You just summed up the real force behind the popularity of religion: "....You just have to gin up the tiniest sliver of not impossible. That's usually enough for people who are longing for a reason to feel justified in their agreement....."
It's maybe also worth pointing out that that was a very clear and immediate goalpost shift at 2:30. The assertion being responded to was "OT says these two saw God face to face"/"John and 1 Timothy say nobody has/can seen God" and the apologetic response was "Nobody has seen God _in his full glory"_ which is... a cool story, but not what they said... it's really a major step away from what they actually said. John says no one has ever seen God _or even directly understood God_ and it's through Jesus' actions in the time of the gospels that God has been made known, and 1 Timothy says it is physically impossible that anyone has or ever can see God. You can't make someone correct by asserting that that they meant something that is different than what they said - that's just substituting a different answer while pretending you aren't. And claiming it's just about seeing God "fully" when John is putting forward a narrative that not only has nobody ever seen God, nobody's ever even properly _recognised_ God, and 1 Timothy is putting forward the notion that it's not possible to see _any_ of God... that's just ignoring the text and the question and substituting a different goal instead.
Except that none of the bible is to be divided up that way. The church catholic has the authority to interpret scripture because it created, edited, and compiled it. As a volume, the bible was brought together based on old stories it collected together. As such, it can't be pulled apart. The scripture reflects the teaching of the church, because the church chose what was and was not canonical. Any attempt to understand the bible as a volume, or single, final work, outside of the church is bound to fail. I feel like Dan's entire channel should be addressed to people who think you can read the Bible alone apart from the church that created it.
@@micah3209 So... because the church put disparate texts together in one volume, and made edits to them, we should ignore that the Bible as a whole says actively contradictory things? Also which church? Because by your logic, most, if not all, modern churches are using the Bible invalidly.
@micah3209 some Christians: the bible is the inspired word of God passed down through time This guy: catholics have the authority to modify (the words of god... i.e. it's the word of the catholic church. Related: the parts of the Bible's history Dan is talking about seem to happen _before_ the catholic church came into existence so they aren't so relevant. He does bring up that part of the book's history when it *is* relevant.
It just occurred to me that tying the Hebrew bible to the NT is like making a connection between famous artists from the Renaissance & the animated Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles! I spent multiple decades doing exactly this lol
There is a connection though, the turtles are named after Renaissance and Mannerist masters. Likewise, Jesus as messiah in the NT is pulling from other Jesuses and mythology around apocalypses in the Tanakh.
I will give up porn when the apologists give up apologetics. My hobby is safe. I won’t say it’s in God’s hands because that’s gross. I don’t think God would appreciate it.
I studied Catholic apologetics for over 20 years and I completely agree with the way that Dan describes apologetics. That was demonstrated to me when I invited a couple of friendly Jehovah's Witnesses in for tea and friendly conversation one afternoon. The next week my dad (who was the driving force of apologetics in my family) told them to leave and not come back. He actively avoided people whose beliefs didn't align with his, even when presented with clear evidence!
Wow, this is enlightening. Thank you so much Dan for taking the time to explain these things. I am a lifelong atheist. Never believed ever in a god, gods or other supernatural beings and I find it sometimes difficult to rebut the relentless flood of unsubstantiated claims from those who do. I very much appreciate the surgical precision with which you dissect all of the nonsense that people spout about the bible.
Btw, if a Christians says that Jesus was clothed in humanity, then he or she says a heresy, suggesting that the incarnation was about God's being covered behind human form, while the Council of Chalcedon directly said that Jesus has two "two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation".
The fascinating thing is that we get to see the cultural and sort of era specific impressions that people have of god in action with apologists, like the one Dan replies to in this video. Apologist are often forced to retcon what people believed 3000 years ago, because back then, a god without a physical body probably would have been considered little more valuable, religiously speaking, than a Marvel character is today. In today's western society, a god who has a physical body might be no more valuable than a Marvel character, so our apologists graft their own westernized 21st century understanding onto Middle Eastern cultures who lived thousands of years ago. Whereas back then, the westernized 21st century depiction of god may have been just as valueless as a serious consideration. Its just fascinating to watch the war of ideas the present has with the past within religion. Today's believers say the Revere all these ancient characters and their ideals, but do they? Would they? Could they?😳
And people needed their familes to remember them or they would cease to exist. Gods needed people to be pious to the or they cease to exist. Though i would make the argument to Dan that gods were bimodal, that they had a kind of anchorage in their temple(s) and a spiritual presence in the divine council. Anu is the possible exception because he was booted from Eanna at the end of the 24th century allowing him to be a kind if distributed mountain god under the banner of El. We see representative sites like Beth El, probably set up for sacrifice, and there are bronze statues of El found about canaan. But I think for your typical Israelite El was everywhere outside of the major settlements, but the tabernacle sites were set aside for the priest to entertain contributions and request for help. Thus a god could represent two forms at once, one tied to temple traditions and another tied to his function within mesopotamian culture as a whole.
I feel like you’re working really hard there to not come across as condescendingly as you feel towards this creator. That’s not an attack; I get it, and I think that you’re right - he’s just coming up with whatever BS he thinks is needed to make the believer feel as though they have a good enough argument that they can continue to ignore the real world.
I didn't catch any condescension. I thought he spoke clearly and plainly, thoughtfully, and authoritatively. Maybe that is what you are picking up on there, the authority part. It can rub the wrong way, but when you have collected as much knowledge as Dan has apparently spent his life doing, he is just reporting the consensus. He isn't casting a superior attitude, he is casting superior knowledge.
Can we also understand that this is the same reason in the resurrection they thought he was a spirit as well? And he explained that spirit has no flesh. I hope to get an answer, thanks Dan!
I'm not Dan, but I think we can see from the context there that they are talking about the Greco-Roman form of spirit, i.e. a ghost. The text uses pneuma, as in wind or breath, whereas the Hebrew word usually translated as spirit/soul is Nefesh which is a decidedly physical thing. I hope that answers at least some of your question. Dan isn't usually super active in the comment section.
It quite easy from a Two Powers in Heaven Israelite theology of God. There is the invisible YHWH the Father who if you did see his face would cause you to die. And The Pre-incarnate Jesus the visible YHWH who was seen in the Old Testament by Moses, Jacob, Joshua, Gideon and Samson's parents. Dan's progressive Mormonism/ liberal scholarship is just ignorant of the actual correct interpretations and his 19th century redactions R the Maximumalists New B.S.
The Visible YHWH( Pre-incarnate Jesus) is a different person than the Invisible YHWH the Father. Both persons of YHWH R in Genesis 19:24. It solves Dan's Dogma of no univocal voice of Scripture: when actually it's a voice of a choir all singing their parts in harmony.
The incorporeal God is understood in the Hellenistic period, and completely permeates the NT, from Paul's Epistles to the Gospel of John. It also isn't inconsistent with the later prophets.
I have seen God. When I was first saved he appeared to me in a vision behind a silver cloud with orange lightening rippling through it. He was a blinding white light behind the cloud. He spoke to me and my life has never been the same since.
"It makes more sense that...", is almost invariably followed by something they've made up which makes them feel comfortable and justified but which has very little basis in anything legitimate: it sounds right so it is right.
This is the problem with 'trinitarians'! They claim ( which the bible doesnt!) that 'Jesus is God'. Since people SAW him with their own eyes, how could he be 'God' since the bible states more than once "NO ONE HAS SEEN GOD AT ANY TIME" ( John 1:18, John 5:37, 1 John 4:12. God also told Moses "No one can see my face and yet live"). We only "See" God & Christ by Faith NOT sight!
It's a global human defect, @@mush930. Everyone wants to be objective only with the "other." Whether politics, religion, business, team, tribe, race, family, etc., it's very rare that the objective intellect is allowed to point at one's own group. It is extremely unfortunate. Once we can start doing that, every human institution will start improving and evolving, (or yes-sometimes dissolving if having outlived its usefulness). Of course if we believe OUR particular institution or group doesn't need evolving but is rather already "perfect" in its knowledge, understanding, and expression, it makes sense to hide any flaws that might contradict that delusion and instead focus on highlighting the "mote in everyone else's eye." Perhaps one day Dan will "man up."
At 9:08, when Dan said, "a pile of dogmas" I thought, for a split second, that the sentence was going to finish as, "a pile of dog shit"... But, of course, Dan would never. 😄
I think your last point basically sums it up. How can you discuss whether there are any contradictions or anything wrong in the bible when everything is dismissed as there can't be any contradictions? He even admits that the author(s) of Exodus contradict themselves, but then just dismisses it with "the author would never contradict himself." Well that settles it, I guess. Even if it is a contradiction, it isn't a contradiction because there are no contradictions in the bible. See how easy that is? And the whole "it wasn't God it was a physical manifestation of God" is about the silliest thing ever. Of course, it also is difficult to rationalize with the trinity, as the spirit/God the father/Jesus are all God. And, of course, there is no basis for the argument that Jacob wrestled with Jesus other than post-hoc rationalization. I think it would be easier if they just decided that the letters of John are messing up the theology. That is also where we find the claim that God is love. Meanwhile, Paul tells us that love is not jealous. Then again, everywhere throughout the bible we know that God is jealous. All three cannot be true (and the word for love is agape for both Paul and John). Just give up the letters of John and it works better.
Well the text, in reference to Jacob, uses the word Angel, it was Gods Angel, and therefore humans would believe this was God… just like in Judges, where they see the angel of God and think they are going to pass away for seeing God
I mean this everything means Jesus was what got me into delving into the word to the extent I do… Angel of the lord is Jesus, the entire OT is written because of Jesus and so on…
I believe what the OT, says regarding [Moses meeting with G-d, face to face], like friends at the Tabernacle, which apparently happened with some regularity.
The notion that “God is not really like us is evidence that...Christians have appropriated Plato...Take away Plato from Christianity, and...you will end up with something very much like the Mormon conception of the divine.” Stephen H Webb.
Thats a lot of jaw jackin goin on. The bible on one page say nobody seen bible god and on the next page it says Moses saw bible god face to face. Without 36 years of college and 47,000 miles of traveling and the ability to speak 19 different languages, this is a dam contradiction.
Moses can say he spoke to God face to face by his interaction with the burning bush. However it is very different to be face to face with God in his presence of infinite power. God does not actually have a face.
Neither of those scriptures give any reason to believe that they meant anything more than what they said. 2here within the context of those scriptures does it say, or even imply that they were meant " in spirit "?
The guide to interpreting the bible: 1) If it is in the bible and is verifiable, and reflects positively, take it literally. 2) If it is in the bible and is verifiable and is a problem, it must be a mistranslation, metaphor, or taken out of context. 3) If it is in the bible and is unverifiable, a) if it reflects positively, take it literally b) if it is a problem, it must be a mistranslation, metaphor, or taken out of context. It's real easy.
@@flowingafterglow629 Also, if it is in the Bible and has not yet been addressed, then it should be taken literally. If later it can be shown to be false or impossible, with information to back up that it is false. Then it is now metaphorical
Every character that has seen God face to face seems to meet a second "person" of God. Either Adam and Eve or Abraham meeting a physical "Lord", or different characters meeting The Angel of the Lord. You can make the argument either way that The Angel of the Lord is just an angel with the Word within Him, or a Theophany, but The Angel of the Lord is always a distinct character speaking with the characteristics normally seen in God. (Genesis 3:8, God walks physically in the garden. Genesis 18 where Abraham speaks and feeds the Lord and his two angels. Genesis 16, 21, 22. where the Angel speaks to people who see him as God. Exodus 3 where the Angel calls himself the God of Moses' Fathers, etc etc) Specifically in genesis 19, the chapter after the physical Lord meets Abraham and then goes down to Sodom after the other angels, the verse where the Lord burns Sodom is "Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah-from the Lord out of the heavens." Implying two "Lords" or Psalm 110:1 Where David speaks of the Lord speaking to his Lord. All of the characters who traditionally meet God and live are always meeting this theophany. This is the argument the author of John makes in 1:18: "No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him" That every time someone has "seen God" they are actually seeing the Son.
According to Bob Bitchin, who was a contestant on Let's Make a Dope Deal, the way to see God is to play Black Sabbath at 78 speed. The background comments suggest it could also be Grand Funk. Cheech and Chong were hilarious.
I might be mixing up some of my hostory, but I recall multiple Throne/Chariot Visions which are a manifestation of God's power and not to be taken as a literal manifestation of God. Seeing God directly seems to be a nonsensical thought to in ancient Judaism.
Dan talks about this in his lecture on the Divine Council and the authors he mentions talk about it as well. The Jewish conception of God changed dramatically over the course of the OT period. Very early on, YHWH was a member of the polytheistic pantheon, subservient to El and Asherah his parents. He was clearly embodied and frequently dealt with humanity physically. He was only God over the land of Israel itself. Eventually the narrative shifts to Him being conflated with El and the removal of other Gods during Josiah's priestly reforms alongside the inputting of Angel into the text to make "The Angel of the Lord." This appears to retcon the older texts so as to be more palatable to their more modern understanding of God as not physical, or at least not present deity.
The distinction as "real", mystical and mythical gets muddled with time. But yes depending on ones magick and deep seated desires you can see god. At least what you think is god, but thats part of the magick. The point about people being terrified is to distinguish it from a dream or imagination and a literary device, though I sure there were probably a few people who thought they saw god as their brain was crashing at the end of their life. Again as a mystic, trying to vision seek god is a desire for delusions, and i recommend not trying. Moreover mysticism is not for everyone and certainly not for people who think its an amusement park ride in heaven. The focal point of magick (whether object, chant based, tantra, of amulets) is to use that which is special for "inspiration" and invocation of ecstatic state were the brains can bring up imagry that often reflects the magical inspiration. Garbage in garbage out.
I guess the ultimate point here, is why we care about academic consensus? If the Jewish and later Christian community is ultimately responsible for editing and redacting scripture, and that community is ultimately the one essentially telling the story and explaining what it means, why bother with people who dissect what the church deems to be fundamentally a single work? This approach of scholarship only works if you value the bible as a historical work alone with no authority to understand it. This is essentially the hyper-protestant idea.
I’ll venture a couple of reasons. There is no monolithic Christian community speaking with one voice on what the story means. (Never mind that the Jewish and Christian communities differ strongly on how these texts should be interpreted and even which texts are the authoritative or holy ones.) How can you then determine which interpretation is correct? Flip a coin? Go with your gut? Figure out how and when and by whom the texts were developed? These communities make claims about how the world should work based on these texts. We could just accept what they say or we can dig into the texts to see if they support their interpretation. The classic case is slavery and, more generally, the development of human morality. In short, how can you claim to understand something if you don’t know what it says?
@diogeneslamp8004 in Christianity there was a way to resolve differences between competing ideas within the church: ecumenical councils. This tradition goes back to Jerusalem, as exemplified in Acts 15 and subsequently throughout church history. Judaism had similar concepts. Because the Bible was defined by the church in an ecumenical council at Carthage, we know our scriptures come down to us through the church and under its authority. You cannot interpret the scriptures apart the authority that created them to begin with. The confusion you see today is the result of people choosing to go their own way and turn Christianity into a DIY project. This includes the confusion created by those who look to dice the scriptures up into a slurry of contradictory nonsense.
@@micah3209 So were the Protestants justified in their criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church? Did those criticisms justify in turn their subsequent translations of the texts? Or earlier, who is the true keeper of the authentic Christian tradition, the RCC or the Orthodox Church? Which one gets to decide? The question isn’t the dogmas that shaped the collection of texts we call the Bible. The question is, do the texts support the dogmas? The RCC isn’t necessarily an unbiased party in this question.
@@diogeneslamp8004 The problem with the Catholic/Orthodox split is that it has effectively frozen the Church in the year 1054, which was initiated by both sides refusing to hold an ecumenical council to sort out their differences. This is fine, though, as Christian doctrine was already established by 1054, and what remains is the ecclesiastical differences between the western and eastern wings of the church. It is not fine, in that the church is now split into two sides that refuse to talk to each other. I'm one of many working for a reconciliation. Protestants were justified in criticizing doctrines like purgatory, papal infallibility, the Bishop of Rome being the sole rule of faith, etc. These are not the traditions of the unified church, but western inventions. Where they were not right, is claiming the doctrine of sola scriptura, that the bible can be interpreted independently of the Church, and their disregard for the traditions of the Church that gave them the bible to begin with. As for whether the texts support the dogmas of the unified, Orthodox Church? Yes, they do. They were specifically selected and edited to reflect the teaching of the Church, if properly understood and read in the light of both all scripture and all tradition. You can think of the bible as the transmission of the Church's beliefs, from ancient times to present. It not only shaped which books were canonized, but are the authoritative light in which they can be read as a single, living document. You can take any verse in isolation and you can make it say virtually anything you want. Protestants and other schismatics have been doing this for years. There is no bible apart from the Church, and no interpretation reached without the Church. Scripture is just one small part of the whole body Orthodox teaching.
How evil is a god that kills you if you see him? An all powerful god either should be happy for you to see him or have the ability to keep you from seeing him.
It’s a mystery. What God does is beyond our capacity of understanding. We know He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, so what God does is what is best. People are told not to to do things and then they disobey and die.
Sometimes the laws of physics simply are the laws of physics If I stand near the sun, do you think I'll survive? Of course not. It's not a matter of love or no love. It's just that you can't stand near the sun and survive. How much more so is that true of the one who made the sun? It is vital that we read what this man said about Genesis in context. The Hebrew people spoke of angels who represented God as if they had spoken to God. But if we read all their words it is clear they knew it was an angel. Who am I to judge them for speaking of representatives as if they are the one they represent? I'll give you an example - imagine I get off the phone and my wife says "who were you talking to?" If I respond "I was talking to my dad" then technically she could say "but no one was with you in the room, so technically you were actually speaking with a microphone and a speaker that just so happened to link to another microphone and speaker that your dad has", well, yes, technically she would be right. I was speaking to a microphone, not to my actual dad. But in reality, in our age and culture we don't take issue with a man on the phone saying"I'm talking to my dad" even if his dad is miles away and he's really talking to a phone. So just as we speak of a phone as if it's the person right there in the room, so too these ancient people openly spoke of God's representatives as if it were God right there. But if we read all they wrote we come to the right conclusion that they knew what we know - it was God's representative they were speaking to as if it were God himself They were just as intelligent as we are
@@JuanMPalacio you speak very confidently that you “know” things but I’m wondering how it is you know that. I’m thinking that the word “know“ doesn’t mean what you think it means.
@@truth.speaker very imaginative interpretation. But in my mind there’s something missing in your example. The husband and the wife, in all probability, had actually at one or more times seen the father that he says he’s talking to on the phone. If the wife had never met the father, if she only knew of the father indirectly by what her husband told him, she may very well doubt that there actually is a living father.
@loso2751 but it is in the Bible. Directly. Hosea 12:4-5 Here is the Hebrew text of Hosea 12:4-5: הוּא יָבַט־בְּיַעֲקֹב בְּעָבוּרָיו וְיִגְּדֶנּוּ יְדֵי־אָדָם עָלָיו בְּאַל־מָחָז נָאַתָּה אֵל וַיָּרָב עִם־מַלְאָךְ וַיֻּכָל בָּכָה וַיְתַחֲנוּ־לוֹ בֵּיתֵל וְשָׁם יִֽדַבְּרֵנוּ Transliteration: Hu yavat-be'Ya'akov be'avurav ve'yiggedennu yedei-adam alav Be'al-machaz na'atah El Va'yarav im-mal'ach va'yukhal bakha Va'yitachanu-lo Beit-El ve'sham yidabberenu. English Translation: He struggled with an angel and prevailed; He wept and sought his favor. He found him at Bethel, And there He spoke with us
Of course there’s anthropomorphic language in the scripture. This way is humans can relate better with God. When we use words like “He” well we should know that God has no gender right? Or when God states he’s a jealous God. I feel God is using words that we humans can relate with. In Other words he somewhat needs to get on our level so we can 6:21 understand. And yes ppl who try to disprove the Bible do this stuff all the time. Such as Matthew states this while mark states something diff. That doesn’t necessarily make the text wrong, or that someone is lying. Simply could be the writer didn’t include that part and was focused on a different part. It cracks me up how ppl try to prove the Bible wrong not realizing how many translations there are and how languages change over time. They read a text written in NIV as if it’s the scripture Moses himself wrote. There will be discrepancies in the text. Especially after it’s been rewrote for past 4500 yrs. But the message is the same as with the purpose of salvation
Gods were created in people's image, either through anthropomorphization or through imbuing them with human traits. As for the gods behaviors, different authors present things differently to make the deities better fit their worldviews, (either actual or stated); that's why I think it makes little sense to look for a single, coherent message in any of these texts.
YHWH is Enlil / El. An Annunaki "god". Yes many have seen him face to face. The true GOD is the one Jesus spoke of the "Father" (creator of all) and came to tell us about. Ignorance and error seem to be the human way! Tell em' Dan! Tell them the truth! The true father is complete unconditional love without judgement!
El is not one of the Annunaki. He is the head of the west Semitic pantheon whereas Enlil is part of the east Semitic pantheon. Linguistically associated, but not the same as Dan has discussed on numerous occasions. Also, YHWH was not originally El. In super-early Judaism, we can see that they considered YHWH to be part of the pantheon and a child of El like Baal. As time went on, they merged El and YHWH to become the later understanding of God as being God of the whole earth and there being no others. It is also clear from the text of the NT, and early Christian tradition, that they understood God the Father to be the same as YHWH.
YHWH is an arabian volcano god tied to the Cult of Enki. During the late bronze age it was transformed by Midianite tribes. But the qualites of El came later, and probably a fair amount of borrowing from hadat traditions. By the time of the monarchy, Enlil was pretty much a dead god. His powers of war were emasculated by Sargon, they helped set up the city of Adad (Ba'al in the bible). And the war god role is taken over by Ishtar. Enlil is replaced by Asshur in Assyria and Marduk in Babylon. The primary escalation of gods role occurred when king Yosiah threw the relics of El and Asherah out of the temple and destroyed all the alters (sacrificial sites) outside of Jerusalem. Although the menorah appears to be a remnant of asherah worship.
Consider Yahweh, a member of the devine council, inhabitant of the earth, a real physical being and predisposed to killing any man to lay eyes on him. Then consider Abba father, (whom no man has seen), as Jesus described him, not like Yahweh in nature at all. A completely different person despite the christian narrative. There's no contradiction here.
I like many of Dan's videos. But here, he reveals his own theological bias and presuppositions. One can 'see' God with eyes of understanding or through his agents who represent him, like the ones who have his name in them. That is why Jess could say that those who had seen him had seen the Father. Jesus was not claiming to be the Father or God, but one who reflected God's image.
being well versed in bible stories without the truth being considered as a factor, is like being well versed in ninja turtles stories. kinda interesting but not an indication of truth.
@@vmonk2 are you saying the bible influenced or the people used it as a justification? or maybe a mix? lol that would be more of an anthropological study of the impact of false beliefs where theology was a subset. im speaking of the failure of biblical scholars to consider how reality impacted the biblical assertions. ffs this dude is a magician that cant preface his assertions with "it is imagination not reality" rolling around with "physical is not really physical and spirit is not really spirit" and he is a freaking expert of the highest order on the topic. freaking theist language abusers and silly games. lol
God is quite able to reveal itself in different ways and meanings. That is what makes the god of the bible more plausible. A multiple faceted personality and imagery.
Ive been watching your videos for a few weeks and you never really speak of your beliefs, of things you take on faith. Do you have any beliefs that you take on faith? If so what are they?
Proving the Bibles claims by using the Bible.....are you freaking serious? This is your "my cultural preferred version of invisible supernatural superbeeing" and denomination plus favorite Bible translation is "the one and only correct one " 🙄
The triune God has a physical form the Angel of YHWH in the Old Testament Jesus the incarnate Logos in the New Testament the Father from which the Logos and the Spirit eternally proceed is the distinct person within the Godhead that can’t be seen.
Dan! Fabulous books recommended but not everybody can do 3d books. Please be more inclusive and actively encourage authors to ensure their books are universally accessible. That means ebooks and audio versions.
I believe that if any sentence in the Bible couldn't absolutely be picked apart by every scholar from those who witnessed the executions of Peter and Paul in Rome to this professor here on TH-cam today from Oxford or wherever he is from. Then it wouldn't be worth the paper it was printed on. OR in my case the Iphone glass and plastic from which the words glow. That the whole point of the endeavor, through the ages, by GOD is to inspire and compel one's FAITH to HIM through Christ Jesus. If any solid proof could be mustered from that book, or scrolls or ancient inscriptions on a knights shield covering his body in his tomb, then it would undermine the mustard seed of Faith required for us to meet HIM. Perhaps this medium is the only one where Professor McClellan's students come to him willingly versus whatever class he make's them sit through lectures on. I don't know. But I can say that if I were Atheist, I would be delighted in the revelations learnt in Theology. 1 CORINTHIANS 1:18 Can't wait for that debate with Jordan Peterson. LOL.
So he has a PhD, but he isn't a professor and I don't think he ever was one. He is a scholar who has worked on translations and scripture analysis as a career and now does what you see here. Jordan Peterson and him have very similar frameworks, besides the differences in their expertise. There probably wouldn't be much to debate, only discuss.
So of god left no evidence deliberately then how is it fair for people to be tortured forever for not believing something that had no evidence? Why is faith the test? Basically god is testing how gullible people are and the most gullible pass.
There is a huge different between saying "I have faith that this is a true and accurate reflection of reality" and "this is a true and accurate reflection of reality". Of course you're free to believe whatever you want based on as little evidence as you want, but the moment you want other people to agree with you then you're going to need something stronger than that to be able to convince them.
Here’s where Dan is wrong, if Dan came across a living thing called god and it’s appearance had this. 1 eye 1 horn it is a giant with purple skin and can fly and ate people Dan would have to undeniably admit he just met god not just because it’s a kewl B52 song BUT!! if you took the collective descriptions in parts of scriptures then that’s what you end up with, giant one eyed one horned flying purple people eater.
Ok. As a life-long Christian; listening to this dude; professor; whatever his credentials or education; I get the impression, that he is trying really hard to explain that there is nothing divine in any of the biblical text - that it is all literally just a matter of interpretation. Not just this interpretation, of American English in the 21st century but the interpretation of all the languages it has been written in from the ink or blood of the the one who first wrote it down to the digital text that appears on my Iphone in my face at this moment. "God inspired" would imply that it lives through the generations. That the WORD was with GOD as much as it IS GOD and likewise existed before time as much so as after it. If the written text of the Bible could dissuade the FAITH that it is all designed to INSPIRE in every human, then it couldn't be picked apart by the Academic's of the world from this Professor to those standing around in Rome watching Peter and Paul get executed then debating if their screams were in Greek or Aramaic and what philosophical effect they would have.
There is your difficulty. You are trying to diminish data driven scholarly consensus to elevate your belief and dogma driven religious affiliation. If that mindset always prevailed as it does too often especially in fundamentalist belief systems, then education and science would be relegated much as is happening in some US schools and sadly to a greater extent by groups like the Taliban in Afghanistan.
We don't need to "try" to show there's "nothing divine" in the Bible. The Bible is old fiction. Clearly, and obviously. It's stories thought up by ancient people who had little understanding of their small corner of the world and literally no understanding of anything beyond the earth. Why anyone today goes to ancient goat herders for a guide to the universe is beyond me. Don't be butthurt that rest of us figured this out already and you haven't.
What IGNORANCE ! The word "spirit" in scripture is a METAPHOR for the "MIND" . "God is Spirit" ( John 4:24 ).......God is MIND ( Thought and Consciousness ) NOT some entity "out there" somewhere . The Hebrew word is "ruach" and means "breath" or wind . The Greek word is "pneuma" and means "air" . Is God "breath" ? NO Is God "wind" ? NO Is God "air" ? NO When our breath, wind or air goes past our "two edged sword" ( another metaphor for our TONGUE ) we form a "WORD" that reveals our THOUGHTS, our "heart" ( another metaphor for our WILL of mind ). "In the beginning was the WORD ( Greek = Logos = REVEALED THOUGHT ) and the Word was with God and the Word was God." ( John 1:1 ) "The WORD of God is ALIVE, powerful and sharper than any two edged sword, piercing and dividing even unto the soul (flesh) and spirit (mind), the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the THOUGHTS and intents of the heart ( will of mind ) . " ( Hebrews 4:12 )
The Latter-day Saints have it correct about what kind of being God is as God and his son comes from the Kingdom of the glory of the Sun and the clue there is given by Jesus when he says 'Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father' clues of this are given in the transfiguration of Jesus and his Apostles. They have it also correct when they teach for doctrine that God the Father had sent his Son Jesus down to earth to become a Savior and that he and his Son both look alike like a pair of twins (Hebrews 1:3). Because the Son of God is on on the right hand of the Father in glory next to the Father up in heaven. Actually the spirit energy radiates out from God the Father's Bossom and fills up the universe. Allowing God the Father to be omnipresent and know all things and have all things before him continually. past, present and future. And the Son of God has the same resurrected body as the Father for the Son of God was formed in the Father's own image and likeness out of self-existing eternal intelligence.
@@germanslice ......"Father" = MIND ( Infinite, Ineffable, Incomprehensible, Invisible, Pure and Perfect Divine MIND ) "Mother" = THOUGHT ( Holy (set apart) Spirit, Mother of ALL life , Giving "Birth" to All Things ) " Son" (Child) = CONSCIOUSNESS ( The Conception of The Union of Mind and Thought, The "Word" ( Logos = Revealed Thought ) of the Father/Mother, The Creator of All Concepts of Life and Being ) This is the TRUE "Holy Trinity" or One "Spirit" (MIND) that is "God". "Hear O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is One"
Dude wants a factual untruth from the bible? Sure, no problem. Bats are not birds, a statement in the bible says they are. Apologists need to stop projecting their beliefs, every time they do it's so easy to dismantle the argument I feel sorry for them.
![TEEDEE TADA - DIAMOND NARAKORN X LEGO LYKN [Special Dance Performance]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/QgtZedFeumA/mqdefault.jpg)
You just summed up the real force behind the popularity of religion:
"....You just have to gin up the tiniest sliver of not impossible. That's usually enough for people who are longing for a reason to feel justified in their agreement....."
It's maybe also worth pointing out that that was a very clear and immediate goalpost shift at 2:30. The assertion being responded to was "OT says these two saw God face to face"/"John and 1 Timothy say nobody has/can seen God" and the apologetic response was "Nobody has seen God _in his full glory"_ which is... a cool story, but not what they said... it's really a major step away from what they actually said.
John says no one has ever seen God _or even directly understood God_ and it's through Jesus' actions in the time of the gospels that God has been made known, and 1 Timothy says it is physically impossible that anyone has or ever can see God. You can't make someone correct by asserting that that they meant something that is different than what they said - that's just substituting a different answer while pretending you aren't. And claiming it's just about seeing God "fully" when John is putting forward a narrative that not only has nobody ever seen God, nobody's ever even properly _recognised_ God, and 1 Timothy is putting forward the notion that it's not possible to see _any_ of God... that's just ignoring the text and the question and substituting a different goal instead.
Except that none of the bible is to be divided up that way. The church catholic has the authority to interpret scripture because it created, edited, and compiled it. As a volume, the bible was brought together based on old stories it collected together. As such, it can't be pulled apart. The scripture reflects the teaching of the church, because the church chose what was and was not canonical. Any attempt to understand the bible as a volume, or single, final work, outside of the church is bound to fail. I feel like Dan's entire channel should be addressed to people who think you can read the Bible alone apart from the church that created it.
@@micah3209 So... because the church put disparate texts together in one volume, and made edits to them, we should ignore that the Bible as a whole says actively contradictory things?
Also which church? Because by your logic, most, if not all, modern churches are using the Bible invalidly.
@micah3209 some Christians: the bible is the inspired word of God passed down through time
This guy: catholics have the authority to modify (the words of god... i.e. it's the word of the catholic church.
Related: the parts of the Bible's history Dan is talking about seem to happen _before_ the catholic church came into existence so they aren't so relevant.
He does bring up that part of the book's history when it *is* relevant.
I would say merch with "Alright, Let's See It" would sell well, but I am afraid of what I would be unable to unsee if I wore it in public.
I think you’d want to specify the it. “Let’s see the data” might be better for a t-shirt.
In that case your only worry is coming across Brent Spinner.
As an Atheist i will go to hell regardless, so i guess i might as well wear that to a strip club? xD
😂
I've heard rabbinic drashot that say, "No, Moses, you can't see my face, but I'll moon you."
😂
😂😂
This discussion of performative apologetics cannot be repeated often enough.
Dan is Sgt. Friday from Dragnet... "Just the facts, ma'am."
It just occurred to me that tying the Hebrew bible to the NT is like making a connection between famous artists from the Renaissance & the animated Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles!
I spent multiple decades doing exactly this lol
There is a connection though, the turtles are named after Renaissance and Mannerist masters.
Likewise, Jesus as messiah in the NT is pulling from other Jesuses and mythology around apocalypses in the Tanakh.
@@rainbowkrampus I don't mean to be snarky, but I'm pretty sure that's exactly their point here.
The New Testament is Testament 2.0...................many bugs were fixed.
We're way overdue for Testament 3.0 (The "latest and greatest").
The New Testament is Testament 2.0...................many bugs were fixed.
We're way overdue for Testament 3.0 (The "latest and greatest").
@@machonsote918 Many will argue that v3.0 has already been released. And v4.0. And...
In the words of Taylor Swift: "You are not the exception. You will never learn your lesson." (This is going to the apologists.)
@move_i_got_this5659Well i guess your in for a surprise🫢
The great philosopher for our time
@move_i_got_this5659 heaven is bullshit.
I will give up porn when the apologists give up apologetics. My hobby is safe. I won’t say it’s in God’s hands because that’s gross. I don’t think God would appreciate it.
I studied Catholic apologetics for over 20 years and I completely agree with the way that Dan describes apologetics. That was demonstrated to me when I invited a couple of friendly Jehovah's Witnesses in for tea and friendly conversation one afternoon. The next week my dad (who was the driving force of apologetics in my family) told them to leave and not come back. He actively avoided people whose beliefs didn't align with his, even when presented with clear evidence!
"Pile of Dogmas" sounds like what the title of your podcast should have been. Sounds like a good segment though.
Dog/Ma is a boy’s best friend.
@MarcosElMalo2, it's Danny boy's best friend.
This video is full of useful references! Much appreciated!
Thanks again, Dan.
Wow, this is enlightening. Thank you so much Dan for taking the time to explain these things. I am a lifelong atheist. Never believed ever in a god, gods or other supernatural beings and I find it sometimes difficult to rebut the relentless flood of unsubstantiated claims from those who do. I very much appreciate the surgical precision with which you dissect all of the nonsense that people spout about the bible.
By the standard of the Christian apologist no books contradict, but they only apply that standard to the bible.
Btw, if a Christians says that Jesus was clothed in humanity, then he or she says a heresy, suggesting that the incarnation was about God's being covered behind human form, while the Council of Chalcedon directly said that Jesus has two "two natures without confusion, without change, without division, without separation".
Cowabunga, Dan! Thanks for the scholarship!
Hi Dan. Thanks another brilliant and honest discussion. Please continue your battle apologetic disinformation. Respect🙏🙏.
The fascinating thing is that we get to see the cultural and sort of era specific impressions that people have of god in action with apologists, like the one Dan replies to in this video.
Apologist are often forced to retcon what people believed 3000 years ago, because back then, a god without a physical body probably would have been considered little more valuable, religiously speaking, than a Marvel character is today.
In today's western society, a god who has a physical body might be no more valuable than a Marvel character, so our apologists graft their own westernized 21st century understanding onto Middle Eastern cultures who lived thousands of years ago. Whereas back then, the westernized 21st century depiction of god may have been just as valueless as a serious consideration.
Its just fascinating to watch the war of ideas the present has with the past within religion.
Today's believers say the Revere all these ancient characters and their ideals, but do they? Would they? Could they?😳
And people needed their familes to remember them or they would cease to exist. Gods needed people to be pious to the or they cease to exist.
Though i would make the argument to Dan that gods were bimodal, that they had a kind of anchorage in their temple(s) and a spiritual presence in the divine council. Anu is the possible exception because he was booted from Eanna at the end of the 24th century allowing him to be a kind if distributed mountain god under the banner of El. We see representative sites like Beth El, probably set up for sacrifice, and there are bronze statues of El found about canaan. But I think for your typical Israelite El was everywhere outside of the major settlements, but the tabernacle sites were set aside for the priest to entertain contributions and request for help.
Thus a god could represent two forms at once, one tied to temple traditions and another tied to his function within mesopotamian culture as a whole.
@@Darisiabgal7573Thus a snake without a larynx could talk and thus a horse could fly a rider to the moon 800k km round trip. 😉
I feel like you’re working really hard there to not come across as condescendingly as you feel towards this creator. That’s not an attack; I get it, and I think that you’re right - he’s just coming up with whatever BS he thinks is needed to make the believer feel as though they have a good enough argument that they can continue to ignore the real world.
I didn't catch any condescension. I thought he spoke clearly and plainly, thoughtfully, and authoritatively. Maybe that is what you are picking up on there, the authority part. It can rub the wrong way, but when you have collected as much knowledge as Dan has apparently spent his life doing, he is just reporting the consensus. He isn't casting a superior attitude, he is casting superior knowledge.
@@scottyvanantwerp that last sentence - Whew! I'm definitely stealing lol
Can we also understand that this is the same reason in the resurrection they thought he was a spirit as well? And he explained that spirit has no flesh.
I hope to get an answer, thanks Dan!
I'm not Dan, but I think we can see from the context there that they are talking about the Greco-Roman form of spirit, i.e. a ghost. The text uses pneuma, as in wind or breath, whereas the Hebrew word usually translated as spirit/soul is Nefesh which is a decidedly physical thing. I hope that answers at least some of your question. Dan isn't usually super active in the comment section.
I wouldn`t be surprised if nobody has ever seen something that clearly isn`t there
But you know God isn't there: because you like defending that your intelligence ultimately came from nonintelligence.
@@davidjanbaz7728 Emergent properties will necessarily come from something that did not have those properties
Jacob is like, "What? I didn't wrestle God? Then who dislocated my hip and why am I super blessed all of a sudden??"
It quite easy from a Two Powers in Heaven Israelite theology of God.
There is the invisible YHWH the Father who if you did see his face would cause you to die.
And The Pre-incarnate Jesus the visible YHWH who was seen in the Old Testament by Moses, Jacob, Joshua, Gideon and Samson's parents.
Dan's progressive Mormonism/ liberal scholarship is just ignorant of the actual correct interpretations and his 19th century redactions R the Maximumalists New B.S.
The Visible YHWH( Pre-incarnate Jesus) is a different person than the Invisible YHWH the Father.
Both persons of YHWH R in Genesis 19:24.
It solves Dan's Dogma of no univocal voice of Scripture: when actually it's a voice of a choir all singing their parts in harmony.
The incorporeal God is understood in the Hellenistic period, and completely permeates the NT, from Paul's Epistles to the Gospel of John. It also isn't inconsistent with the later prophets.
We
are
Spirits in the material world 🎶
I have seen God. When I was first saved he appeared to me in a vision behind a silver cloud with orange lightening rippling through it. He was a blinding white light behind the cloud. He spoke to me and my life has never been the same since.
Can you prove it?
_"in a vision"_ Ain't that always the case.
"It makes more sense that...", is almost invariably followed by something they've made up which makes them feel comfortable and justified but which has very little basis in anything legitimate: it sounds right so it is right.
Dan's 3 separate 🐢 gods shirt is perfect!
Looks like the Turtles are winning the T-shirt battle
This is the problem with 'trinitarians'! They claim ( which the bible doesnt!) that 'Jesus is God'. Since people SAW him with their own eyes, how could he be 'God' since the bible states more than once "NO ONE HAS SEEN GOD AT ANY TIME" ( John 1:18, John 5:37, 1 John 4:12. God also told Moses "No one can see my face and yet live"). We only "See" God & Christ by Faith NOT sight!
Dan, Please do an equivalent series detailing misconceptions about the writings of Joseph Smith.
i.e. The Book of Mormon.
Thank you.
He doesn't talk about Mormonism, especially his personal beliefs. I think there were a total of 2 videos where he even mentions it.
@@mush930 Too bad.
Mormonism could certainly use a rational and impartial critique.
@@peterblock6964 I know. I've asked him multiple times.
It's a global human defect, @@mush930.
Everyone wants to be objective only with the "other."
Whether politics, religion, business, team, tribe, race, family, etc.,
it's very rare that the objective intellect is allowed to point at one's own group.
It is extremely unfortunate.
Once we can start doing that, every human institution will start improving and evolving,
(or yes-sometimes dissolving if having outlived its usefulness).
Of course if we believe OUR particular institution or group doesn't need evolving but is rather already "perfect" in its knowledge, understanding, and expression, it makes sense to hide any flaws that might contradict that delusion and instead focus on highlighting the "mote in everyone else's eye."
Perhaps one day Dan will "man up."
@@peterblock6964 There's a channel called Nemo the Mormon who critiques the LDS church from an insider perspective. He's worth a watch.
Thanks! Now I have to go outside a pick up the piles of dogma in the backyard😂
Charlton Heston kinda freaked out when god said "I am that I am. Tell them I am has sent you". That's some profound shit right there.😂
Why does this video cut off unexpectedly?
This explains why -wait, hear me out!- we call a good man a mensch and good men (people) call God “Gosh”.
Very refreshing facts on the matter
If we identify and reject the claim of univocality, then we don't need to read all those cited texts about God's anatomy.
Big fan! Love Ur content
As David Bentley Hart has recently written, spirit is not the opposite of physical even in the Greco-Roman roman period.
At 9:08, when Dan said, "a pile of dogmas" I thought, for a split second, that the sentence was going to finish as, "a pile of dog shit"... But, of course, Dan would never. 😄
I think your last point basically sums it up. How can you discuss whether there are any contradictions or anything wrong in the bible when everything is dismissed as there can't be any contradictions?
He even admits that the author(s) of Exodus contradict themselves, but then just dismisses it with "the author would never contradict himself."
Well that settles it, I guess. Even if it is a contradiction, it isn't a contradiction because there are no contradictions in the bible. See how easy that is?
And the whole "it wasn't God it was a physical manifestation of God" is about the silliest thing ever. Of course, it also is difficult to rationalize with the trinity, as the spirit/God the father/Jesus are all God. And, of course, there is no basis for the argument that Jacob wrestled with Jesus other than post-hoc rationalization.
I think it would be easier if they just decided that the letters of John are messing up the theology. That is also where we find the claim that God is love. Meanwhile, Paul tells us that love is not jealous. Then again, everywhere throughout the bible we know that God is jealous. All three cannot be true (and the word for love is agape for both Paul and John). Just give up the letters of John and it works better.
What if I find one good man ?
Well the text, in reference to Jacob, uses the word Angel, it was Gods Angel, and therefore humans would believe this was God… just like in Judges, where they see the angel of God and think they are going to pass away for seeing God
I mean this everything means Jesus was what got me into delving into the word to the extent I do… Angel of the lord is Jesus, the entire OT is written because of Jesus and so on…
I believe what the OT, says regarding [Moses meeting with G-d, face to face], like friends at the Tabernacle, which apparently happened with some regularity.
Well Adam and Eve walked with him in the Garden of Eden. Heck, they even hid from him.
I'm afraid to speak that authoritatively without a phd in biblical studies
I need some LETS SEE IT Merch
People have seen God which is Jesus. Whether you choose to accept or reject him is up to you. Free will baby!
No it isn't
That's a Pauline idea which is not found in the original religion.
The notion that “God is not really like us is evidence that...Christians have appropriated Plato...Take away Plato from Christianity, and...you will end up with something very much
like the Mormon conception of the divine.” Stephen H Webb.
What’s wrong with Plato being correct? Does that harm Christianity?
When the Gospel of Dan gets published can I get a signed copy please?
/j
I will always wonder about how you finished that last sentence.
Thats a lot of jaw jackin goin on. The bible on one page say nobody seen bible god and on the next page it says Moses saw bible god face to face. Without 36 years of college and 47,000 miles of traveling and the ability to speak 19 different languages, this is a dam contradiction.
Thanks!
7:46 Jacob vs time-travelling Jesus
Wouldn’t it make sense that God would have a physical body if we are created in his image?
Only if you assume “image” includes physical image.
Moses can say he spoke to God face to face by his interaction with the burning bush. However it is very different to be face to face with God in his presence of infinite power. God does not actually have a face.
Gah! Cut off at the 10-minute mark! 😞
Neither of those scriptures give any reason to believe that they meant anything more than what they said. 2here within the context of those scriptures does it say, or even imply that they were meant " in spirit "?
The guide to interpreting the bible:
1) If it is in the bible and is verifiable, and reflects positively, take it literally.
2) If it is in the bible and is verifiable and is a problem, it must be a mistranslation, metaphor, or taken out of context.
3) If it is in the bible and is unverifiable,
a) if it reflects positively, take it literally
b) if it is a problem, it must be a mistranslation, metaphor, or taken out of context.
It's real easy.
@@flowingafterglow629 Also, if it is in the Bible and has not yet been addressed, then it should be taken literally. If later it can be shown to be false or impossible, with information to back up that it is false. Then it is now metaphorical
Every character that has seen God face to face seems to meet a second "person" of God.
Either Adam and Eve or Abraham meeting a physical "Lord", or different characters meeting The Angel of the Lord. You can make the argument either way that The Angel of the Lord is just an angel with the Word within Him, or a Theophany, but The Angel of the Lord is always a distinct character speaking with the characteristics normally seen in God.
(Genesis 3:8, God walks physically in the garden. Genesis 18 where Abraham speaks and feeds the Lord and his two angels. Genesis 16, 21, 22. where the Angel speaks to people who see him as God. Exodus 3 where the Angel calls himself the God of Moses' Fathers, etc etc)
Specifically in genesis 19, the chapter after the physical Lord meets Abraham and then goes down to Sodom after the other angels, the verse where the Lord burns Sodom is "Then the Lord rained down burning sulfur on Sodom and Gomorrah-from the Lord out of the heavens." Implying two "Lords"
or Psalm 110:1 Where David speaks of the Lord speaking to his Lord.
All of the characters who traditionally meet God and live are always meeting this theophany. This is the argument the author of John makes in 1:18:
"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared Him"
That every time someone has "seen God" they are actually seeing the Son.
just here for the ninja turtles
I saw God face to face.
According to Bob Bitchin, who was a contestant on Let's Make a Dope Deal, the way to see God is to play Black Sabbath at 78 speed. The background comments suggest it could also be Grand Funk.
Cheech and Chong were hilarious.
So have I. Over 10 years ago.
I might be mixing up some of my hostory, but I recall multiple Throne/Chariot Visions which are a manifestation of God's power and not to be taken as a literal manifestation of God.
Seeing God directly seems to be a nonsensical thought to in ancient Judaism.
Dan talks about this in his lecture on the Divine Council and the authors he mentions talk about it as well. The Jewish conception of God changed dramatically over the course of the OT period. Very early on, YHWH was a member of the polytheistic pantheon, subservient to El and Asherah his parents. He was clearly embodied and frequently dealt with humanity physically. He was only God over the land of Israel itself. Eventually the narrative shifts to Him being conflated with El and the removal of other Gods during Josiah's priestly reforms alongside the inputting of Angel into the text to make "The Angel of the Lord." This appears to retcon the older texts so as to be more palatable to their more modern understanding of God as not physical, or at least not present deity.
The distinction as "real", mystical and mythical gets muddled with time. But yes depending on ones magick and deep seated desires you can see god. At least what you think is god, but thats part of the magick. The point about people being terrified is to distinguish it from a dream or imagination and a literary device, though I sure there were probably a few people who thought they saw god as their brain was crashing at the end of their life.
Again as a mystic, trying to vision seek god is a desire for delusions, and i recommend not trying. Moreover mysticism is not for everyone and certainly not for people who think its an amusement park ride in heaven. The focal point of magick (whether object, chant based, tantra, of amulets) is to use that which is special for "inspiration" and invocation of ecstatic state were the brains can bring up imagry that often reflects the magical inspiration. Garbage in garbage out.
Sun stopped in the sky. - joshua
That never happened. Had it occurred the physics involved would have been world-ending.
I guess the ultimate point here, is why we care about academic consensus? If the Jewish and later Christian community is ultimately responsible for editing and redacting scripture, and that community is ultimately the one essentially telling the story and explaining what it means, why bother with people who dissect what the church deems to be fundamentally a single work? This approach of scholarship only works if you value the bible as a historical work alone with no authority to understand it. This is essentially the hyper-protestant idea.
I’ll venture a couple of reasons.
There is no monolithic Christian community speaking with one voice on what the story means. (Never mind that the Jewish and Christian communities differ strongly on how these texts should be interpreted and even which texts are the authoritative or holy ones.)
How can you then determine which interpretation is correct? Flip a coin? Go with your gut? Figure out how and when and by whom the texts were developed?
These communities make claims about how the world should work based on these texts. We could just accept what they say or we can dig into the texts to see if they support their interpretation. The classic case is slavery and, more generally, the development of human morality.
In short, how can you claim to understand something if you don’t know what it says?
@diogeneslamp8004 in Christianity there was a way to resolve differences between competing ideas within the church: ecumenical councils. This tradition goes back to Jerusalem, as exemplified in Acts 15 and subsequently throughout church history. Judaism had similar concepts. Because the Bible was defined by the church in an ecumenical council at Carthage, we know our scriptures come down to us through the church and under its authority. You cannot interpret the scriptures apart the authority that created them to begin with. The confusion you see today is the result of people choosing to go their own way and turn Christianity into a DIY project. This includes the confusion created by those who look to dice the scriptures up into a slurry of contradictory nonsense.
@@micah3209
So were the Protestants justified in their criticisms of the Roman Catholic Church? Did those criticisms justify in turn their subsequent translations of the texts? Or earlier, who is the true keeper of the authentic Christian tradition, the RCC or the Orthodox Church? Which one gets to decide?
The question isn’t the dogmas that shaped the collection of texts we call the Bible. The question is, do the texts support the dogmas? The RCC isn’t necessarily an unbiased party in this question.
@@diogeneslamp8004 The problem with the Catholic/Orthodox split is that it has effectively frozen the Church in the year 1054, which was initiated by both sides refusing to hold an ecumenical council to sort out their differences. This is fine, though, as Christian doctrine was already established by 1054, and what remains is the ecclesiastical differences between the western and eastern wings of the church. It is not fine, in that the church is now split into two sides that refuse to talk to each other. I'm one of many working for a reconciliation. Protestants were justified in criticizing doctrines like purgatory, papal infallibility, the Bishop of Rome being the sole rule of faith, etc. These are not the traditions of the unified church, but western inventions. Where they were not right, is claiming the doctrine of sola scriptura, that the bible can be interpreted independently of the Church, and their disregard for the traditions of the Church that gave them the bible to begin with.
As for whether the texts support the dogmas of the unified, Orthodox Church? Yes, they do. They were specifically selected and edited to reflect the teaching of the Church, if properly understood and read in the light of both all scripture and all tradition. You can think of the bible as the transmission of the Church's beliefs, from ancient times to present. It not only shaped which books were canonized, but are the authoritative light in which they can be read as a single, living document. You can take any verse in isolation and you can make it say virtually anything you want. Protestants and other schismatics have been doing this for years. There is no bible apart from the Church, and no interpretation reached without the Church. Scripture is just one small part of the whole body Orthodox teaching.
@@micah3209
So now what about Greek versus Russian versus whatever other flavor within the Orthodox Church?
When are you going to make your videos in landscape 🤨
How evil is a god that kills you if you see him? An all powerful god either should be happy for you to see him or have the ability to keep you from seeing him.
It’s a mystery. What God does is beyond our capacity of understanding. We know He is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, so what God does is what is best.
People are told not to to do things and then they disobey and die.
Sometimes the laws of physics simply are the laws of physics
If I stand near the sun, do you think I'll survive? Of course not. It's not a matter of love or no love. It's just that you can't stand near the sun and survive. How much more so is that true of the one who made the sun?
It is vital that we read what this man said about Genesis in context. The Hebrew people spoke of angels who represented God as if they had spoken to God. But if we read all their words it is clear they knew it was an angel. Who am I to judge them for speaking of representatives as if they are the one they represent?
I'll give you an example - imagine I get off the phone and my wife says "who were you talking to?" If I respond "I was talking to my dad" then technically she could say "but no one was with you in the room, so technically you were actually speaking with a microphone and a speaker that just so happened to link to another microphone and speaker that your dad has", well, yes, technically she would be right. I was speaking to a microphone, not to my actual dad. But in reality, in our age and culture we don't take issue with a man on the phone saying"I'm talking to my dad" even if his dad is miles away and he's really talking to a phone.
So just as we speak of a phone as if it's the person right there in the room, so too these ancient people openly spoke of God's representatives as if it were God right there. But if we read all they wrote we come to the right conclusion that they knew what we know - it was God's representative they were speaking to as if it were God himself
They were just as intelligent as we are
@@JuanMPalacio you speak very confidently that you “know” things but I’m wondering how it is you know that. I’m thinking that the word “know“ doesn’t mean what you think it means.
@@truth.speaker very imaginative interpretation. But in my mind there’s something missing in your example. The husband and the wife, in all probability, had actually at one or more times seen the father that he says he’s talking to on the phone. If the wife had never met the father, if she only knew of the father indirectly by what her husband told him, she may very well doubt that there actually is a living father.
@loso2751 but it is in the Bible. Directly. Hosea 12:4-5
Here is the Hebrew text of Hosea 12:4-5:
הוּא יָבַט־בְּיַעֲקֹב בְּעָבוּרָיו וְיִגְּדֶנּוּ יְדֵי־אָדָם עָלָיו
בְּאַל־מָחָז נָאַתָּה אֵל
וַיָּרָב עִם־מַלְאָךְ וַיֻּכָל בָּכָה
וַיְתַחֲנוּ־לוֹ בֵּיתֵל וְשָׁם יִֽדַבְּרֵנוּ
Transliteration:
Hu yavat-be'Ya'akov be'avurav ve'yiggedennu yedei-adam alav
Be'al-machaz na'atah El
Va'yarav im-mal'ach va'yukhal bakha
Va'yitachanu-lo Beit-El ve'sham yidabberenu.
English Translation:
He struggled with an angel and prevailed;
He wept and sought his favor.
He found him at Bethel,
And there He spoke with us
Algormancy!
In Torah Judaism we are not supposed to "see" HaShem .
Not a man god or star a object .
I saw God, just won't tell you where he is... its a secret
Is it? Is it close to the Golden (Pearly) Gate(s) of the Ecliptic?
Of course there’s anthropomorphic language in the scripture. This way is humans can relate better with God. When we use words like “He” well we should know that God has no gender right? Or when God states he’s a jealous God. I feel God is using words that we humans can relate with. In Other words he somewhat needs to get on our level so we can 6:21 understand. And yes ppl who try to disprove the Bible do this stuff all the time. Such as Matthew states this while mark states something diff. That doesn’t necessarily make the text wrong, or that someone is lying. Simply could be the writer didn’t include that part and was focused on a different part. It cracks me up how ppl try to prove the Bible wrong not realizing how many translations there are and how languages change over time. They read a text written in NIV as if it’s the scripture Moses himself wrote. There will be discrepancies in the text. Especially after it’s been rewrote for past 4500 yrs. But the message is the same as with the purpose of salvation
Gods were created in people's image, either through anthropomorphization or through imbuing them with human traits. As for the gods behaviors, different authors present things differently to make the deities better fit their worldviews, (either actual or stated); that's why I think it makes little sense to look for a single, coherent message in any of these texts.
YHWH is Enlil / El. An Annunaki "god". Yes many have seen him face to face. The true GOD is the one Jesus spoke of the "Father" (creator of all) and came to tell us about.
Ignorance and error seem to be the human way!
Tell em' Dan! Tell them the truth!
The true father is complete unconditional love without judgement!
El is not one of the Annunaki. He is the head of the west Semitic pantheon whereas Enlil is part of the east Semitic pantheon. Linguistically associated, but not the same as Dan has discussed on numerous occasions. Also, YHWH was not originally El. In super-early Judaism, we can see that they considered YHWH to be part of the pantheon and a child of El like Baal. As time went on, they merged El and YHWH to become the later understanding of God as being God of the whole earth and there being no others. It is also clear from the text of the NT, and early Christian tradition, that they understood God the Father to be the same as YHWH.
YHWH is an arabian volcano god tied to the Cult of Enki. During the late bronze age it was transformed by Midianite tribes. But the qualites of El came later, and probably a fair amount of borrowing from hadat traditions.
By the time of the monarchy, Enlil was pretty much a dead god. His powers of war were emasculated by Sargon, they helped set up the city of Adad (Ba'al in the bible). And the war god role is taken over by Ishtar. Enlil is replaced by Asshur in Assyria and Marduk in Babylon.
The primary escalation of gods role occurred when king Yosiah threw the relics of El and Asherah out of the temple and destroyed all the alters (sacrificial sites) outside of Jerusalem.
Although the menorah appears to be a remnant of asherah worship.
Are your ideas about the Bible inspired by an Archangel?
It could have been any of the X-Men, really.
Consider Yahweh, a member of the devine council, inhabitant of the earth, a real physical being and predisposed to killing any man to lay eyes on him.
Then consider Abba father, (whom no man has seen), as Jesus described him, not like Yahweh in nature at all. A completely different person despite the christian narrative. There's no contradiction here.
I like many of Dan's videos. But here, he reveals his own theological bias and presuppositions. One can 'see' God with eyes of understanding or through his agents who represent him, like the ones who have his name in them.
That is why Jess could say that those who had seen him had seen the Father. Jesus was not claiming to be the Father or God, but one who reflected God's image.
I thought Moses just saw God's backside.
In the bible that would be true.
In reality Moses never existed, he is a myth.
being well versed in bible stories without the truth being considered as a factor, is like being well versed in ninja turtles stories. kinda interesting but not an indication of truth.
Except how the bible has profoundly influenced western civilisation - therefore incredibly worth studying if you’re a believer or not (I’m not)
@@vmonk2 are you saying the bible influenced or the people used it as a justification? or maybe a mix? lol that would be more of an anthropological study of the impact of false beliefs where theology was a subset. im speaking of the failure of biblical scholars to consider how reality impacted the biblical assertions. ffs this dude is a magician that cant preface his assertions with "it is imagination not reality" rolling around with "physical is not really physical and spirit is not really spirit" and he is a freaking expert of the highest order on the topic. freaking theist language abusers and silly games. lol
God is quite able to reveal itself in different ways and meanings. That is what makes the god of the bible more plausible. A multiple faceted personality and imagery.
The Bible may be thought of as being God’s word but it was still written by imperfect men.
9:07 NGL I thought you were gonna say DOGshit
0:28 Those are not even the best verses. You have Adam and Eve walking and talking with God. God came to the garden in person.
I love seeing that lil boy get shut down..No other creator irritates me like him
Ive been watching your videos for a few weeks and you never really speak of your beliefs, of things you take on faith. Do you have any beliefs that you take on faith? If so what are they?
Proving the Bibles claims by using the Bible.....are you freaking serious? This is your "my cultural preferred version of invisible supernatural superbeeing" and denomination plus favorite Bible translation is "the one and only correct one "
🙄
The triune God has a physical form the Angel of YHWH in the Old Testament Jesus the incarnate Logos in the New Testament the Father from which the Logos and the Spirit eternally proceed is the distinct person within the Godhead that can’t be seen.
To know why no leaf falls randomly is to know what God looks like.
But leaves do fall randomly
It's an old bearded man in a tunic, with a triangular halo with an eye inside above his head. Everybody knows that.
Because YHWH isn't God, he is Satan. This isn't hard.
That's not far off from what the the original Christian theology taught.
Dan! Fabulous books recommended but not everybody can do 3d books. Please be more inclusive and actively encourage authors to ensure their books are universally accessible. That means ebooks and audio versions.
ποιος ειδε το θεο και δεν τον φοβηθηκε!
I prefer my god ineffable. Saves a lot of time and effort.
I believe that if any sentence in the Bible couldn't absolutely be picked apart by every scholar from those who witnessed the executions of Peter and Paul in Rome to this professor here on TH-cam today from Oxford or wherever he is from. Then it wouldn't be worth the paper it was printed on. OR in my case the Iphone glass and plastic from which the words glow. That the whole point of the endeavor, through the ages, by GOD is to inspire and compel one's FAITH to HIM through Christ Jesus. If any solid proof could be mustered from that book, or scrolls or ancient inscriptions on a knights shield covering his body in his tomb, then it would undermine the mustard seed of Faith required for us to meet HIM. Perhaps this medium is the only one where Professor McClellan's students come to him willingly versus whatever class he make's them sit through lectures on. I don't know. But I can say that if I were Atheist, I would be delighted in the revelations learnt in Theology.
1 CORINTHIANS 1:18
Can't wait for that debate with Jordan Peterson. LOL.
So he has a PhD, but he isn't a professor and I don't think he ever was one. He is a scholar who has worked on translations and scripture analysis as a career and now does what you see here. Jordan Peterson and him have very similar frameworks, besides the differences in their expertise. There probably wouldn't be much to debate, only discuss.
So of god left no evidence deliberately then how is it fair for people to be tortured forever for not believing something that had no evidence? Why is faith the test? Basically god is testing how gullible people are and the most gullible pass.
There is a huge different between saying "I have faith that this is a true and accurate reflection of reality" and "this is a true and accurate reflection of reality". Of course you're free to believe whatever you want based on as little evidence as you want, but the moment you want other people to agree with you then you're going to need something stronger than that to be able to convince them.
"Don't ask us to PROVE our magic man, just trust us bro."
Lol
No one has seen God because he is imaginary.
Here’s where Dan is wrong, if Dan came across a living thing called god and it’s appearance had this. 1 eye 1 horn it is a giant with purple skin and can fly and ate people Dan would have to undeniably admit he just met god not just because it’s a kewl B52 song BUT!! if you took the collective descriptions in parts of scriptures then that’s what you end up with, giant one eyed one horned flying purple people eater.
B52 song? Isn't that Sheb Wooley?
@@flowingafterglow629 you’re right. For some reason I keep thinking it was the B52s . My apologies.
Ok. As a life-long Christian; listening to this dude; professor; whatever his credentials or education; I get the impression, that he is trying really hard to explain that there is nothing divine in any of the biblical text - that it is all literally just a matter of interpretation. Not just this interpretation, of American English in the 21st century but the interpretation of all the languages it has been written in from the ink or blood of the the one who first wrote it down to the digital text that appears on my Iphone in my face at this moment.
"God inspired" would imply that it lives through the generations. That the WORD was with GOD as much as it IS GOD and likewise existed before time as much so as after it. If the written text of the Bible could dissuade the FAITH that it is all designed to INSPIRE in every human, then it couldn't be picked apart by the Academic's of the world from this Professor to those standing around in Rome watching Peter and Paul get executed then debating if their screams were in Greek or Aramaic and what philosophical effect they would have.
There is your difficulty. You are trying to diminish data driven scholarly consensus to elevate your belief and dogma driven religious affiliation.
If that mindset always prevailed as it does too often especially in fundamentalist belief systems, then education and science would be relegated much as is happening in some US schools and sadly to a greater extent by groups like the Taliban in Afghanistan.
When and how does one become a life long christian if you are still alive?
We don't need to "try" to show there's "nothing divine" in the Bible. The Bible is old fiction. Clearly, and obviously. It's stories thought up by ancient people who had little understanding of their small corner of the world and literally no understanding of anything beyond the earth. Why anyone today goes to ancient goat herders for a guide to the universe is beyond me.
Don't be butthurt that rest of us figured this out already and you haven't.
What IGNORANCE !
The word "spirit" in scripture is a METAPHOR for the "MIND" .
"God is Spirit" ( John 4:24 ).......God is MIND ( Thought and Consciousness )
NOT some entity "out there" somewhere .
The Hebrew word is "ruach" and means "breath" or wind .
The Greek word is "pneuma" and means "air" .
Is God "breath" ? NO
Is God "wind" ? NO
Is God "air" ? NO
When our breath, wind or air goes past our "two edged sword" ( another metaphor for our TONGUE )
we form a "WORD" that reveals our THOUGHTS, our "heart" ( another metaphor for our WILL of mind ).
"In the beginning was the WORD ( Greek = Logos = REVEALED THOUGHT )
and the Word was with God and the Word was God."
( John 1:1 )
"The WORD of God is ALIVE, powerful and sharper than any two edged sword,
piercing and dividing even unto the soul (flesh) and spirit (mind), the joints and marrow,
and is a discerner of the THOUGHTS and intents of the heart ( will of mind ) . "
( Hebrews 4:12 )
The Latter-day Saints have it correct about what kind of being God is as God and his son comes from the Kingdom of the glory of the Sun and the clue there is given by Jesus when he says 'Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father' clues of this are given in the transfiguration of Jesus and his Apostles. They have it also correct when they teach for doctrine that God the Father had sent his Son Jesus down to earth to become a Savior and that he and his Son both look alike like a pair of twins (Hebrews 1:3). Because the Son of God is on on the right hand of the Father in glory next to the Father up in heaven.
Actually the spirit energy radiates out from God the Father's Bossom and fills up the universe. Allowing God the Father to be omnipresent and know all things and have all things before him continually. past, present and future. And the Son of God has the same resurrected body as the Father for the Son of God was formed in the Father's own image and likeness out of self-existing eternal intelligence.
@@germanslice ......"Father" = MIND ( Infinite, Ineffable, Incomprehensible, Invisible, Pure and Perfect Divine MIND )
"Mother" = THOUGHT ( Holy (set apart) Spirit, Mother of ALL life , Giving "Birth" to All Things )
" Son" (Child) = CONSCIOUSNESS ( The Conception of The Union of Mind and Thought,
The "Word" ( Logos = Revealed Thought ) of the Father/Mother,
The Creator of All Concepts of Life and Being )
This is the TRUE "Holy Trinity" or One "Spirit" (MIND) that is "God".
"Hear O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is One"
Dude wants a factual untruth from the bible? Sure, no problem. Bats are not birds, a statement in the bible says they are.
Apologists need to stop projecting their beliefs, every time they do it's so easy to dismantle the argument I feel sorry for them.
Hello my love ,idaddy has a direct line to me sadly 24/7 if anyone would like to know more? Barbelo (aka ashera)......blessed be 🕊️🤍🌹