Dan is on a roll today. The full Oscar Wilde quote is “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness” for anyone else who wasn’t aware
The fact that on his _very first_ "answer" he takes the specific statement "They said nothing to anyone" and flips it to claim that they were trying to keep a secret but then didn't... kinda gives his game away. It's not about actually engaging with what the text actually says, it's about him having an answer to "win" a perceived conflict he feels he is in with everyone else. The fact that in his second answer, he uses a verse that explicitly says _Moses_ saw God face to face, but he's doing it to try to prove that Jacob didn't so that he can finally prove that _nobody_ has seen God means he's just not a very clever man. Or maybe he was having so bad of a day that he didn't recognise that three verses none of which agree with each other is worse than two that don't agree with each other.
That kid really needs to stop making videos. As the proverb says, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt".
I'm so glad that there wasn't anything like UA-cam in the 80s and 90s. I already cringe when I think about the foolish and stupid things I did an said back then when I was this kids age. I'm so thankful I don't have to watch it over, knowing that I willingly recorded and published it.
I recommend that those who embrace the resurrection, to just lay out the resurrection stories and compare them. They are not reconcilable. In a court of law, these witnesses would be considered unreliable.
I’m not saying the gospels are without their issues historically, but to present the idea that a court of law in 21st century western society is somehow the primary arbiter of truth in our culture much less claims from an entirely different time and place is silly.
The way I understand the stories of the Resurrection is that they were composed from different recollections taken from different people different lengths of time after they witnessed what they witnessed. They disagree on who did or said what because the different witnesses remembered and retold different details, perhaps even incorrectly as memories faded. As long as you treat the Bible as a collection of documents written by fallible people instead of something inerrant and are willing to exercise epistemic humility in your faith, there's no need to reconcile every detail when the overarching themes agree.
Important to get the details straight, so thanks for this video. There are all kinds of other reasons, including misunderstanding scripture, why most Christian denominations are not worth being loyal to.
Even if this creator was correct, the video he's responding to is a woman expressing why she no longer believes. It's weird for him to interrogate her experience. It's no different than when someone says, "this is why I believe," and they get a bunch of "um actuallies" telling them why they're wrong.
It's an admonishment against readers, cult initiates in particular. Don't be like these guys, openly talking about things you're not supposed to. See how stupid and foolish they are? See how it winds up getting them into trouble? It happens three times to really reinforce the idea and then the disciples who keep causing trouble aren't even around to witness the resurrection. The obedient women do get to see it and the very last thing they or anyone does in the book is keep their mouths shut. Obedience and strategic silence are kinda big themes in Mark. I'm also pretty sure that Peter being called the rock on which the church will be built is meant as an insult. But I haven't found conclusive evidence that this way of being insulting, implying that someone is as stupid as a rock and that the church will grow atop their moldering corpse (implying that they were an impediment to its growth), was in common use back then. Though admittedly I haven't put a whole lot of effort into looking either.
It’s a literary device. Messianic expectations first century Judaism were legion and Jesus is portrayed in Mark as reframing Messianism through his sacrificial death on a Roman cross. The disciples struggle to understand this despite the explicit identifying of Jesus as the messiah (8:27-38).
@@diansc7322 Seems like it. But you'll also find that a lot of the practices you think of as relatively recent are actually ancient and we've just been recapitulating them over and over. Sometimes a practice dies out only to re-emerge later. We're all just humans, we may be different, but not that different.
It’s a common term in biblical scholarship about the gospel of mark. Jesus is always telling people not to tell anyone what he did or who he is… en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Secret#:~:text=The%20Messianic%20Secret%20is%20a,silence%20about%20his%20Messianic%20mission.
I think by “face to face” OP means to equate that phrase with the next line, “clearly and not in riddles,” so that face to face just means “clearly.” Which, naturally, contradicts when Jesus speaks in parables *so that they won’t understand.*
All I can say about this young content creator is that for an apologist he is not near as arrogant and abusive as "son of man" who is currently in a tear against Alex O'Connor in a response video on Biblical slavery.
@@sarban1653 - It may well be that Dan could have a reasonable exchange with Alex on numerous subjects where Alex, sadly, is quite uninformed. However, in the video I am referring to, "son of man" in addition to engaging in truly absurd and numerous logical fallacies, not the least of which simply ignoring what Alex actually said about Biblical slavery, engaged in a preposterous defense of slavery. Claiming that Biblical slavery did not include chattel slavery but only debt slavery in which all slaves were freed after which the slaves were all freed with all manner of "rewards" for their labor. He also argued that debt slavery was a superior method of dealing with the poor in our midst than any form of welfare currently practiced in modern secular society. Frankly, Alex's position was the better argument. Son of man's argument is simply put, if his god allows it then it is moral and good, and any attempt of "atheists" to argue otherwise is neither.
I'm not sure why Dan needs to disembowel Alex O'Connor when he is very much all about people not using the Bible as a code of conduct. And in the video that is reference, he actually got b**** Shapiro to admit that maybe we shouldn't be following the Bible 100% anyways. Alex O'Connor is not a bad guy so I'm not sure why you guys are approaching him with such hostility
@@AeonStaite First, I am not approaching Alex with hostility. I have been subscribed to his channel since he first started posting his videos. He was all of what, 14 or 15 back then? He is extremely smart, quite eloquent, and has excellent communication skills. I do not always agree with him on everything but I always listen to him and respect him. I have no hostility towards him whatsoever. Quite the contrary. Second, as you mentioned, Alex is taking apart Ben Shapiro in a video and doing an excellent job of it. The "son of man" video I referenced is a reaction video to the video between Alex and Ben. If son of man were ever actually to do a face-to-face interchange with Alex, it would not go well for son of man. But he will never do that because he is a coward. He prefers to strawman the person he is attacking, make a bunch of apologist arguments that would make Ben Shapiro cringe, and then like the proverbial pigeon on the chessboard, prance around declaring himself [and Jesus] the winner. Third, I would enjoy seeing an exchange between Alex and Dan though I doubt that will likely never happen, but if it did, it would be more of a conversation than a debate.. Alex has a background in philosophy. It has always been his forte. He is extremely good at making cogent arguments based on his background and analytical skills. However, my understanding is that he has no background at all in either Koine Greek or Biblical Hebrew. Nor does he have any background in critical studies of Biblical texts. He takes his understanding of the words of the Bible as they are expressed in modern English. So, he approaches his arguments in a very different manner, and without the background Dan does. I have no idea of how well-versed he is in the context of the biblical passages he addresses either in the internal context of the passage or in the external context of the society in which the passages were generated. One sees this in his interactions with people like Bart Ehrman. They both might agree on various points but they approach them from slightly different angles. Dan approaches his subjects in a different fashion.
Can you cover the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and how it informs modern apologetics, as well as what made its authors feel it was necessary?
not sure what that guy's stance is but felt reminded: what's interesting is when people invoke the ideas of figurative language and different points of view in order to explain away contradictions that only arose because they staunchly insist on a literalist and univocalist interpretation to begin with. not saying those are the only issues one can have with the text, but the irony of this phenomenon deserves particular praise.
Since you so often have to point out the problem of supposed univocality, could you make a general video where you explain your take on how the Bible was composed?
I wonder who fed him this crap? It's obviously somebody that knows it's crap, and didn't want to say it themselves, but he says it with such confidence that I can only assume that it was a close friend or family member. What a terrible thing to do to a kid.
Exodus 33:13-20. 13 If then I have found favour in thy sight, reveal thyself to me, that I may evidently see thee; that I may find favour in thy sight, and that I may know that this great nation thy people. 14 And he says, I myself will go before thee, and give thee rest. 15 And he says to him, If thou go not up with us thyself, bring me not up hence. 16 And how shall it be surely known, that both I and this people have found favour with thee, except only if thou go with us? So both I and thy people shall be glorified beyond all the nations, as many as are upon the earth. 17 And the Lord said to Moses, I will also do for thee this thing, which thou hast spoken; for thou hast found grace before me, and I know thee above all. 18 And says, Manifest thyself to me. 19 And said, I will pass by before thee with my glory, and I will call by my name, the Lord, before thee; and I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and will have pity on whom I will have pity. 20 And said, Thou shalt not be able to see my face; for no man shall see my face, and live. Just wanted to throw this out there, this is the same ch. this is right after it says Moses spoke to him face to face, so that didn’t mean Moses saw God’s face. I don’t know why it says he spoke to him face to face if he didn’t see his face but Moses clearly couldn’t actually see his face.
I'd like a bible believing Christian to try to explain away rhe blatant contradiction in Mark 5 and Matthew 9 regarding Jairus's daughter and when the text says she died.
Bart Ehrmann actually covered this once. It's really funny: According to this Bible believer, Jesus cured Jairus's daughter TWICE on SEPARATE occasions. First, he called for Jesus when his daughter was still alive, and she died while Jesus was on his way, then he resurrected her. Then, she died again, and the father, already knowing that Jesus could resurrect her because he had already done so, called for him again to bring his dead daughter back to life. This is not only absurd in and of itself, it also ignores the fact that, if it was true, during both separate events Jesus would have encountered a bleeding woman that sneaked up on him to touch his clothes to be healed.
I think that he has a point on the eye to eye. I don't think that we can be certain exactly what the original writers meant when they said face to face. We are essentially presupposing that the interpretations we have in writing are original intent of the original author. But, that is a big leap. The Torah is from even before the establishment of the first kingdom of Israel. And what we have is the Torah from after the return of the Babylonian Exile. So already we are quite a distance from the original story. But you also have a point because we have the idea that God can be referring to the Angel of the Lord. Who seemed to be a physical person.
I'd say Mark has instructions: they are supposed to tell the disciples ... and then they ignore those instructions. Fits just fine. And that's really one of those arguments. "See, the Bible doesn't contradict itself, so therefore we know it doesn't contradict itself!"
@@slinenjr8767 what other contradictions? Any alleged contradiction in the Bible is easily refuted with even the least amount of due diligence and full context.
@markwildt5728 please watch the video again. The beginning where the scriptures are posted on the screen. You don't have to. I don't expect you to change your beliefs.
"Investigate the reasons Christ rose from the dead". That's a leap, and certainly a diversion from the claims that the bible is inerrant and non-contradictory. Also, that has to be a proselytization technique. Most people that become Christians do not know everything about the bible before they converted. Most people that left Christianity often do so after the claims of inerrancy no longer hold up to scrutiny from reading the bible.
'Plausibly' is a giant apologetic red flag, might as well say poor argument incoming. Essentially that guy tries to prove the Bible is univocal by making univocal assumptions.
We have to take into account that this young man was most likely raised in the church. Also likely that he had very insistently devout christian parents and is doing everything in his power to live up to what has always been expected of him. To turn on his programming would be unconscionable for him. He is also likely in a very tight knit christian group wherein they reinforce their dogma for each other on an ongoing basis. This young man was most likely "created" or "constructed" by his environment, a process which he is not likely even aware of. Of course, I could be wrong and he's a somewhat recent convert to the cult, in which case there is likely some other underlying reason as to why he has come to this point. Suffice it to say that either way we need to give him something of a break, as his dogmatic stance and unwillingness to see what is obviously the case here is now beyond his control. And by that I mean that like so many others he is thoroughly assimilated within the christian cult. It's a sad situation.
Look, he says it straight out: believe in the resurrection, then you will interpret all of the bible as being without contradiction. Just presuppose the bible is true, and, therefore, you just interpret everything that way. It has nothing to do with figuring out what the bible says, you just impose what you need it to say on it.
Regardless, people are responsible for their actions. You're making a lot of assumptions about him and his circumstances. But he obviously has access to other ideas, which he chooses to attack, mock and attempt - unsuccessfully - to refute. And unless he is being sequestered in a cult compound from which he can't escape, and in which he is being forcibly conditioned with Christian dogma, he has the choice to follow dogma or the data. That he might not have the courage to forsake his family, friends and community (assuming your assumptions are correct) and do so doesn't give him a pass.
That's a bit naive. Apologists are known to deny so many facts like slavery because it makes them feel less embarrassed and in order to gain more "believers" with the "God is all about love" argument
I'll disagree with the others implying that this is a bunch of unfounded assumptions. It is a series of assumptions. But they are assumptions based in sociology and psychology. Supernatural ideation, the reinforcing mechanisms of group cohesion found in religions etc. are all thoroughly studied and understood phenomena. The specifics might be difficult to narrow down without asking but the broad strokes are going to be true for the majority of people you talk to who hold to some religious principle like the apologist does. You can even take it a step further and point out that because he has chosen to engage in apologetics, to stake his reputation on making a display of defending the beliefs of his group, that he is even less likely to overcome the cognitive dissonance with which he clearly struggles. Because this is a well studied thing as well. That said, I'd say that Dan handles him completely appropriately. The dude is spreading misinformation. He has chosen to do that, whatever quirks of psychology may be involved in that decision, they do not absolve him of responsibility for spreading misinformation and being held up to scrutiny and criticism for doing so. The break being given is that we don't mercilessly attack him for his dishonesty. The criticisms of his arguments and the correction of his disinfo is how these things should be handled.
It’s interesting to see some of the responses to my post. It seems to me that those who outright declare that this young man is fully responsible for his position were likely not deeply involved with a church group, and most certainly not a very dogmatic church group. And by this I mean to say that one of the above posters may say that they have experienced Christianity first hand, but I would say that simply going to church on Sundays (especially in many of the more lax/liberal Christian groups) does not give one the insight as to how all consuming religion can be for some. In my 10 years of being in a very legalistic and dogmatic Christian group that believed things such as Mother Terisa burning in hell because she was likely not fully immersed in baptism, but only sprinkled, I’ve first hand experienced how deeply programmed and controlled their children are. This is not a universal statement as to say that all kids of these people are totally brainwashed, but I tell you from first hand experience that some of these children are damn near hopelessly indoctrinated. To a point that many would consider barbaric had the same techniques of mind control been used for other means. This is all to say that we should not be too quick to judge this young man as to his motives, we simply don’t know where he has come from. If we simply villainize him for his beliefs then we only become the monsters that he is taught will be his persecutors, and add fuel to his fire. It’s hard to put ourselves in his shoes (if my assessment is correct) when we are lucky enough to not have been forced to wear them. It’s really no different than if any of us had been born into a deeply fundamentalist Muslim family to not be Muslim.
What about these verses here: Matthew 4:8-9 "8Again, the devil *took Him to a very high mountain and *showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory; 9and he said to Him, “All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.”" Romans 13:1-6 "1Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist have been appointed by God. 2Therefore whoever resists that authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of that authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; 4for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword in vain, for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of that wrath, but also because of conscience. 6For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing." According to Matthew 4:8-9 Satan seems to be the one in charge of all the kingdoms otherwise he couldn't give them which in return would match what many Christian say about: "Satan being the god or ruler of this world". But according to Romans 13:1 every authority is appointed by God and in verse (4) these people are even mentioned as his ministers. Since this is a general statement about authority and not a specification about a certain time or place it can be used as it is stated. So isn't that a problem? The only kind of solutions I which came to my mind would be: a) After Jesus died and then resurrected he took over satans role and is now the ruler of this world. The problem of course would be: If this is the case why hasn't the world gotten better afterwards? I mean let's mention some more modern rulers here: Stalin, Lenin, Mao,... b) God appointed satan and then satan appointed the rulers. The problem with this is that the people satan appoints would also become ministers of God. c) Satan never owned anything and just straight up lied to Jesus. d) Paul's God is satan So I'm interested if there is a believer reading this how would you put these Information of Matthew 4:8-9 and Romans 13:1-6 together?
Of all the content creators Dan has refuted or corrected, this one has to be one of the most arrogant, insufferable and annoying. This guy is someone who I could not see myself being friends with, or even tolerate being around for any length of time.
Hi Dan. I’m new to the channel and I am wondering if you have ever addressed the water into wine miracle performed by Jesus in John 2:1-12? I would love to hear your thoughts on the situation. I personally feel this passage is very anti-establishment. Having Jewish friends and knowing a bit about Jewish culture, customs, traditions, etc. I feel like there’s a very purposeful reason this passage was included. For example, the washing of hands before a meal. Jewish people wash their hands and then avoid touching anything else until after the blessing is given for the meal. It’s primarily ceremonial, in that they just dip their hands in water, there’s no soap or scrubbing. Anyway, the stone pots from which Jesus instructs the servants to serve the water from are for the purpose of the washing of hands. It’s unclean water. To me this shows contempt for the whole situation. Likewise, nowhere does it say anyone saw the water turn into wine. In fact the author points out that the servants were well aware that they were filling the guests wine cups with dirty water. The passage infers the water tasted like the best wine that had yet been served. Personally, I think the water was never transmuted into wine. I think the miracle is Jesus made the dirty hand washing water taste like the very best wine. I think this passage is meant to show the passive aggressive contempt Jesus had for the establishment. And I believe part of the reason why Jesus detested the whole situation was because he was an expatriate of the Jewish imperialist society. Jesus was a descendant of King David. But his family fled to Nazareth. Thereby forfeiting their royal standing. However, as they were under Roman rule, none of that should have mattered, and I am of the belief that it bothered Jesus that his mother still went along with Jewish traditional society, acting as though it did matter. Likewise, I suspect this is why Jesus was referred to as Jesus of Nazareth. To highlight his expatriate status. To say that even though he was a descendant of King David, his family had forfeited their privileges by fleeing Jerusalem for the colony of Nazareth. For a more modern-ish context, one of the reasons General George Washington joined the revolution was because of his expatriate status. Washington had ambitions of becoming a General in the British army. However, he was denied the opportunity because of his expatriate status. At least, that is my understanding. I tend to think of Jesus as having a similar revolutionary attitude. The Roman rule meant the old imperial hierarchy was nothing more than tradition, and Jesus intended to revolt against the old order. Especially in being the son of God and everything, I imagine he was frustrated with the people who held to the traditions. Anyway, I’d love to hear your thoughts. Especially concerning the legitimacy of the passage and the characters involved.
*Numbers vs Genesis* Does Numbers 12:6-8 contradict Genesis 32:30? In N12, only prophets are mentioned. I don’t see Jacob as a prophet, so I am not clear how G32 relates to N12. The simplest assessment seems to be that the G32 author doesn’t know about the Jacob wrestling story. In N12 , YHWH talks about dream-talking and in-person talking , but not about cloud-talking, the very act he is involved in at the time 🤔
I saw more comic-conning during my 3 terms in British parliament then this video has side walls of The Soliministic Theory when transporting molecular cellular asteocis from HQ to below the 40.
It means "speaking with a single voice." One of the traps people fall into when reading the Bible is bringing the assumption with them "the Bible" is a unified work telling a single story, from a single point of view, from beginning to end. Instead, it was written by many different authors, with many different points of view, over the course of centuries. Most of the material wasn't even "written" until much later when it was compiled from earlier sources - often oral tradition - by editors or redactors. These later redactors didn't seem to be concerned with ironing out difficulties or reconciling contradictions but rather with preserving the different versions intact. [Please don't beat me up, Dan! I'm generalizing.]
@@jaaaspokenjay5778 um ... it says JUDAH could not drive them out, because of their superior technology. It's into specifics about various tribes. Jud 2 seems to be a general statement that reinterprets all the specifics collectively as due to Israel's moral deficiency. I see no inconsistency. Or am I still missing something?
I was getting ready to disagree with Dan on the whole "we talked like we were neighbors" thing. In the modern parlance, that could just mean you spoke to him informally or frequently. But it occurred to me that in a pre-communication age it necessarily follows that if you talk to someone informally, it requires that you are present. You can't shoot-the-shit with the pope's messenger and claim you talk to the pope like you are neighbors. But, as i'm sure Dan would point out, things didn't have the same cultural context in the past.
dont worry about contradictions, check this one out for laughs- real hard (1 King 20: 35++) "By the word of the Lord one of the company of the prophets said to his companion, “Strike me with your weapon,” but he refused. The prophet said, “Because you have not obeyed the Lord, as soon as you leave me a lion will kill you.” And after the man went away, a lion found him and killed him. The prophet found another man and said, “Strike me, please.” So the man struck him and wounded him. Then the prophet went and stood by the road waiting for the king."
I apologise. It is tremendously difficult to watch fools, so utterly convinced of their mastery, relate opinions that are so stupid. Yet I watch. I am the fool. Thank you for the exterior data
Rekt. Seriously though, I think it's cute that he wants to be just like you when he grows up. Don't be too hard on him, let's just nudge him over to some place like Yale Divinity and get him an ACTUAL education. He's clearly very young and still has time, heck I didn't pull my head out of my posterior until I was in my early 30s.
Pfffft, Dan, again you get it ALL wrong! King James told to all the patriarches, prophets and scribes what to write so there is no way the bible could contradict itself. If fact, the Nachesh was reading from the text of the king James to Eve so that she would know how to convince Adam to take a bite of the apple. If the KJV was good enough for Adam, its good 'nuff for me. Isnt it funny that noone asks about the naked young man running away in the garden of gesemany and the young man that appeared coming out of the tomb. How come mark has this little triste of fate and the other synoptics dont. Is this like a Marcan version of the Isis/Osiris resurrection myth. I think mark forgot about the golden penis. Also, most peculiar, how many angels can sit on a rolling stone? Where does jesus haunt about the world, is it a wadi near Pella, Galilee, a little town south of the mount of Olives or Jerusalem? What was the last thing Jesus said? Was Jesus mother in town or not? Was he taken before Herod or Not? Was he beaten, how badly was he beating, how long was he kept in custody? Was he crucified the day befor the night before passover, the day of passove, was he hung on a stake or a cross? Where there zombies or not? Was there a pentacoste or not? How many times exactly did Jesus say "I am" and in what language (Hebrew, greek, Aramaic or galillean Aramaic)?
If these are no contradictions, i am the pope. The ending of Mark also shows how the story developed. Paul has no empty tomb and no physical resurrection and Paul never mentions any conversations with Jesus in his letters. Mark has an empty tomb but no post resurrection story. And suddenly we have zombies, Jesus eating with the apostles and the apostles even touching him etc.
There is no such thing as resurrection. Eyewitness accounts have been and continue to be the least reliable source of data/facts. If Jesus was dead, buried and then returned to life, it’s more reasonable to suggest he was a zombie, not the son of God.
Tabor, summary: For Paul, the resurrection of Jesus had nothing to do with someone coming “back from the dead,” we have several tales of that in the Hebrew Bible as well as four such stories in the New Testament. Matthew even reports multiple tombs being opened and people appearing to others when Jesus died-presumably these folk lived a bit longer and then died a second time. There is no implication that they become glorified, transformed, heavenly beings, exalted over men and angels at the right hand of God. But that is precisely what Paul has in mind when he affirms his own experience of having “seen the Lord.” Of that point there can be no misunderstanding All this is to say, and this is nothing new with me, that the earliest view of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead was that of *heavenly transformation* and *exaltation from flesh and blood to immortal life-giving spirit.*
@MrMortal_Ra *Paul (c. 50 AD)* The earliest account is in Paul's first letter to the Jesus sect community he founded in Corinth, written some time in the 50s AD: For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. (1Cor 15:3-8) The first thing worth noting here is that fact that Paul includes himself in his list of those to whom the risen Jesus "appeared". *Both his references to his encountering the risen Jesus and the three (slightly different) description of this encounter in Acts all make it clear that this was a vision - a light from heaven and a disembodied voice - not an encounter with a physically-revived former corpse returned to life.* The verb Paul uses for all these appearances he mentions is the same one - ὤφθη meaning "appeared, was seen" - in each case. He makes no distinction between the appearance of Jesus to him and the appearances to others. Paul then goes on to scold some of the Corinthians for saying there was not going to be a general resurrection of the dead - as already noted above, this idea was not universally accepted by all Jews and it seems to have become disputed in the Corinthian community of the Jesus sect. Paul asks "if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?" (v. 12) and goes on to call Jesus' resurrection "the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep", ie the pre-figurement of the coming general resurrection. *He goes on to address the question of whether this coming resurrection will involve the rising of physical bodies and says in response "How foolish!". Then he goes on to explain that the coming general resurrection will not be physical but involve "spiritual bodies".* *If Jesus' resurrection is the pre-figurement of the coming general resurrection of the dead, therefore, it is clear that for Paul his rising did not involve a physical body.* This is why Paul's references to and insistence on the fact of the rising of Jesus makes no mention of the evidence of a physical revivification of his dead body that features in some of the later accounts: the empty tomb, discarded grave cloths, people touching Jesus, Jesus eating and his physical form flying up into heaven. *For Paul, at this early stage of the development of the story, the risen Jesus is a spiritual concept involving visions, not physical encounters.* *Answer* What-evidence-is-there-for-Jesus-Christs-death-burial-and-resurrection/answer/Tim-ONeill-1 - Quora
In my opinion, the original text of Mark didn't end with the silence of the women, either. I think the original ending was lost, and it most likely contained an apparition of Jesus at the Sea of Galilee, similar to the one in the added ending of John. There appears to have been a parallel tradition of resurrection accounts without the empty tomb, where the disciples went back to Galilee to pick up their normal lives, and then had an apparition of the risen Jesus combined with a fishing miracle. That's most likely what the Gospel of Peter was also including, we just can't know for sure because the text breaks in the middle of the sentence, but that's the direction it seems to take. It's also very likely that the fishing miracle in Luke was originally placed there, after the resurrection, but was then moved because the ongoing tradition of Luke, with the Acts of the Apostles, needed to place Jesus in Jerusalem after his resurrection, not in Galilee. I would conclude that the gospels are attempting to reconcile the empty tomb stories with the Sea of Galilee stories, and use different tools to do so, all while increasing the extent of the post resurrection events.
Other prophets are overawed, terrified, and confounded by revelations they experience. The response of Moses, our teacher, was not in that manner, but rather, "as a man would speak with his fellow." Just as a person will not be awestruck from hearing his friend's words, Moses' mental power was so broadly sufficient that he was able to receive and comprehend God's words to him while he was standing in a composed state of mind.
The Flash, Barry Allen in one of his triune instantiations,is so broadly and sufficiently attached to the speedforce that he can transverse the multiverse and even track _backwards_ in time.
This reminds me of the same setting in the Quran when Moses asked to see God. 7:142 And We appointed with Moses a time of thirty nights and completed them with ten (more), so the appointed time of his Lord was complete forty nights, and Moses said to his brother Aaron: Take my place among my people, and act well and do not follow the way of the mischief-makers 7:143 And when Moses came at Our appointed time and his Lord spoke to him, he said: My Lord! show me (Thyself), so that I may look upon Thee. He said: You cannot (bear to) see Me but look at the mountain, if it remains firm in its place, then will you see Me; but when his Lord manifested His glory to the mountain He made it crumble and Moses fell down in a swoon; then when he recovered, he said: Glory be to Thee, I turn to Thee, and I am the first of the believers 7:144 He said: O Moses! surely I have chosen you above the people with My messages and with My words, therefore take hold of what I give to you and be of the grateful ones 7:145 And We ordained for him in the tablets admonition of every kind and clear explanation of all things; so take hold of them with firmness and enjoin your people to take hold of what is best thereof; I will show you the abode of the transgressors. That’s how the true revelation from God looks like. We as material human beings made from quarks are unable to withstand to see God and his glory in our state. Maybe when we are in another state of being we would be able to see him. Until then the curtain stays closed.
What does 'see' even mean for a non-material being? Isn't 'seeing' detecting photons with our quark eyes? What does 'glory' mean? If you need to use metaphors all the time, it's because there is no knowldege there, only emotional language.
@@juanausensi499Bats can see with their ears using echolocation. Sperm whales hunt and see in the deep ocean using sonar. That goes to show you how even in this material world creatures don’t need photons to see. God sees everything at the same time without the need for photons. 6:102 Such is God, your Lord: there is no deity save Him, the Creator of everything: worship, then, Him alone -for it is He who has everything in His care 6:103 No human vision can encompass Him, whereas He encompasses all human vision: for He alone is unfathomable, all-aware. 42:11 (He is) the Creator of the heavens and the earth: He has made for you pairs from among yourselves, and pairs among cattle: by this means does He multiply you: there is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees (all things).
But there is a secret! Like in the Gospel of Mark the short and long conclusion was not originally there. The NWT ends at Mark 16:8 Jesus is the Lamb of The God of Abraham YHVH Yehovah Jehovah Mark 16:8 In the Gospel of Mark. If the women tell no one then, Who is ! What each Gospel story is about. The four living creatures! Matthew Who was! Mark Who is! Luke Who is Coming! John The Lamb of YHVH! The four gospels are associated with the four living creatures: Matthew, the man, Mark the lion, Luke the ox, and John the eagle. John has Jesus dying on a different day. It's the Day of Preparation, not the Day of Preparation for Passover. It was the day they prepared the lambs for sacrifice. While at the same time, Jesus is prepared for sacrifice. Jesus is the Lamb of YHVH Yehovah Jehovah a man, a lion, an ox and an eagle. The man symbolises the prophet; the lion, kingship; the ox, priesthood, and the eagle, fatherhood.
Dan is on a roll today. The full Oscar Wilde quote is “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness” for anyone else who wasn’t aware
Ironically, Wilde was recycling the original David Anthony Hall (18th cent) quote: “Imitation is a kind of artless flattery."
👍🏼👍🏼
I did not know the full quote and now that I do I’ll definitely be using it differently, that ending really changes the tone of the whole thing.
Absolutely savage opening from Dan hahah
Thanks! In minute 1:28, it's not even Jesus telling the women what to tell the disciples but the man in the tomb who is wearing a white cloth.
So he’s the apologetic version of Maklelan? Nah, im good 😂
🤣🤣🤣🤣
He *wants* to be.
He wishes lmao, he doesn't hold a candle to Maklelan.
The fact that on his _very first_ "answer" he takes the specific statement "They said nothing to anyone" and flips it to claim that they were trying to keep a secret but then didn't... kinda gives his game away. It's not about actually engaging with what the text actually says, it's about him having an answer to "win" a perceived conflict he feels he is in with everyone else.
The fact that in his second answer, he uses a verse that explicitly says _Moses_ saw God face to face, but he's doing it to try to prove that Jacob didn't so that he can finally prove that _nobody_ has seen God means he's just not a very clever man. Or maybe he was having so bad of a day that he didn't recognise that three verses none of which agree with each other is worse than two that don't agree with each other.
That kid really needs to stop making videos. As the proverb says, "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than open your mouth and remove all doubt".
I disagree. This kid's feeble attempts bring me more relief than a thousand lying whores.
I'm so glad that there wasn't anything like UA-cam in the 80s and 90s. I already cringe when I think about the foolish and stupid things I did an said back then when I was this kids age. I'm so thankful I don't have to watch it over, knowing that I willingly recorded and published it.
Mark Twain is alleged to have said that.
I recommend that those who embrace the resurrection, to just lay out the resurrection stories and compare them. They are not reconcilable. In a court of law, these witnesses would be considered unreliable.
Belief in the resurrection of the dead is one of the 13 fundamental principles of Judaism. Resurrecting does not make a person God.
I’m not saying the gospels are without their issues historically, but to present the idea that a court of law in 21st century western society is somehow the primary arbiter of truth in our culture much less claims from an entirely different time and place is silly.
Not to mention that none it is even first hand testimony. It's all 2nd, 3rd and beyond hearsay.
The way I understand the stories of the Resurrection is that they were composed from different recollections taken from different people different lengths of time after they witnessed what they witnessed. They disagree on who did or said what because the different witnesses remembered and retold different details, perhaps even incorrectly as memories faded. As long as you treat the Bible as a collection of documents written by fallible people instead of something inerrant and are willing to exercise epistemic humility in your faith, there's no need to reconcile every detail when the overarching themes agree.
@@adamkotter6174I 100% agree.
Important to get the details straight, so thanks for this video. There are all kinds of other reasons, including misunderstanding scripture, why most Christian denominations are not worth being loyal to.
Even if this creator was correct, the video he's responding to is a woman expressing why she no longer believes. It's weird for him to interrogate her experience. It's no different than when someone says, "this is why I believe," and they get a bunch of "um actuallies" telling them why they're wrong.
I always thought that the Mark 'sneaking around, don't tell anyone' theme, was an excuse why the Jews had failed to recognised their messiah.
It's an admonishment against readers, cult initiates in particular. Don't be like these guys, openly talking about things you're not supposed to. See how stupid and foolish they are? See how it winds up getting them into trouble? It happens three times to really reinforce the idea and then the disciples who keep causing trouble aren't even around to witness the resurrection. The obedient women do get to see it and the very last thing they or anyone does in the book is keep their mouths shut. Obedience and strategic silence are kinda big themes in Mark.
I'm also pretty sure that Peter being called the rock on which the church will be built is meant as an insult. But I haven't found conclusive evidence that this way of being insulting, implying that someone is as stupid as a rock and that the church will grow atop their moldering corpse (implying that they were an impediment to its growth), was in common use back then. Though admittedly I haven't put a whole lot of effort into looking either.
It’s a literary device. Messianic expectations first century Judaism were legion and Jesus is portrayed in Mark as reframing Messianism through his sacrificial death on a Roman cross. The disciples struggle to understand this despite the explicit identifying of Jesus as the messiah (8:27-38).
@@rainbowkrampus rock as an insult seems extremely modern tho
@@diansc7322 Seems like it. But you'll also find that a lot of the practices you think of as relatively recent are actually ancient and we've just been recapitulating them over and over. Sometimes a practice dies out only to re-emerge later.
We're all just humans, we may be different, but not that different.
I"d never heard the phrase "messianic secret" before.
It’s a common term in biblical scholarship about the gospel of mark. Jesus is always telling people not to tell anyone what he did or who he is…
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messianic_Secret#:~:text=The%20Messianic%20Secret%20is%20a,silence%20about%20his%20Messianic%20mission.
@wingedlion17 I understand the concept. I'd just never heard the term. I grew up Lutheran, converted to Nazarene, and am now agnostic/atheist.
I think by “face to face” OP means to equate that phrase with the next line, “clearly and not in riddles,” so that face to face just means “clearly.”
Which, naturally, contradicts when Jesus speaks in parables *so that they won’t understand.*
All I can say about this young content creator is that for an apologist he is not near as arrogant and abusive as "son of man" who is currently in a tear against Alex O'Connor in a response video on Biblical slavery.
Dan needs to disembowel Alex O'Connor next.
@@sarban1653 - It may well be that Dan could have a reasonable exchange with Alex on numerous subjects where Alex, sadly, is quite uninformed. However, in the video I am referring to, "son of man" in addition to engaging in truly absurd and numerous logical fallacies, not the least of which simply ignoring what Alex actually said about Biblical slavery, engaged in a preposterous defense of slavery. Claiming that Biblical slavery did not include chattel slavery but only debt slavery in which all slaves were freed after which the slaves were all freed with all manner of "rewards" for their labor. He also argued that debt slavery was a superior method of dealing with the poor in our midst than any form of welfare currently practiced in modern secular society. Frankly, Alex's position was the better argument. Son of man's argument is simply put, if his god allows it then it is moral and good, and any attempt of "atheists" to argue otherwise is neither.
I'm not sure why Dan needs to disembowel Alex O'Connor when he is very much all about people not using the Bible as a code of conduct. And in the video that is reference, he actually got b**** Shapiro to admit that maybe we shouldn't be following the Bible 100% anyways. Alex O'Connor is not a bad guy so I'm not sure why you guys are approaching him with such hostility
@@AeonStaite First, I am not approaching Alex with hostility. I have been subscribed to his channel since he first started posting his videos. He was all of what, 14 or 15 back then? He is extremely smart, quite eloquent, and has excellent communication skills. I do not always agree with him on everything but I always listen to him and respect him. I have no hostility towards him whatsoever. Quite the contrary.
Second, as you mentioned, Alex is taking apart Ben Shapiro in a video and doing an excellent job of it. The "son of man" video I referenced is a reaction video to the video between Alex and Ben. If son of man were ever actually to do a face-to-face interchange with Alex, it would not go well for son of man. But he will never do that because he is a coward. He prefers to strawman the person he is attacking, make a bunch of apologist arguments that would make Ben Shapiro cringe, and then like the proverbial pigeon on the chessboard, prance around declaring himself [and Jesus] the winner.
Third, I would enjoy seeing an exchange between Alex and Dan though I doubt that will likely never happen, but if it did, it would be more of a conversation than a debate.. Alex has a background in philosophy. It has always been his forte. He is extremely good at making cogent arguments based on his background and analytical skills. However, my understanding is that he has no background at all in either Koine Greek or Biblical Hebrew. Nor does he have any background in critical studies of Biblical texts. He takes his understanding of the words of the Bible as they are expressed in modern English. So, he approaches his arguments in a very different manner, and without the background Dan does. I have no idea of how well-versed he is in the context of the biblical passages he addresses either in the internal context of the passage or in the external context of the society in which the passages were generated. One sees this in his interactions with people like Bart Ehrman. They both might agree on various points but they approach them from slightly different angles. Dan approaches his subjects in a different fashion.
Thank you Dan. I love your videos.
Can you cover the 1978 Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy and how it informs modern apologetics, as well as what made its authors feel it was necessary?
That low key burn in the intro was phenomenal.
not sure what that guy's stance is but felt reminded: what's interesting is when people invoke the ideas of figurative language and different points of view in order to explain away contradictions that only arose because they staunchly insist on a literalist and univocalist interpretation to begin with.
not saying those are the only issues one can have with the text, but the irony of this phenomenon deserves particular praise.
Since you so often have to point out the problem of supposed univocality, could you make a general video where you explain your take on how the Bible was composed?
I wonder who fed him this crap? It's obviously somebody that knows it's crap, and didn't want to say it themselves, but he says it with such confidence that I can only assume that it was a close friend or family member. What a terrible thing to do to a kid.
Exodus 33:13-20. 13 If then I have found favour in thy sight, reveal thyself to me, that I may evidently see thee; that I may find favour in thy sight, and that I may know that this great nation thy people.
14 And he says, I myself will go before thee, and give thee rest.
15 And he says to him, If thou go not up with us thyself, bring me not up hence.
16 And how shall it be surely known, that both I and this people have found favour with thee, except only if thou go with us? So both I and thy people shall be glorified beyond all the nations, as many as are upon the earth.
17 And the Lord said to Moses, I will also do for thee this thing, which thou hast spoken; for thou hast found grace before me, and I know thee above all.
18 And says, Manifest thyself to me.
19 And said, I will pass by before thee with my glory, and I will call by my name, the Lord, before thee; and I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and will have pity on whom I will have pity.
20 And said, Thou shalt not be able to see my face; for no man shall see my face, and live. Just wanted to throw this out there, this is the same ch. this is right after it says Moses spoke to him face to face, so that didn’t mean Moses saw God’s face. I don’t know why it says he spoke to him face to face if he didn’t see his face but Moses clearly couldn’t actually see his face.
Este niño está ineducado. Tú eres bárbaro, Dan.
I don't think I could keep up with making careful responses like these to people who are so irresponsible with their argumentation.
5:40 - man it's tragic how awful the ghosting is on the SBL Study Bible
1:54 the Bible can ONLY be interpreted literally... except when that is inconvenient.
Then followed by "we cant know how god thinks!"
Or "he works in mysterious ways"
Or "that's why you need to have faith!"
@@smugwendigo5123Isaiah 55:8 For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, declares the LORD.
So there is no contradiction
Amen
Another thorough dismantling of a smug apologist.
I'd like a bible believing Christian to try to explain away rhe blatant contradiction in Mark 5 and Matthew 9 regarding Jairus's daughter and when the text says she died.
Bart Ehrmann actually covered this once. It's really funny: According to this Bible believer, Jesus cured Jairus's daughter TWICE on SEPARATE occasions. First, he called for Jesus when his daughter was still alive, and she died while Jesus was on his way, then he resurrected her. Then, she died again, and the father, already knowing that Jesus could resurrect her because he had already done so, called for him again to bring his dead daughter back to life.
This is not only absurd in and of itself, it also ignores the fact that, if it was true, during both separate events Jesus would have encountered a bleeding woman that sneaked up on him to touch his clothes to be healed.
I think that he has a point on the eye to eye.
I don't think that we can be certain exactly what the original writers meant when they said face to face.
We are essentially presupposing that the interpretations we have in writing are original intent of the original author.
But, that is a big leap. The Torah is from even before the establishment of the first kingdom of Israel. And what we have is the Torah from after the return of the Babylonian Exile. So already we are quite a distance from the original story.
But you also have a point because we have the idea that God can be referring to the Angel of the Lord. Who seemed to be a physical person.
The more you have to defend a possession the more on to that position becomes🤔
I'd say Mark has instructions: they are supposed to tell the disciples ... and then they ignore those instructions. Fits just fine.
And that's really one of those arguments. "See, the Bible doesn't contradict itself, so therefore we know it doesn't contradict itself!"
And what about the other contradictions?
@@slinenjr8767 what other contradictions? Any alleged contradiction in the Bible is easily refuted with even the least amount of due diligence and full context.
@markwildt5728 please watch the video again. The beginning where the scriptures are posted on the screen. You don't have to. I don't expect you to change your beliefs.
Thank you.
One can only hope that one day this young man recognizes his error, at which point he will be embarrassed by his hubris.
0:12 “imitation is the greatest form of flattery that mediocrity can pay to greatness”
"Investigate the reasons Christ rose from the dead".
That's a leap, and certainly a diversion from the claims that the bible is inerrant and non-contradictory. Also, that has to be a proselytization technique. Most people that become Christians do not know everything about the bible before they converted. Most people that left Christianity often do so after the claims of inerrancy no longer hold up to scrutiny from reading the bible.
Great video McClellan! Question! When will you debate @inspiringphilosophy?
'Plausibly' is a giant apologetic red flag, might as well say poor argument incoming.
Essentially that guy tries to prove the Bible is univocal by making univocal assumptions.
I wonder if this kid realizes he can't debate Dan yet. He has years to go before he can step in Dan' arena.
We have to take into account that this young man was most likely raised in the church. Also likely that he had very insistently devout christian parents and is doing everything in his power to live up to what has always been expected of him. To turn on his programming would be unconscionable for him. He is also likely in a very tight knit christian group wherein they reinforce their dogma for each other on an ongoing basis. This young man was most likely "created" or "constructed" by his environment, a process which he is not likely even aware of.
Of course, I could be wrong and he's a somewhat recent convert to the cult, in which case there is likely some other underlying reason as to why he has come to this point.
Suffice it to say that either way we need to give him something of a break, as his dogmatic stance and unwillingness to see what is obviously the case here is now beyond his control. And by that I mean that like so many others he is thoroughly assimilated within the christian cult.
It's a sad situation.
Look, he says it straight out: believe in the resurrection, then you will interpret all of the bible as being without contradiction. Just presuppose the bible is true, and, therefore, you just interpret everything that way. It has nothing to do with figuring out what the bible says, you just impose what you need it to say on it.
Regardless, people are responsible for their actions. You're making a lot of assumptions about him and his circumstances.
But he obviously has access to other ideas, which he chooses to attack, mock and attempt - unsuccessfully - to refute. And unless he is being sequestered in a cult compound from which he can't escape, and in which he is being forcibly conditioned with Christian dogma, he has the choice to follow dogma or the data.
That he might not have the courage to forsake his family, friends and community (assuming your assumptions are correct) and do so doesn't give him a pass.
That's a bit naive. Apologists are known to deny so many facts like slavery because it makes them feel less embarrassed and in order to gain more "believers" with the "God is all about love" argument
I'll disagree with the others implying that this is a bunch of unfounded assumptions. It is a series of assumptions. But they are assumptions based in sociology and psychology. Supernatural ideation, the reinforcing mechanisms of group cohesion found in religions etc. are all thoroughly studied and understood phenomena. The specifics might be difficult to narrow down without asking but the broad strokes are going to be true for the majority of people you talk to who hold to some religious principle like the apologist does.
You can even take it a step further and point out that because he has chosen to engage in apologetics, to stake his reputation on making a display of defending the beliefs of his group, that he is even less likely to overcome the cognitive dissonance with which he clearly struggles. Because this is a well studied thing as well.
That said, I'd say that Dan handles him completely appropriately.
The dude is spreading misinformation. He has chosen to do that, whatever quirks of psychology may be involved in that decision, they do not absolve him of responsibility for spreading misinformation and being held up to scrutiny and criticism for doing so.
The break being given is that we don't mercilessly attack him for his dishonesty. The criticisms of his arguments and the correction of his disinfo is how these things should be handled.
It’s interesting to see some of the responses to my post. It seems to me that those who outright declare that this young man is fully responsible for his position were likely not deeply involved with a church group, and most certainly not a very dogmatic church group. And by this I mean to say that one of the above posters may say that they have experienced Christianity first hand, but I would say that simply going to church on Sundays (especially in many of the more lax/liberal Christian groups) does not give one the insight as to how all consuming religion can be for some.
In my 10 years of being in a very legalistic and dogmatic Christian group that believed things such as Mother Terisa burning in hell because she was likely not fully immersed in baptism, but only sprinkled, I’ve first hand experienced how deeply programmed and controlled their children are. This is not a universal statement as to say that all kids of these people are totally brainwashed, but I tell you from first hand experience that some of these children are damn near hopelessly indoctrinated. To a point that many would consider barbaric had the same techniques of mind control been used for other means. This is all to say that we should not be too quick to judge this young man as to his motives, we simply don’t know where he has come from.
If we simply villainize him for his beliefs then we only become the monsters that he is taught will be his persecutors, and add fuel to his fire. It’s hard to put ourselves in his shoes (if my assessment is correct) when we are lucky enough to not have been forced to wear them. It’s really no different than if any of us had been born into a deeply fundamentalist Muslim family to not be Muslim.
What about these verses here:
Matthew 4:8-9
"8Again, the devil *took Him to a very high mountain and *showed Him all the kingdoms of the world and their glory; 9and he said to Him, “All these things I will give You, if You fall down and worship me.”"
Romans 13:1-6
"1Every person is to be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist have been appointed by God. 2Therefore whoever resists that authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves. 3For rulers are not a cause of fear for good behavior, but for evil. Do you want to have no fear of that authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same; 4for it is a minister of God to you for good. But if you do what is evil, be afraid; for it does not bear the sword in vain, for it is a minister of God, an avenger who brings wrath on the one who practices evil. 5Therefore it is necessary to be in subjection, not only because of that wrath, but also because of conscience. 6For because of this you also pay taxes, for rulers are servants of God, devoting themselves to this very thing."
According to Matthew 4:8-9
Satan seems to be the one in charge of all the kingdoms otherwise he couldn't give them which in return would match what many Christian say about: "Satan being the god or ruler of this world".
But according to Romans 13:1 every authority is appointed by God and in verse (4) these people are even mentioned as his ministers.
Since this is a general statement about authority and not a specification about a certain time or place it can be used as it is stated.
So isn't that a problem?
The only kind of solutions I which came to my mind would be:
a) After Jesus died and then resurrected he took over satans role and is now the ruler of this world. The problem of course would be: If this is the case why hasn't the world gotten better afterwards? I mean let's mention some more modern rulers here: Stalin, Lenin, Mao,...
b) God appointed satan and then satan appointed the rulers. The problem with this is that the people satan appoints would also become ministers of God.
c) Satan never owned anything and just straight up lied to Jesus.
d) Paul's God is satan
So I'm interested if there is a believer reading this how would you put these Information of Matthew 4:8-9 and Romans 13:1-6 together?
That's what churches only focus on separate, contextless verses each time.
Of all the content creators Dan has refuted or corrected, this one has to be one of the most arrogant, insufferable and annoying. This guy is someone who I could not see myself being friends with, or even tolerate being around for any length of time.
But, what is the fit for the video?
Hi Dan. I’m new to the channel and I am wondering if you have ever addressed the water into wine miracle performed by Jesus in John 2:1-12?
I would love to hear your thoughts on the situation.
I personally feel this passage is very anti-establishment.
Having Jewish friends and knowing a bit about Jewish culture, customs, traditions, etc. I feel like there’s a very purposeful reason this passage was included.
For example, the washing of hands before a meal. Jewish people wash their hands and then avoid touching anything else until after the blessing is given for the meal.
It’s primarily ceremonial, in that they just dip their hands in water, there’s no soap or scrubbing.
Anyway, the stone pots from which Jesus instructs the servants to serve the water from are for the purpose of the washing of hands. It’s unclean water.
To me this shows contempt for the whole situation.
Likewise, nowhere does it say anyone saw the water turn into wine. In fact the author points out that the servants were well aware that they were filling the guests wine cups with dirty water.
The passage infers the water tasted like the best wine that had yet been served.
Personally, I think the water was never transmuted into wine. I think the miracle is Jesus made the dirty hand washing water taste like the very best wine.
I think this passage is meant to show the passive aggressive contempt Jesus had for the establishment.
And I believe part of the reason why Jesus detested the whole situation was because he was an expatriate of the Jewish imperialist society.
Jesus was a descendant of King David. But his family fled to Nazareth. Thereby forfeiting their royal standing.
However, as they were under Roman rule, none of that should have mattered, and I am of the belief that it bothered Jesus that his mother still went along with Jewish traditional society, acting as though it did matter.
Likewise, I suspect this is why Jesus was referred to as Jesus of Nazareth. To highlight his expatriate status. To say that even though he was a descendant of King David, his family had forfeited their privileges by fleeing Jerusalem for the colony of Nazareth.
For a more modern-ish context, one of the reasons General George Washington joined the revolution was because of his expatriate status. Washington had ambitions of becoming a General in the British army.
However, he was denied the opportunity because of his expatriate status.
At least, that is my understanding.
I tend to think of Jesus as having a similar revolutionary attitude. The Roman rule meant the old imperial hierarchy was nothing more than tradition, and Jesus intended to revolt against the old order. Especially in being the son of God and everything, I imagine he was frustrated with the people who held to the traditions.
Anyway, I’d love to hear your thoughts. Especially concerning the legitimacy of the passage and the characters involved.
Oh that SBL study bible is hurting my eyes. Too much text bleed. 😵💫
*Numbers vs Genesis*
Does Numbers 12:6-8 contradict Genesis 32:30?
In N12, only prophets are mentioned. I don’t see Jacob as a prophet, so I am not clear how G32 relates to N12. The simplest assessment seems to be that the G32 author doesn’t know about the Jacob wrestling story.
In N12 , YHWH talks about dream-talking and in-person talking , but not about cloud-talking, the very act he is involved in at the time 🤔
Yes. Yes they very much do.
Owned
That was a hammer drop elbow off the top rope if I ever saw one.
I saw more comic-conning during my 3 terms in British parliament then this video has side walls of The Soliministic Theory when transporting molecular cellular asteocis from HQ to below the 40.
What does univocality mean?
It means "speaking with a single voice." One of the traps people fall into when reading the Bible is bringing the assumption with them "the Bible" is a unified work telling a single story, from a single point of view, from beginning to end. Instead, it was written by many different authors, with many different points of view, over the course of centuries. Most of the material wasn't even "written" until much later when it was compiled from earlier sources - often oral tradition - by editors or redactors. These later redactors didn't seem to be concerned with ironing out difficulties or reconciling contradictions but rather with preserving the different versions intact.
[Please don't beat me up, Dan! I'm generalizing.]
I came face to face with a bear in the woods, but not literally.
could someone be kind enough to explain the issue with judges 1 vs judges 2? they both admit that the "conquest" was incomplete.
Paraphrasing here. Judges 1 says that God COULD not defeat the armies. Judges 2 says that God did not WANT to defeat the armies.
@@jaaaspokenjay5778 um ... it says JUDAH could not drive them out, because of their superior technology. It's into specifics about various tribes.
Jud 2 seems to be a general statement that reinterprets all the specifics collectively as due to Israel's moral deficiency.
I see no inconsistency. Or am I still missing something?
I was getting ready to disagree with Dan on the whole "we talked like we were neighbors" thing. In the modern parlance, that could just mean you spoke to him informally or frequently. But it occurred to me that in a pre-communication age it necessarily follows that if you talk to someone informally, it requires that you are present. You can't shoot-the-shit with the pope's messenger and claim you talk to the pope like you are neighbors. But, as i'm sure Dan would point out, things didn't have the same cultural context in the past.
dont worry about contradictions, check this one out for laughs- real hard
(1 King 20: 35++)
"By the word of the Lord one of the company of the prophets said to his companion, “Strike me with your weapon,” but he refused.
The prophet said, “Because you have not obeyed the Lord, as soon as you leave me a lion will kill you.” And after the man went away, a lion found him and killed him.
The prophet found another man and said, “Strike me, please.” So the man struck him and wounded him. Then the prophet went and stood by the road waiting for the king."
I apologise.
It is tremendously difficult to watch fools, so utterly convinced of their mastery, relate opinions that are so stupid.
Yet I watch.
I am the fool.
Thank you for the exterior data
This child is truly annoying. I guess it makes him happy.
Rekt.
Seriously though, I think it's cute that he wants to be just like you when he grows up. Don't be too hard on him, let's just nudge him over to some place like Yale Divinity and get him an ACTUAL education. He's clearly very young and still has time, heck I didn't pull my head out of my posterior until I was in my early 30s.
Dan would slam sam shamoun
WHY did you remove my RESPECTFUL comment Dan?!
I have no idea most of the time what’s going on in these videos….
hey dan, did you get a new camera ? quality of the filming here is extra crisp
OMG. It's debate team boy again. How tiresome.
Pfffft, Dan, again you get it ALL wrong! King James told to all the patriarches, prophets and scribes what to write so there is no way the bible could contradict itself. If fact, the Nachesh was reading from the text of the king James to Eve so that she would know how to convince Adam to take a bite of the apple. If the KJV was good enough for Adam, its good 'nuff for me.
Isnt it funny that noone asks about the naked young man running away in the garden of gesemany and the young man that appeared coming out of the tomb. How come mark has this little triste of fate and the other synoptics dont. Is this like a Marcan version of the Isis/Osiris resurrection myth. I think mark forgot about the golden penis.
Also, most peculiar, how many angels can sit on a rolling stone? Where does jesus haunt about the world, is it a wadi near Pella, Galilee, a little town south of the mount of Olives or Jerusalem? What was the last thing Jesus said? Was Jesus mother in town or not? Was he taken before Herod or Not? Was he beaten, how badly was he beating, how long was he kept in custody? Was he crucified the day befor the night before passover, the day of passove, was he hung on a stake or a cross? Where there zombies or not? Was there a pentacoste or not? How many times exactly did Jesus say "I am" and in what language (Hebrew, greek, Aramaic or galillean Aramaic)?
If these are no contradictions, i am the pope. The ending of Mark also shows how the story developed. Paul has no empty tomb and no physical resurrection and Paul never mentions any conversations with Jesus in his letters. Mark has an empty tomb but no post resurrection story. And suddenly we have zombies, Jesus eating with the apostles and the apostles even touching him etc.
@@MrMortal_Ra that's not my opinion. I refer to James Tabor who wrote extensively about it. Anyways, let's agree to disagree
There is no such thing as resurrection. Eyewitness accounts have been and continue to be the least reliable source of data/facts. If Jesus was dead, buried and then returned to life, it’s more reasonable to suggest he was a zombie, not the son of God.
Tabor, summary:
For Paul, the resurrection of Jesus had nothing to do with someone coming “back from the dead,” we have several tales of that in the Hebrew Bible as well as four such stories in the New Testament. Matthew even reports multiple tombs being opened and people appearing to others when Jesus died-presumably these folk lived a bit longer and then died a second time. There is no implication that they become glorified, transformed, heavenly beings, exalted over men and angels at the right hand of God. But that is precisely what Paul has in mind when he affirms his own experience of having “seen the Lord.” Of that point there can be no misunderstanding
All this is to say, and this is nothing new with me, that the earliest view of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead was that of *heavenly transformation* and *exaltation from flesh and blood to immortal life-giving spirit.*
@MrMortal_Ra
*Paul (c. 50 AD)*
The earliest account is in Paul's first letter to the Jesus sect community he founded in Corinth, written some time in the 50s AD:
For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born. (1Cor 15:3-8)
The first thing worth noting here is that fact that Paul includes himself in his list of those to whom the risen Jesus "appeared". *Both his references to his encountering the risen Jesus and the three (slightly different) description of this encounter in Acts all make it clear that this was a vision - a light from heaven and a disembodied voice - not an encounter with a physically-revived former corpse returned to life.* The verb Paul uses for all these appearances he mentions is the same one - ὤφθη meaning "appeared, was seen" - in each case. He makes no distinction between the appearance of Jesus to him and the appearances to others.
Paul then goes on to scold some of the Corinthians for saying there was not going to be a general resurrection of the dead - as already noted above, this idea was not universally accepted by all Jews and it seems to have become disputed in the Corinthian community of the Jesus sect. Paul asks "if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?" (v. 12) and goes on to call Jesus' resurrection "the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep", ie the pre-figurement of the coming general resurrection. *He goes on to address the question of whether this coming resurrection will involve the rising of physical bodies and says in response "How foolish!". Then he goes on to explain that the coming general resurrection will not be physical but involve "spiritual bodies".*
*If Jesus' resurrection is the pre-figurement of the coming general resurrection of the dead, therefore, it is clear that for Paul his rising did not involve a physical body.* This is why Paul's references to and insistence on the fact of the rising of Jesus makes no mention of the evidence of a physical revivification of his dead body that features in some of the later accounts: the empty tomb, discarded grave cloths, people touching Jesus, Jesus eating and his physical form flying up into heaven. *For Paul, at this early stage of the development of the story, the risen Jesus is a spiritual concept involving visions, not physical encounters.*
*Answer*
What-evidence-is-there-for-Jesus-Christs-death-burial-and-resurrection/answer/Tim-ONeill-1 - Quora
In my opinion, the original text of Mark didn't end with the silence of the women, either. I think the original ending was lost, and it most likely contained an apparition of Jesus at the Sea of Galilee, similar to the one in the added ending of John. There appears to have been a parallel tradition of resurrection accounts without the empty tomb, where the disciples went back to Galilee to pick up their normal lives, and then had an apparition of the risen Jesus combined with a fishing miracle. That's most likely what the Gospel of Peter was also including, we just can't know for sure because the text breaks in the middle of the sentence, but that's the direction it seems to take.
It's also very likely that the fishing miracle in Luke was originally placed there, after the resurrection, but was then moved because the ongoing tradition of Luke, with the Acts of the Apostles, needed to place Jesus in Jerusalem after his resurrection, not in Galilee.
I would conclude that the gospels are attempting to reconcile the empty tomb stories with the Sea of Galilee stories, and use different tools to do so, all while increasing the extent of the post resurrection events.
I've seen less retconning from Disney than what I've just seen. Pathetic.
0:15 “John” > Genesis.
12 seconds in and it's already a KO 😭
I've seen more retconning from this video than I've ever seen. Long standing academic understanding. Ha.
Not this kid again. Where did he get his credentials? Some "bible" college?
Facepalm warning! Get out those oven mitts
I feel sorry for this kid.
Wow, pretzel logic much?
Other prophets are overawed, terrified, and confounded by revelations they experience. The response of Moses, our teacher, was not in that manner, but rather, "as a man would speak with his fellow." Just as a person will not be awestruck from hearing his friend's words, Moses' mental power was so broadly sufficient that he was able to receive and comprehend God's words to him while he was standing in a composed state of mind.
The Flash, Barry Allen in one of his triune instantiations,is so broadly and sufficiently attached to the speedforce that he can transverse the multiverse and even track _backwards_ in time.
@@boboak9168It was me, Barry.
@@boboak9168 Thank God I live in eastern Europe away from western godlessness.
@@hrvatskinoahid1048 I would say there are the same amount of gods in west and east Europe
This reminds me of the same setting in the Quran when Moses asked to see God.
7:142 And We appointed with Moses a time of thirty nights and completed them with ten (more), so the appointed time of his Lord was complete forty nights, and Moses said to his brother Aaron: Take my place among my people, and act well and do not follow the way of the mischief-makers
7:143 And when Moses came at Our appointed time and his Lord spoke to him, he said: My Lord! show me (Thyself), so that I may look upon Thee. He said: You cannot (bear to) see Me but look at the mountain, if it remains firm in its place, then will you see Me; but when his Lord manifested His glory to the mountain He made it crumble and Moses fell down in a swoon; then when he recovered, he said: Glory be to Thee, I turn to Thee, and I am the first of the believers
7:144 He said: O Moses! surely I have chosen you above the people with My messages and with My words, therefore take hold of what I give to you and be of the grateful ones
7:145 And We ordained for him in the tablets admonition of every kind and clear explanation of all things; so take hold of them with firmness and enjoin your people to take hold of what is best thereof; I will show you the abode of the transgressors.
That’s how the true revelation from God looks like. We as material human beings made from quarks are unable to withstand to see God and his glory in our state. Maybe when we are in another state of being we would be able to see him. Until then the curtain stays closed.
What does 'see' even mean for a non-material being? Isn't 'seeing' detecting photons with our quark eyes? What does 'glory' mean?
If you need to use metaphors all the time, it's because there is no knowldege there, only emotional language.
@@juanausensi499Bats can see with their ears using echolocation. Sperm whales hunt and see in the deep ocean using sonar. That goes to show you how even in this material world creatures don’t need photons to see. God sees everything at the same time without the need for photons.
6:102 Such is God, your Lord: there is no deity save Him, the Creator of everything: worship, then, Him alone -for it is He who has everything in His care
6:103 No human vision can encompass Him, whereas He encompasses all human vision: for He alone is unfathomable, all-aware.
42:11 (He is) the Creator of the heavens and the earth: He has made for you pairs from among yourselves, and pairs among cattle: by this means does He multiply you: there is nothing whatever like unto Him, and He is the One that hears and sees (all things).
You do not understand.
And you do? 😅
@@DarthRock Probably
But there is a secret!
Like in the Gospel of Mark the short and long conclusion was not originally there. The NWT ends at Mark 16:8
Jesus is the Lamb of The God of Abraham YHVH Yehovah Jehovah
Mark 16:8
In the Gospel of Mark.
If the women tell no one then, Who is !
What each Gospel story is about.
The four living creatures!
Matthew Who was!
Mark Who is!
Luke Who is Coming!
John The Lamb of YHVH!
The four gospels are associated with the four living creatures: Matthew, the man, Mark the lion, Luke the ox, and John the eagle. John has Jesus dying on a different day. It's the Day of Preparation, not the Day of Preparation for Passover. It was the day they prepared the lambs for sacrifice. While at the same time, Jesus is prepared for sacrifice. Jesus is the Lamb of YHVH Yehovah Jehovah
a man, a lion, an ox and an eagle. The man symbolises the prophet; the lion, kingship; the ox, priesthood, and the eagle, fatherhood.
Without lies, christianity dies
No that's Islam