Despite Soviet communism being largely against religion, did orthodox Christianity continue to thrive during the Cold War? Did the Soviet parties try to combat this in any way?

There's a modern view of biblical inerrancy that insists on finding a reconciliation for every apparent contradiction in the Bible texts (including internal contradictions and contradictions with historical or scientific facts), no matter how strained the reconciliation might need to be, based on the belief that for Christianity to be true there cannot be any genuine contradictions in the Bible texts.

When and how did this approach to interpreting the Bible get started?

What is the consensus amongst historians and scholars about the historicity of Noah's flood and the Exodus? Also according to the Hebrew Bible is the Noah's flood a world wide flood or local flood?

Thanks for joining us for this AMA! I have a bit of a broader question, and one somewhat related to a lot of the most popular questions we get on the sub. What are some of the difficulties that exist when working with or contextualizing early and often fragmented sources?

I've seen various attempts to explain passages in the Tanakh that seem to condemn homosexual sex between men as not being about homosexual sex as we know it today, for example being aimed against assimilation into the practices of nearby nations or about pederasty. Leaving aside questions for how valid such reinterpretations are in terms of religious interpretation of scriptures, how likely are such alternate readings on the historical level? Or is it, purely historically speaking, most likely the authors just meant sex between men was off the table?

NB: I'm asking about the bits in the Tanakh, not anything from the christian new testament.

I'm going to test the "anything" part of "ask me anything."

Has there been any serious academic/historical investigation into the Book of Mormon? It claims to be written initially by a Jewish man around ~600 BC. I don't think it reads like Jewish text (it seems like genealogies are dismissed, sacrifices belittled, etc.). Has anyone studied this idea?

What is the history surrounding the Hebrews in Egypt, Moses, and the Exodus?

Why are there four canonical Gospels, which a lot of overlapping information? My inclination is to believe that certain "factions" of Christianity at the time wanted to make sure that "their story" got the official "stamp of approval". But if that were the case, why are they not all that different?

The documentary hypothesis has been around for a long time and Biblical archaeology too. Why has nobody yet come up with a big theory connecting each of the documentary sources with a geographic/ethnic group of people who merged politically and merged their holy texts in order to promote a unified origin story? I mean, certain locations seem to be more associated with certain names for God, personages, and tribes/families. It seems like it should be possible to work out some tentative correlations.

For example, Finkelstein’s Judean hill-dwelling pork-abstaining Canaanites might be the worshippers of Elohim, while the Yahweh worshippers and priesthood group might be a mix of Kenites and Midianites who were based in Sinai but also had some members who sojourned in Goshen as military contractors/frontier settlers and then left in a huff over contract disputes. El-Shaddai worshippers might have been Jebusites or what-not.

Is it a case of not wanting to upset people who are invested in a religious belief in the children of Israel as a unified people?

It seems to me that the shema prayer could be a declaration of a covenant between the Elohim worshippers and the Yahweh worshippers to consider themselves a single people.

Is there any historical evidence, how LGBT people were treated in the early days of Christianity, and did the Church fathers ever talk about it?, and how did local christian communities treat them.

I know the links between Jesus, John the Baptist, and the Essenes are highly debated but I've read on r/AcademicBiblical that certain scholars (like Boccaccini) advocate that the early Jesus movement originated within the wider, more general movement of Essenism (not Qumran). However, all I am really aware of about the Essenes is the Qumran community.

What is the more general movement of Essenism? How does it differ from Qumran? Any recommendations about this topic would be appreciated. Thank you!

Do we have any surviving data on the early concept of Yahweh as part of a pantheon? I’m more interested in the evolution of the concept of this god.

How much more open was the near east in the past to allow for big archeological dogs and discoveries of sites and texts than now? Is there less ancient archeology happening now due to instability and danger in some places or is there just as much work being done today?

The book of acts gives us various examples of apparently extrajudicial punishments carried out by the Jewish authorities against the nascent sect calling itself the Way. Peter and John were flogged by order of the Sanhedrin in acts 5, and then in Acts 8, Saul (later Paul) is described going from "house to house" and imprisoning people.

Did the Jewish authorities have legal power to do this, considering it was all taking place in a Roman province? Or was it merely a matter of might making right? What was the nature of the power-sharing arrangement between the Roman governor of the province of Judea, the Sanhedrin, and an apparent civilian vigilante like Saul of Tarsus?

What are the key differences of study between Ask Historians, Ask Bible Scholars, and Academic Biblical? What sort of questions are most appropriate or best answerable in the different subs?

Are there any Apocrypha that are not considered canon by the Church, but are considered historically relevant or accurate by historians?

1. A lot of Christian discussion of the prophets of the Old Testament, especially ones like Isaiah, seems to focus quite heavily on figuring out how Jesus fits/fulfills various prophecies. First off, I figure it's safe to assume that the writers of the New Testament had some of these prophecies in mind, and do we see early Christians doing a lot of shaping of the narrative of Jesus' life and teachings to fit them? And secondly, has this created significant differences in interpretation of these Old Testament/Tanakh books between academics from Christian and Jewish backgrounds, even if they're coming at it from a secular/academic angle rather than a strictly religious one?

2. Every so often people bring up various "Gospels of so-and-so," like the Gospel of Judas or Thomas. Do we have a sense of how much of a following many of these extracanonical gospels attracted? Were there any in particular that had a lot of influence over (now maybe extinct) denominations of the early church?

Nikolaus Boroffka of the Duetches Archaologisches Institut writes, "In the mountainous regions of Central Asia we sometimes have problems with radiocarbon dating, even of plant material. Many C-14 dates are clearly too old for their archaelogical context. The phenomenon appears to be more acute near mountains, so that a possible explanation could be "old water" from glaciers -- most agriculture is irrigation based, since rainfall is insufficient... The problem is that we can date material fairly precisely (sometimes), e.g. Greek sites can not exist before the Conquest by Alexander the Great in 329/328 BC or Persian(Achemaenid) can't be there before the Conquest by Cyrus, in the mid 7th century BC. However, even short-lived plant remains at such sites give C-14 ages that are too old, not just a little, but by 70-200 years."

Given that the springs in the Central Hill Country have large amounts of carbon that create a Freshwater reservoir effect do you think this would impact the dating of irrigated crops similar to the "old water" of Central Asia?

I'm hoping somebody can fill in some missing pieces for me about how the four canonical gospels were formed.

There's a significant span of time - 30-60 years between the events depicted and the estimated dates of the gospels being written. What do scholars think was the order of events that lead from events happening to them being compiled into these books? And how were they compiled?

I'm aware of the theory around the sourcing of the synoptic gospels - Mark, Q, M source and L source. But how did *those* sources come about?

For example, when the author of Mark sat down to write that gospel, what were they drawing from to write it? How was the Q source written, and where would the author have gathered the information to compose it? Was some of it just made up on the fly?

How did the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls contribute to biblical studies?

What is the mainstream scholarly take on Michael Heiser's books, e.g. "The Unseen Realm" and "Supernatural"? He makes the 1st century world sound positively overflowing with otherworldly beings

Was the Apostle Paul really a "corrupter" of Apostolic Christianity? Or was he in line with the Apostles in terms of belief?

I've asked this before without much success. In the Gospel accounts, where Jesus refers to 'visiting me while I was imprisoned,'-- that's not the exact quote, obviously-- what did that actually look like, in practical terms, for a person of his region and era? What did it mean to visit a prisoner? What would one be expected to do? What would the conditions likely be? How would visits be conducted?

Is the Catholic Church's claim to the apostolic papal succession accurate? For example, was Peter in fact the "pope" (appointed by Christ as the leader of His Church) and is there a clear line of succession following him?

As a continuation of u/SunsetJackal's question, what about the passages in 1 Cor 6 that seemingly condemn homosexuality? Is that any different?

Can someone explain the differences and similarities between the 1st and 2nd temples?

I'm looking for a source that can explain similarities/differences in worship, physical structure, people, practices, beliefs, etc.

Did the 1st century Hebrews see themselves as still in a form of exile under pagans in Jerusalem, despite the return told of in Ezra-Nehemiah?

One of the prophetic promises (I think found in Isaiah? Maybe Ezekiel? This is something I’ve heard at least) was that God would again return and dwell with his people. Did some Israelites outside of the priests see God as dwelling in the second Temple?

What is the current consensus on the historicity of the Gospels? Do scholars believe that the Gospels are accurate eyewitness accounts written shortly after the events described, or are they likely to be compilations of stories assembled later?

Also, were the witnesses described in the texts as available for questions (ie as reliable sources) as Christian apologists claim? I'm thinking of the 500 people who claimed to have seen Jesus Christ after His crucifixion.

How has perception of the Bible as divine inspiration changed overtime in the Catholic, Orthodox and Protestant churches? I was under the impression the bible wasn't view as the literal word of god in the same way as the Quran but it seems this may not be true for at least some churches.

Amos 9:7 has an intriguing passage about God having brought the Philistines from Caphtor and the Arameans from Kir in much the same way he had brought the Israelites from Egypt. Are there any parallels in the Bible and what might be have meant by this? Was it an existing memory of both groups arriving after the events later remembered as the exodus, or was there some theological purpose to mentioning God having guided both groups to the Levant in a similar fashion?

The Sermon of the Mount contains a compilation of Jesus' moral teachings. Assuming the biblical sources to be roughly accurate, how would it have been received at the time?

Would it have seem shocking, or just "common sense"?

Would it have been understood differently by a Jew than by a Roman?

Did Joseph Smith/Brigham Young know that the Great Salt Lake is a dead sea before they travelled to "Zion?"

How important was Egypt to the growth of Christianity and how did it lose its favour

What do biblical scholars think of Garry Wills?

I have read What Paul Meant, What the Quran Meant and Why it Matters, and Saint Augustine. I think he is overall a decent writer, but I feel like he errs on the side of editorialization.

I feel like there's a lot of correct assertions made on the part of Paul the Apostle. That he didn't write all of his letters, that he was a great orator, and that the letter he did write need to be looked at in the context of who he was writing them to.

He definitely feels like a pop history writer, but has he done good work?

Hello all, I hope y’all are still taking questions, but anyway I’ll give it a shot. How involved was the Vatican leadership during the various revolutions and fights for independence throughout Latin America, and were some of the leaders opposed to what the Church was pursuing? I know the Catholic Church had a vested interest in maintaining the status quo of influence and wealth, but being separated by ocean, and the masses rising up throughout the period to limit the Church’s power among its objectives, I assume the Vatican had limited say in what they could enforce.

About 22 years ago, I happened to spot Alvar Ellegard, Jesus: One Hundred Years Before Christ (1999) in the "new arrivals" section of my university library and read it. I found his theory quite interesting and initially persuasive. Can you say a bit about how his theory was received?

Why does Matthew have Jesus 28 generations after David and Luke had him 41 generations? That seems to be a significant gap. Also why did Matthew have Jesus as a descendant of the Davidic dynasty while Luke sure not? What are historians cute on these difference and what they signify? ( I am not asking from a religious perspective rather a historical one)

Where does the contemporary idea of the "2nd coming" seem to be based, or extrapolated from in scripture(s)? Do these accounts vary wildly between the verses/books in regard to the resurrection stories, and if so, how vastly?

Is a large reason for the differing opinions on the nature of the trinity/its existence within the early Christian church differing philosophies in the Mediterranean basin?

Or was it a result of regional religious customs and understanding?

For many (most?) Protestants, an individual must accept Christ as their lord and savior to earn salvation in the afterlife.

How long has this interpretation and emphasis on this acceptance of Christ as the only means to heaven been a part of the theology/practice in Christianity?

My question comes from a nascent understanding that Catholicism may have some doctrines that allow for what essentially might be living like Christ without the requirement of acknowledging Christ as “Lord and savior”. Having a Protestant upbringing in the US, I know that this “loose” view of salvation does not jive with the strict requirement of professing Christ and rejecting any other philosophies/prophets/etc.

I know that’s a big question, so maybe a way to narrow it: was there ever a point in time either in Catholicism, or Christianity as it evolved from Catholicism, where the focus was not wholly on verbalizing an acceptance of Christ as the only means of salvation?

I apologize if the question is still too big! Or if this type of question has been asked before.

Thank you!

Edit: grammar

Is there any historical evidence that Jerusalem fell in 607 by the Babylonians?

Is it possible that the real Jesus has a secret wife and kids at some point before his ministry?

What determined whether a given writer/theologian from the time would wind up recognized as an important Church Father?

Is a large reason for the differing opinions on the nature of the trinity/its existence within the early Christian church differing philosophies in the Mediterranean basin?

Or was it a result of regional religious customs and understanding?

There is an argument that the prohibitions against male homosexual sex in the Bible (both old and new testament) is that they are forbidding pederastic relationships-- between older, elite males and younger elite males, as a sort of mentor relationship, and also again male prostitution.

The thrust of this argument is that it doesn't forbid a loving, committed (male) homosexual, as we think of (cis gendered) romantic relationships today. Or that, ANE peoples didn't conceive of male homosexual relationships the same way as we do today, so they weren't forbidding them per se.

Are there accounts either in the ANE or classical civilizations of long-term, romantic, committed relationships between two men? Not as a pederastic relationship, or a transactional one (prostitution), but as we think of an "ideal" long-term, committed monogamous relationship today?

Why is the doubting Thomas pericope almost uniformly taken to be authentic? Riley's arguments in Resurrection Reconsidered are pretty solid. I've never seen a reply.

Roughly, how many NT scholars still defend Matthean priority?

I have heard that references to jesus in texts contemporary with him were added in later by Christian translators. Specifically, in josephus.

Is this accusation true? If so, then to what extent?

I’ve heard before that the oldest complete texts we have for several books of the Bible are several centuries younger than when they were originally composed. Is this true, and if so is there any argument that alterations were made to the texts we currently possess, however small?

When did people really start accepting Christianity? And if you could add, what was Christianity in the early early years? Did it sound like Mormonism sounds to us today?

Can a non-Christian (even atheist) become a good theologian or biblical scholar?

How much impact did non-canon texts have on Christianity?

what were pagan cults like during the rise of christianity, were many of them really child sacrificing, blood cults which did casual pedestry?

Correct me for any mistakes.

I've heard of a tension within all denominations: the authority of the oral teachings and the written Bible. While the Protestants generally take the written Bible as the sole source of authority, the Catholic and the Orthodox believe that Jesus' teaching also come in forms of unwritten teachings, customs, the Church itself, etc. Where can I learn more about this?

Were the earliest Christians Infernalist, Annihilationist or Universalist?

Edited to fix spelling errors.

Is there a more recent overview of the history of Christian Missionary work then Stephen Neill’s “A History of Christian Missions”? Or even books that cover more recent scholarship of the topic but aren’t as broad?