Is the Bible sexist? Should women submit? Tom Wright tackles most misunderstood verses in the Bible
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 20 ก.ค. 2024
- Should women preach and lead in church? ⛪️ What does Ephesians 5 mean when it talks about submission? 👫 Are men and women equal in the Bible and what about passages that seem to imply otherwise like, 1 Timothy 2? 🔥 👀 Tom 'NT' Wright answers listeners questions about gender, patriarchy and what the Bible really says about women.
00:00 - Intro
04:07 - What does the Bible say about the role of women? Is it Biblical for a woman to lead or preach to a congregation?
09:19 - 1 Timothy 2 and whether women can be teachers in a church?
17:00 - Complementation and Egalitarian views of men and women in Scripture
18:25 - First ordination of women
19:52 - Should wives 'submit' to their husbands according to Ephesians 5?
22:31 - Mutual submission in marriage
23:21 - Justin's thoughts as his wife is an ordained minister
25:57 - Conclusions
#tomwright #ntwright #womeninthebible #women #patriarchy #egalitarian #biblequestions #biblestudy #apologetics #bible
If you enjoy the Podcast, please consider supporting us so we can continue to make more content just like this 🎙️🙏🏽 • Support the Podcast: www.premierunbelievable.com/d...
SOCIAL LINKS:
Twitter: / unbelievablefe
Facebook: / / premierunbelievable
Instagram: / / premierunbelievable
Tik Tok: / / premier.unbelievable
![THE TOYS x NONT TANONT - ดอกไม้ที่รอฝน (spring) [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pPa1d5cC8M4/mqdefault.jpg)
Were one able travel back to a time to ask the church hierarchy why women were not able to be ordained, presumably the answer would be based in scripture. Yet today, where the secular western world has preferenced equality of the sexes; suddenly biblical scholars find a sentence here, or a verse there, that (lo and behold) tells us that this is what scripture meant all along.
And we're meant to take this seriously.
Really.
Which scriptures are you referring to? Can you please offer two or three that emphasis the restrictions on women?
How far back in time are you imagining? Those against the equality of the sexes are quick to say that cultural influence contaminates one’s interpretation of scripture, as if that could only be a phenomenon of present day interpretation. Why would earlier interpreters have been immune? For example, the view of women during the 16th century was famously dismal. Women were seen as practically sub human, with little to recommend them outside of providing children. This is something we know not only from pagan literature of the time, but from Reformation theologians, whose writings are so foundational to modern day creeds and confessions. As for taking a verse here or there, I believe that is a problematic accusation. If you are looking to understand what God intends about any particular topic, you might start at a passage that would seem to address it directly, look at the context (including the cultural context, by the way), and weigh it against the whole of scripture, as Wright does here. Not to mention the other interpretive factors: natural law, the Holy Spirit and reasoning together with our brothers and sisters in Christ.
Religious people are seemingly incapable of rational thinking. Everything in their lives is viewed in the context of a Middle Eastern, bronze aged book of superstition & myth. How can anyone take the bible seriously in 2024?
Traditions die hard.
I have very greatly enjoyed listening to NT Wright. He is a brilliant scholar and he has opened my mind to the bigger picture of the Bible and of our role as Christians in this life on earth.
Brilliant and lacklustre are RELATIVE. ;)
I must admit that I am a strong feminist who values women taking their place alongside men on equal terms in the workplace, society and so on. All the same, even I struggle to see how a scholar can read in Timothy : a pastor/spiritual leader who leads the church must meet certain characteristics: HE must be the husband of one wife....and somehow interpret that into meaning that 'women can also be preachers and pastors'. I can't help but think that when NTW said that men and women should submit to one another (as his way to underpin his argument) that passage really means that each sex should submit with equal vigor to the roles God had given them - by looking to the Bible and to God to honour each other in their respective roles in love and grace when they need encouragement and help and make mistakes - but that the complementarian model is fundamentally correct - as God's ideal way for leaders to relate to the bride in the church and inside their marriage too. That makes Male Domestic Abuse totally wrong just as much as Women as preachers is equally wrong. It doesn't have much to do with equity/sameness for both sexes on the pulpit or within marriage. It makes sense to me that if God wanted men and women to take on the same roles he would have made one sex, not two. So I believe that in Church both sexes are of equal value but have a different role to play -same as in marriage (at least ideally, although submission is by mutual agreement).
So I think that the equity model is wrong, but so is also the submissive wife to dominant abusive boss who always has the last say and suppresses his wife is totally wrong. It also means that God intended Men to lead the church and in marriage - but to do it so well that a wife submits only because she wants to and feels it is right and honoring to her husband and to God to do so.
That's my take on it all.
Interesting. What if I said that 1 Timothy 2v11-15 does not support the prohibition of women in ministry in ANY way (temporary or otherwise)? The same is said for 1 Timothy 3 list. For the list does not have any pronouns in it except "tis" which means "anyone". I have a video on 1 Timothy 2v11-15 (in case you are interested) and need to make one on 1 Timothy 3 soon really. Blessings in Christ and may the Spirit lead us into all Truth!
The argument is lost as long as ordained ministry is seen predominantly in terms of ‘leadership’.
I was wondering about this very topic while watching the Kathy Keller interview, and thinking, Justin and N.T. Wright have a different response to the Ephesians “submission” message, as do many other brilliant scholars, priests, and ministers. It’s important to get a complete and wider context of this message…not merely focusing on the verse pertaining to submission.
Fortunately, I was blessed to attended many churches lead by female leadership and pastorship. We all benefit from having a balance of men and women in leadership roles. Female prime ministers, members of parliament, and our former queens have lead successful global and domestic powers…thus…women have demonstrated throughout history, their capacity to command the highest leadership roles effectively and responsibly.
Thank you for another necessary message in our contentious world!
Love and blessings to all our sisters and brothers in Christ!🇨🇦xx❤xx🇬🇧
I have read that the word for submission in that sentence is one used in the military - that submitting to one another is like saying privates submit to your corporal, who submit to sergeants, who submit to the major etc. This suggests that one submits to the other.
@@pastorofmuppets8834 I’ve never heard the military analogy before, but it’s a valid one. We could also say that children “submit” to their parents. Yet, in both cases, once one has advanced in age, knowledge, and experience, they are no longer under such guidelines. I don’t consider women needing guidance, as a soldier or child would need.
I appreciate you point, and Thank You for your text!
Many Blessings!🇨🇦
@@shelleyhender8537 yes it's a strange one. Not all scholars accept that it means only one submits to another. And military language in Christianity surely is almost unheard of and hard to comprehend, given Jesus' life and death, and Paul's subsequent example.
@@pastorofmuppets8834 Enjoyed your insight!😊
I especially like…”Pastor of Muffets”! I’m of the generation which saw the wonderful Muppets introduced, along with many other fantastic shows. Oh the glorious days of my youth…watching those incredible TV characters are long gone…but…the Muppets remain, along with other favourites, such as the Fraggles, the Raccoons, and countless others.
Many Blessings!🙏
I luv this guy!! He can put a good face on anything biblical -- no matter how repulsive! Go NT!
We enjoy N.T wright in Canada. He’s a great Anglican theologian.
I recently became a Catholic after 35 years in the American Episcopal Church. It's well known that the Catholics don't ordain women at all, either as deacons or priests. Popes have declared that the Church has no authority to ordain women, even if she desired to do so. What most people don't know is that women are perfectly welcome to become theologians, and even teach in Catholic seminaries.
Out of the fire into the fire,unfortunately.
I agree with him that no male Jewish writer would have made up the first witnesses of Jesus' resurrection were women. They stated it as a fact of history. Just as the resurrection is a fact of history.
Id recommend if you are interested in the question of women in the church, you read Andrew Bartlett's 'Men and Women in Christ'. It is excellent.
Letters are not scripture people.
I dont think NT Wright has much to learn from Mark Driscoll.
Why Rico Tice left Anglican church?
Did the presenter say that his wife is a pastor?!
He was (W)right!
So essentially a parallel argument based on the fact that Jesus asked a woman to tell the disciples that he was alive along with a few "could be" propositions without fairly responding or contrasting it to explicit direct teachings from the scriptures ... ignoring teachings in favor of descriptions and blurring lines between value judgements and role commandments while cutting the branch he is sitting on by disqualifying Paul's teaching.. the same teaching he would have to rely on for his work on the resurrection and the importance of jesus's choice of commanding a woman to "testify" not "teach" what she saw .. not to mention the epistemic logical fallacy of assuming a teaching is being given because of the momentary context rather than in spite of it and for the sake of it. disappointing to say the least .. if you want to think seriously about this I recommend you search for MIKE WINGER's work on this here on TH-cam.
ARE YOU ACTUALLY BEING SERIOUS? Mike is a good Christian man, but his fans in all the comments sections are mistakenly giving him a reputation that doesn’t correspond.
He is a good Bible teacher for Sunday school level ministries, but he is absolutely no credible source for profound interpretation or exegesis. When he does touch on some profound topics he is just like any other man who would do an independent study, gathering commentaries and books; and then just giving a presentation. He doesn’t go through cross examination or revision like a serious Bible student at the graduate level would. He does everything independently and then gives a presentation. The man needs academic community, in every area like philosophy, intercultural studies, ministry, global Christianity, biblical scholarship, etc…
@@aldodanieljimenezcardona1252 Hey, I see what you are trying to say but you are criticising an imaginary point. I have not made a single claim that Mike Winger is the authority in this subject or in exegesis in general. I also believe that peer review and push back is a necessary purifying force for doctrine interpretation. My point (if you would read it again) was and STILL IS that if you want to think seriously about this you should check out his work on this subject here on TH-cam (It's free and a click away). I also believe your assumptions are uniformed and misguided. The proof of that would be that he must have about 14/15 videos on this particular subject with some of them if not most, around 3 hours long going through every verse on the bible that touches this and every major (credible or popular) classical and modern exegesis done on them. He does offer his conclusion and that you can agree with, or not. Contrary to you claim, his work does not exist in opposition to exegesis discourse but it is instead a very thorough contribution to it. It's serious work for the consideration of ANYONE who wants to deal with this seriously.. I would take this "Sunday school level teaching" any day.
@@mais_um_canal that is EXACTLY the point that I'm responding to, YOU DO NOT have to check out mike's work on this if you want to think seriously about this. No seminary or phd bible program takes his work seriously. You have access to his teachings not because of the quality of the research, but because he is a good digital content creator. Think about it for a moment, not everything you see online and becomes popular is because the content is top-notch research. Take Cameron bertuzzi for example, I don't think you would say HE is a top-notch researcher and scholar, but he is good at making digital content and interviewing scholars, so he has a good channel, but when it comes to following HIS thoughts, that's when you have to step back and not be confused. But mike's followers mistakenly give him a reputation and a position that doesn't correspond, he is not a top-notch researcher and his voice and hours of teaching are not to be taken seriously, ANYBODY CAN DO THAT; but his teachings are popular because he is an expert TH-camr. Don't come at me with his hours of teaching, because I can do the same and come at you with NT Wright's HOURS AND YEARS of study, research, teaching, and writing on the Bible at the doctoral level done in community at Oxford and with other scholars worldwide. I admire and recommend Mike for his pastoral attitude and as a man of God, but that doesn't logically follow that his teachings on profound topics are credible or relevant for the topic in general.
@@aldodanieljimenezcardona1252 You said “That is EXACTLY the point that I'm responding to”
But it’s not my friend.. and here’s why:
1 - You said: “YOU DO NOT have to check out Mike's work on this if you want to think seriously about this”
- Another imaginary criticism to a point I’ve never made.. I've never suggested any one "HAD" to do anything.
- My actual words were that: “I recommended his work” reason being (again) that he takes the time to actually mention A LOT of the opposing views around the subject none of which are his. Though he also offers his own conclusions eventually.
2 - You said: “No seminary or phd bible program takes his work seriously.”
- A, Another response to a claim I’ve never made. B, How is this relevant?
- You must understand the stake/consequence hierarchy between the work of gathering information, the work of deductive reasoning to arrive at a conclusion and then the work of writing a thesis to defend it right? The content in question is primarily information based for laymen not meant to be definitive or a seminary PHD thesis but it exists to cover as much ground as possible given the limitations. It is a contribution.
- In ANY case, it is free and made of infinitely more exhaustive content than the basis used for the claims in this N.T.Wright video. So my recommendation stands.
3 - You said: “You have access to his teachings not because of the quality of the research, but because he is a good digital content creator. Think about it for a moment, not everything you see online and becomes popular is because the content is top-notch research.”
- I have never made such a claim (again)
- So YOU think about THIS for a moment, “Truth is not bound to who says it” … Your favourite PHD seminar hero can still get it wrong while your nobody average-joe is getting it right” Ever heard of the tale “Emperor has no clothes”?
-Finally, "popular" doesn't mean "wrong" (more on this later)
4- You said: “Take Cameron Bertuzzi for example, I don't think you would say HE is a top-notch researcher and scholar, but he is good at making digital content and interviewing scholars, so he has a good channel, but when it comes to following HIS thoughts, that's when you have to step back and not be confused. But Mike's followers mistakenly give him a reputation and a position that doesn't correspond”
- I have no idea who Bertuzzi is but you have fallen into another logical fallacy… to assume that if “X” does this then “Y” must be doing the same! because.. they are both letters of the same alphabet? .. being popular and being on TH-cam doesn't mean you are wrong!
-it's your opinion that his followers give Mike a reputation that "doesn't correspond" but why should anyone care what you think? (more on this later)
5 - You said: “He is not a top-notch researcher and his voice and hours of teaching are not to be taken seriously. ANYBODY CAN DO THAT, but his teachings are popular because he is an expert TH-camr. Don't come at me with his hours of teaching, because I can do the same and come at you with NT Wright's HOURS AND YEARS of study, research, teaching, and writing on the Bible at the doctoral level done in community at Oxford and with other scholars worldwide”
- SMH.. Again, you are opposing claims I have never made .. I used hours as a metric for the amount of information relayed on the subject and not as a qualitative metric of the content itself.
But here, you've made your biggest mistake yet! By this logic, no one should listen to you.. Anything you say anywhere ever! Including your responses to my post!
- All that I (or anybody who opposes you) would have to do to dismiss your points is prove to be more qualified than you!
- THIS is why we judge arguments by their merit and not by who says them! your points should be considered if they have merit even against more qualified or popular voices. That is the power of truth!
6 - You said: “I admire and recommend Mike for his pastoral attitude and as a man of God, but that doesn't logically follow that his teachings on profound topics are credible or relevant for the topic in general.”
- I agree here .. because by this logic you make my point for me since it would also follow that his teaching COULD be profound and relevant to ANY topic in general as well.
I doubt anyone is going to read this other than you my friend ..
I hope thinking through this sharpens you as it has me. Blessing!
@@mais_um_canal HAHA a lot to respond here, why not set up a live dialogue if you agree...
Ask Harrison Butker
Praise be to the Lord on high.
And his wife…😊
@@mr.c2485 indeed, praise be to Mrs God aswell 🙂
Wright talks here at some length about teaching, learning, expounding, pastoral care and leadership. But, unfortunately, he never addresses priesthood. (It sounded to me as if he was dodging that). And without doing so whatever he says about those other activities is only a partial account, and likely to be misleading.
In summary: How the bible gets interpreted is often mysogonist - Not the bible itself.
How do you determine whether the misogynist interpretation is the incorrect one?
I thought that you brought both sides to these discussions, but this is just a preaching channel
Absolutely. Just propaganda.
Only fools believe and consider sacred the supernatural fairy tales, fictions, and myths just because a book claims itself to be the holy truth.
The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge,but FOOLS despise wisdom and instruction.
@@chrismachin2166
Unfortunately you're not saying anything intelligent by thinking properly & honestly. You're only parroting the stuff you've been indoctrinated with.
@@AtamMardes Can I ask,whose authority do you follow?
@@chrismachin2166
What do you mean by authority?
@@AtamMardes Well,the Holy Bible has proclaimed the Ten Commandments and how we should live our lives throughout the writings. This is how God has instructed us how to live . This is the authority of how we should live,in my opinion
You think this is a “fairy story”,so I ask if you don’t agree with me,whose authority do you think we should follow?
This is the heart of the Great Apostasy of the Church that is happening right now.
25. THE ROLE OF FEMALES:
Women are fortunate because they are BORN with a job:
Daughter.
Wife.
Mother.
Females normally have no role in public life. Exceptions to this rule are relatively rare. For instance, women may work in the arts (singers, actors, and dancers, which often demand female players), or as maids or nurses, both of which are feminine duties, providing it has no detrimental effect on their PRIMARY function, as daughters, wives, and mothers.
So, a female’s fundamental role is to serve her MASTERS (any man in her family circle), even from a relatively young age, by performing domestic duties and raising her children. Barren women (heterosexual or otherwise) are extremely unfortunate, but can still devote their lives to serving their husband, father, grandfather, uncles, or in the event that none of those men are extant, adult male cousins.
Studies have shown that the more a woman deviates from this innate societal function, the less she is fulfilled. The phrase, “Cat Lady”, says it all.
As a general rule, women should be protected in the home, and never wander-out alone. They should FULLY cover their bodies in the presence of post-pubescent males outside the family circle. Even the prostitutes in some nations wear veils in public, even if out of fear of reprisal.
Having lived the eremitic life of a monastic priest for a few decades, I can attest to the importance of keeping one’s home clean and tidy. It is obvious to me that housekeeping is very much a full-time occupation, and that if I were to neglect my domestic chores, my health and comfort would greatly diminish. As would be expected of a person in my position, I follow a strict diet and am obsessive in regards to hygiene. Without a spouse, the onus is on me to maintain my residence in a prim and proper manner, even though it results in me spending less time teaching religion as a member of the Holy Priesthood (The World Teacher, in my particular case). Therefore, the role of a housewife is of PARAMOUNT importance, and must never be discounted by anybody, particularly feminist ideologues. The following chapter deals with feminism.
The ONLY reason I have resided alone for most of my adult life is due to the fact that there is a severe scarcity of decent women in my country, and indeed the entire world, what to speak of holy and righteous women. Unfortunately, few women, particularly in the more affluent nations, any longer receive adequate training in the connubial arts. In my former marriages, I was forced to perform most household chores.
In recent centuries, due to various factors (FEMINISM, in particular), women have become so degraded, that is it practically impossible to find an example of an ideal woman. Therefore, in order to reference examples of such a woman, one is forced to refer to figures from ancient myths.
Mariam, the mother of Lord Jesus Christ, and Devī Sītārānī, the wife of Śri Rāja Rāma, King of Ayodhya, are the epitome of womanhood, and ought to be the role models for each and every girl born on this planet. That is assuming, of course, that those two women were, in actual fact, the gentle, refined, humble and submissive goddesses they were portrayed to be in the archaic scriptures.
Obviously, this teaching receives an ENORMOUS amount of scorn, contempt and derision from a certain proportion of women (and also many "men"), but that is perfectly fine, because, such foolish feminists are destined to die lonely and alone, with no family surrounding them, and hopefully not transfer their adulterated genes to forthcoming generations.
In some locations in the world, STRAY COWS freely wander the urban streets, displaying their teats.
Similarly, in most locations, women wander the dangerous streets alone or in groups, displaying their bosoms and other bodily parts.
Such loose women are no better than STRAY COWS.
The TRUTH is very difficult to accept, right, Slave?
“Three things cannot be long hidden:
the sun, the moon, and the TRUTH.”
Siddhārtha Gautama (AKA The Buddha),
Aṅguttara Nikāya 3.131 (Paraphrased).
Paṭicchanna Sutta
“...encourage the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, to be self-controlled, chaste, good managers of the household, kind, being submissive to their husbands, so that the word of God may not be discredited.”
***********
“Yet women will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty.”
***********
“Women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says.”
St. Paul of Tarsus,
Titus 2:4-5.
1 Timothy 2:15.
1 Corinthians 14:34.
Please have more debates rather than just pedaling singular ideas. NT Wright is not the authority on how we enterprit scripture.
The New Testament clearly teaches that the husband is the head of the wife and that the wife is to submit to the headship of her husband. Even if an angel from heaven tells you otherwise do not believe them.
Yep. Clearly teaches sexism.
@@StewpidGames Right. The Biblical type of sexism (if that’s what you wanna call it) is good and right, it’s rejection or denial is actually morally wrong.
@@delbert372 - that’s utter nonsense. Find a more modern book.
@@StewpidGames By what standard is it nonsense?
@@delbert372 - more the lack of standard. Trying to place an entire gender as submissive to another based on an ancient work of mostly fiction is nonsense. It is completely thoughtless.
Monotheistic religious belief has the hallmark of being a man made idea.
The Greek Gods were more fun and no shame being a woman.
Beauty was valued.
Thanks for honoring my freedom of speech.
Of course the words in the bible are sexist ... because in the era when the bible was compiled ... "men" that wrote the words in the bible ... WERE very sexist.
If women had compiled the words in the bible ... the story would have been that a Goddess created the universe ... and that the Goddess said that men had to be subservient to women.
And the fact that the bible was compiled over 1500 years, by men on different continents ... should alert us to the fact that they were listening to voices in their own heads ... not to words uttered by Jesus ... who (by the way) was said to be a Jewish Rabbi.
From the book “Smith’s Bible Dictionary.
Bible
There are at least thirty six different authors, who wrote in three continents, in many countries, in three languages, and from every possible human standpoint. Among these authors were kings, farmers, mechanics, scientific men, lawyers, generals, fishermen, ministers and priests, a tax-collector, a doctor, some rich, some poor, some city bred, some country born-thus touching all the experiences of men-extending over 1500 years.
The Bible isn’t sexist, the men who wrote it were. God help us!
God is the Author of the Bible, the apostles and prophets are his servants.
This was a very non-serious engagement with the issues at hand. Why not instead put on a debate in place of this propaganda/sophistry?
The idea that one commenter says "N.T Wright is about as Christian as Barney the Dinosaur" is absurd. N.T.Wright very much loves Jesus, and is one of our finest Christian scholars. However, even scholars make mistakes. The idea that the egalitarian reading of 1 Timothy 2 is just as good as a complementarian one only leaves things more unsettled. If the church has been wrong about having only qualified men serving as elders in a church for 2,000 years, we really need to a solid, firm argument to overturn that interpretation, not that an egalitarian view is "just as good a reading" as any other (around 16:00 ). Just pick an interpretation you like?? Really? Otherwise, it might make more sense to go the hyper-critical route and reject 1 Timothy as being part of canonical Scripture, partly due to 1 Timothy's supposed "misogyny"... and that is not going to happen any time soon, at least in evangelical circles!!
Whst does this bible verse mean .. " But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God ". In your response can you confirm its nit your interpretation but that you prayed 🙏 and the Holy Spirit confirmed the meaning... because without the Holy Spirits explanation then its simply your own personal interpretation or opinion...😊
Please invite pastor MacArthur who has a clear and convincing argument than NT Wright who seems to be unclear about the subject and doubtful ?
Who is pastor MacArthur?
The same guy who thinks, PTSD, ADHD and depression isn’t real…? 🙂↔️
Don’t confuse confidence for sound reasoning. MacArthur is a joke compared to an actual scholar like NT Wright. If you want someone to “prove Wright wrong”, you should try and find an actual scholar who is a Complimentarian like Thomas Schreiner.
You mean the same guy who subscribes to divine determinism (aka. Calvinism) making God the author of evil? Ah, no thanks.
@@-the_dark_knight
Maybe, but to be clear, this guest cites enneagram at 18:10, and doesn't refute its validity.
Enneagram is basically a ouija board.
18:00
Enneagram?
Isn't that literally witchcraft?
No wonder he supports women pastors, if he cites enneagram as a valid reference.
Has nothing to do with witchcraft. Just psychological pseudo-science.
Great catch. Witchcraft deluxe.
@@goblintown - stupid, yes. Witchcraft, not at all.
Of course not! Everything we like in the 21st century, the Bible also likes. Slavery? Sexism? Blood magic? Nah, we don't like that, therefore it's not in the Bible, here's one or two verses that kind of sort of say so, pay no attention to the verses that explicitly say the opposite.
Is the bible sexist? Read all the references to menstruation - something into which it is not needful for it to poke its nose at all - and decide whether actually making rules about this aspect of women's lives indicates a non-sexist world view.
Unfortunately Paul didn’t write Ephesians and let’s not gloss over the very sexiest verses in the OT
N.T Wright is about as Christian as Barney the Dinosaur. Read the New Testament for yourself, folks.
What about the Old Testament? It’s about as Christian as Harry Potter…
@@mr.c2485 honest dialogue is welcome.
No one should be thinking they don't need to read the new testament, and this clip and Wright himself wouldn't suggest otherwise.
I'm astounded that you have such insight into his heart to be sure he has no faith in God.
@@pastorofmuppets8834
Usernames and profile pictures often say a thousand words.
@@pastorofmuppets8834
As my pastor says,
"I can only judge what you say."
Imagine having dedicated your life to biblical scholarship and translating the entire bible from Greek. Then some wanna-be theologians think they know better than you on every part of the bible and make it known on every video. Hilarious. Biblical studies amateur hour in The TH-cam comment section as usual… 🥲 Listen folks… you might learn soemthing.