Remember during Drump’s first term when Kitk’s TP-USA invited Drumpf to give a keynote speech, and they displayed the Presidential Seal behind him as he spoke? Only it wasn’t the real seal. It was a parody seal made by a left-winger anti-Drumpf person that had all sorts of in-jokes in it, and it was based on the Russian Coat of Arms with its two-headed eagle. 😀😂🤣
The audacity of Mr. Kirk to disparage something as a “woke” misinterpretation of the original text to better insert their own ideologies when literalist Christians do the exact same thing, but worse, CONSTANTLY is infuriating
Well, you see, I agree with the Bible, so I just say what the Bible says, and since you say something different than what I say, that means you disagree with the Bible, and that makes you the bad guy, and that’s not just me saying that, but the Bible says it too, because me and the Bible agree.
@@BobbyHill26that’s what Christians often claim (of most denominations), but the Bible isn’t a univocal monolith. There are conflicting views presented on almost every topic of the Bible. To take a stand on an issue using the Bible is to cherry pick a stance you agree with and ignore the rest
@@Salamander_falls that’s the joke, christians think they have to agree with the Bible, which means they end up reading their own thoughts into the Bible, and anyone that disagrees with them therefore disagrees with the Bible. And of course, those types tend to never realize the Bible often doesn’t even agree with itself on most topics
@@Salamander_falls that’s the joke mate, folks think they have to agree with the Bible always end up just reading their own thoughts into it and, as you mention, tend to never even realize the Bible doesn’t even agree with its self on most things
They're all in love with money. The problem is, Jesus had a lot of say about that, and they know it. Are they willing to give up their wealth to help the poor as their lord and savior commanded? Of course not. Are they going to admit that they're bad people? They can't even process that idea. So here come the mental gymnastics.
Charlie Kirk not understanding the Bible, history, scholarship, or anything else, is definitely not a surprise. What’s surprising is that he still has an audience.
I love how so many Christians today are all about what Jesus got wrong. When I was a believer, I may not have understood all of the gospels, but it never would have occurred to me to say, "Jesus? Nah, that ain't it."
Kirk is a perfect example of how speaking confidently (and only in forums where no one has †he time or ability to fact check or do point-by-point rebuttals) goes a long way to making people think you're an authority on a subject when in fact you haven't got the slightest idea what you're talking about.
Calling out Charlie Kirk being wrong is a past time of the U.S. at this point. It’s funny because his followers will still argue that everyone else is wrong though. And he always side steps anyone who would oppose his BS. Merry Christmas, Dan! Thank you for your takes on the Bible and religion. It’s really been eye opening and had motivated me to do some reading and research of my own. Don’t worry: It’s not the Charlie Kirk kind. 😂
I definitely agree he doesn’t know when to shut up. I don’t think he realizes he’s lying though; i think he’s too drenched in jingoistic dogma to realize his views conflict with a lot of the Bible
I'm fairly sure that the Jesus I learned about in Sunday School would not care where someone came from, only what kind of people they are inside. I tend to put Christians in one of two categories: The ones who do their best to follow the example Christ set by the way he lived his life and the ones who give lip-service to a dead man on a cross because they don't want to follow the example Christ set by the way he lived his life. I also have a very strong opinion as to which type he would want in his company, and I think that he would have been a far better judge in character than the folks the latter group give him credit for.
Also international travel isn't required to be a refugee. That's how it was defined in the 1951 Convention Related to the Status of Refugees, but in more recent conventions (such as the 2011 UNHCR definition) you don't need to leave your country - you just need to be compelled to leave your place of habitual residence and be unable to return there owning to threats to life, physical integrity or freedom. There isn't one singular definition, and Charlie's an idiot for trying to split hairs over people who have been displaced from their homes by threat of violence.
That's a very good argument for understanding Jesus to be a literal refugee. On top of that, and what would hopefully be understandable for Christians... We should see Him as "a stranger" alla Matthew 25 who is "let in." So He is, in the Spirit of Truth, a/the refugee (proverbial or no). We let in the King when we let in the lowest. That is, the lowest in or outside of the Kingdom.
Merry Christmas Dan. Thanks for all the bits of education. I really enjoy learning about Christianity, in small, digestible chunks. And congratulations on the upcoming book.
the ad he’s referencing was not paid for by “left wing” people, either. it’s amazing how much fact some people will willingly overlook to prove their point
Funny how they keep touting Christ is king and all that, yet they choose to forget Jesus was supposedly a bunch of things: poor, kind, homeless, living off alms, a teacher, jewish - things they despise. Ironically enough by ignoring these aspects they're adhering to the jewish idea that the messiah is supposed to be a conqueror king
i dunno if he was poor - he seems to be described as having wealthy benefactors at least, and the whole ascetic cult leader thing is more of a middle class kid life path than a poor kid life path. also he comes off as kind of a jerk a lot of the time.
@@joshridinger3407 I argue he was poor precisely because he had benefactors. He's always a guest in someone's home and always given food. Hell in matthew 8:20 he outright calls himself homeless. And the funniest instance in my opinion is when he goes to Matthew who was working as a tax collector, he tells him to walk with him as if he had something important to say, then the next verse they're at Matthew's house, eating his food lmao. I've always seen him as a vagrant telling parables and lessons to people who would house and feed him, while the gospels embellish him to be a miracle worker.
Hi Dan. I appreciate your scholarly work very much. Thank you! Finally, someone else people can run to about the Bible! ;-) Anyway, I would like to see a video on the ethics in Numbers 16. Moses' anger (not wise), and how many were killed (always a whole number), and what that means to a stable mind that ponders such passages. Worshiping out of fear, etc.
Thank you, Dr. Dan, for this clarification and for correcting Charlie Kirk. But when it comes to Mr. Kirk, why should we expect anything other than ignorance?
Thank you! I am tired of losing this argument. I finally feel validated. I will buy your book and mail copies in next year's Christmas celebrations. No I don't have resentments!! lol (Well, maybe a wee bit.)
Not sure why, but that book cover reminds me of the _Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_ series, the Douglas Adams version, not the fictional version that has the words "Don't Panic" on it.
Don’t say this again, this is one of those things that people who are over 60 say & they think it sounds cool or it’s a gotcha. It’s super embarrassing.
@ first of all I will say whatever I want. It’s my right. Secondly if there was an actual man that was Jesus, the time and place he lived in would dictate that he was most likely a brown skinned man. And I know for certain that little fact bothers a phony Christian wh!te supremacist like Kirk. So I don’t know what your problem is and don’t really care either. Merry Christmas 🎄
@@freyast2213 first of all I will say whatever I want. It’s my right. Secondly. If there was an actual man who was Jesus, the time and place he would have lived in would dictate that he was a brown skinned man. And I’m certain this little fact greatly annoys someone like Charlie Kirk. Merry Christmas 🎄
I don't know why nobody is talking about the book Your Life Your Game by Keezano. I read it last year, and it’s an excellent Catholic religious book. It beautifully shows how connecting with God and building meaningful relationships can lead to spiritual growth and success in both your personal and professional life. A must-read. God bless ❤️🙏🏼
My spiritual growth comes from appreciation of Nature including my fellow humans. And helping where I see a need. Without reference to supernatural forces or religious dogma.
Wait, Charlie kunt, I mean Kirk, was wrong and or lying about something while speaking with the kind of confidence only liars and the genuinely ignorant can muster? I am shocked.
EVEN IF Kirk’s claim about the Roman Empire held muster, he would then have been considered and IDP, internally displaced, which is basically the same thing without the border crossing. Though there is legal differentiation, the UNHCR treats both populations the same as does IHL (international humanitarian law) and the USCIS and the USRAP. There are thousands of people internally displaced in Afghanistan, for instance, who await processing. When they receive word that their case is accepted and they are ready for processing, they will cross a border. Until then, their only option is to remain in hiding in Afghanistan where they can receive underground support.
Wasn't Egypt also in a very special situation within the empire, where it was viewed as the private property of the Emperor and where other Romans were not allowed to visit or move there without special permission?
Yeah, but they're looking for ways to justify their hatred of immigrants, so they're just going to ignore anything that they can't use to justify their bigotry.
I was going to say the exact same thing. Even if Kirk was right about Jesus not leaving the Roman empire, one can also become a refugee by fleeing to another region in one's home country.
Thanks to Dan and scholars like him, I've come to the conclusion that attempting to understand the Bible, without understanding the world that its stories were forged in is just a fool's errand. You may as well be taking Dr. Seuss as scripture, because that's about how much sense you'll be making on the subject otherwise.
When anyone claims to "KNOW" about specific details about Jesus, I always take it with a grain of salt. We can make many best educated guesses, but there isn't that much we actually know 100% about the guy.
The author of Matthew kept adding bits to Mark to make Jesus' life line up with OT prophecies, as he said each time. We can't know if Jesus was refugee or much of anything else, unfortunately. Makes a good story, though.
Even within Kirks own logic he is wrong. You can be a refugee with your own country. That would still be a great argument to aid people in need within your own country.
I found amusing the "leftist " comment. If he actually existed, Jesus was not only leftist but a communist! All the "give up your worldly possessions and follow me" talks weren’t for nought.
That’s ridiculous. Jesus wants us to *voluntarily give* up what we have to the less fortunate. Communism is led by *forcibly* taking what one person earned and giving it to people who can’t or refuse to work-at threat of imprisonment. That’s not right to pin something so evil on Jesus. He was NEVER a communist & never took from the rich nor encouraged people to give governments the power to steal from its citizens. He encouraged generosity & charity-but never by force.
The fleeing and returning from Egypt is a literary creation used by the writer to be able to insert the so called ‘fulfilled prophecy’. Nothing about years of Jesus’ youth makes sense, like who leaves the golden child behind by accident?? 😂😂
Jesus' family fled Bethlehem to Egypt because Jesus would have been killed in Bethlehem by the ruler of Bethleham ( who had no power in Egypt), but that is not refugee because they both happened to be roman states at that time, way to miss the moral of the story
Judea WAS NOT independent and autonomous, they were a client kingdom. The Herodian dynasty, which ruled when Jesus was born, were given their power by the Roman Senate under Herod the Great; not just helping against the Parthians, the Romans helped depose the previous dynasty. Because the Herodians were Greek converts, part of a branch of the Antipatrids. Herod Archeleos, the successor who was king when Jesus was born, was still subservient to the Romans, he was still amici populi romani, "Friend and Ally of Rome", which was the official language of their client states at the time. They were not independent, Herod Archeleos was allowed to rule within his kingdom, but had no autonomy to deal with other kingdoms. That is what the Roman client state meant; they got to ruled their own people, but had to ask the Senate to do anything international. Claiming that as independent is like claiming Scotland is independent, or Puerto Rico. Still an international border, though.
I mean, technically he's correct, the whole construct of moving around etc. doesn't show up til later versions of the story, so even just looking at the narrative you can say that Jesus wasn't a refugee so long as you're only talking about Mark. But then you'd have to reject the ol' univocality thing and Kirk would rather have a normal sized face than do that.
In fact, it's not even "later versions", it's only in Matthew. Both versions of the nativity are almost certainly late additions with no basis in fact, which makes him accidentally right about the historical Jesus, but still completely wrong about the Biblical Jesus that he's talking about.
Oh no, not Charlie Kirk again. The guy is a joke. He has a gift of gab, a confident way of speaking, and a way to deceive already biased people that anything he says "is factual". Hold his feet to the fire, though, with actual data, he won't be able to withstand it.
It's always good to dunk on bigots like Charlie Kirk. However, I think applying modern ideas of nation states, international borders and refugee status to the world as it was 2000 years ago... is a bit problematic. It... kinda works as an analogy? but only if we don't look at it too closely. That doesn't make Charlie Kirk right, obviously. (And I'm personally pro refugees, if that's a thing, and approve open borders.) Anyway, thank you and happy holidays.
How about open doors? Are you pro open doors? You should invite refugees into your home since you are such a bleeding heart that doesn’t belong people should be vetted when entering a nation.😢
Charlie Kirk, I get that we all have our own interpretations and understandings about what the stories from the Bible says. I get that we all negotiate with them to serve our own dogmas. But you, Charlie, are straight up bastardizing the Bible for your own bigoted views.
Ah, yes, Jesus, the first documented recipient of a UN refugee travel document! I see the connection perfectly. Because, you know, the Roman Empire was just teeming with border control checkpoints, immigration officers, and clearly defined nation-states with international treaties on refugee status. It's not like Judea and Egypt were both provinces under the same Roman Emperor or anything. So, just because the Greek word shares a distant ancestor with our word 'refugee,' we can totally ignore 2,000 years of historical and legal development. It's like saying a horse-drawn carriage is the same as a Tesla because they both transport people. Sure, there are some surface-level similarities, but the context is… slightly different. So, by all means, let's retroactively apply 21st-century legal definitions to a 1st-century context. What could possibly go wrong? It’s not like that’s a classic example of an anachronism or anything. Clearly, the Romans were just ahead of their time with their comprehensive refugee resettlement programs.
@@mikeymullins5305 international borders did not exist in the Roman Empire. The entire Mediterranean world, including Judea and Egypt, was under Roman control. Moving from one region to another within the empire was more akin to traveling between states within a single country today, rather than crossing an international border. There were administrative boundaries, but not the kind that would have triggered the legal status of refugee. someone's been sipping on the Egg Nog Kool-Aid, thinking ancient borders worked like modern-day TSA checkpoints. Cheers to a refreshing glass of anachronism!
@@mikeymullins5305 international borders did not exist in the Roman Empire. The entire Mediterranean world, including Judea and Egypt, was under Roman control. Moving from one region to another within the empire was more akin to traveling between states within a single country today, rather than crossing an international border. There were administrative boundaries, but not the kind that would have triggered the legal status of "refugee." look up anachronism
John 3.30, is all over the bible. Sarai gave her handmaid Hagar (flight), an Egyptian woman, to Abram; “to be his wife, that he might be builded up through her." Now, be it known that when the Sun rises in Aries, Virgo has set, thus becoming a night constellation, and "beautiful to look upon." Thus, she is Abram's wife, Sarai (my star), and is found during the summer months until near August in the night hemisphere, coming to her meridian toward the end of May. Coming in conjunction with the Sun at the end of summer, she flees with Abram into the winter hemisphere, and gets the name Hagar (flight). As a winter constellation, she gets the epithet Ethiopian. By means of her fruits, gathered at the end of summer, Sarai is builded up through her (Hagar). Just nine months after the love affair above spoken of (their conjunction), Ishmael is born at the summer solstice; Ishmael was the genius of winter, because born when the days begin to shorten. He was the precursor of Isaac, and bore the same relation to him as John the Baptist did to Jesus Christ. Ishmael and Isaac were the same as Esau and Jacob. Isaac was the younger. Like Jacob, he came forth clinging to the heels of his brother, as summer always follows winter.
Funny how I explicitly pointed out I was speaking from a position that takes seriously the account of Jesus’ birth from the Gospel of Matthew, which I’ve repeatedly and consistently pointed out is not historical.
@maklelan Perhaps just a touch obscure for any but long term followers of your channel. The words, "as long as we take seriously" carries the implication that we should be taking something seriously, at least equally, if not more so, than it implies we should not be talking something seriously. You don't believe there is any biblical support that Jesus was a refugee either. Of course, this means you acknowledge Charlie Kirk and the Christian nationalists are right on this point but just for the wrong reason.
Except Christian Nationalism is not “Russian propaganda.” For us gray hairs, Christian Nationalism is something that has been an issue since the Seven Mountains Mandate, and even earlier if you take try time to study its twisted history. To falsely try and label this as propaganda is merely trying to deflect from a genuine issue that is affecting people as we speak.
But since those events never occurred, technically, Jesus was NOT a refugee. He probably lived his entire life in the Judean region or very close to it.
Necessary and important for what exactly? Keeping out invisible bad guys at the expense of refugees escaping oppression? You’d really trade believing in one imaginary figure for believing people that don’t look or think like you are out to get you?
@@Nick-o-time you leaving your door locked is fake and violence. You need to open your door otherwise you are a racist that doesn’t want to let me into your home because I have brown skin!
You're telling me Charlie Kirk is wrong about the Bible? This is my surprised face 😐
Technically he's wrong about history. (I mean it is a bit of history that could be assumed from the Bible, but not directly stated in it.)
@@NovaSaber He's probably also wrong about the Bible, but we didn't get to fact check that today
Charlie Kirk NEVER has any idea what he's talking about.
Remember during Drump’s first term when Kitk’s TP-USA invited Drumpf to give a keynote speech, and they displayed the Presidential Seal behind him as he spoke? Only it wasn’t the real seal. It was a parody seal made by a left-winger anti-Drumpf person that had all sorts of in-jokes in it, and it was based on the Russian Coat of Arms with its two-headed eagle. 😀😂🤣
Actually, Kirk is right quite often. Good on him.
Kirk is right about a lot of issues but he's confused about christianity.
@@gsr4535 He's a clueless high school graduate, like Candace Owens, who outside the GOP would be a pizza delivery driver.
@@torreyintahoe Kirk makes a lot of money from people like you who don't know an idiot from an wise man.
The audacity of Mr. Kirk to disparage something as a “woke” misinterpretation of the original text to better insert their own ideologies when literalist Christians do the exact same thing, but worse, CONSTANTLY is infuriating
Well, you see, I agree with the Bible, so I just say what the Bible says, and since you say something different than what I say, that means you disagree with the Bible, and that makes you the bad guy, and that’s not just me saying that, but the Bible says it too, because me and the Bible agree.
@@BobbyHill26that’s what Christians often claim (of most denominations), but the Bible isn’t a univocal monolith. There are conflicting views presented on almost every topic of the Bible. To take a stand on an issue using the Bible is to cherry pick a stance you agree with and ignore the rest
@@Salamander_falls that’s the joke, christians think they have to agree with the Bible, which means they end up reading their own thoughts into the Bible, and anyone that disagrees with them therefore disagrees with the Bible. And of course, those types tend to never realize the Bible often doesn’t even agree with itself on most topics
@@Salamander_falls that’s the joke mate, folks think they have to agree with the Bible always end up just reading their own thoughts into it and, as you mention, tend to never even realize the Bible doesn’t even agree with its self on most things
@@BobbyHill26 okay. I’m not good at discerning sarcasm online. It did seem very… thorough lol.
It's really awful how these people try to justify their bigotry.
And they’re so smug and arrogant about it. It’s sad.
I get that we negotiate the meaning of the stories in the Bible, but this is straight up bastardizing it to fit their worldview.
@@magepunk2376yeah, I’m sure the people Jesus loved the most were the racist, bigoted, smug and arrogant people….
“Of course Jesus was not a refugee! That’d be awful!”
They're all in love with money. The problem is, Jesus had a lot of say about that, and they know it. Are they willing to give up their wealth to help the poor as their lord and savior commanded? Of course not. Are they going to admit that they're bad people? They can't even process that idea. So here come the mental gymnastics.
Charlie Kirk not understanding the Bible, history, scholarship, or anything else, is definitely not a surprise. What’s surprising is that he still has an audience.
His audience are staunch believers in Hate. He delivers what they want.
I love how so many Christians today are all about what Jesus got wrong. When I was a believer, I may not have understood all of the gospels, but it never would have occurred to me to say, "Jesus? Nah, that ain't it."
Charlie Kirk $$$ is what it's all about. Thank Dan.
Charlie Kirk exhibits the perfect demonstration of puffed up pride based upon nothing more than one's own severe over estimation of oneself.
Seems to be a common theme among right-wing zealots.
Kirk is a perfect example of how speaking confidently (and only in forums where no one has †he time or ability to fact check or do point-by-point rebuttals) goes a long way to making people think you're an authority on a subject when in fact you haven't got the slightest idea what you're talking about.
He's really confident going up against college students. Lol.
Calling out Charlie Kirk being wrong is a past time of the U.S. at this point. It’s funny because his followers will still argue that everyone else is wrong though. And he always side steps anyone who would oppose his BS.
Merry Christmas, Dan! Thank you for your takes on the Bible and religion. It’s really been eye opening and had motivated me to do some reading and research of my own. Don’t worry: It’s not the Charlie Kirk kind. 😂
Thank you sir!
Charlie Kirk doesn’t know when to shut up and take the L (unless that “L” means “lie”).
I definitely agree he doesn’t know when to shut up. I don’t think he realizes he’s lying though; i think he’s too drenched in jingoistic dogma to realize his views conflict with a lot of the Bible
Thank you, Dan. Merry Christmas.
A more relevant question is
" What would Jesus do with/about a refugee ? "
Also ; First
Also, Merry Christmas
Because "Love thy neighbor" can be interpreted in so many ways.
I'm fairly sure that the Jesus I learned about in Sunday School would not care where someone came from, only what kind of people they are inside.
I tend to put Christians in one of two categories: The ones who do their best to follow the example Christ set by the way he lived his life and the ones who give lip-service to a dead man on a cross because they don't want to follow the example Christ set by the way he lived his life. I also have a very strong opinion as to which type he would want in his company, and I think that he would have been a far better judge in character than the folks the latter group give him credit for.
Also international travel isn't required to be a refugee. That's how it was defined in the 1951 Convention Related to the Status of Refugees, but in more recent conventions (such as the 2011 UNHCR definition) you don't need to leave your country - you just need to be compelled to leave your place of habitual residence and be unable to return there owning to threats to life, physical integrity or freedom.
There isn't one singular definition, and Charlie's an idiot for trying to split hairs over people who have been displaced from their homes by threat of violence.
Thank you Dr. McClellan for your excellent work, and merry Christmas
That's a very good argument for understanding Jesus to be a literal refugee.
On top of that, and what would hopefully be understandable for Christians...
We should see Him as "a stranger" alla Matthew 25 who is "let in." So He is, in the Spirit of Truth, a/the refugee (proverbial or no). We let in the King when we let in the lowest. That is, the lowest in or outside of the Kingdom.
"Charlie Kirk doesn't have the foggiest idea what he is talking about." A tautology, Dan - never false.
Merry Christmas Dan. Thanks for all the bits of education. I really enjoy learning about Christianity, in small, digestible chunks.
And congratulations on the upcoming book.
the ad he’s referencing was not paid for by “left wing” people, either. it’s amazing how much fact some people will willingly overlook to prove their point
Funny how they keep touting Christ is king and all that, yet they choose to forget Jesus was supposedly a bunch of things: poor, kind, homeless, living off alms, a teacher, jewish - things they despise.
Ironically enough by ignoring these aspects they're adhering to the jewish idea that the messiah is supposed to be a conqueror king
i dunno if he was poor - he seems to be described as having wealthy benefactors at least, and the whole ascetic cult leader thing is more of a middle class kid life path than a poor kid life path. also he comes off as kind of a jerk a lot of the time.
@@joshridinger3407 I argue he was poor precisely because he had benefactors. He's always a guest in someone's home and always given food. Hell in matthew 8:20 he outright calls himself homeless. And the funniest instance in my opinion is when he goes to Matthew who was working as a tax collector, he tells him to walk with him as if he had something important to say, then the next verse they're at Matthew's house, eating his food lmao.
I've always seen him as a vagrant telling parables and lessons to people who would house and feed him, while the gospels embellish him to be a miracle worker.
He's technically wrong, the best kind of wrong
Thank you Dan and Merry Christmas.
WHY did you make me watch Charlie Kirk??? I need to wash my eyes out!!
i feel dumber every time i hear charli speak
Merry Christmas Dr. Dan.
Bah humbug Mr. Kirk.
Coal and switches for Mr. Kirk (Santa's gifts to naughty children).
Thank you, Dan. And Merry Christmas.
❤❤❤❤❤thanks Dan!! Merry Christmas!!
Hi Dan. I appreciate your scholarly work very much. Thank you! Finally, someone else people can run to about the Bible! ;-) Anyway, I would like to see a video on the ethics in Numbers 16. Moses' anger (not wise), and how many were killed (always a whole number), and what that means to a stable mind that ponders such passages. Worshiping out of fear, etc.
Thank you, Dr. Dan, for this clarification and for correcting Charlie Kirk.
But when it comes to Mr. Kirk, why should we expect anything other than ignorance?
Love what Dan says,and how he says it, great job!
Ordering the book!
Thank you! I am tired of losing this argument. I finally feel validated. I will buy your book and mail copies in next year's Christmas celebrations. No I don't have resentments!! lol (Well, maybe a wee bit.)
Not sure why, but that book cover reminds me of the _Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy_ series, the Douglas Adams version, not the fictional version that has the words "Don't Panic" on it.
They are large, friendly letters, for sure
Wait till they find out Jesus wasn’t white 😂merry Christmas everyone 🎄
Don’t say this again, this is one of those things that people who are over 60 say & they think it sounds cool or it’s a gotcha. It’s super embarrassing.
@ first of all I will say whatever I want. It’s my right. Secondly if there was an actual man that was Jesus, the time and place he lived in would dictate that he was most likely a brown skinned man. And I know for certain that little fact bothers a phony Christian wh!te supremacist like Kirk. So I don’t know what your problem is and don’t really care either. Merry Christmas 🎄
@@freyast2213 first of all I will say whatever I want. It’s my right. Secondly. If there was an actual man who was Jesus, the time and place he would have lived in would dictate that he was a brown skinned man. And I’m certain this little fact greatly annoys someone like Charlie Kirk. Merry Christmas 🎄
No! You don't say!
Seriously. So effing what?
@@byrondickens wow . Another little boy triggered by facts. 🥲🎄
Charlie is a refugee from good reason and understanding.
I don't know why nobody is talking about the book Your Life Your Game by Keezano. I read it last year, and it’s an excellent Catholic religious book. It beautifully shows how connecting with God and building meaningful relationships can lead to spiritual growth and success in both your personal and professional life. A must-read. God bless ❤️🙏🏼
My spiritual growth comes from appreciation of Nature including my fellow humans.
And helping where I see a need.
Without reference to supernatural forces or religious dogma.
I hope that restored classical Greek pronunciation has been refined since the time of Erasmus!
Charle Kirk may be wrong but he is totally confident.
Yes
Wait, Charlie kunt, I mean Kirk, was wrong and or lying about something while speaking with the kind of confidence only liars and the genuinely ignorant can muster? I am shocked.
Great video Dan
EVEN IF Kirk’s claim about the Roman Empire held muster, he would then have been considered and IDP, internally displaced, which is basically the same thing without the border crossing.
Though there is legal differentiation, the UNHCR treats both populations the same as does IHL (international humanitarian law) and the USCIS and the USRAP.
There are thousands of people internally displaced in Afghanistan, for instance, who await processing. When they receive word that their case is accepted and they are ready for processing, they will cross a border. Until then, their only option is to remain in hiding in Afghanistan where they can receive underground support.
Wasn't Egypt also in a very special situation within the empire, where it was viewed as the private property of the Emperor and where other Romans were not allowed to visit or move there without special permission?
Let alone ignoring the concept of an internal refugee.
Yeah, but they're looking for ways to justify their hatred of immigrants, so they're just going to ignore anything that they can't use to justify their bigotry.
I was going to say the exact same thing. Even if Kirk was right about Jesus not leaving the Roman empire, one can also become a refugee by fleeing to another region in one's home country.
That's a Charlie Kirk problem is the best thing to say about almost everything CK says.
Charlie Kirk was wrong? I'm shocked! I thought he had used up his quota of ignorant comments some time ago! I guess the road goes ever on.
This coming from a Jr. college failure.
So Egypt had open borders, Charlie?
Thanks to Dan and scholars like him, I've come to the conclusion that attempting to understand the Bible, without understanding the world that its stories were forged in is just a fool's errand. You may as well be taking Dr. Seuss as scripture, because that's about how much sense you'll be making on the subject otherwise.
When anyone claims to "KNOW" about specific details about Jesus, I always take it with a grain of salt.
We can make many best educated guesses, but there isn't that much we actually know 100% about the guy.
The author of Matthew kept adding bits to Mark to make Jesus' life line up with OT prophecies, as he said each time. We can't know if Jesus was refugee or much of anything else, unfortunately. Makes a good story, though.
Even within Kirks own logic he is wrong. You can be a refugee with your own country. That would still be a great argument to aid people in need within your own country.
Hey Dan, can you please address the allegations made towards you?
What allegations?
Sure Dan, but does the book you wrote say, "Alright, let's see it?" If it does not, I'm going to be majorly let down.
Who wants to bet that he'd still be against Puerto Ricans coming to America?
Feliz Navidad
The real mystery is why Charlie Kirk's face is so small
How does he have such a big head but so little actual knowledge? Lots of hot air up there with his 2 brain cells.
I found amusing the "leftist " comment. If he actually existed, Jesus was not only leftist but a communist! All the "give up your worldly possessions and follow me" talks weren’t for nought.
That’s ridiculous. Jesus wants us to *voluntarily give* up what we have to the less fortunate. Communism is led by *forcibly* taking what one person earned and giving it to people who can’t or refuse to work-at threat of imprisonment. That’s not right to pin something so evil on Jesus. He was NEVER a communist & never took from the rich nor encouraged people to give governments the power to steal from its citizens. He encouraged generosity & charity-but never by force.
Charlie Kirk - the Gross of Christmas past.
0:31 Evergreen comment
IF we take seriously Matthew's account.
The fleeing and returning from Egypt is a literary creation used by the writer to be able to insert the so called ‘fulfilled prophecy’. Nothing about years of Jesus’ youth makes sense, like who leaves the golden child behind by accident?? 😂😂
If you don't have problems with some of the things that are in Scripture then you simply are not reading Scripture.
Jesus' family fled Bethlehem to Egypt because Jesus would have been killed in Bethlehem by the ruler of Bethleham ( who had no power in Egypt), but that is not refugee because they both happened to be roman states at that time, way to miss the moral of the story
Judea WAS NOT independent and autonomous, they were a client kingdom. The Herodian dynasty, which ruled when Jesus was born, were given their power by the Roman Senate under Herod the Great; not just helping against the Parthians, the Romans helped depose the previous dynasty. Because the Herodians were Greek converts, part of a branch of the Antipatrids. Herod Archeleos, the successor who was king when Jesus was born, was still subservient to the Romans, he was still amici populi romani, "Friend and Ally of Rome", which was the official language of their client states at the time. They were not independent, Herod Archeleos was allowed to rule within his kingdom, but had no autonomy to deal with other kingdoms. That is what the Roman client state meant; they got to ruled their own people, but had to ask the Senate to do anything international. Claiming that as independent is like claiming Scotland is independent, or Puerto Rico.
Still an international border, though.
Charlie Kirk is wrong? Im shocked I tell you....shocked.
I mean, technically he's correct, the whole construct of moving around etc. doesn't show up til later versions of the story, so even just looking at the narrative you can say that Jesus wasn't a refugee so long as you're only talking about Mark.
But then you'd have to reject the ol' univocality thing and Kirk would rather have a normal sized face than do that.
In fact, it's not even "later versions", it's only in Matthew.
Both versions of the nativity are almost certainly late additions with no basis in fact, which makes him accidentally right about the historical Jesus, but still completely wrong about the Biblical Jesus that he's talking about.
Gee a community college drop out once again proves he is uneducated.
So your going to use today’s definition for something 1000’s of years ago? I don’t think so you’re talking it out of context!!!!
Oh no, not Charlie Kirk again. The guy is a joke. He has a gift of gab, a confident way of speaking, and a way to deceive already biased people that anything he says "is factual". Hold his feet to the fire, though, with actual data, he won't be able to withstand it.
Chuckles is nauseatingly disingenuous.
He needs to read the 30 or more passages in his "holy" book that prescribe the treatment of immigrants
Mr. Big Head again. This is the guy who blocked IP because he called him out, and he is afraid to debate or defend his dishonesty.
Go back to sleep Charlie.
I won't comment on his receding hairline I promise
Receding hairlines are a sign of great manliness. At least that’s what I tell myself when I look in the mirror.
It's always good to dunk on bigots like Charlie Kirk.
However, I think applying modern ideas of nation states, international borders and refugee status to the world as it was 2000 years ago... is a bit problematic. It... kinda works as an analogy? but only if we don't look at it too closely.
That doesn't make Charlie Kirk right, obviously.
(And I'm personally pro refugees, if that's a thing, and approve open borders.)
Anyway, thank you and happy holidays.
How about open doors? Are you pro open doors? You should invite refugees into your home since you are such a bleeding heart that doesn’t belong people should be vetted when entering a nation.😢
Charlie Kirk, I get that we all have our own interpretations and understandings about what the stories from the Bible says. I get that we all negotiate with them to serve our own dogmas. But you, Charlie, are straight up bastardizing the Bible for your own bigoted views.
Ah, yes, Jesus, the first documented recipient of a UN refugee travel document! I see the connection perfectly. Because, you know, the Roman Empire was just teeming with border control checkpoints, immigration officers, and clearly defined nation-states with international treaties on refugee status. It's not like Judea and Egypt were both provinces under the same Roman Emperor or anything.
So, just because the Greek word shares a distant ancestor with our word 'refugee,' we can totally ignore 2,000 years of historical and legal development. It's like saying a horse-drawn carriage is the same as a Tesla because they both transport people. Sure, there are some surface-level similarities, but the context is… slightly different.
So, by all means, let's retroactively apply 21st-century legal definitions to a 1st-century context. What could possibly go wrong? It’s not like that’s a classic example of an anachronism or anything. Clearly, the Romans were just ahead of their time with their comprehensive refugee resettlement programs.
Hello fellow sane person. Merry Christmas!!
Did you even watch the video. He literally said that Judea was not in the Roman empire at his birthday at like a minute thirty
@@yupthatsme3538 A very Merry Christmas to you and a Happy new year
@@mikeymullins5305 international borders did not exist in the Roman Empire. The entire Mediterranean world, including Judea and Egypt, was under Roman control. Moving from one region to another within the empire was more akin to traveling between states within a single country today, rather than crossing an international border. There were administrative boundaries, but not the kind that would have triggered the legal status of refugee.
someone's been sipping on the Egg Nog Kool-Aid, thinking ancient borders worked like modern-day TSA checkpoints. Cheers to a refreshing glass of anachronism!
@@mikeymullins5305 international borders did not exist in the Roman Empire. The entire Mediterranean world, including Judea and Egypt, was under Roman control. Moving from one region to another within the empire was more akin to traveling between states within a single country today, rather than crossing an international border. There were administrative boundaries, but not the kind that would have triggered the legal status of "refugee."
look up anachronism
John 3.30, is all over the bible.
Sarai gave her handmaid Hagar (flight), an Egyptian woman, to Abram; “to be his wife, that he might be builded up through her." Now, be it known that when the Sun rises in Aries, Virgo has set, thus becoming a night constellation, and "beautiful to look upon." Thus, she is Abram's wife, Sarai (my star), and is found during the summer months until near August in the night hemisphere, coming to her meridian toward the end of May. Coming in conjunction with the Sun at the end of summer, she flees with Abram into the winter hemisphere, and gets the name Hagar (flight). As a winter constellation, she gets the epithet Ethiopian. By means of her fruits, gathered at the end of summer, Sarai is builded up through her (Hagar). Just nine months after the love affair above spoken of (their conjunction), Ishmael is born at the summer solstice; Ishmael was the genius of winter, because born when the days begin to shorten. He was the precursor of Isaac, and bore the same relation to him as John the Baptist did to Jesus Christ. Ishmael and Isaac were the same as Esau and Jacob. Isaac was the younger. Like Jacob, he came forth clinging to the heels of his brother, as summer always follows winter.
You say you are a scholar of Religion - what religions other than Christianity (Old & New Testaments) are you a scholar of ?
Funny how Dan argues from the assumption of biblical veracity when it supports left a wing ideology.
Funny how I explicitly pointed out I was speaking from a position that takes seriously the account of Jesus’ birth from the Gospel of Matthew, which I’ve repeatedly and consistently pointed out is not historical.
@maklelan
Perhaps just a touch obscure for any but long term followers of your channel.
The words, "as long as we take seriously" carries the implication that we should be taking something seriously, at least equally, if not more so, than it implies we should not be talking something seriously.
You don't believe there is any biblical support that Jesus was a refugee either.
Of course, this means you acknowledge Charlie Kirk and the Christian nationalists are right on this point but just for the wrong reason.
Can we not spread Russian propaganda concepts like “Christian nationalism”?
It's already here.
Jaun, you a nazi?
Genuinely curious; what do you mean that Christian Nationalism is Russian Propaganda?
Except Christian Nationalism is not “Russian propaganda.” For us gray hairs, Christian Nationalism is something that has been an issue since the Seven Mountains Mandate, and even earlier if you take try time to study its twisted history.
To falsely try and label this as propaganda is merely trying to deflect from a genuine issue that is affecting people as we speak.
But since those events never occurred, technically, Jesus was NOT a refugee. He probably lived his entire life in the Judean region or very close to it.
Don’t care either way. Gods not real but borders are necessary and important
Necessary and important for what exactly? Keeping out invisible bad guys at the expense of refugees escaping oppression? You’d really trade believing in one imaginary figure for believing people that don’t look or think like you are out to get you?
Borders are as fake as God
Bzzzt, wrongo. borders aren't real and are enforced by violence.
@@mikeymullins5305 you keep your door open? Your door is as fake as god too, so make sure to leave it open at night.
@@Nick-o-time you leaving your door locked is fake and violence. You need to open your door otherwise you are a racist that doesn’t want to let me into your home because I have brown skin!