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world,” and was put to death on the eve of Passover. But what if the Israelite exodus from Egypt never really happened? On this episode, Shane talks with Egyptologist David Rohl about why so many contemporary scholars conclude that Israel's foundational story is rooted in mythology, and why they are blind to clear and convincing evidence in support of the Exodus narrative.Click Here to listen to Shane's interview with John Lennox about the meaning and significance of the story of Joseph (WHI #1582).SHOW NOTESRelated BooksExodus: Myth or History? David RohlLegendary Kings, David RohlRedating the Exodus & Conquest, John Bimson — FREEWhen Did It Happen? John BimsonBiblical Archaeology, David E. GravesThe Ancient Near East, James B. Pritchard (ed.)Echoes of The Exodus, Wilson & RobertsJoseph: A Story of Love, Hate & Forgiveness, John LennoxThe Complete Works of Josephus, Flavius JosephusRelated ArticlesIs The Exodus a Myth? Bart Ehrman (cited in commentary)The Origins of Israel in Canaan, John BimsonArchaeological Data & The Dating of the Patriarchs, John BimsonArchaeological Discoveries Related to Nebuchadnezzar II, Shane RosenthalIs Luke a Trustworthy Historian?, Sir William RamsayThe Authenticity & Genuineness of the Fourth Gospel, J.B. LightfootAuthenticating the Fourth Gospel, Shane RosenthalThe Date of John's Gospel: Are We Witnessing a Paradigm Shift? Shane RosenthalSimon of Cyrene: An Intriguing Archaeological Discovery, Shane RosenthalOutside the Gospels, What Can We Really Know About Jesus? Shane RosenthalCan We Trust Luke's History of the Early Jesus Movement? Shane RosenthalNew Life in the New Year: A Brief Account of the Exodus, Shane RosenthalRelated AudioQuestioning Conventional Wisdom (1), Humble Skeptic #13 with David RohlQuestioning Conventional Wisdom (2), Humble Skeptic #14 with David RohlLocating Golgotha, Humble Skeptic #17 with David RohlJohn Lennox on the Story of Joseph, White Horse Inn #1582Stories of Jesus: Can We Trust Them? Humble Skeptic #61 with Peter J. WilliamsAre The Gospels History or Fiction? Humble Skeptic #52 with John DicksonIs John's Gospel Late & Unreliable?, Humble Skeptic #51 with Daniel WallaceQuestioning The Fourth Gospel, Humble Skeptic #49 with Richard BauckhamThe Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony, Humble Skeptic #48 with Richard BauckhamFaith Founded on Facts (1), Humble Skeptic #15Faith Founded on Facts (2), Humble Skeptic #16Related VideoPatterns of Evidence: Exodus, featuring David RohlThe David Rohl LecturesUPCOMING EVENTSThe Messianic Hope, Memphis, TN, April 11-13Shane Rosenthal will be giving a series of talks related to Christ's fulfillment of Old Testament prophecy at this weekend conference in Rosemark, TN. Click here for more information.Who Is Jesus?: Bridging Diverse Voices, St. Louis, MO, April 24th.Shane Rosenthal and Michael McClymond will be defending the historic Christian view of Jesus at this Christian / Muslim conversation which will take place at St. Louis Community College Meramec (located at 11333 Big Bend Rd, in Kirkwood, MO). The purpose is to highlight some of the differences between Christian and Muslim perspectives related to Jesus' identity and mission and to take questions from students. This event is brought to you by St. Louis Community College in partnership with ReThink315. Click here for more info.Share with Friends & FamilyIf you're a fan of the show, please tell others about the show, and consider posting a link to this episode via your social media feed. Just copy the URL of this page, paste it into your feed, and write a few words. Also, consider writing a positive review of this podcast via the Apple Podcast app, or your preferred podcast portal. The more reviews we get, the more exposure we get! Thanks for your help!Make a One-Time Gift or Upgrade to a Paid SubscriptionConsider supporting The Humble Skeptic podcast by making a one-time gift or upgrading to a paid subscription via Substack ($5.95 per month, $59 per year). Tax-deductible giving options are also available. Get full access to The Humble Skeptic at www.humbleskeptic.com/subscribe

Picture this: a man in his 80s trying to cross the street, but the traffic doesn't pause for long enough for him to cross. A young woman notices his difficulty, and runs over to help. Does the young woman get any kind of benefit from her action, or is it entirely thankless? Today, Dr. Bart Ehrman and I are talking about altruism. Is it possible to do a good deed without experiencing some kind of benefit?

The apostle Paul went from being a devout Jew, one of God's chosen people, to an enthusiastic missionary for the Jesus movement. Today, Dr. Bart Ehrman and I look at Paul's writings to consider whether this shift also changed his self-identification as a Jew, and if he believed that God no longer favored the Jewish people.

The fear of death is an experience common to most of humanity - in fact, one of the oldest pieces of literature, the Epic of Gilgamesh, shows one man's struggle with that very fear. Christianity's promise of heaven provides a safe haven from that fear - but what did Jesus think about life after death? Today on Misquoting Jesus, Dr. Bart Ehrman discusses what the Gospels tell us about Jesus' thoughts and beliefs surrounding death, and to ask whether he would even have recognized our modern concept of an eternal paradise.

Today on Misquoting Jesus, we're talking about what "born-again" means, how a born-again Christian considers themselves different from other Christians, and what Jesus would have thought about the whole thing. As a former born-again Christian, Dr. Bart Ehrman is here to explain all of this and more!

Knowing when something was written helps to better understand answers to other questions - like why it was written, and how it relates to other texts from that time. Unfortunately, ancient authors rarely wrote the date at the top of the page when they started writing, which makes working out when something was written a somewhat challenging process. Today, Dr. Bart Ehrman is going to guide us through how biblical scholars tackle this challenging process, and look at why it is that the Gospel of Mark is understood to be the first gospel.

In an age of growing skepticism and hostility toward the Bible, are there any good reasons to take it seriously? Dr. Andy Steiger, president of Apologetics Canada, returns to the program to discuss, 'Can I Trust the Bible?'—a brand-new video series he co-created with Wesley Huff, defending the Bible's reliability. In this episode, Frank and Andy dive into pressing questions like:Should Christians engage with secular platforms?How has Wes Huff's debate with Billy Carson and recent interview with Joe Rogan influenced Apologetics Canada?What is Bart Ehrman getting wrong about New Testament manuscripts?How do we know the Pauline epistles were written early?What did plagiarism look like in the ancient world?Are there actual “mistakes” in New Testament manuscripts?Why aren't the Apocrypha and Gnostic gospels in the Bible?Are extra-biblical sources for Jesus more reliable than the Bible?Be sure to check out Wes and Andy's new video series along with even more great content on the Apologetics Canada website, including infographics, new podcast episodes, online courses, recommended resources for children, and MUCH more!Resources mentioned during the episode:WEBSITE: https://apologeticscanada.com/VIDEO SERIES: https://bible.apologeticscanada.com/WES HUFF INFOGRAPHICS + OTHER HELPFUL CONTENT: https://apologeticscanada.com/resources

If I start talking about “the law”, many of you are going to have certain ideas pop into your heads - a police force, trials, prison. But what about if I'm talking about the law in a religious sense? Maybe you'll think of the ten commandments, veiling women, or practices of abstinence. Today, Dr. Bart Ehrman talks about the Jewish Law as presented in the New Testament, exploring whether it's possible to even keep it, and what agenda the NT authors had when talking about it.

Rebecca and Dr. Michael J. Kruger discuss the origins and reliability of the New Testament, the textual transmission from early Christianity, the authenticity of gospel accounts, and address common skeptic arguments, including Bart Ehrman's views on manuscript variations. Dr. Kruger highlights the significance of Jesus' character and teachings while discussing the historical importance of early Christian texts.Subscribe to Mike's Blog:Miniature Codices in Early ChristianityFollow Mike Kruger:X, Facebook, and WebsiteThe Story of Jesus is designed for churches to use during evangelism and outreach events to help readers understand who Jesus is so they may believe and have life in his name. Pick up a copy wherever books are sold or visit crossway.org/plus to learn how you can get 30 percent off with a Crossway plus account.Sign up for weekly emails at RebeccaMcLaughlin.org/SubscribeFollow Confronting Christianity:Instagram | XProduced by ⁠⁠⁠⁠The Good Podcast Co.⁠⁠⁠⁠

Dr. Craig is interviewed concerning the claims of agnostic textual critic Dr. Bart Ehrman.

The question of how much of the Bible is historically accurate, and how much is myth or legend, is both interesting and important to a lot of people - believer and atheist alike. Some insist it's accurate down to the last detail, while others label it as fairy tales from beginning to end. In this episode, Dr. Bart Ehrman unravels how scholars distinguish history from myth within the Gospels of the New Testament, why it's important to do so, and exactly what a “myth” is.

In this episode of The Universe Next Door, we continue our in-depth exploration of the Gospel of Mark, focusing on Jesus' divine claims in response to Bart Ehrman's assertion that Jesus never claims to be God in this book. Join us as we delve into chapters 9-16, highlighting how Jesus consistently presents himself as divine through prophecies, parables, and direct statements. Send your questions to information@apologetics.org   Part 1: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/did-jesus-claim-to-be-god-in-the-book-of-mark/id1464590061?i=1000679935739   The Transfiguration: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/what-you-dont-know-about-the-transfiguration-are-you/id1464590061?i=1000654849174        

Bart Ehrman is a New Testament scholar focusing on textual criticism of the New Testament, the historical Jesus, and the origins and development of early Christianity. Get Bart Ehrman's new course, The Dark Side of Christmas (affiliate link).

Dr. Bart Ehrman claims that Matthew made a translation error and misunderstood the original context of Isaiah 7:14. If Matthew had known Hebrew and understood the context, he would have known that Isaiah was not prophesying a "virgin birth." If Dr. Ehrman is true, that means the Gospel story of Jesus is built on a lie. What is the truth? Find out in this in-depth investigation.     Abdu's socials:  Facebook https://www.facebook.com/abdumurray  Instagram https://www.instagram.com/abdumurray12  Twitter https://twitter.com/abdumurray  TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@abdumurray  Keep in touch with Abdu and be notified when he is in a town near you by signing up for his monthly newsletter at https://embracethetruth.org/sign-up/.    Embrace the Truth is a donor-supported ministry that seeks to answer PEOPLE, not questions. Consider partnering with us in this important mission by visiting https://embracethetruth.org/donations/.   

Dr. Bart Ehrman claims that Matthew got the "Nazarene" prophecy about Jesus incorrect because there is no such prophecy found in all of the Old Testament.         Abdu's socials:  Facebook https://www.facebook.com/abdumurray  Instagram https://www.instagram.com/abdumurray12  Twitter https://twitter.com/abdumurray  TikTok https://www.tiktok.com/@abdumurray  Keep in touch with Abdu and be notified when he is in a town near you by signing up for his monthly newsletter at https://embracethetruth.org/sign-up/.   Embrace the Truth is a donor-supported ministry that seeks to answer PEOPLE, not questions. Consider partnering with us in this important mission by visiting https://embracethetruth.org/donations/.   

Lots of religions embrace the idea of hell – a place of eternal punishment for wrong doers. But where did that idea come from? How has it changed through time? And how does a belief in it (or not) affect us while we're alive? We'll talk with Bart Ehrman about the history of beliefs in hell from ancient Mesopotamia through modern Christianity. And with Shadi Hamid about why he thinks it can be a good thing for people to believe in hell, and how that belief shapes our political and social lives.  Bart Ehrman is the James A. Gray Distinguished Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the author of Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife and Journeys to Heaven and Hell: Tours of the Afterlife in the Early Christian Tradition. Find out more about Bart's work, including his many other writings about the New Testament and early Christianity, at his website.Shadi Hamid is a columnist at The Washington Post, a contributing writer at The Atlantic, and a research professor of Islamic studies at Fuller Seminary.