How could these religions be considered Christian if they didn't think Jesus' death mattered? How could they consider the God of the Old Testament to be a lower level and inferior divinity, and this material universe to be a cosmic disaster? Did Gnostics have their own Scriptures? Did they use the books that later became the New Testament? If so, why didn't they just admit their views were wrong? We will address these and other issues in this exploration of the highly unusual world of Christian Gnosticism.

Lots of informed readers know that scribes changed their texts of the New Testament -- but do the changes really matter for anything? In this episode we take the unusual approach of looking at textual changes in just one book of the New Testament, the Gospel of Luke, to see how slight (and not so slight) variations in the text can have an enormous impact on understanding the author's message -- involving such things as the virgin birth, the understanding of whether Jesus' death brought an atonement, whether he was fully human. 

What about the argument that university professors are brainwashing their students to follow their liberal agenda, while hiding behind “academic freedom”? Does the U.S. system of tenure allow professors to say whatever they want, safe in the knowledge that they can never be fired?

One of the central tenets of many denominations of modern Christianity is that Jesus is God. The Nicene Creed describes him as “of one being with the Father”...but just how old is this idea? If you asked Jesus’ disciples if he was a human or God, would they have affirmed his divinity, or accused you of blasphemy? And if Jesus was divine, then was he considered to be God made flesh, a human who was turned into a divinity, a "super-human" with some divine features…or what?

Many people do not realize just how infrequently Paul mentions the sayings of Jesus himself. And scholars can't agree why he doesn't quote Jesus more. Did Paul not know what Jesus taught? How could he not know? Did he think it wasn't important? Wasn't relevant? Was misleading? Moreover, if we compare what Jesus taught with what Paul taught -- are we even dealing with the same religion. These are some of most important issues confronting a historical understanding of the New Testament and early Christianity.

It has long been said among historical scholars that Christianity is not the religion *of* Jesus but the religion *about* him. In this view, Jesus was a Jewish preacher who urged his fellow Jews to repent of their sins and turn back to God by observing what he demanded of them, so they could enter the coming Kingdom. But Christians did not think repentance and obedience could bring salvation at all. It was the death and resurrection of Jesus that mattered. Moreover, it is often said that Paul was the one who transformed Jesus' gospel about the coming Kingdom into a gospel of Jesus' death and resurrection. Is that true? Wouldn't that mean that Paul and Jesus had different religions? And if so, then isn't Paul, rather than Jesus, the Founder of Christianity?

The Gospel of John is one of the most puzzling books of the New Testament, especially when it comes to understanding its view of Jews and Judaism. On one hand, Jesus is clearly described as a Jew who understands and teaches the law of Moses and who keeps Jewish customs and festivals. On the other hand, the Gospel condemns Jews, makes them guilty for the execution of Jesus, and even declares that their "father" is not Abraham, let alone God, but the Devil. How can one book so fully embrace Judaism and yet condemn it. And importantly, is this kind of vitriolic opposition to Jews and Judaism appropriately called "anti-semitism"? The answer will surprise many listeners.

One of the claims consistently made by Christian apologists is that the apostles who declared that they themselves had seen Jesus after he had been raised from the dead MUST have been telling the truth -- since they all died for their belief. Someone may die for the truth, but who would die for a lie? And ALL of them? That seems completely implausible. Therefore the disciples really were witnesses to the resurrection. In this episode we consider this claim by examining its unquestioned assumption: is it actually *true* that the apostles were all martyred for their faith? How do we know? How *could* we know? In fact, what do we know about martyrdom within Christianity at all in the first two centuries? How often did it occur? And were Christians martyred for saying that Jesus was raised from the dead? In this episode Bart discusses what we can know about early Christian martyrdom -- what sources of information we have and whether they are reliable, issues never even broached by the apologists who raise the issue in the first place.

Historical scholars for over a century have maintained that Jesus predicted that the end of history as we know it was to come in his own generation. Conservative Christians -- laypeople and scholars alike -- have insisted that this is a complete mis-portrayal of Jesus. And many people -- possibly most? -- believe that if Jesus really did preach this message, not only was he obviously wrong but also Christianity cannot possibly be true. A Jesus who was *demonstrably* mistaken about a central element of his preaching could not be a prophet of God, let alone the Savior of the world. In this episode we consider the issue and its implication: did Jesus proclaim the imminent end of the world? If so, can Christian faith even be possible, let alone reasonable?