u/Upset_Chip_7184

Really liked his shows, and it seems about a year or so ago he just vanished, at least on YouTube. Does anyone know about him?

Here's just one part of many false and misleading claims.

This is one of the more embarrassing threads. Strobel's book cites the "Nazareth decree" and other finds as archaeological confirmation, but the most notorious example is Strobel's citation of "micrographic letters" — supposed tiny inscriptions on ancient coins spelling out "Rex Jesus" — sourced from disgraced archaeologist E. Jerry Vardaman, whose theories were never accepted by mainstream academia and who was removed from his academic position. Strobel quietly revised this section in later editions without much acknowledgment of how it got in there in the first place.

The linked article has a lot of information in it, if you want to know the whole story.

To add:

Is it true that no christian writer quoted or referred to them, until Origen in the 3rd century?
And second, until the 4th century, many christians did not believe they were written by the names attached to them?

I did find this.
James was quoted, by name essentially, well before Origen. Irenaeus (Against Heresies 4.16.2, c. 180 CE) cites James 2:23 — the "Abraham believed God... called the friend of God" line — directly. That's a full generation-plus before Origen. There are also earlier echoes that are more debated: 1 Clement (c. 96 CE) has language about Abraham as "friend of God" and faith/works themes that many scholars think draws on James or a shared tradition behind it, and the Shepherd of Hermas (mid-2nd century) has striking thematic overlap with James on double-mindedness, the tongue, and testing — again, either dependence or common tradition, actively debated. So James has a real, if thin, pre-Origen paper trail.

That's all.

I saw some people using this apologetic recently, with lots of misinformation and unjustified claims, and it's a big mistake to spread false things or conjecture as evidence or fact.

Let's look at this carefully.

The "500 brethren" claim comes from 1 Corinthians 15:6, where Paul says the risen Christ "appeared to more than five hundred brothers at once, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep."

No one else mentions it. Only Paul, in one verse, ever brings up 500 people seeing the risen Jesus. The Gospels and Acts never mention it, even though they describe other resurrection appearances in detail.

We don't know what "appeared" actually means. Paul uses the same word for this group appearance that he uses for his own experience on the road to Damascus, which was almost certainly a vision, not a physical encounter. So the word alone doesn't prove these people saw a physical body.

"You can go ask them" wasn't really checkable. Paul says most of the 500 were still alive, but he's writing this to people in Corinth, far away from where the appearance supposedly happened. They had no real way to track down and interview 500 random people.

It's a secondhand report, decades later. Paul didn't witness this himself. He's repeating something he was told, written roughly 20-25 years after the event. There are no names, no location, no date, no firsthand account.

One person saying 500 people saw something is very different from 500 people saying they saw something.

Bottom line: it's good evidence that early Christians were already claiming this shortly after Jesus's death, but it's weak evidence for actually proving the event happened as described.

Is it possible their gospel is the one that Papias is referring to, the "Hebrew Matthew"?

And the birth narratives of gMatthew and gLuke were responding/countering that gospel and that movement?

I've heard that the birth narrative in gLuke is possibly an interpolation, considering gLuke is probably written at 100 or later?

And if so, then what about gMatthew's birth narrative, original?

NOT, what I was expecting at all! lol

Thoughts?

So far, I am enjoying it, seems he takes a slightly different approach than Enns? (not sure on this, would like clarification if anyone is familiar).

And are there other academics that have similar books about what the Bible is, or how it should be read, besides those two?

Spoiler here:
I don't want to give anything away, but dang, I was shocked when a certain person went out, from WA, and they were doing great, seemed like they would have won, but they got too "Spiritual" and I dunno, don't get it...they wanted the money so bad to buy their land.

I start with the axiom that the God of the Bible exists.
But my strategy is to assert that the "conservative Christian" God of the bible is not the true God, but that the "liberal Christian" God of the bible is the true God.

So, Christians who believe that the Bible is inspired by God, and any other dogmas you'd like to add regarding the texts.
Now get me from there to the God of the bible who commanded genocide and slavery, and needs a blood sacrifice to forgive.

I assert that anyone who reads the bible and believes God is all-knowing and all-loving cannot hold the conservative view that the bible is from God, and thus, must take the bible as a product of man.

My reason to support that assertion is obvious as I partly stated above, the bible is full of immoral and evil actions committed by, or commanded by the God of the Bible.

I guess his book details this, and I'm wondering how you all feel about it. Is it just for future politics?
Do you think he's practising in good faith?
Do you think he's a good Catholic, considering his position and who he works with in Govt?

If the God of the Bible is good, all-loving, and all-knowing, it seems that the fact that the Bible condones and never prohibits the ownership of humans would negate those attributes.

This God took time to forbid petty and harmless things such as eating shellfish, and wearing mixed clothing, and even killing your disobedient child, but to own someone as a piece of property, where they could be bought, sold, beaten, and slaves for life, and their children born into slavery, it was fine with God, and worse, God knew all the future horrors of millions of slaves that were caught up in this, and much of it from Christian nations.

That doesn't seem to be a good, all-loving, and all-knowing God to me.

I've seen him in debates on slavery, and oh man, is it so bad, right?
He tries all kinds of excuses and justifications and sleight-of-hand techniques, and I'm wondering if he realizes he's doing this, or does he do this on purpose, or what?

This is the kind of apologetics that makes actual scholarly apologetics look very bad.

First, he tries to argue that slavery wasn't Antebellum slavery. Not relevant, and biblical slavery was chattel slavery.

Then, he tries to argue there wasn't chattel slavery, that it was only indentured slavery- wrong again.

Then he tries to use the kidnapping verses that are supposed to show the bible is against the institution of slavery, which is just getting more ridiculous.

And then he goes to the New Testament and tries to argue that Jesus and Paul prohibited it, both wrong again.

OH my, be careful of this apologist, young Christian brothers, because if he can be so wrong, or misleading on this simple topic, what else is he wrong or misleading about?

If you start with dogmas, you're adopting a conclusion before the investigation of the texts, and other historical features, and confirmation bias takes over...you're looking to confirm what someone told you to believe, rather than to discover the truths of the bible and Christianity.

Dogma will also make you try to reconcile things that cannot be, with a false concept of univocality, which seems clearly not the case.
This is precisely why so many Christians are actually inconsistent and contradictory, but often won't admit to it when challenged by others.

It also forces you to apply doctrines that were never meant to be. Remember audience relevance, and who the original texts were written for, who the hearers were, and how they would have understood them.

A great example is the birth narrative of Matthew, clearly not historical, contradicts Luke, but it's a typological story, not meant to be historically accurate.
The average Christian doesn't get this, and then fights hard to reconcile everything.
Big mistake.

This is the more intellectual and honest position to take, and hopefully more will come to the bible and discussion with integrity, instead of trying to defend their biased and tribalistic opinion.

open interpretation, not closed interpretation, should be the goal of every christian.
Will you be responsive to the evidence, or immune to it?
Hopefully the former.

I think this video is quite fitting regarding the recent discussion the last day, which was deleted by the OP, and illustrates part of the problem that Dan and other academics highlight about what the main problem is, which certain scholars at bible colleges.

This might be helpful for those that didn't, or don't understand what academia does and how it operates in Christendom.

I will use slavery in the bible as my example (there are others: marriage, treatment of women)
Where in the bible does it say that slavery (owning another human as property, whether chattel or indentured slavery) is wrong or immoral in the bible?
Nowhere.
But during the abolitionist movement, even though many churches and Christians were pro slavery, using the bible to justify their position, other Christians determined it was wrong, and now, today, it's generally understood and accepted by Christians to be immoral.

And it seems that this is one of the common arguments I often see in its defense: that God allowed it and gave rules for it because the times were different then than they are today, and it was necessary, but not now, which again supports their moral relativist view.

The bible/God and people were fine with it then, but not now. Did the Bible change?
No.
Moral relativism for the conservative Christian who says morality is 100% objective.

Had the first rain with my topper, and when I lifted up the back side/window, the water leaked down, some into the truck bed, some into the tailgate, and my manufacturer said this was normal.

Is it?

Currently reading a book from Borg on this issue, and he makes the argument that the Bible is a product of man vs it being a product of God, and he states that it's very obviously clear that it's a product of man, otherwise God is an immoral and evil monster, due to the stories in the bible, and you probably know them well, i.e. genocides, infanticides, slavery, and other killings of innocent people.

He is a well-known Christian Scholar, and he's obviously not the only one to make this case, if you are familiar with scholarship, contrasted to theology/apologetics.

I do agree that if one takes the bible as a literal history of what happened, there's no escaping his assertion, as many atheists/skeptics would make.

I think it's possible there still can be some low level of inspiration as Peter Enns would argue, and others, but one could still basically argue it's a product of man.

So he's stating this was Israel's telling of the story of their God.

I think the conservative mantra and dogmas I see once in a while here, i.e. " you can't be a christian if you dont believe like me (haha), believe in Proposition X or Y, as many conservative evangelicals will claim, is false and not justifiable.

So far I think he makes the best case about the bible.

Thoughts from everyone?