@@glenwillson5073 No one decides the Bible is untrue before picking it up. All of us were told it was innerant as children. As adults we can analyze it with critical minds and be honest about what it says
@@ryanrevland4333 {... analyse it with critical minds ....} You may have, I don't know, some do for sure. But most read it with the prexisting dogma belief that God does not exist, especially in modern times. Dan does. A many of his claims, as to what is data, is based on this dogma.
@@glenwillson5073 Dan started out just as religious as everyone else in this comment section so his conclusions aren’t based on atheist dogma. He aligns with the academic consensus. I don't know what his current beliefs are but I imagine he struggled with this just like the rest of us.
@@glenwillson5073 The Abrahamic god isn't real, Glenny boy. He's no more real than Zeus or any of the other fictional gods from the ancient Near East. You are too blinded by Israelite fiction to see it. Could a god exist? Sure. It's not the Abrahamic god if it does.
Yes like sodham and Gomorrah were LGBTQIA people. They didn't even have the concept of someone being LGBTQIA. The biblical language explains that perfectly.
@@Hallahanify It's curious that, in regular life, 'apology' means saying you were wrong. In religion, 'apology' means proving that you are right. It seems, yet again, that for the religious, every day is January 31st.
"If we assume that Jesus's prophecies always come true, then we can invent situations to explain why something Jesus said hasn't come true" Alternatively, Jesus was just wrong.
@@cdprince768 Exactly. The stories were written 35-50 years after his death to give hope to his followers who were starting to wonder why he hadn't returned yet. They unwittingly make him out to sound like a failed prophet. Trying to figure out what he actually said is mostly guesswork.
This doesn't make any sense. The pieces of the puzzle are here, but assembled in a way that doesn't fit together. If the authors already knew what would happen forty years later (one generation), what rhetorical purpose is served by writing our lord's prophecy with conditions which make it demonstrably incorrect?
Michael Jones at Inspiring Philosophy does not like being criticized. So get ready for some clapback. (I'm glad to see someone else taking him on though).
@@Noneya5555 The Dude is spiritually dead, nor that I am very alive either but... he doesn't know what symbolism is and makes a big fuss of details like who wrote what book of the bible or what Jesus mean in that saying, but the truth is that all of that doesn’t really matter, if people really wants to know and find God needs to know themselves and find themselves
@@gilgamesh7652 Tbh, I hadn't even heard of this content creator until Dan's video. But I am aware of his type of religious apologist - they regurgitate a toxic brew of ignorance, stupidity and deception. They argue that the Bible is true and inerrant, except when it isn't. The fact that they need to bend fact and reality to fit their dogma is both frightening and telling.
@@ThinkitThrough-kd4fncheck out Jake Brancatella formally known as Muslim Metaphysician, he made series responding to IP on did the early church fathers believe in the Trinity. Jake quoted the scholars IP said he read from, and this really showed what a grifter IP is and his followers should be embarrassed.
That is just nonsense he literally took down his documentary he did on the exodus, after an Egyptologist did a critique of it😂. And he’s made changes to his videos after he’s criticism from other scholars such as Craig Blomberg and Mark S Smith. Maybe do your homework first.
@@thedude9941🤣🤣🤣🤣 I don’t just wanna play defense for Michael in the common section but wow just wow. Michael literally showed how he missed quoted and misconstrued pretty much all of the quotes he was using. Watch his responses. Jake also loves making challenges to debate but then loves to back out last minute. Did you even bother to watch his videos? No you should be embarrassed but yours is gullible as you are to fall for Jake and his crap because if you have eyes you can literally see that one of the quotes he was quoting from Tertullian literally proves trinitarianism😂, in the same paragraph that he’s trying to use the disapproved trinitarianism.
IP left us hanging last time he and Dan beefed. I don't think he wants the smoke. IP is knowledgeable and charismatic but essentially is not arguing against his interlocutors but giving little cups of warm milk and blankets to people who already fell for the scam.
I would also note that if one assumes that the prophecies of Jesus second coming were conditional to, for example, all of Israel accepting Jesus as Messiah, then it's safe to assume that it will never happen since the kingdom of Israel and Judea are no more and did accept Jesus as Messiah. If Jesus' second coming cannot happen since conditions were not met, one could make the argument that salvation is impossible too and thus Christianity itself is useless.
Is a “conditional prophecy” even a prophecy? When I say to my kids “I’ll buy you an ice cream. - If you behave.” Am I a prophet uttering a conditional prophecy? “I’ll come back. - But only when all Israel has accepted me.” I detect blackmail undertones. Idk, sounds so silly.
@@epronovost6539 apologist will just add new conditions. “Once the fallen kingdoms of Israel and Judea re-emerge and accept Jesus, that’s when he will come back”
Huh? When did they ever accept him as a messiah? Also, it wouldn’t make any sense for “Israel” here to refer to subjects of a kingdom, because even by Jesus’s time, there hadn’t been a kingdom of Israel in centuries. More likely, the identity of Israel had been adopted by Judea after the Assyrian destruction of Israel in the 8th century, just like there have been subsequent claims of being “the true Israel” ever since.
More importantly, for 2000 years Christians have done all they can to convince the Jewish people to convert to Christianity. It has not gone well for them.
@@Marmar34082 you know Dan is a Christian right? And no, as I am not a Christian fundamentalist, what he says does not weaken my faith. On the contrary, it helps me mature and evolve my faith
@@johnwick2018 well I would still say that’s just a generalization. Not all apologists are equal you cannot tell me that someone like Michael Jones is on the same level as someone like Kent Hovid, that would just be ridiculous. There’s a good Christian apologists and those bad ones the same thing with atheists, there’s sophisticated and well educated ones and then there’s not so much.
@@LeoVital that’s not my work though. And if you read any of my comments when it comes to creations videos you know I criticize them heavily and I defend the atheists in a lot of cases, so this just simply isn’t the case. That’s not my line of work this is what I do for fun when I have time I used to be a bit of an excessive commentor though I’ve tried to cut back on it a lot.
Doesn't make sense that God waited for English and the KJV being when God really cleared stuff up when he could have, I don't know, wrote to all of us on a wall with fire. But here we are with tons of Christians believing this. We are discussing supposed supernatural creatures, not one lick of it makes sense.
If facts, no matter how obvious, contradict the Bible then the apologists have one of two explanations: the interpretation is wrong or the facts are wrong.
And then apologist have the audacity to say that we are the ones “using our own biases to interpret the text instead of letting the text be what it is”
'Once you eliminate everything that's inconvenient to my beliefs, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.' - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle...'s cousin, Bob (who was an apologist).
@@Loveistheirwholehapp whats the alternative? just blindly follow what the priests say? can you provide a reason why that information would be more likely to be true? I suggest when trying to find truth, you fall back on what is evidentiary in reality, not believe the occult prophesy at face value. You know, weigh what is being said against what is real not what makes you feel good when you hear it.
What about this prophecy by Jesus in Matthew: "When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes." Matthew 10:23. How is This guy going to wiggle out of this one?
@@glenwillson5073 and how am I wrong? Do you have an explanation, or just nonsense? Has it not occurred to you that all the towns in Israel have experienced what Jesus said not all will experience by now? It’s almost 2,000 years, after all.
Very Well ! These are solid and very interesting arguments. Whoever, as a full preterist, this is my two hypotheses I propose : 1) The Gospels were composed at a time when the temple in Jerusalem had been destroyed following the Judean war against the Romans, and they put the prophetic words in Jesus' mouth even though he never uttered them. These are called ex-ventus prophecies. 2) If we believe the majority of scholars including Dan McClellan, that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, then he probably uttered these prophetic words, which were fulfilled during the Judean war against the Romans and the cataclysmic fall of Jerusalem. These events are recounted by the historian Flavius Josephus and correspond strangely to the events recounted by the synoptic gospels and the book of Revelation. In this case, the return of Jesus is not to be taken literally, but symbolically, since the Gospels and Revelation use Old Testament imagery and vocabulary to speak of a concrete political situation they were experiencing in their time period preceding the composition of the New Testament or after. The years 66-70 AD are pivotal in the history of Judea. And Mark's Gospel was composed at or just after this time. In any case, we have no more biblical prophecies to look forward to in our time, which is the 21st century.
1. No proof that the historical Jesus actually said those things since the Gospels were written decades after his death. 2. Since they were written afterwards, the prophecies were false. 3. Even if he did predict some things, it's nothing special, people make predictions all the time.
@@baonemogomotsi7138 That was my point. This is why I say "hypotheses." Without proof we can only go by probability bc there’s no proof neither that Jesus never predicted these prophecy. In you second point : If you read my comment carefully in my first hypothesis, you will understand that I said prophecy "ex-ventus" for a reason, which means by defenition false prophecy. I’ve even never pretended that Jesus prophecy was a big deal. But in the eyes of the authors of the NT end time prophecy was a big deal bc of their circumstances, in their time period. I think you were looking for contradictions when in many things you said you just proved my points. False or not, there’s no prophecy to wait for our time from the Bible. The teachings of the gospels is not only about prophecy, there is more…
2 thousand years plus later, he still hasn't shown. A hundred years from now, the apologies will still be explaining why he is almost here. There is no end date for prophetic prediction. A thousand years in the future, the same debate will endure.
Rev 1: 1 These things that must SOON take place to the 7 churches..... I mean 2000 years from now. SIKE. Rev 22: 10 "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand". SIKE, What a cruel head job. Best regards.
I think the view that Jesus’ “coming” referred to in these passages was referring to his coming (in judgement) in 70 CE makes best sense of these passages if we are to require/assume univocality. 70 CE is 40 years after 30 CE, the general length of a “generation.” Makes way more sense than the Transfiguration, which was just a matter of days later, and makes a whole lot more sense than lengthening out a “generation” for thousands of years and supposing a John (or someone) who is still living right now.
@@solidstorm6129 what I’m referring to is the destruction of Jerusalem (and the temple) by the Roman army in 70 CE. Also, I’m not saying Jesus came physically in bodily form at that time, but that he “came” in judgment in the same way the LORD did in several Old Testament passages where the destruction by God of different non-Israel nations is spoken of, in very similar cosmic and sky/cloud language as that used by the author of Matthew and Luke and the author of Revelation. In these passages, God is coming and judging/destroying these nations by the use of other nations. Assyria and Babylon are examples. In the 1st century CE though it is Jerusalem itself that is being judged - with God using Rome as the destructive agent. I’m not saying this is absolutely the way it has to be, and I know it’s not the majority Christian position, but I think it’s the best way of explaining these passages if we are to stay with univocality and the idea that these things must be true. If we don’t assume univocality, the idea of Jesus being a failed prophet is easier - but you still have New Testament authors who seem to be intentionally hyperlinking Old Testament language, so there’s that at least.
@@danieljacob76or the better explanation would be that Jesus failed as an end times prophet. And you do realize that the text is not univocal, correct?
@@solidstorm6129 I know there are different authors, and am open to possibility of contradictions between those authors, but I still believe there is a divine author inspiring them all. So I don’t accept multi-vocality in the absolute and ultimate sense, but I still hold it (multi-vocality in the absolute sense) as a possibility. I may be wrong. I accept there are some things (maybe a lot) that we (and I) take on faith. They are faith positions. I think the apologist on Dan’s video would be in firmer ground if he took the view concerning Jesus’ prophesy that I explained.
I am a Christian and appreciate you trying to be true to the text. As long as someone is not being deceptive and is trying to do honest work. That being said, I have just learned about Preterism and the resurgence of the idea that Jesus did return ! It is very interesting actually.
Jesus makes a false prediction in Mark 9:1. He was referring to some seeing the literal return of the Son of Man at the end of the world - the Parousia, and we can tell this by reading the surrounding context and ruling out other interpretations that conservatives like to offer. First of all, there are two major indicators that Mark 9:1 was not referring to the Transfiguration or the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD. 1. Mk. 9:1 is connected to the previous passage (Mk. 8:38) which explicitly refers to the Parousia like it does in Mt. 16:27-28. --- For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done. “Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.” --- Obviously, the "Son of Man coming" in v. 28 can only refer to the previous passage where he comes "with angels and rewards each person according to what they have done." Since this did not happen during the Transfiguration or the destruction of the Temple then that demonstrates these interpretations must be incorrect. Moreover, coming with "power" (δυνάμει) in Mk. 9:1 refers to the Parousia - Mk. 13:26, a phrase which Luke 9:27 omits. This is consistent with Luke's pattern elsewhere of redacting/removing the Markan Jesus' imminent eschatology. He does this because he's writing much later at a time when it had become embarrassing that the original imminent predictions never came true - see 2 Thess 2, 2 Peter 3, and John 21:22-23 for how other authors dealt with this embarrassment. 2. It does not make sense to warn "some will die" before seeing an event if the event in question was to take place a mere six days later as Mk. 9:2 says. Obviously, the warning necessitates a length of time long enough for some of those standing there to die. "With respect to Transfiguration interpretation of the prophecy, here are a few comments: (1) Jesus gives the promise in a very solemn form ("Amen amen I say unto you") which is inappropriate by this reading, as it is hardly surprising that the disciples would be alive six days later. The reference to tasting death does not imply immediacy but the passage of time. (2) The Matthean form adds to the saying the statement that the Son of Man "shall reward every man according to his works" when he comes. This has universal scope and cannot pertain to the Transfiguration but rather Judgment Day (Matthew 10:15, 11:22-24, 12:36) which brings with it punishment and rewards (ch. 25). This cannot pertain to the Transfiguration but rather a future event at the "close of the age" (24:3), when the Son of Man comes in glory (24:30). The Markan form, which refers to the Son of Man as being ashamed of those ashamed of him, also has in view judgment. (3) The preterist interpretation that assigns fulfillment of all of the Olivet discourse to the Jewish War, again, needs to explain the universal scope ("all tribes of the earth shall mourn" - Mt. 24:30, "which took them all away" - Mt. 24:39, "before him shall be gathered all the nations" - Mt. 25:32) and the expectation (particularly explicit in Matthew) that this occurs at the "close of the age". - u/zanillamilla
Although I read the Bible front to back four times, and even though at the time I was a Christian, it was this kind of verse where I noticed for once that this verse proved Jesus didn't return, or we all missed this event.
100? I’d be happy with even only $1 for every time I’d heard it, I’d reckon I would be able to have a nice little vacation with that much. $100 per would be paying off student loans and a big down payment on a real nice house kind of money
I guess it be just as much as what we hear from unbelieving scholars telling inerrantist Christian that the bible doesn’t say what they say it clearly says. Imagine thinking that arguing over the some times less than clear interpretation of a bible text was a one way street! Haha! SMH
@@marshlightning because, Proverbs 25:2: ‘It is the glory of God to conceal a matter, But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.’ Besides the whole host of other reasons why ancient texts are not always obviously simple and plain to modern readers.
@@jamesmongeau7191 Utter "Jibber-Jabber.". Do you know how angry I get when I hear utter, and I mean, UTTER total limp-wristed bullshine like this???? So God said, " Yippyly wamuzi quardi poramzidi quuratanis." How do you respond to that verse?(It was a secret message from God to the world)
I always like the tradition of the Wandering Jew, who can't die until all those things are fulfilled. That someone had to make up that interpretation tells me that it's not obvious that Jesus wasn't talking about _that_ generation.
I have divine power, and the proof is in my prophesies. For example, I prophesied I'd win the lottery. I didn't, but that's because the prophesy was conditional on me having the correct numbers. What more proof could you want?
That analogy doesn't even work. A better analogy would be a parent telling his child he would ground him if he doesn't do his homework and clean his room, since the child did these two things, the parent did not ground him.
@@SpaveFrostKing well sure, but all I'm saying is your analogy of conditional prophecy was misused. If speaking of the olivet discourse, there are many ways to make this make sense without even using this line of thought and still using scholarship on the topic. People like NT wright say in his book 'surprised by hope' that Jesus never said anything about his return in his earthly ministry. When Jesus quotes Daniel 7, showing his divinity and shows what he is saying is not about a second coming, the coming is a upward not a downward movement. Meaning after his death he will be vindicated, in context of two events-the resurrection and the destruction of the Jewish temple. His ascension and glorification and coming are not of earth but of heaven to the father.
So they can continue "sinning" until the "conditions" are fulfilled. But you never know when it's supposed to be coming - "just as a thief in the night"
What do you think about the claim that the Resurrection was already the second coming? Does that have a biblical basis? Is it a post-biblical innovation?
I recently encountered an argument that the apocalyptic imagery was more inline with pre-Enochic metaphor, basically saying that the "Son of Man coming on the clouds" was actually Rome destroying Jerusalem. It is nonsense, but it is at least innovative nonsense.
The event that's anticipated is the "arrival of the Son of Man on the clouds of the sky," which we get from reading Daniel 7 literally. The resurrection is a separate related event (Daniel 12). The post-Easter apparitions are interpreted as both a sign that 1) Jesus was vindicated by God to be that Son of Man (in spite of his death), and 2) that the general resurrection of everyone can't be far behind (he becomes the "first fruit" of that resurrection harvest taking place at the imminent end). As an aside, the "dead in Christ rising first" stuff Paul claims seems to be a later development (dead believers are flying first class).
@@fre2725 I think the majority of the resurrection story elements were contrived after Peter and Paul were haunted by apparitions to make it into something it wasn't. Belief in the face of psychological dissonance is a powerful base upon which to build a religious empire.
@@k98killer It is interesting that Paul makes no distinction between how Jesus appeared to him and how he appeared to others. At any rate, I don’t find Paul a credible or compelling person, so whatever he claims happened to himself or others, I take with a grain of salt.
@@k98killer It's hard to say who came up with what and why, or how much goes back to "eyewitness testimony." I think the most we can say is that people in the earliest Christian community were having experiences of a risen Jesus (perhaps "bereavement visions"), or claiming to have these experiences for in-group status...probably both. The gospel authors develop them into both literature and apologetic. I suspect Paul was exaggerating the evidence for them ("500 brothers at once!") to sell his theologically interpreted version of resurrection: "This could be you if you believe and receive the mysteries!" I don't think running a Christian empire was even on anyone's mind at this time. I think they really expected Jesus to come back soon and God to establish his kingdom for the faithful. The conversion of Emperor Constantine provided the opportunity for Christians to do it for real by themselves.
Yes, Matt 24 is what it is. It's also clear that Paul was convinced that Jesus 2.0 was due soon. I discovered only after the "Bible Answer Man" (Hank Hannifgraf) made a case that Jesus somehow had already come. WTF? Yes, and once you read why he would need to believe in some sort of completed return, you see how powerless the Bible is to predict anything.
The Bible was about 27% prophetic in nature at the time the individual books were given by God to men. This is unique to the holy scriptures, showing that God's word is his word (see Isaiah 46:9-10). Many of the Bible's prophecies concern the Jews, the land of Israel, and the Messiah, and many of them have been fulfilled in history. Those that remain will be fulfilled in their proper times. There are numerous scriptures in both Old and New Testaments that pertain to things concerning the times surrounding Jesus' bodily return to the earth. Scriptures that speak of end-time events must be understood in the light of these others. The immediate context of this particular prophecy is the transfiguration of Christ before some of his apostles and is likely best understood in that light (see Luke 9:27-36, Matthew 16:28-17:9, Mark 9:1-9).
@@sdlorah6450 Quite a number of claims with little or no support for them. Most claims about "fulfilled prophecies" turn out to be either non prophecies (the author was using figurative language, and later readers interpret that as prophecies that conveniently happen to have been fulfilled) or prophecies recorded after the actual event took place. Something like writing today a prophecy about the 2020 US presidential election, but backdating it to 1997.
No one has to take your word for it! They can open a Bible and a copy of the Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy: The Complete Guide to Scriptural Predictions and Their Fulfillment by J. Barton Payne and see for themselves.
@@sm8johnthreesixteenthe lack of self awareness here is truly astounding. You’re saying people Can see for themselves by using your handpicked fundamentalist interpreters guides.
Love it. "Rhetorical goals of the author." Unfortunate that this statement will be ignored, or receive blank stares from the people that could most benefit from it.
2nd coming is the day of judgement. Likely the text was corrupted since he himself did not know the day and the hour. The destruction of the temple could be a prophecy.
@@munbruk Check out Matt 10:23 and 16:28. He tells his disciples they will live to see Judgment Day. He doesn't know the day or hour, just that it's within their generation.
@@ryanrevland4333 I disagree. Jesus can't lie. That same statement you see it in islamic tradition. but it is wrong. The hour is near, imminent, etc. does not mean any one knows when. Death is the hour.
@@ryanrevland4333 Jesus can't lie. It is possible that he came back to his disciples for other reason but that would not be necessary for the faith. Otherwise, the idea that the hour is imminent, near, etc is also in Islam to. That does not mean anyone except God knows when.
Dan when a verse goes against Christian doctrine: “We need to take the plain reading of the text.” Dan when a verse proved Christian doctrine: “Actually that’s not what it means we need to analyse the Hebrew and the historical context and actually this many scholars says it doesn’t mean that.”
Funny. Last I recall, he was always all for studying a passage in not only its plain reading, but also studying the cultural and historical context and Hebrew and Greek. Do you not like Dan?
Dan does exactly the photo negative of what he accuses conservative inerrantist scholars of doing, and he does so, surprise surprise, when it is convenient for his rhetorical perspective, SHOCKER!
1. Does Mike not know there is a much easier way to deal with this passage? He could simply argue that (or try to) “this generation” is referring to the generation that experiences these tribulations. In other words, the future generation that sees the wars, famines, etc will not pass away until all those tribulations unfold. 2. Another fantastic video, dan. Appreciate your work.
Of course that is a lame way to make sense in Greek. Why not just say THAT generation or THE generation that sees these thing. Taken in context and other passages it is clear that it is the generation he is SPEAKING too. Give up already!!
Hey guys something to ask your self, how do we readers get to the "plain sense of the text" from a text written 2000 years ago? Furthermore how do we ascertain " the plain sense" of the text from apocalyptic language? Where is the decoding dictionary to apocalyptic language to get at the plain sense? With Jesus wasn't his whole teaching career a exercise in misunderstanding ( the stories frequently have those closest him bewildered). It just seems like a big ask to hold him to "the plain sense " requirements we have
I love how Dan a) gives us his opinion on the consensus with no data at all and then b) gives us his opinion on the psychological motivations of people who give different interpretations, also with no data at all, but then has the nerve to decry the *dogma* of others. Very rich indeed.
These are popular level videos and not meant to be papers on the subjects. He bring up original language stuff when applicable and books about the subject matter, when applicable. When he is claiming consensus, it is on the other side to legitimize the claims for their divergent view since it clearly is an outside reasoning imposed on the text. He plainly reveals that in what he does say and that's not disputable.
don't you guys love how Dan always insists on understanding within the historical context when it fits his view, but then when it doesn't fit his view, now it's "just do the plain reading and ignore any context" or "well that's not the only way to read it, and here's an obscure reason why my way is better"? wow such awesome. big scholar. much smart.
@@thegreatdestroyer6506 "smart ass" was referrint to how he present it. My expertise is in argumentation theory and philosophy, and theology. I have also worked with bible translation etc etc.
I would even argue that those alternative interpretations (which violate Sola Scriptura) actually confirm a simple psychological hypothesis: both the Resurrection story ánd the written down Canonical Gospels are the product of cognitive dissonance. This occurred both after the Crucifixion and the Destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.
It's so hilarious to watch a bunch of grown adults obsess and wring their hands about the dialogue assigned to a character in a fantasy novel. It would be like if an entire group of people based their lives around whether Gandalf said "you shall not pass" or "you cannot pass."
your format reminds me in many ways of Scimandan, who deals with / debunks/ questions flearthers and the many repetitive "theories "/ explanations persistent therein. and ) The gospels (especially Matthew 21:4 and John 12:14-15) claim that Jesus fulfills the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9. But the next few verses (Zechariah 9:10-13) show that the person referred to in this verse is a military king that would rule “from sea to sea”. Since Jesus had neither an army nor a kingdom, he could not have fulfilled this prophecy.
I think there's a hair to split here. The problem I have with saying "the second coming of Jesus" is that is NOT the plain sense reading of the text. Matthew is about the coming of the kingdom of Heaven to Earth and while that includes Jesus' second coming, that isn't Jesus' overarching message until at least John say and later built on by the church, but we're talking about Matthew. Which has a lower Christology. People seem to forget that Jesus' message was that "The Kingdom" was coming, not just him.
Original poster spends so much time telling us that 'those cultures knew conditionals'... yeah. And knowing about conditionals (and conditional prophecies) they didn't use them here (e.g. 'within the generation' prophecy). So what is the reason for more complex interpretation, then? It can only be dogma.
Critical scholars like to pretend they are objective interpreters of the text. Anyway, Jesus did not predict his second coming within a generation, but he did predict his COMING IN JUDGMENT AND WRATH -- which was fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Jesus was using language of judgment lifted from the OT when he spoke of his coming (Isa. 13:6; 13:9; Zephaniah 1:14-15 etc.) Jesus came in judgment in AD 70, just like Yahweh did in the OT, his second coming is pending.
Actually, critical scholars don't pretend to be anything. They attempt to interpret the text based on the evidence of language, customs, history, etc. Christian apologists, however, start with the assumption that their interpretations must be divinely-inspired and then negotiate with the text to make it relevant and true to their time and culture. In the end, it's mythology with motifs that are similar to countless religions throughout history. It's a story told by bronze age sheepherders, and if it inspires you to be a better person, great.
Very nice preterist language there. Too bad people were still waiting even after 70 AD. Even 1 and 2 Peter were explaining that away, as if a thousand years is really only a day to the lord. And did I forget the scholarship has pinned them to be made after the start of the second century?
Most of people here don't know anything about alternatives .. Like full preterism '' and also you have to make a choice if the gospel of mark written before 70 ad or after ?
Hello Dan , I've been contemplating about info in your videos particularly I'm part of the ahmediya Muslim community and the founder of this movement is a man from the blood line if Jesus and he wrote 20+ books confirming his Advent as the second coming of Jesus just as Isiah or whatever that prophet in Malachi said to come was and John the Baptist form of reincarnation of ministries and I think you should give a try on one if his books "Jesus in Indian"
One minor quibble is that the eschatology of the Olivet discourse is not about "the second coming of Christ," which is another a theological protection onto the text rather than inherent in the text itself.
Apologist Rule #23 If the plain reading of a bible verse is demonstrably wrong, then simply "interpret" it to mean something other than what it clearly says. The ends ALWAYS justifies the means when you're defending -your imaginary friend- a omnipotent, omniscient super-being.
Why don’t you do debates Dan? You should debate IP on biblical prophecy, you seem pretty confident you’re correct. I can help arrange that if you would like.
I had a spooky thought. 👻 What if the disciples are secretly still alive, living among us, waiting for the conditions to be met. They’d be like 2000-year old vampires, except that . . . no, they’d be pretty much like 2000-year old vampires.
Dan I way respect your work. That being said, I recognize esotericism within the text and telling of the stories. For instance Christ clearly said I will destroy this temple...etc. The text clears it up that he was talking about his body...I know how convenient however, if we take this line of thinking common in mystery religions and societies or gnostic ones, it is clear that veiled meanings are presented such as something stated as reality but actually being a metaphor. Now here is what I am getting at. I am sure you are familiar with the sound reasoning that knowledge of some kind of reincarnation, remortal birth etc and I am no scholar so I can not articulate it...however we are aware the belief system was known...that being true....I assure you ther are those here who will see me coming...is totally palpable...to those who "know" deeper doctrines. Unless we are to make the false assumption there were none despite the text, the religions of the day that there clearly were. So if a type of rebirth into mortality exists....makes perfect sense..to those with ears to hear. Now...I assume you are familiar with the soundness of my argument, which I can not argue, but others can..so look it up and explain how indeed...a mysterious message of urgency can be conveyed in the statement....there are those in "this generation". Since death is a type of judgement anyway, the urgency is justified for each individual and for those with ears to hear....the prophecy can still be real. Just saying...lol. Love your work Dan. Keep it up, and keep it scholarly. Peace.
Interestingly immediately after the Olivet Discourse is the Transfiguration . In which some of those same disciples saw Christ in his Glory before they tasted death.
@@solidstorm6129 So you think the kingdom is a physical kingdom. Being in the kingdom is to be glorified in the Resurrection. And the Transfiguration is supposed to be a foretaste of the Kingdom, not its full arrival.
@@solidstorm6129 “I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed” 1 Cor 15:50-51
Yeshu was speaking of himself according to verbiage or station I would like to make point #1 ( ex. Michal, Gabriel, the "Son" or heir). Not in the first person which is very common in Semitic tradition. Items like these are of crucial significance being subjects of posterity. Hence the excruciating detail that is put into revealing it's word. Somehow these words remained intact to a degree. Regardless of translation, physical destruction, tampering, language "modifications" and so on. Pilate was quoted as saying I have written what I have written, in the incredibly few words that were used in his story. Versed in three languages and a politician is quite a remarkable soldier. Constantine wasn't a scribe. A very important subject is also briefly brushed upon in his story. Crowning the Lord or word as things have turned out. Saul having forsaken his "heritage" or filthy rags touches on this very relevant Judean tradition of crowning letters. Only two are crowned. Together as a single word. Not only crowned in Gethsemane, but again Pilate placing his mark above the Lords head. Again there are two crowns not one... I believe these semantic details to be most telling.
Regarding Mark 13’s within a generation, he is referring to the fall of Jerusalem, which is admittedly easier seen in retrospect. This is more evident once you consider what Jesus says right after saying that within a generation, all these things will take place: “But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.” Mark 13:32
Day and hour is not the same as times as seasons or within THAT generation. Paul told you that are not in darkness know the times and seasons! Plus, Mark was written after 70 C.E. so not much of a 'prophecy.'
Half these people trying to sell you that the eschaton is imminent, the other half excusing why the eschaton hasn't immanentized yet because reasons if you just read this the way we tell you.
It's pretty simple if Paul expects Jesus to return soon and also expects all the gentiles to come in prior to that then the obvious answer is that all the incoming gentiles will come within a generation/soon. You can 't just arbitrarily pick the latter to govern the former and thus ignore the former 'return soon' part!
The Bible doesn't contain the full quote from Jesus. He actually said: "Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. Or not. It's up to you guys really."
For those who didn’t believe Jesus returned when He said He would… ask yourself this. Did the Jews who killed the prophets and their savior believe He was to come and save them? What was to happen and did happened to those people who didn’t believe He came? Don’t let history repeat itself. Faith is trusting in something you cannot see with your human eyes. Something that your heart can see…
I have been reading a book called "how to read the bible for all its worth", in there it talks about a concept of "already" but "not yet" for an eschatological view. Would that be something that is strictly formulated after Scriptures were canonized or is there any probability of this being an understanding around that time period? Example they had was 1 corin 3:22 already victory over death and Phil 3:20-21 yet they would still die. Another example they had Eph 6:10-17 already lived in the Spirit yet still lived in the world where Satan could attack. Just trying to gain more understanding.
I like Mike Jones. Other Christians will argue that Jesus was talking about the Transfiguration or the Resurrection or Pentecost. But Mike knows the timeline doesn't work. There's no way to cheese this failed prophecy. So he makes it conditional. Jesus didn't fail, he changed his mind 🤣
![ไลฟ์สุ่ม iPhone 295 บาท... โกงมั้ย?[ โกงมั้ยครับ ep.97 ] | DOM](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gdstHEE4UUE/mqdefault.jpg)
Any/every apologist: "Here's why that doesn't mean what it says"
First rule of bibliolatry: everything is literal except when proven false, then it's metaphorical
@Merrick And that is why some conclude that the apologists' god has the communication skills of a rock.
@@juanausensi499
Except that metaphors stand for literal things.
Or here's why you are mistaken in what you think it says.
@@glenwillson5073 nah I can read it just fine. Maybe YOU need help figuring out what it says.
It’s amazing how much truth you can find in a book that you’ve decided is true before you ever pick it up
Or how much untruth you can find in a book that you've decided is untrue before you ever pick it up.
@@glenwillson5073 No one decides the Bible is untrue before picking it up. All of us were told it was innerant as children. As adults we can analyze it with critical minds and be honest about what it says
@@ryanrevland4333
{... analyse it with critical minds ....}
You may have, I don't know, some do for sure.
But most read it with the prexisting dogma belief that God does not exist, especially in modern times.
Dan does. A many of his claims, as to what is data, is based on this dogma.
@@glenwillson5073 Dan started out just as religious as everyone else in this comment section so his conclusions aren’t based on atheist dogma. He aligns with the academic consensus. I don't know what his current beliefs are but I imagine he struggled with this just like the rest of us.
@@glenwillson5073 The Abrahamic god isn't real, Glenny boy. He's no more real than Zeus or any of the other fictional gods from the ancient Near East. You are too blinded by Israelite fiction to see it.
Could a god exist? Sure. It's not the Abrahamic god if it does.
The bible is the inerrant and authoritative word of God Almighty! Now, here's what he meant to say....
That is a brilliant comment.
Strange how what god *actually* means is somehow always something the person doing the explaining would benefit from.
😂
😩
Yes like sodham and Gomorrah were LGBTQIA people. They didn't even have the concept of someone being LGBTQIA. The biblical language explains that perfectly.
What a perfect example of the term "excusegist."
No...its excusegesis. 😊
The dog ate my prophecy.
Very telling that they call themselves "apologists "
@@Hallahanify It's curious that, in regular life, 'apology' means saying you were wrong. In religion, 'apology' means proving that you are right. It seems, yet again, that for the religious, every day is January 31st.
"If we assume that Jesus's prophecies always come true, then we can invent situations to explain why something Jesus said hasn't come true"
Alternatively, Jesus was just wrong.
Or more accurately, the people who wrote about Jesus generations after his death were wrong.
@@cdprince768 Exactly. The stories were written 35-50 years after his death to give hope to his followers who were starting to wonder why he hadn't returned yet. They unwittingly make him out to sound like a failed prophet. Trying to figure out what he actually said is mostly guesswork.
That's not possible to do.
This doesn't make any sense. The pieces of the puzzle are here, but assembled in a way that doesn't fit together.
If the authors already knew what would happen forty years later (one generation), what rhetorical purpose is served by writing our lord's prophecy with conditions which make it demonstrably incorrect?
@@MarcillaSmithThe danger was presupposing that the Bible is telling the truth.
Michael Jones at Inspiring Philosophy does not like being criticized. So get ready for some clapback. (I'm glad to see someone else taking him on though).
Who is going to tell him that he needs to humble himself?
@@gilgamesh7652[In Dana Carvey's SNL Church Lady's voice] Could it be - Jesus...? 😅
He's definitely goes on the March when Paulogia puts out a video. Their back and forth is quite engaging
@@Noneya5555 The Dude is spiritually dead, nor that I am very alive either but... he doesn't know what symbolism is and makes a big fuss of details like who wrote what book of the bible or what Jesus mean in that saying, but the truth is that all of that doesn’t really matter, if people really wants to know and find God needs to know themselves and find themselves
@@gilgamesh7652 Tbh, I hadn't even heard of this content creator until Dan's video. But I am aware of his type of religious apologist - they regurgitate a toxic brew of ignorance, stupidity and deception. They argue that the Bible is true and inerrant, except when it isn't.
The fact that they need to bend fact and reality to fit their dogma is both frightening and telling.
Mike really can't take criticism when he's wrong..
And he's wrong A LOT.
@@ThinkitThrough-kd4fncheck out Jake Brancatella formally known as Muslim Metaphysician, he made series responding to IP on did the early church fathers believe in the Trinity. Jake quoted the scholars IP said he read from, and this really showed what a grifter IP is and his followers should be embarrassed.
That is just nonsense he literally took down his documentary he did on the exodus, after an Egyptologist did a critique of it😂. And he’s made changes to his videos after he’s criticism from other scholars such as Craig Blomberg and Mark S Smith. Maybe do your homework first.
@@thedude9941🤣🤣🤣🤣 I don’t just wanna play defense for Michael in the common section but wow just wow.
Michael literally showed how he missed quoted and misconstrued pretty much all of the quotes he was using. Watch his responses. Jake also loves making challenges to debate but then loves to back out last minute. Did you even bother to watch his videos? No you should be embarrassed but yours is gullible as you are to fall for Jake and his crap because if you have eyes you can literally see that one of the quotes he was quoting from Tertullian literally proves trinitarianism😂, in the same paragraph that he’s trying to use the disapproved trinitarianism.
IP left us hanging last time he and Dan beefed. I don't think he wants the smoke. IP is knowledgeable and charismatic but essentially is not arguing against his interlocutors but giving little cups of warm milk and blankets to people who already fell for the scam.
Christian apologetics is just an excuse making exercise.
And mental gymnastics
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y agreed!
The only religion that trains armies of apologetic to defend the indefensible because it is so vulnerable.
@@munbruk Lors of muslim apologists.
@@user-gk9lg5sp4yMore like mental contortions. 😂
I love how you so easily and accurately break apart the tactics of these apologists. I'm definitely sharing this!
Just discussing that with someone right now, what a great timing
I would also note that if one assumes that the prophecies of Jesus second coming were conditional to, for example, all of Israel accepting Jesus as Messiah, then it's safe to assume that it will never happen since the kingdom of Israel and Judea are no more and did accept Jesus as Messiah. If Jesus' second coming cannot happen since conditions were not met, one could make the argument that salvation is impossible too and thus Christianity itself is useless.
Is a “conditional prophecy” even a prophecy? When I say to my kids “I’ll buy you an ice cream. - If you behave.” Am I a prophet uttering a conditional prophecy?
“I’ll come back. - But only when all Israel has accepted me.” I detect blackmail undertones.
Idk, sounds so silly.
@@epronovost6539 apologist will just add new conditions. “Once the fallen kingdoms of Israel and Judea re-emerge and accept Jesus, that’s when he will come back”
Huh? When did they ever accept him as a messiah? Also, it wouldn’t make any sense for “Israel” here to refer to subjects of a kingdom, because even by Jesus’s time, there hadn’t been a kingdom of Israel in centuries. More likely, the identity of Israel had been adopted by Judea after the Assyrian destruction of Israel in the 8th century, just like there have been subsequent claims of being “the true Israel” ever since.
🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥🔥
More importantly, for 2000 years Christians have done all they can to convince the Jewish people to convert to Christianity. It has not gone well for them.
As a Christian I really enjoy your content!
How? he pretty much poops on the religion and shows that most of it is bs?
@@Marmar34082 you know Dan is a Christian right?
And no, as I am not a Christian fundamentalist, what he says does not weaken my faith. On the contrary, it helps me mature and evolve my faith
@@Marmar34082so? Devotion doesn’t need to make sense . Christ is truth, but that doesn’t have to mean factual .
The more Christians viewers Dan has the better. Informed and open minded Christians are good Christians. 😉😅 👋
It's called faith for a reason…
Christian Apologetics is the art of claiming what the bible says is not what it ACTUALLY says
Actually it’s just giving a defense. Anybody who holds to any position who defends is an apologist.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 yeah, i should have specified christian apologetics. I'm editing my original comment
@@johnwick2018 well I would still say that’s just a generalization. Not all apologists are equal you cannot tell me that someone like Michael Jones is on the same level as someone like Kent Hovid, that would just be ridiculous. There’s a good Christian apologists and those bad ones the same thing with atheists, there’s sophisticated and well educated ones and then there’s not so much.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 You are an apologist for apologists. Now that’s a sad line of work.
@@LeoVital that’s not my work though. And if you read any of my comments when it comes to creations videos you know I criticize them heavily and I defend the atheists in a lot of cases, so this just simply isn’t the case. That’s not my line of work this is what I do for fun when I have time I used to be a bit of an excessive commentor though I’ve tried to cut back on it a lot.
Ok, hear me out, one of the apostles was , or rather still is ,secretly a vampire. Now it all makes sense.
It doesn't make sense to issue a conditional prophecy if you're omniscient.
Doesn't make sense that God waited for English and the KJV being when God really cleared stuff up when he could have, I don't know, wrote to all of us on a wall with fire. But here we are with tons of Christians believing this. We are discussing supposed supernatural creatures, not one lick of it makes sense.
To be fair, God's ability to see into the future could include alternate timelines, but that poses so many other problems.
@@blksmagma for sure. Omniscience as a whole just gets stranger the more you think about it.
That does not follow.
@@pleaseenteraname1103 to whom are you responding?
Thank you! I’ve been waiting for someone to respond to him giving the general overview of the argument over the actual in depth argument. Thank you!!
If facts, no matter how obvious, contradict the Bible then the apologists have one of two explanations: the interpretation is wrong or the facts are wrong.
And then apologist have the audacity to say that we are the ones “using our own biases to interpret the text instead of letting the text be what it is”
IP's best excuse is "Scribal Errors"
'Once you eliminate everything that's inconvenient to my beliefs, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.' - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle...'s cousin, Bob (who was an apologist).
Don't you mean that the fit for this video has NOT been Bizarro?
😂😂😂
I was just about to post this exact same thing.
@@HackEsquire Don't you mean that you *weren't* going to post this exact same thing?
Fit am not Bizarro. That not Bizarro on shirt.
funny how all these Christian apologists mock stories in the Quran for exactly the same 'ye shall not die until...' kind of prophecies.
Literally 😂. Like both religions are as bogus as each other and every other religion out there.
@@baonemogomotsi7138 Just listen to whatever the news tells you 😆
@Loveistheirwholehapp Idk what you meant, but just know there's a bunch of murderous Muslims and Christians regardless.
@@Loveistheirwholehapp whats the alternative? just blindly follow what the priests say? can you provide a reason why that information would be more likely to be true? I suggest when trying to find truth, you fall back on what is evidentiary in reality, not believe the occult prophesy at face value. You know, weigh what is being said against what is real not what makes you feel good when you hear it.
@@notfooled6232 Okay, keep following whatever the money tells you to believe 😆 Trans women are men btw
Great video Dan ❤
What about this prophecy by Jesus in Matthew: "When you are persecuted in one place, flee to another. Truly I tell you, you will not finish going through the towns of Israel before the Son of Man comes." Matthew 10:23. How is This guy going to wiggle out of this one?
Good one. You’d think they’d have gone through all the towns over the course of the roughly 2,000 years he’s been gone by now.
They haven't & won't.
@@solidstorm6129
And you'd be wrong.
@@glenwillson5073 and how am I wrong? Do you have an explanation, or just nonsense? Has it not occurred to you that all the towns in Israel have experienced what Jesus said not all will experience by now? It’s almost 2,000 years, after all.
@@solidstorm6129
Israel, not Judah.
Well done, thank you Dan
Inspiring Prevarication at work.
I now worship Molech I love this word. Thanks Dan for telling the truth always.
Very Well !
These are solid and very interesting arguments.
Whoever, as a full preterist, this is my two hypotheses I propose :
1) The Gospels were composed at a time when the temple in Jerusalem had been destroyed following the Judean war against the Romans, and they put the prophetic words in Jesus' mouth even though he never uttered them. These are called ex-ventus prophecies.
2) If we believe the majority of scholars including Dan McClellan, that Jesus was an apocalyptic prophet, then he probably uttered these prophetic words, which were fulfilled during the Judean war against the Romans and the cataclysmic fall of Jerusalem. These events are recounted by the historian Flavius Josephus and correspond strangely to the events recounted by the synoptic gospels and the book of Revelation.
In this case, the return of Jesus is not to be taken literally, but symbolically, since the Gospels and Revelation use Old Testament imagery and vocabulary to speak of a concrete political situation they were experiencing in their time period preceding the composition of the New Testament or after. The years 66-70 AD are pivotal in the history of Judea. And Mark's Gospel was composed at or just after this time.
In any case, we have no more biblical prophecies to look forward to in our time, which is the 21st century.
1. No proof that the historical Jesus actually said those things since the Gospels were written decades after his death.
2. Since they were written afterwards, the prophecies were false.
3. Even if he did predict some things, it's nothing special, people make predictions all the time.
@@baonemogomotsi7138 That was my point. This is why I say "hypotheses." Without proof we can only go by probability bc there’s no proof neither that Jesus never predicted these prophecy.
In you second point : If you read my comment carefully in my first hypothesis, you will understand that I said prophecy "ex-ventus" for a reason, which means by defenition false prophecy. I’ve even never pretended that Jesus prophecy was a big deal. But in the eyes of the authors of the NT end time prophecy was a big deal bc of their circumstances, in their time period. I think you were looking for contradictions when in many things you said you just proved my points.
False or not, there’s no prophecy to wait for our time from the Bible. The teachings of the gospels is not only about prophecy, there is more…
Pretrist is wrong too.
The Word of God! Clear as mud! Thanks Jesus!
2 thousand years plus later, he still hasn't shown. A hundred years from now, the apologies will still be explaining why he is almost here. There is no end date for prophetic prediction. A thousand years in the future, the same debate will endure.
This is the thing for me. 2,000 years, at what point do we "call it" and say Jesus isn't coming back? 3,000 years? 7,000 years?
This is a particularly well done piece right here
Inshort...yes!
Thanks !!! Keep up the good work
Rev 1: 1 These things that must SOON take place to the 7 churches..... I mean 2000 years from now. SIKE. Rev 22: 10 "Do not seal up the words of the prophecy of this book, for the time is at hand". SIKE, What a cruel head job. Best regards.
❤❤❤❤ thanks Dan!!!
I think the view that Jesus’ “coming” referred to in these passages was referring to his coming (in judgement) in 70 CE makes best sense of these passages if we are to require/assume univocality. 70 CE is 40 years after 30 CE, the general length of a “generation.” Makes way more sense than the Transfiguration, which was just a matter of days later, and makes a whole lot more sense than lengthening out a “generation” for thousands of years and supposing a John (or someone) who is still living right now.
Problem. He didn’t show up for any judgement in 70CE.
@@solidstorm6129 what I’m referring to is the destruction of Jerusalem (and the temple) by the Roman army in 70 CE. Also, I’m not saying Jesus came physically in bodily form at that time, but that he “came” in judgment in the same way the LORD did in several Old Testament passages where the destruction by God of different non-Israel nations is spoken of, in very similar cosmic and sky/cloud language as that used by the author of Matthew and Luke and the author of Revelation. In these passages, God is coming and judging/destroying these nations by the use of other nations. Assyria and Babylon are examples. In the 1st century CE though it is Jerusalem itself that is being judged - with God using Rome as the destructive agent. I’m not saying this is absolutely the way it has to be, and I know it’s not the majority Christian position, but I think it’s the best way of explaining these passages if we are to stay with univocality and the idea that these things must be true. If we don’t assume univocality, the idea of Jesus being a failed prophet is easier - but you still have New Testament authors who seem to be intentionally hyperlinking Old Testament language, so there’s that at least.
@@danieljacob76or the better explanation would be that Jesus failed as an end times prophet. And you do realize that the text is not univocal, correct?
@@solidstorm6129 I know there are different authors, and am open to possibility of contradictions between those authors, but I still believe there is a divine author inspiring them all. So I don’t accept multi-vocality in the absolute and ultimate sense, but I still hold it (multi-vocality in the absolute sense) as a possibility. I may be wrong. I accept there are some things (maybe a lot) that we (and I) take on faith. They are faith positions. I think the apologist on Dan’s video would be in firmer ground if he took the view concerning Jesus’ prophesy that I explained.
@@danieljacob76 the "divine author" must have failed too😂 he can't even agree on who went to the tomb.
How faithful art 🎨 thouest
Apologetics be like, If I don't like the fact I'll change it.
Interesting as usual
Sounds like moving the goal post mid game.
Dan is my fav new addiction. ✌️🙏
I’ve always found those apologists explanations kinda "bizarro" (which fits that video)
To use a current expression from the political sphere perhaps "weird" would do too?
I am a Christian and appreciate you trying to be true to the text. As long as someone is not being deceptive and is trying to do honest work.
That being said, I have just learned about Preterism and the resurgence of the idea that Jesus did return ! It is very interesting actually.
Jesus makes a false prediction in Mark 9:1. He was referring to some seeing the literal return of the Son of Man at the end of the world - the Parousia, and we can tell this by reading the surrounding context and ruling out other interpretations that conservatives like to offer.
First of all, there are two major indicators that Mark 9:1 was not referring to the Transfiguration or the destruction of the Temple in 70 AD.
1. Mk. 9:1 is connected to the previous passage (Mk. 8:38) which explicitly refers to the Parousia like it does in Mt. 16:27-28.
---
For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father’s glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done.
“Truly I tell you, some who are standing here will not taste death before they see the Son of Man coming in his kingdom.”
---
Obviously, the "Son of Man coming" in v. 28 can only refer to the previous passage where he comes "with angels and rewards each person according to what they have done."
Since this did not happen during the Transfiguration or the destruction of the Temple then that demonstrates these interpretations must be incorrect. Moreover, coming with "power" (δυνάμει) in Mk. 9:1 refers to the Parousia - Mk. 13:26, a phrase which Luke 9:27 omits. This is consistent with Luke's pattern elsewhere of redacting/removing the Markan Jesus' imminent eschatology. He does this because he's writing much later at a time when it had become embarrassing that the original imminent predictions never came true - see 2 Thess 2, 2 Peter 3, and John 21:22-23 for how other authors dealt with this embarrassment.
2. It does not make sense to warn "some will die" before seeing an event if the event in question was to take place a mere six days later as Mk. 9:2 says. Obviously, the warning necessitates a length of time long enough for some of those standing there to die.
"With respect to Transfiguration interpretation of the prophecy, here are a few comments: (1) Jesus gives the promise in a very solemn form ("Amen amen I say unto you") which is inappropriate by this reading, as it is hardly surprising that the disciples would be alive six days later. The reference to tasting death does not imply immediacy but the passage of time. (2) The Matthean form adds to the saying the statement that the Son of Man "shall reward every man according to his works" when he comes. This has universal scope and cannot pertain to the Transfiguration but rather Judgment Day (Matthew 10:15, 11:22-24, 12:36) which brings with it punishment and rewards (ch. 25). This cannot pertain to the Transfiguration but rather a future event at the "close of the age" (24:3), when the Son of Man comes in glory (24:30). The Markan form, which refers to the Son of Man as being ashamed of those ashamed of him, also has in view judgment. (3) The preterist interpretation that assigns fulfillment of all of the Olivet discourse to the Jewish War, again, needs to explain the universal scope ("all tribes of the earth shall mourn" - Mt. 24:30, "which took them all away" - Mt. 24:39, "before him shall be gathered all the nations" - Mt. 25:32) and the expectation (particularly explicit in Matthew) that this occurs at the "close of the age". - u/zanillamilla
They say is future I think
Jesus Loves 🥰
And Blesses me 😇
"Excusology" at its finest... That said, wow, got to admire their mental acrobatics. It must be exhausting.
Thanks for the video, Dan.
Although I read the Bible front to back four times, and even though at the time I was a Christian, it was this kind of verse where I noticed for once that this verse proved Jesus didn't return, or we all missed this event.
He came to Paul. Have u not noticed that ???
The old, "When the Bible says this, it really means that" routine. Wish I had £100 for every time I have heard this from Christians over the years....
100? I’d be happy with even only $1 for every time I’d heard it, I’d reckon I would be able to have a nice little vacation with that much. $100 per would be paying off student loans and a big down payment on a real nice house kind of money
I guess it be just as much as what we hear from unbelieving scholars telling inerrantist Christian that the bible doesn’t say what they say it clearly says. Imagine thinking that arguing over the some times less than clear interpretation of a bible text was a one way street! Haha! SMH
@@jamesmongeau7191 Why would the inspired word of God be "less than clear"?
@@marshlightning because, Proverbs 25:2: ‘It is the glory of God to conceal a matter,
But the glory of kings is to search out a matter.’
Besides the whole host of other reasons why ancient texts are not always obviously simple and plain to modern readers.
@@jamesmongeau7191 Utter "Jibber-Jabber.". Do you know how angry I get when I hear utter, and I mean, UTTER total limp-wristed bullshine like this???? So God said, " Yippyly wamuzi quardi poramzidi quuratanis." How do you respond to that verse?(It was a secret message from God to the world)
You in these back-and-forth between Michael are never going to end are they😂?
Insipid Philosophistry strikes again.
They're all for A plain reading of the text until the plane reading is inconvenient to their beliefs.
I always like the tradition of the Wandering Jew, who can't die until all those things are fulfilled.
That someone had to make up that interpretation tells me that it's not obvious that Jesus wasn't talking about _that_ generation.
I would love to see this as a HFY writing prompt.
Really? “That” five times in one sentence with a double negative!
@@PC-kd7dj -(-really)^5
in turkey...ye..e... i hearded
The faith affirming videos dan does wearing the real Superman
I have divine power, and the proof is in my prophesies. For example, I prophesied I'd win the lottery. I didn't, but that's because the prophesy was conditional on me having the correct numbers. What more proof could you want?
I am a prophet too. I prophesied that I would get a pizza sent to my address. But it is conditional on me placing the order over the phone.
That analogy doesn't even work. A better analogy would be a parent telling his child he would ground him if he doesn't do his homework and clean his room, since the child did these two things, the parent did not ground him.
@@seekingtruthgaming8887 Jesus didn't explicitly state any conditions on his prophesies.
@@SpaveFrostKing well sure, but all I'm saying is your analogy of conditional prophecy was misused.
If speaking of the olivet discourse, there are many ways to make this make sense without even using this line of thought and still using scholarship on the topic.
People like NT wright say in his book 'surprised by hope' that Jesus never said anything about his return in his earthly ministry. When Jesus quotes Daniel 7, showing his divinity and shows what he is saying is not about a second coming, the coming is a upward not a downward movement. Meaning after his death he will be vindicated, in context of two events-the resurrection and the destruction of the Jewish temple. His ascension and glorification and coming are not of earth but of heaven to the father.
So they can continue "sinning" until the "conditions" are fulfilled. But you never know when it's supposed to be coming - "just as a thief in the night"
What do you think about the claim that the Resurrection was already the second coming? Does that have a biblical basis? Is it a post-biblical innovation?
I recently encountered an argument that the apocalyptic imagery was more inline with pre-Enochic metaphor, basically saying that the "Son of Man coming on the clouds" was actually Rome destroying Jerusalem. It is nonsense, but it is at least innovative nonsense.
The event that's anticipated is the "arrival of the Son of Man on the clouds of the sky," which we get from reading Daniel 7 literally. The resurrection is a separate related event (Daniel 12). The post-Easter apparitions are interpreted as both a sign that 1) Jesus was vindicated by God to be that Son of Man (in spite of his death), and 2) that the general resurrection of everyone can't be far behind (he becomes the "first fruit" of that resurrection harvest taking place at the imminent end).
As an aside, the "dead in Christ rising first" stuff Paul claims seems to be a later development (dead believers are flying first class).
@@fre2725 I think the majority of the resurrection story elements were contrived after Peter and Paul were haunted by apparitions to make it into something it wasn't. Belief in the face of psychological dissonance is a powerful base upon which to build a religious empire.
@@k98killer It is interesting that Paul makes no distinction between how Jesus appeared to him and how he appeared to others. At any rate, I don’t find Paul a credible or compelling person, so whatever he claims happened to himself or others, I take with a grain of salt.
@@k98killer It's hard to say who came up with what and why, or how much goes back to "eyewitness testimony." I think the most we can say is that people in the earliest Christian community were having experiences of a risen Jesus (perhaps "bereavement visions"), or claiming to have these experiences for in-group status...probably both. The gospel authors develop them into both literature and apologetic. I suspect Paul was exaggerating the evidence for them ("500 brothers at once!") to sell his theologically interpreted version of resurrection: "This could be you if you believe and receive the mysteries!"
I don't think running a Christian empire was even on anyone's mind at this time. I think they really expected Jesus to come back soon and God to establish his kingdom for the faithful. The conversion of Emperor Constantine provided the opportunity for Christians to do it for real by themselves.
Nice video. Keep it up!
Yes, Matt 24 is what it is. It's also clear that Paul was convinced that Jesus 2.0 was due soon. I discovered only after the "Bible Answer Man" (Hank Hannifgraf) made a case that Jesus somehow had already come. WTF? Yes, and once you read why he would need to believe in some sort of completed return, you see how powerless the Bible is to predict anything.
The Bible was about 27% prophetic in nature at the time the individual books were given by God to men. This is unique to the holy scriptures, showing that God's word is his word (see Isaiah 46:9-10). Many of the Bible's prophecies concern the Jews, the land of Israel, and the Messiah, and many of them have been fulfilled in history. Those that remain will be fulfilled in their proper times.
There are numerous scriptures in both Old and New Testaments that pertain to things concerning the times surrounding Jesus' bodily return to the earth. Scriptures that speak of end-time events must be understood in the light of these others. The immediate context of this particular prophecy is the transfiguration of Christ before some of his apostles and is likely best understood in that light (see Luke 9:27-36, Matthew 16:28-17:9, Mark 9:1-9).
@@sdlorah6450 Quite a number of claims with little or no support for them. Most claims about "fulfilled prophecies" turn out to be either non prophecies (the author was using figurative language, and later readers interpret that as prophecies that conveniently happen to have been fulfilled) or prophecies recorded after the actual event took place. Something like writing today a prophecy about the 2020 US presidential election, but backdating it to 1997.
No one has to take your word for it! They can open a Bible and a copy of the Encyclopedia of Biblical Prophecy: The Complete Guide to Scriptural Predictions and Their Fulfillment by J. Barton Payne and see for themselves.
@@sdlorah6450 Islam apologists say they have more fulfilled prophecies than Christianity. Who we believe?
@@sm8johnthreesixteenthe lack of self awareness here is truly astounding. You’re saying people
Can see for themselves by using your handpicked fundamentalist interpreters guides.
Bizarre.
How FITTING.
Prophecy postponed? Is that like a baseball game being postponed due to rain? MLB is prophetic enough to give us a makeup date.
More like prophecy cancelled.
😂
Love it. "Rhetorical goals of the author." Unfortunate that this statement will be ignored, or receive blank stares from the people that could most benefit from it.
2nd coming is the day of judgement. Likely the text was corrupted since he himself did not know the day and the hour. The destruction of the temple could be a prophecy.
He didn't know the day or hour. He only knew it would be within the lifetime of his disciples.
@@ryanrevland4333 No that is not true. He did not know, neither does anyone else except the True God, means he did not know anything about its timing.
@@munbruk Check out Matt 10:23 and 16:28. He tells his disciples they will live to see Judgment Day. He doesn't know the day or hour, just that it's within their generation.
@@ryanrevland4333 I disagree. Jesus can't lie. That same statement you see it in islamic tradition. but it is wrong. The hour is near, imminent, etc. does not mean any one knows when. Death is the hour.
@@ryanrevland4333 Jesus can't lie. It is possible that he came back to his disciples for other reason but that would not be necessary for the faith. Otherwise, the idea that the hour is imminent, near, etc is also in Islam to. That does not mean anyone except God knows when.
As a preterist, I thoroughly agree with this entire breakdown, except for the last line.
Dan when a verse goes against Christian doctrine: “We need to take the plain reading of the text.”
Dan when a verse proved Christian doctrine: “Actually that’s not what it means we need to analyse the Hebrew and the historical context and actually this many scholars says it doesn’t mean that.”
Funny. Last I recall, he was always all for studying a passage in not only its plain reading, but also studying the cultural and historical context and Hebrew and Greek. Do you not like Dan?
A big part of this video is analyzing the historical context to better understand the text
Dan does exactly the photo negative of what he accuses conservative inerrantist scholars of doing, and he does so, surprise surprise, when it is convenient for his rhetorical perspective, SHOCKER!
1. Does Mike not know there is a much easier way to deal with this passage?
He could simply argue that (or try to) “this generation” is referring to the generation that experiences these tribulations. In other words, the future generation that sees the wars, famines, etc will not pass away until all those tribulations unfold.
2. Another fantastic video, dan. Appreciate your work.
Of course that is a lame way to make sense in Greek. Why not just say THAT generation or THE generation that sees these thing. Taken in context and other passages it is clear that it is the generation he is SPEAKING too. Give up already!!
No it says This . Let me repeat :: THIS GENERATION.
Told his disciples lift ur heads for ur redemption draw neigh ....
Why say that ? If this speaking 2000 years in the future ???? It be irrelevant
Did IP actually say that a 'good prophet' is one who sometimes says things that don't come to pass?
What a joke.
Hey guys something to ask your self, how do we readers get to the "plain sense of the text" from a text written 2000 years ago? Furthermore how do we ascertain " the plain sense" of the text from apocalyptic language? Where is the decoding dictionary to apocalyptic language to get at the plain sense?
With Jesus wasn't his whole teaching career a exercise in misunderstanding ( the stories frequently have those closest him bewildered).
It just seems like a big ask to hold him to "the plain sense " requirements we have
I love how Dan a) gives us his opinion on the consensus with no data at all and then b) gives us his opinion on the psychological motivations of people who give different interpretations, also with no data at all, but then has the nerve to decry the *dogma* of others. Very rich indeed.
These are popular level videos and not meant to be papers on the subjects. He bring up original language stuff when applicable and books about the subject matter, when applicable. When he is claiming consensus, it is on the other side to legitimize the claims for their divergent view since it clearly is an outside reasoning imposed on the text. He plainly reveals that in what he does say and that's not disputable.
If prophecy is conditional, then it is unfalsifiable and therefore no prophecy at all.
don't you guys love how Dan always insists on understanding within the historical context when it fits his view, but then when it doesn't fit his view, now it's "just do the plain reading and ignore any context" or "well that's not the only way to read it, and here's an obscure reason why my way is better"? wow such awesome. big scholar. much smart.
Exactly my impression too, Dan is a real smart ass.
@@andrejuthe Basically just smart, since he studied it all and has written peer reviewed thesis and books. And your expertise would be...?
@@thegreatdestroyer6506 "smart ass" was referrint to how he present it. My expertise is in argumentation theory and philosophy, and theology. I have also worked with bible translation etc etc.
This explains all of those "Have you seen this deity?" flyers stapled to telephone poles in the 1st century CE.
Apologetics: I'm sorry the bible is bs.
I would even argue that those alternative interpretations (which violate Sola Scriptura) actually confirm a simple psychological hypothesis: both the Resurrection story ánd the written down Canonical Gospels are the product of cognitive dissonance. This occurred both after the Crucifixion and the Destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.
It's so hilarious to watch a bunch of grown adults obsess and wring their hands about the dialogue assigned to a character in a fantasy novel.
It would be like if an entire group of people based their lives around whether Gandalf said "you shall not pass" or "you cannot pass."
Clearly you have never been to a panel at a comic con.
@@Bobjdobbs I have not, unfortunately. I don't have the disposable income.
@@chameleonx9253 I understand. My autism keeps me from enjoying them (too much noise and too many people!)
your format reminds me in many ways of Scimandan, who deals with / debunks/ questions flearthers and the many repetitive "theories "/ explanations persistent therein.
and
) The gospels (especially Matthew 21:4 and John 12:14-15) claim that Jesus fulfills the prophecy of Zechariah 9:9. But the next few verses (Zechariah 9:10-13) show that the person referred to in this verse is a military king that would rule “from sea to sea”. Since Jesus had neither an army nor a kingdom, he could not have fulfilled this prophecy.
I think there's a hair to split here. The problem I have with saying "the second coming of Jesus" is that is NOT the plain sense reading of the text. Matthew is about the coming of the kingdom of Heaven to Earth and while that includes Jesus' second coming, that isn't Jesus' overarching message until at least John say and later built on by the church, but we're talking about Matthew. Which has a lower Christology. People seem to forget that Jesus' message was that "The Kingdom" was coming, not just him.
Dr. Baden says Biblical prophecy doesn't foretell the future but gives outcomes to different choices
Original poster spends so much time telling us that 'those cultures knew conditionals'... yeah.
And knowing about conditionals (and conditional prophecies) they didn't use them here (e.g. 'within the generation' prophecy).
So what is the reason for more complex interpretation, then? It can only be dogma.
You can’t believe Nostrilferatu.
He’s no Nostrildamus.
…I’ll show myself out.
Love your work Dan 🫡
Critical scholars like to pretend they are objective interpreters of the text. Anyway, Jesus did not predict his second coming within a generation, but he did predict his COMING IN JUDGMENT AND WRATH -- which was fulfilled with the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. Jesus was using language of judgment lifted from the OT when he spoke of his coming (Isa. 13:6; 13:9; Zephaniah 1:14-15 etc.) Jesus came in judgment in AD 70, just like Yahweh did in the OT, his second coming is pending.
Actually, critical scholars don't pretend to be anything. They attempt to interpret the text based on the evidence of language, customs, history, etc. Christian apologists, however, start with the assumption that their interpretations must be divinely-inspired and then negotiate with the text to make it relevant and true to their time and culture. In the end, it's mythology with motifs that are similar to countless religions throughout history. It's a story told by bronze age sheepherders, and if it inspires you to be a better person, great.
Very nice preterist language there. Too bad people were still waiting even after 70 AD. Even 1 and 2 Peter were explaining that away, as if a thousand years is really only a day to the lord. And did I forget the scholarship has pinned them to be made after the start of the second century?
The cosmic events didn't happend in 70 Ad
The way they always TWIST and say things like "nuh uuuh it doesn't mean what it clearly says" it's crazy!
Most of people here don't know anything about alternatives ..
Like full preterism '' and also you have to make a choice if the gospel of mark written before 70 ad or after ?
Hello Dan , I've been contemplating about info in your videos particularly I'm part of the ahmediya Muslim community and the founder of this movement is a man from the blood line if Jesus and he wrote 20+ books confirming his Advent as the second coming of Jesus just as Isiah or whatever that prophet in Malachi said to come was and John the Baptist form of reincarnation of ministries and I think you should give a try on one if his books "Jesus in Indian"
Bizarro indeed.
One minor quibble is that the eschatology of the Olivet discourse is not about "the second coming of Christ," which is another a theological protection onto the text rather than inherent in the text itself.
Apologist Rule #23
If the plain reading of a bible verse is demonstrably wrong, then simply "interpret" it to mean something other than what it clearly says. The ends ALWAYS justifies the means when you're defending -your imaginary friend- a omnipotent, omniscient super-being.
Why don’t you do debates Dan? You should debate IP on biblical prophecy, you seem pretty confident you’re correct. I can help arrange that if you would like.
I had a spooky thought. 👻 What if the disciples are secretly still alive, living among us, waiting for the conditions to be met. They’d be like 2000-year old vampires, except that . . . no, they’d be pretty much like 2000-year old vampires.
Dan I way respect your work. That being said, I recognize esotericism within the text and telling of the stories. For instance Christ clearly said I will destroy this temple...etc. The text clears it up that he was talking about his body...I know how convenient however, if we take this line of thinking common in mystery religions and societies or gnostic ones, it is clear that veiled meanings are presented such as something stated as reality but actually being a metaphor. Now here is what I am getting at. I am sure you are familiar with the sound reasoning that knowledge of some kind of reincarnation, remortal birth etc and I am no scholar so I can not articulate it...however we are aware the belief system was known...that being true....I assure you ther are those here who will see me coming...is totally palpable...to those who "know" deeper doctrines. Unless we are to make the false assumption there were none despite the text, the religions of the day that there clearly were. So if a type of rebirth into mortality exists....makes perfect sense..to those with ears to hear. Now...I assume you are familiar with the soundness of my argument, which I can not argue, but others can..so look it up and explain how indeed...a mysterious message of urgency can be conveyed in the statement....there are those in "this generation". Since death is a type of judgement anyway, the urgency is justified for each individual and for those with ears to hear....the prophecy can still be real. Just saying...lol. Love your work Dan. Keep it up, and keep it scholarly. Peace.
Interestingly immediately after the Olivet Discourse is the Transfiguration . In which some of those same disciples saw Christ in his Glory before they tasted death.
Is that a kingdom? No. He was referring to a kingdom. Not that. And didn’t he also refer to a coming kingdom after the transfiguration?
@@solidstorm6129 So you think the kingdom is a physical kingdom. Being in the kingdom is to be glorified in the Resurrection. And the Transfiguration is supposed to be a foretaste of the Kingdom, not its full arrival.
@@bman5257 no. It’s a literal kingdom alright. There’s no metaphor there. They literally never saw it as such.
@@solidstorm6129 Who’s they. Paul certainly saw the coming Kingdom as receiving a glorified body. Read 1 Cor 15
@@solidstorm6129 “I declare to you, brothers and sisters, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, nor does the perishable inherit the imperishable. 51 Listen, I tell you a mystery: We will not all sleep, but we will all be changed” 1 Cor 15:50-51
❤❤❤
Tricky thing life eternal. No beginning or end puts everything into a relative perspective I would say.
Yeshu was speaking of himself according to verbiage or station I would like to make point #1 ( ex. Michal, Gabriel, the "Son" or heir). Not in the first person which is very common in Semitic tradition. Items like these are of crucial significance being subjects of posterity. Hence the excruciating detail that is put into revealing it's word. Somehow these words remained intact to a degree. Regardless of translation, physical destruction, tampering, language "modifications" and so on. Pilate was quoted as saying I have written what I have written, in the incredibly few words that were used in his story. Versed in three languages and a politician is quite a remarkable soldier. Constantine wasn't a scribe. A very important subject is also briefly brushed upon in his story. Crowning the Lord or word as things have turned out. Saul having forsaken his "heritage" or filthy rags touches on this very relevant Judean tradition of crowning letters. Only two are crowned. Together as a single word. Not only crowned in Gethsemane, but again Pilate placing his mark above the Lords head. Again there are two crowns not one... I believe these semantic details to be most telling.
Give this apologist some credit- I think he just explained why Jesus is never coming back
Regarding Mark 13’s within a generation, he is referring to the fall of Jerusalem, which is admittedly easier seen in retrospect. This is more evident once you consider what Jesus says right after saying that within a generation, all these things will take place:
“But of that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.”
Mark 13:32
Day and hour is not the same as times as seasons or within THAT generation. Paul told you that are not in darkness know the times and seasons! Plus, Mark was written after 70 C.E. so not much of a 'prophecy.'
I noticed in my NASB there is a comment next to “generation” stating, “or ‘race’”
I always wondered how people started to believe in Jesus and now I can see people fawning over Trump and I know how it started
Half these people trying to sell you that the eschaton is imminent, the other half excusing why the eschaton hasn't immanentized yet because reasons if you just read this the way we tell you.
It's pretty simple if Paul expects Jesus to return soon and also expects all the gentiles to come in prior to that then the obvious answer is that all the incoming gentiles will come within a generation/soon. You can 't just arbitrarily pick the latter to govern the former and thus ignore the former 'return soon' part!
The Bible doesn't contain the full quote from Jesus. He actually said:
"Verily I say unto you, That there be some of them that stand here, which shall not taste of death, till they have seen the kingdom of God come with power. Or not. It's up to you guys really."
For those who didn’t believe Jesus returned when He said He would… ask yourself this. Did the Jews who killed the prophets and their savior believe He was to come and save them? What was to happen and did happened to those people who didn’t believe He came? Don’t let history repeat itself. Faith is trusting in something you cannot see with your human eyes. Something that your heart can see…
I have been reading a book called "how to read the bible for all its worth", in there it talks about a concept of "already" but "not yet" for an eschatological view. Would that be something that is strictly formulated after Scriptures were canonized or is there any probability of this being an understanding around that time period? Example they had was 1 corin 3:22 already victory over death and Phil 3:20-21 yet they would still die. Another example they had Eph 6:10-17 already lived in the Spirit yet still lived in the world where Satan could attack. Just trying to gain more understanding.
Jesus is God as God jesus is also the holy spirit As the Holy Spirit jesus returns as the Holy Spirit at the fest of penacost.
Except the thing with the doctrine of the trinity is that each person of it are not each other. So Jesus would not be the Holy Spirit at all.
I like Mike Jones. Other Christians will argue that Jesus was talking about the Transfiguration or the Resurrection or Pentecost. But Mike knows the timeline doesn't work. There's no way to cheese this failed prophecy. So he makes it conditional. Jesus didn't fail, he changed his mind 🤣