So I am an apologist…I’ve had to go back an edit many articles I’ve written because I’ve messed up :(

I’ve been feeling like everything I do is bs…regardless if it’s amazing evidence. I care a lot about my work and if I feel like some data is being misrepresented or isn’t said right I always double check it…but lately Ive been feeling like a fraud

I need some advice…

In this post we will be exegeting Matthew 7, Hebrews 6, James 2, and 1 John to examine the way scripture teaches us to discern fellow children of God. 1 John 4:1 tells us not to believe every spirit, but to “try the spirits whether they are of God”.

In Matthew 7 Jesus teaches us how to “know” someone by their “fruits” (v.20). The specific question I want to look at is: how is “fruit” defined by Jesus in Matthew 7? Jesus compares false prophets to wolves in sheep’s clothing (v.15), revealing that outward appearance/behavior can mask a lack of genuine faith/trust.

The primary output of a prophet during this time was their message, which Jesus said comes “out of the abundance of the heart” (Mat. 12:34), whether spoken or written. We know that men judge outward appearance, but God judges the heart (1 Sam. 16:7); if a man’s speech comes out from the heart, then by what they say we shall, as best we can, know them.

To test if the “fruit” is their speech, and not their outward appearance, let’s compare Jesus’ analogy of the good and bad tree (v.17-18): “A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit”.

A good tree is someone who is born of God through faith in Christ’s work (1 John 5:1) and cannot bring forth bad fruit (unrighteousness) because his seed (1 John 3:9) remains within them and cannot be defiled (1 Peter 1:23); by contrast, a bad tree is someone without faith who cannot bring forth good fruit (righteousness) because “without faith it is impossible to please him” (Heb. 11:6).

Then Jesus says that only those who do the “will of the Father” (v.21) will “enter the kingdom” (receive eternal life). In John 6:40 Jesus defines the Father’s will as believing on the Son; the previous verses make it clear that the issue is whether trust in his atoning work was exercised.

By contrast, in verse 22 we see that these men were trusting in their own works (“have we not [insert work from v.22]”). They went before God and, instead of glorifying Christ, glorified themselves, which Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 4:2 explicitly state will not be tolerated.

This is why in verse 23 their objectively good works are called iniquity, because they brought their filthy self righteousness before God (Isaiah 64:6) to justify themselves, not by trusting Christ; this is why Jesus “never knew” them.

Now Jesus saying I never knew you is a very telling statement about their heart posture towards God, which is directly highlighted by Hebrews 6.

Hebrews 6 is a warning given to believers (“us” v.1 & v.4-6) about backsliding away from full assurance of the faith (v.11) into animal/temple sacrifice due to Christian persecution. These believers were publicly shaming the sufficiency of Christ’s work to avoid punishment.

Clarification of the definition of repentance: according to the Hebrew (OT) there are two words both translated as “repentance” in English, which are Shuv (to return, to turn back) and Nacham (to sigh, feel sorrow, breath heavily, or repent); the Greek (NT) also has two forms translated in one English word, which are Metanoia (to change one’s mind) and Metamellomai (regret or remorse).

In verse 6 the word repentance (Greek: Metanoia) means “to change one’s mind”. These believers cannot change their mind to the truth because they’ve already been exposed to it (v.4-5), yet suppress that truth in action.

Despite this in verse 9, the Author tells them that he is “persuaded better things of you, and things that accompany salvation”. He explicitly reassured the warned believers of their salvation.

We know he is referring to the same group because in verse 10 he states that despite their public rejection of Him, “God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labor of love”.

The Authors wish is that these believers show the same “diligence to the full assurance of hope” (v.11), meaning to be fully persuaded of the promise of eternal life through faith in Christ. This is his wish because this hope is the “anchor of the soul, both sure and steadfast” (v.19).

How can the Author be so sure of their salvation? “We are kept by the power of God through faith unto salvation” (1 Peter 1:5), not by our individual effort/failure.

The main take away: God remembered the works of the brethren despite backsliding away from the sufficiency of Christ’s work in Hebrews 6, while He did not remember the works done by the wolves in sheep’s clothing in Matthew 7:23 because they didn’t have faith (the will of the Father).

Once we know them by their speech, we can test their fellowship (not salvation) with the Father by examining them for a confession of Christ (4:2-3, 5:1), love for the brethren (3:14, 4:7-8), and walking in the light (2:3-5, 3:10). These are not the same fruits (Gal. 5:22-23) described by Jesus in Matthew 7, as they are based upon outward appearance not speech.

This leads us to one of my favorite chapters, which is James 2. With the understanding that we “know” others by what they say, not by what they do, James 2 describes two different types of Christians.

A dead faith is one that is unproductive (not producing works) and a live faith is one that is productive (producing works). James introduces a reality for believers, that if we are merciless toward others we will be judged more harshly (v.12-13); this is spoken of by Jesus in Matthew 7:1.

Christians face a separate judgment of their works at the Bema Seat of Christ, which is described in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15. At this judgment we are judged for “rewards”, even if any man’s works shall be burned, he shall suffer loss, “but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire”. James isn’t teaching us to know Christians by their works, otherwise he contradicts Jesus’ teaching.

The issue is the profitability of one’s faith, and how they will not escape the judgment described in 1 Corinthians 3:11-15 by faith alone. So why is he harping so strongly on works? We are created to do good works (Eph. 2:10) because it is “good and profitable unto men” (Titus 3:8). We are supposed to demonstrate the righteousness of God to the world so that He may be glorified amongst the unbelievers.

This is how faith is perfected before men (”works are good and profitable into men” - connecting to James 2:21), while faith before God is perfected by Christ (Heb. 12:2) and God’s imputation of righteousness (James 2:23) through faith (Rom. 4:1-11), without works.

According to Romans 5:20-21 grace permanently abounds over sin through Christ, and we are commanded in Romans 6:1-2 to not abuse his grace. Therefore to discern who is the child of God by levels of sin is a vain method, as highlighted by Matthew 7.

Next I want to examine 1 John 3:9, which says that no believers practice sin (poieo hamartia). This Greek combination of words uses a present tense, which indicates unending or perpetual action.

A believer cannot continue in sin perpetually because they are indwelt by the Spirit, which chastises us (Heb. 12:6) when we disobey, ending any perpetual state. The unbeliever is not chastised and can perpetually continue in sin. This mechanism is highlighted by Proverbs 24:16: "For a righteous man falls seven times, and rises up again, but the wicked stumble in calamity".

We’ve talked about how to identify children of God, but what is it the wolves say so that we may recognize them? This is answered by 1 John 2:19. The context is that there are “anti-Christ’s” among the believers, which when they leave, it is because they were never of us.

According to the Greek the prefix “anti” does not just mean against, it also means in place of or a counterfeit. These people confessed Christ but from the beginning it was a counterfeit version, a different Jesus which leads to a different gospel (2 Cor. 11:4), which does not save (Gal. 1:6-8).

This is evidenced by the men in Matthew 7. It is clear they did not trust in Christ’s work and believed in a version of him that would accept sinners by their own self righteousness, not by faith. They went before God and said “look at my works” (v.22), not His.

Important clarification: it is possible for someone to believe the uncorrupted gospel of grace, but fall away into false teachings, yet their salvation is secure by God.

Earlier in the post I referenced 1 Peter 1:5 (our salvation is secure by God’s power) as proof that our individual effort/failure does not affect salvation. More specifically, I’d like to dive into the mechanics of salvation.

According to Ephesians 2:8-9 we are saved “by grace through faith, and that not of yourselves”. The Greek text provides a grammatical detail that anchors salvation entirely in God's grace. While both "grace" (charis) and "faith" (pistis) are feminine nouns, Paul uses a neuter singular pronoun (touto, meaning "and this") to introduce the statement "not of yourselves; it is the gift of God."

In Koine Greek grammar, when a writer uses a neuter pronoun, it functions as a summary reference pointing back not to a single isolated noun, but to the entire preceding clause or concept—in this case, the entire dynamic of "being saved by grace through faith”. The entire package, including the God-enabled exercise of faith itself, is framed as the gift of God, completely excluding human self-generation or boasting.

We see this truth in Romans 3:11, which says “no men seek God”. The only reason we are able to choose to trust Christ is because God “draws us” (John 6:44). We, by default, are born with a corrupted nature (Rom. 5:12). This results in spiritual death 100% of the time, which by default means we are in unbelief because we cannot understand the things of God (1 Cor. 2:14)

In Romans 3:22, it says “even the righteousness of God is by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe”. The Greek phrase “dia pisteōs Iēsou Christou” uses a grammatical construction that functions as a subjective genitive, where Jesus is the actor or possessor of the pistis.

Rather than merely denoting our human act of believing (an objective genitive), the term highlights Christ's absolute, unswerving obedience and steadfast fulfillment of the work of redemption; because humanity's fallen state leaves us incapable of generating a righteousness that satisfies a holy God, Christ’s perfect, objective faithfulness is imputed to our account

This is highlighted by Romans 8:29, which tells us that we are “conformed to the image of Christ”, being gifted a perfected faith, which is of Christ (Heb. 12:2), so that we may progress in our experiential sanctification.

Upon trusting in Christ we are sealed by the Holy Spirit as an “earnest”/guarantee of our inheritance (Eph. 1:13-14). In 1 Peter 1:4 this inheritance is described as “incorruptible, undefiled, it fades not away, and is reserved for you in Heaven”.

We are also “bought with a price (his blood)” and “are not our own” (1 Cor. 6:19-20). According to John 10:28-29 we are securely in the Fathers hand, unable to undo the result of trusting Christ, because “no man” can escape.

Finally, as previously highlighted by 1 Peter 1:5, all this is done solely by God’s power, of which results in the eternal security of our salvation.

Hi everyone. I was an atheist through childhood, later moved to a loose agnostic position (basically: a creator is possible, but that’s as far as I go), and recently I’ve started feeling a genuine pull toward Christianity. Part of it is intellectual curiosity, but I’ve also had a few mystical experiences. One of them was a clear dream of Christ that has stayed with me.

I’m trying to approach this carefully and skeptically. I don’t want to only examine Christianity—if I’m researching, I want to compare it with other faiths and philosophies from the same critical standpoint. At the same time, the experiences are hard to set aside.

I’d appreciate input from people who do apologetics on a couple of things that have come up for me:

• How do Christian apologists typically handle the idea of eternal punishment (or reward) after death?
• How is the exclusivity claim usually defended—i.e., that salvation is only through Christ—especially regarding children who die young, people with severe cognitive disabilities, or those who live good lives but never accept Christ?

I’m open to civil discussion and friendly back-and-forth as I try to understand the apologetic reasoning better. Thanks in advance for any thoughtful replies.

I just have a bunch of questions about the empty tomb theory, explanations for the empty tomb, etc.

And credits to the authors of the following resources for what I so far have learned about the stuff related to this post…
“How Empty Was the Tomb?” by Mark Goodacre

“The Case Against the Empty Tomb” by Peter Kirby

“The Case for Christ” by Lee Strobel, specifically chapter 12

Questions:

Is there any way to know what type of burial Paul’s writings imply? He never explicitly mentions a tomb, but he does mention the burial of Jesus in his writings such as in the 1 Corinthians 15 creed. Are there any other burial accounts pre-dating 1 Corinthians? Is there any counter-evidence to the possibility of Paul referring to a tomb burial here?

Pretty much all the burial accounts claim that Jesus was buried in a tomb. How then do some prominent scholars believe he was left on the cross to be devoured by birds? There are no accounts of this, and the only evidence for it is that it’s just a possibility because that was typical Roman execution practice. But we have corroborating archeological evidence that a crucifixion victim named Johanan was buried in an elite tomb like Jesus, so shouldn’t the tomb burial be more plausible than the birds theory?

Did Mark even believe that Jesus had risen from the dead? How long were the women silent for after seeing the missing body?

According to Mark Goodacre’s article, rock-hewn tombs kept multiple bodies, and there is no record of a single-person tomb from the time that Jesus would have been crucified. This makes it highly unlikely that Jesus would have been the only one in the tomb, and even if he left, the tomb probably wouldn’t have been empty. I think the empty tomb theory should be rephrased to the missing body theory because of this. The following are a list of explanations for the missing body, and I’m wondering which ones seem the most plausible? Also which of them seem least plausible?
Disciples stole the body: lol umm what? Is there even any logic behind this argument? If there is, I'd like to know but I don’t see this as plausible thus far.

Jewish authorities stole the body: maybe they did this to prevent his followers from starting a shrine or cult or protest or whatever? That would be hilariously ironic if they actually did this to prevent a cult and then oops looks like that’s what started today’s most prominent religion!

Swoon theory: Considering the torment Jesus would have went through during the crucifixion there’s almost no chance that he wouldn’t have died. Even if he did manage to survive, he would be in critical condition and wouldn’t be the type of person that a whole movement could start from. Unless of course I could be wrong. 

Left on the cross to be devoured by birds: as explained above, but then according to this theory he was probably taken down eventually and tossed in a common grave. 

Wrong tomb theory

Wrong body: maybe they went to the right tomb, but since it was a multi-person tomb then the witnesses saw an empty spot and thought that must have been where Jesus’ body was supposed to be when really it could have been laying two pews over. 

Buried shamefully in the sand by Jewish enemies: like the Secret Gospel of James mentions.

The resurrection theory: still a possibility, if none of the naturalistic explanations outweigh this one. 

Any insight is helpful! Thanks in advance for your answers!

If Jesus is God’s only son, then what does that make Adam in the Bible? Can you help clarify this for me?

Hello. I am currently training for street ministry and apologetics through my church. I am looking for other resources that would help me. Any suggestions? Thank you.

Hey guys! I was hoping to get some answers here as I’ve been so conflicted for a long time and these things just won’t stop racking my brain.

A little background about me: I am a 17 year old female and I grew up in a somewhat Christian household. My parents are Christian but not go to church every Sunday kind of Christian’s, in fact I never grew up going to church. My dad grew up Mormon but my mom isn’t super forward on her stance about religion. There’s so many questions I have that I don’t know where to look for answers to, and I really need some advice because it keeps bothering me.

(This might sound a little dumb but..) First and foremost, I have never understood where the dinosaurs came from. In the bible, it starts out with Adam and Eve and I don’t think there is any mention whatsoever of god creating dinosaurs. Are they just a myth?

What about people who don’t know about Christianity or grew up with a different religion? Are they “going to hell?” Are atheists or other religious groups simply going to hell for not believing?

What about the rest of the universe? We know there are more solar systems out there, did god go on to create those too?

Why has so many people suffered in horrific ways, such as murder or torture or other awful things, why did god put some people through it while not others? Wasn’t he supposed to take our suffering and give it to himself?

! These are all genuine questions and not meant to undermine Christianity in any way. I am a believer in Christ but I’ve had so many conflicting feelings and questions and I need some genuine guidance. I have always struggled with being firm in my faith and so I am asking you for help, to help me understand these things and help me grow closer with my relationship with god.

Thank you if you respond to this post, it would mean a lot 🫶 have a blessed day

Suppose we have two historical claims from the same time period, both supported by ancient written accounts. We accept one as historically credible but reject the other because its claims seem extraordinary. Is that rejection based on differences in the evidence, or are we applying a higher standard because we find one claim harder to believe?
If we evaluate Christianity using historical evidence, shouldn’t we be able to explain what standard we’re applying and why? And if no amount of historical evidence could convince us that a miracle occurred, are we evaluating the evidence itself, or have we already decided what is possible before examining it?

Hi everyone! Recently I've decided to do one of my favorite hobbies and find evidence for the Truth in the Bible. This is something I've enjoyed doing for the past few years and it really excited me whenever I find evidence that x y or z from the Bible is true (ie Crucifixion, Resurrection, and Noah's Flood, etc). So I just wondered if anyone can help point me to evidence outside the Bible that at least confirm 1) Moses was a real person, 2) the exodus of Jews from Egypt, or 3) plagues that came upon Egypt. Thank you all!

I have been presented with an opportunity to explain Jesus, the Gospel, and Christianity as a whole to a family member of mine who "believes" in Jesus. The reason believes is in quotation marks is because they don't accept Jesus as divine and they honestly have a hard time rationalizing the entire concept of divinity. I'm concerned because this person also believes that being a good person is the only requirement of Heaven, and that true belief in Jesus is just a side point.

They have a complicated church past and have never read the Bible. Again, their curiosity and desire to believe is genuine. And I am trying to be gentle yet firm in my explanations. I have told this person they can ask me anything and I will do my best to answer.

This person has said "I have a realistic mind, it has to make sense, or I can't believe it" and because they have never physically seen Jesus, they cannot believe He is real. They told me that they've been prompted in their life and have felt guidance, but the only realistic explanation is an internal moral compass, not divine intervention.

Now to my question: I can explain the events of the Bible in comparison to generally accepted history, science, etc. but there are parts of the Bible that take real faith. For example, I have an ontological belief in God and I can understand what that means in theory and I can believe in it. But I also accept that God exists on a level that my human brain does not have the capacity to conceptualize. I can believe that things can exist even if I cannot make sense of them i.e. the realm of possibility does not begin and end with my ability to understand. Part of being a Christian is the acceptance that there are things we are not meant to understand and we will not understand until we meet our Father in Heaven. I also believe that God transcends time and space. He always has been and always will be. The words are easy to say out loud, but conceptualizing something outside the realm of time when my human brain can only comprehend the limits of time requires faith. I think of it the same as I think of infinity. I can understand the concept of infinity, but I can't rationalize what that looks like. I can't visualize it. The human brain is limited but God is unlimited.

If anyone has experience with people/situations like this, how did you explain that God exists even outside of our understanding? It's hard to explain to someone who requires such a high burden or proof and understanding before accepting something is real. I know there are parts I explained in this post, but are there ways to reword it to make is more palatable to someone trying to enter belief? I don't want to "water it down" but I also want to reach them. Any advice/experience/wisdom here would be so, so, so appreciated.

How can He be the Messiah if the two baby stories fundamentally contradict each other tomeline wise and are historically innacirate at times (ie. Herod ruling at that time and there being a census). Also why would the Gospel writers lie about Jesus being born in a manger, wouldnt that be disrespectful? And if those parts of the Gospels are lies. How can any of the Gospels be trusted as truth. How do we know all the other miracles Jesus did werent also just theological lies. Im extremely confused and lost and would like some guidance. Please tell me your thoughts. Thanks and God bless.

Here is my dilemma. I recently started researching NDE's, people's stories about such experiences, and found some repeating patterns in the scenario from the moment of losing life and the travel experience after. They all see light beings, see themself and the people around from bird perspective, they travel through a tunnel towards beautiful light, walk on a living grass, etc. But some of them experience God Jesus Christ, some undefined angels, some of them dead relatives, many muslims have Islamic experience and some of them saw that Jesus is the true God so afterwards they converted . Can someone go a bit through this to explain why in a religious sense people experience different spiritual reality?

How did they come to be ?

1. ⁠God wants a relationship with creation
   
2. ⁠God gave us true free will
   
3. ⁠Adam misused free will to be like god. Breaking the relationship communion with god.
   
4. ⁠Expelled from garden to bar access to tree of life.
   
5. ⁠Suffering and evil is consequence of mortality.
   
6. ⁠No original sin. What we lost in the fall was immortality, we gained death. We inherit knowledge of good and evil. We have free will. All humans will sin and break communion from god personally not inherited.
   
7. ⁠Jesus was fully god and fully human. Nothing was removed from Jesus to give him an unfair advantage over death. His human side was obedient and kept communion with god. He experienced death. Resurrection is gods grace because he kept his communal relationship intact.
   
8. ⁠Jesus is new tree of life.
   
9. ⁠Jesus had to experience the suffering god has subject humans to through creation in order for it to be a meaningful sacrifice.
   
10. ⁠Jesus offer us a resurrection path to the tree of life after death if we truly believe.
    10b. No predestination, god wants every single person to have a relationship with him.
    
11. ⁠We can lose that salvation if we rebreak our communion through true non belief. You can’t fool god, he knows if you truly are seeking a real relationship.

This is a mismash of Hebrew Old Testament, Eastern Orthodox and Methodism. Specifically rejecting original sin, legal debt theology. I see god as truly wanting a relationship and allowing free will to play out to get that. Jesus being the bridge back by proving a real human could lead a sinless life even if the rest of us can’t. I feel this is a better explanation of how/why god the world works rather than a vengeful god doling out punishment for sins committed by imperfect beings he created himself. That doesn’t make sense to me.

Does this sound reasonable to anyone else?

Hey, so I'm a Catholic and I follow this one catholic guy on instagram (not JAW although i do follow him as well) and he responded to an atheist's post that basically said "How come you only recognize miracles if they're done by christians" and he (the catholic) responded by saying that the miracles of other religions could have happened and if they did, they were done by demons. I was thinking then, how do we know whether Christianity's miracles are done by demons or by God. This isn't an argument about theism or atheism, but rather whether we can know if something is divine or demonic.

Some quick background context: I'm a Christian in a marriage (leaving a marriage...) marked by addiction, infidelity, and abuse, and I've received the same counsel from multiple pastors and church leaders. That's not the point of the post, though. The point is the theology behind the counsel, because I think it's biblically indefensible and it's one of the reasons people walk away from the faith entirely.

There's a common pastoral theology I'd summarize in three teachings:

1. suffering is redemptive for the abuser. endure long enough and they'll be "won over" (1 Pet 3:1)
2. silence is spiritual. don't name the sin, pray life into them
3. the marriage is what God most wants preserved, do everything to save it.

A skeptic looking at this counsel might see a faith that values institutions over people. Survivors who receive it often conclude that God is on the abuser's side. If the text doesn't teach it, we need to say so loudly.

Longer treatment (and some personal stuff), including Jephthah, Micah 6:7, and Jer 7:31: https://notesfromthemend.substack.com/p/a-false-theology-for-the-abused

Hello everybody! Praying you are doing well🙏🏻

How do I explain to a non-believer why fornication is a sin? I have my brother who is a non believer and he insists that having premarital sex is not a sin. His points basically are:

- If I love my girlfriend, am committed to her, seek a future with her- why having sex is a sin?

- Maybe sex outside marriage was a sin back on the days the Bible was written because of the societal norms/ customs. Why should it follow to today’s societies?

- What is the importance of marriage? Basically he says marriage is just a contract.

I am here to seek your advice guys, really. I don’t want to make my argument as : “ God says so therefore it is” because honestly, its way more complicated than that. How would you approach these questions?

On my point of view, its less about societal norms and more about something related to the human nature in and of itself that God is aware of. Morals and ethics given by a perfect law-giver are no subject to societal changes based on my argument. Slavery was bad on the southern US and it remains bad now, although the societal views have changed.

Anyway guys, I really appreciate any answers and advice

Please help me understand faith even more. I am a Christian but I sometimes struggle with the fact that I haven’t found any scientific evidence about him. Please help me understand the Lord more and stop doubting my faith. I believe in Him but it is hard at times. My Dog is dying and this is making me think about my Faith even more than usual.

Hi, all-- since this is relevant I hope I don't come across as advertising-- I notice that often times on respectively Muslim / Christian / Jewish subs that there often questions or arguments that are clearly interested in advocating for one or the other faith. And as for denominational discussion within Christianity, this kind of discussion is of course segregated between each tradition's respective community. A lot of religious subs prohibit evangelising or proselytizing as a rule, so there's not really a dedicated place for these people to freely talk to one another. The r/religion subreddit for example is for informative discussion about religions, and trying to persuade others about your faith is not allowed-- which is fine for the design of that sub, but I'm sure there are many who simply want to convince or be convinced by others. So I just wanted to say I made a new subreddit called r/proselytize, for openly discussing, encouraging, or arguing for your religious beliefs, or inquiring about others. Feel welcome to join if you like.

For the many Christians who do read-the-bible-in-a-year programs, or simply daily scripture reading absent any study aids, aren’t they reading a lot of things out of context?

As someone who’s read the bible this way in the past, I feel like I overlooked and/or misunderstood so much doing it this way. At the time, it was the KJV, so that didn’t help with clarity and understanding given many of the archaic terms in that translation.

quick question guys : I keep seeing people bring up the Roman centurion story to argue Jesus actually meant to reach Gentiles all along.

Is there any serious academic support for this view or do most scholars write it off as later theology? Do any historians actually argue his ministry was open to non-Jews from the start?

looking for papers or book recs on this side of the debate. ty!

How do you discern that Christianity is true? You literally can explain everything, every miraculous situation, etc. by gnosticism. There is no "sign" that you couldn't explain by it. So what was the factor, the thing, whatever, that made you decide that Christianity is true?

Does social justice exist in the Bible as you would interpret its texts and teachings? If so, what is the Biblical meaning of social justice as you see it?

Plus if it also talks about the differences between antebellum south. I have also seen people claiming that biblical slavery is just indebted servitude but I'd appreciate academic resources on this topic.