Omnipotence is also relative to people's understanding of the universe. The god of the 'firmament enclosed universe' does not need to be as powerful, to be all powerful, as the god of an 'infinite universe'.
Omnipotence also doesn't mean that someone can do all things, it just means they are capable of all things. The difference is choice. In the bible, it claims that the devil accused God of being a liar and a terrible ruler. Omnipotence would give the power to God to destroy the devil, but would doing that prove him a liar? It would be like someone being abusive to their kids. It wouldn't make a difference if you could bend steel or crush cement bricks with your bare hands to child services workers gauging the validity of the claims. In fact, displays of violence would likely prove the opposite. So, Omnipotence isn't always a fix for every situation.
It's not like christians nowadays even think that God is really omnipotent. How many times do you hear them say, "God can't..." or "God must..." or give some lame apologetic for God's actions by comparing him to a potent human ("When you teach your child to ride a bike, you have to let them fail for them to learn..." Yeah, but I'M NOT OMNIPOTENT!!! If I could teach my child to ride a bike without having them crash, don't you think I would? )
How do you find the number on each video? At least on mobile, I can't see it anywhere. Not in the tags, not in the description, and not in the title. He refers to them, but I dunno how to match them.
It brings to mind the common phrase "all things considered", where you don't actually mean you considered ALL things. I believe there was a teaching (thought I could be remembering incorrectly) that Adonai wanders homeless because the Temple has been destroyed, and so Adonai and the Shekinah can no longer meet as there is no home for them to meet. It's definitely not the trait of an omnipresent deity.
I am a believer. And I enjoy listening to him. And, like Ehrman, he uses his eloquence to mislead his followers. But I’ve watched most of his videos at this point and enjoy listening to him.
@@toddstevens9667 Right. . . because an educated person talking about actual factual research that contradicts your ignorant religion is misleading. The fact you've never considered that your faith leaders are the ones misleading people, and a number of them are knowingly lying for their own benefit, is hilarious. Well not that hilarious but its better to laugh about it than focus too hard on what people like you are doing to humanity in the name of a bronze age deity that got an iron age update. But, by all means, what is inaccurate and misleading? And please come up with something steonger than a Hovind tier argument. Preferably better than clowns like Turek and Craig. Even better if you offer research from someone who didn't sign a statement of faith requiring that they'd basically just make up their research to conform to preconceived theological notions of their particular faith. Yeah. . . Those honest Christian scholars.
Hey Dan! I’m an exmo and atheist but just want to say, thanks for your videos. They have helped me deal with my rage by helping me separate the data from the dogma.
When I watch his videos, I always come away with the feeling that how could we have gotten it wrong for so long. I used to be a believer, and whenever I start to feel like I'm backsliding, it's these videos that remind me that all I've thought in the past were just mistaken interpretations. 😔
Good heavens. Don’t be so freakin narrow. What you’re experiencing is not your ‘wrongness,’ but growth. Incorporate Dan’s work and LEARN. MORE. I mean, he’s a Mormon, this guy, so he swallows a whole lotta balderdash whole. Recognize that Dan is fallible as well …and move forward. The Christian tradition is absolutely a phenomenal, explosive revelation of God in the world, in Christ. Nothing Dan opines effects that reality. Your God is too small. Open your heart and mind to much, much more. It’s not LESS than you believed? It’s much, much more. Be drawn where the Spirit takes you, and don’t fight it.
Also? God’s Omnipresence is the TRUTH. It is real, it is a fact, and when God presents Godself to you, you’ll realize it cannot be otherwise. Which is what both ancient Hebrews, and Christian’s now? Recognize.
@@dorothysay8327God doesn't reveal themselves to anyone. In fact, doesn't Jesus say that after he ascends he will no longer be with us? Is this not traditionally understood to mean that there will be no further interference on the part of the godhead?
I'm sorry the first person to respond to you was this crazy angry person who threw two unhinged comments, like you insulted their dog or something. You're doing fine, and you're right. As you keep learning more, just like me you'll probably stop believing that god is a physically real being. But that's okay! It's actually a lot less scary than it seems and there are plenty of other christian's who still identify as christian's but believe the bible is all metaphor. You'll be okay, there are lots of kind people outside the church too who will welcome and care for you if you go that way. Hang in there, I hope your day today goes well!
@UrMomsFavSnack the vast majority of christians don't understand the old or new testament. Hence there is no consensus on what it means or its translations. This is evidenced by the thousands of conflicting and contradictory sects in christianism. Christians can't even agree on their core dogma such as how one is saved and from what, what their afterlife mythology is or even who or what their gods are. The lack of consensus among Christians is so great they slaughtered each other over it for the majority of the last 2000 years.
Thanks Dan. Religious beliefs are a defend or die proposition the deeper you are in a belief system. Thanks for sharing insights that can free people if they're ready.
_"Nonono Mr. Guy Who Studied The Bible And Religious Texts Most Of His Adult Life. You're wrong about ______."_ -Guy Who Cherry Picks Bible Text And Doesn't Understand Nuance
Love that you mark your videos with unique hashtags! Very clever! I'm a computational chemical physicist out of UC Davis and work with lots of data, and I can see you have that data-driven PhD organization skills! haha Great content.
What are you now? It would be disappointing if you were an unhinged, sad, and desperate atheist or Mormon. (Dan is Mormon. If anyone here can explain that, please do. I don't understand how he can conclude that no scripture is divinely inspired and also claim to be a member of a religion that ostensibly requires that.)
I would suggest not putting too much stock in him. He’s just very eloquent and sounds knowledgeable. But he only represents one school of biblical scholarship, while there are others that are equally eloquent and just as knowledgeable that would completely disagree with most of his conclusions. Just sayin …
@@toddstevens9667 If you are right, the obvious thing to do is to find some issues we care about where both scholars have an opinion and compare the opinions and see who makes more sense. It seems useless to have faith that the other guy exists without knowing anything about him. Can you pick an issue that Dan covers that your other scholar also covers where they disagree, and point to the statement by the other scholar?
@@tim57243 Dan has dozens of videos and there is scholarship on both sides of all those issues. Honestly I doubt it’s worth all the effort of finding the necessary scholars. But just one example that comes to mind right off: Dan has a video attacking the notion that Jesus claimed to be, or was worshipped as, God. I recently read a companion book to Ehrman’s How Jesus Became God called How God became Jesus edited by Michael F. Bird. There are 7 or 8 essays (I forgot exactly how many) by Bible scholars evaluating the claims of Ehrman from a different theological perspective. I mention this because Dan agrees with Ehrman’s thesis. So feel free to read the book and we can discuss it if you choose. Just let me know so I can review Dan’s video, Ehrman’s book, and the collection of essays edited by Bird. But I’m not sure it’s worth quite all that time. But I’m game if you are.
The more I hear Dan talk about Adam and Eve the more convinced I am of the unjustness of the doctrine of original sin and the gross absurdity of the relationship between humankind and God layer out in Genesis.
While I agree that you are right in general about the development of strict dogmatic doctrines of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence much later, those interpretive lenses were just grinding rougher versions which are found very early on, stated intuitively, without a canonical doctrinal form. These always come from merging Greek philosophical ideas into the Jewish historical narratives. I don't believe for one second that John would be made uncomfortable by any later statement about omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, he definitely shares this point of view in some Platonic sense, and I think even the more Jewish Paul would accept some form of this idea. How far back these ideas extend into the OT is debatable, but I would argue that this philosophical point of view definitely appears obliquely in Ecclesiastes, which is focused on an idea of "hevel" or "world-illusion" similar to the idea of "Maya" in Hinduism, and gives God dominion without dogmatism. Actually Ecclesiastes is the strangest book in the Biblical canon from a doctrinal point of view. But I think it is the closest Jewish authors came to adopting a Platonic philosophy before the NT.
"Is omnipotence understood as the physics sense - the ability to do work with available energy, or the ruling sense - possessing all authority?" This is a question I have been asking believers for a while because they assume God can physically do whatever he wants.
They're both enmeshed in the Greco-Roman philosophical milieu of the Eastern Mediterranean of the Pax Romana era; much of their current thought is developed around that time.
@@digitaljanus Yeah. I'm not as clear on the development of Jewish thought on this. Was it really a parallel development in the first century or so CE? Or on a different time line than Christianity's development.
Have you ever asked a child, "Where are you?" when you knew exactly where they were? Sometimes, we ask questions to find information for ourselves. Sometimes, we ask questions to allow someone else to process something. I never assumed Adam was successful in hiding from God, and read God's questions as being part of his interaction with Adam, rather than an actual indicator that God needed the information. I mean, it's very much a lens thing, as discussed in the video. If you assume an all-knowing God, it's not hard to view the interaction that way, but I can see that if you take away that assumption, you could read it as God genuinely wondering what the heck happened.
I thought the three categories of response would be: 1. The laughably ignorant 2. The bafflingly I'll informed 3. Propaganda put forth by right wing bigots trying to protect their privilege
It's a huge problem for monotheists to claim the three omni-qualities the way that they do, because it makes the entire concept of contingency necessary in order to sensibly ground out the terms.
If has *assertions* of Yahweh being omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, but no actual on-screen *feats* of those traits and plenty of feats that counter those assertions.
Peeople, words CHANGE over the course of a few decades. Imagine how they change over thousands of years. To helieve that these words mean the same thing in modern times is just silly. Go look at an etymological dictionary, and you can see this. Watch old movies, and you see this. Read Shakespeare or The Canturbury Tales and you see this (or Beowulf) or talk to your kids or grandkids (like the use of the word 'sick' as meaning something really cool.) We know this to be true in these instances and yet so many can not accept the Bible to be the same.
Not a bible scholar but don't you think that idea or philosophical view of omnipotence and/or omnipresence was what some authors were trying to get at, or express in what they wrote? (Either intentionally or unintentionally) As being descriptive of part of God's nature? (Especially in later writings)
Why should "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" or "become like one of Us, knowing good and evil" necessarily be considered a merism? G-D can know other things. Why not consider it a contrast with the other animals? In other words, the tree of knowledge of good and evil is the awareness of higher morality? Many animals seem to have basic concepts of fairness, awareness of breaking rules, and long-term grudges, but not a moral code. The biblical authors were much more embedded in nature and very observant of their environment, so why were they not trying to express the distinction of humankind?
Enlil's Rank or title , and the scars ,it left on Civilized man = lord of Command of earth mission 1 or ATLANTIS , that's what the 7 heads stand for sovereignty over all 7 continents , the 10 horns stand for the 10th planet
Believers should embrace the 3 omni being just hyperbole. If they are literal it means that god watches children being r*aped and killed without doing anything about it.
So why cannot God be everywhere and knowhere at the same time. His presence maybe felt but not revealed. God may omit itself from knowledge while still having knowledge of it's existence. I may know of war for example in some far distant land. But l chose to limit my knowledge of the details or my presence in it. So viewpoints are not opposed but consilidated by a dual reality.
Ok, stop at 2:28. The process that you refer to, accumulation of powers begins almost from the beginning. In the neolithic shamanistic-like beliefs system represented the world with sprites, we can see some aspect of this in the mother goddess religions. The gods were short stack with the world divided between many sprites that were actionaries of nature, nature itself acting as a sprite. If one wanted to one could assign a sprite to a gnat or a worm. There were often chief like gods that assumed power as permissive status, just like chiefs who assume status with the consent of tribal elders. But in the neolithic we see the rise of the masculine divine that was represented in the power status of the bull, the more rows of horns the higher the status. As heirarchies grew so did the stack of gods, El and the supreme god Enlil on top, anunnuki in the middle (Cities), and villages and hamlet sprites on the bottom. As these gods became colonial gods their power spread, El became the high god of Canaan replacing ba'al, dagan and Amurru. Then in the 24th century Sargon essentially promoted his favorite war god in the Eanna, essentially pushing the old high god as a provincial god. During Hammurabi the god Marduk of Babylon was a lessor god of minor importance, during the late bronze age its priest began promoting Marduks with legends about its creation. When the Assyrians accumulated large territories they promoted their god Asshur as the pentultimate divine. The bigger the empire the more powerful the high god, out on the margins El markedly loses his importance, and its about this time Yahweh merges with El and Asherah, but still Yahweh is no where near as important as Asshur or Marduk. Of course within 200 years both gods would be dead. Asshur, at 640 BCE was undoubtedly to its believers the most powerful god the world had ever known, no doubt many believed Asshur created the universe.
Yeah so what. The doctrine of God emerges from the Bible, but does not remain there, stuck. Doctrine is filtered through culture and changes as humanity develops. We believe the Spirit moves where She will, and development is not just appropriate, but part of the plan.
That's the exact point though! He's not saying it's wrong to believe these things, necessarily. He's saying you can't take the Bible as a source text for believing these things.
First claim (doctrine of God emerges) is asserting/presupposing univocality without evidence. The rest is compatible with the idea that humans are negotiating with the text to structure power and values how they want
You’re really just confirming what Dan said in the video. Which is, the concepts of omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience developed after the books on the Bible were written. That was his whole point.
Dan is a Biblical scholar, so he is looking at it on its own terms. That's the entire point of his channel. If you want something outside that perspective you're frankly in the wrong place.
“the Spirit moves where *_She_* will” 😡 Heretic! The things you made up about God don’t conform to the orthodoxy of things made up about God!!! P.S. Jokes. I like the cut of your jib, even if you are a theist 😃
Come see this dude. Wow. Freudian slip. Dan the apostate. All things are possible to those who believe. Depending on the measure if faith He gives to each. Romans 12:3. If He gives gobs of faith like He did to His Son, well.... Gid sees al things. One's hyperbolic rhetoric is another's truth. I supposed it depends on the measure of faith He has given one. Higher critics: doubting Thomases gone wild.
Dan's not here to promote a belief. He's here to inform us of the facts, and cut through misinformation and misconceptions to what the best scholarship can tell us about what the bible actually says, and what it doesn't say. From that you can examine your beliefs about religion and make up your own mind.
The host of scripture indicate that God has access to the thoughts, intents, motivations, imaginations, etc. in the heart of Mankind. How then does He not have “eyes everywhere” and how does His gaze not cover all the earth? How can He not essentially see “All things” if He sees the inward soul? This is how He is able to perfectly judge. Also, Dan your videos are great. The stripping and sterilizing effect they have on the mystical and superstitious religious lens is wonderful. I do wonder if you are an theist or atheist? What’s your slant?
@@JP-JustSayin he's an active Mormon but he does not subscribe to the major truth claims of the church. Figuring out exactly where he stands personally on metaphysical issues is somewhat difficult. I can understand why he doesn't convey his own views totally as he is a mouth piece for concensus scholarship and wants us to make up our own minds. Historical scholarship begins with an assumption of naturalism and that is its bias.
24 But when the Moabites came to the camp of Israel, the Israelites rose up and fought them until they fled. And the Israelites invaded the land and slaughtered the Moabites. 25 They destroyed the towns, and each man threw a stone on every good field until it was covered. They stopped up all the springs and cut down every good tree. Only Kir Hareseth was left with its stones in place, but men armed with slings surrounded it and attacked it. If this is the Moabites winning what would it look like if they lost. Yes the mission was over so they went back home but no no way was that losing. God gave them water. The idea that God is not everywhere is nonsense. LDS believe their prayers are answered wherever on earth they are. How is that not omnipresence?
But the bible clearly shows the gods are not everywhere and do not know all things. Many times in the bible the abaramaic gods are shown to be incompetent, ignorant and are even defeated in battle with iron chariots.
@@jaclo3112 The Bible clearly shows that God does not micromanage us for sure. If that is what you mean. Just because God does not control our every move though does not mean God is not there. Children are watched very well by good parents but being a good parent means sometimes you allow your child do something stupid. You watch them learn by experience. All right show me. So far I have not been shown. Prove your claims with scripture.
This God that you claim is tri-Omni lost when assessed against his own declaration of what the outcome of the war would be: “This is an easy thing in the eyes of the Lord; he will also deliver Moab into your hands. 19 You will overthrow every fortified city and every major town.” - 2 Kings 3: 18-19
@@boboak9168 I did not claim he was omni-tri just present. I do not believe that God knows all future events. Nor do I believe God can do absolutely anything. He can not force us to be good evidently for example. 25 They destroyed the towns, and each man threw a stone on every good field until it was covered. They stopped up all the springs and cut down every good tree. Only Kir Hareseth was left with its stones in place, but men armed with slings surrounded it and attacked it. 26 When the king of Moab saw that the battle had gone against him, he took with him seven hundred swordsmen to break through to the king of Edom, but they failed. 27 Then he took his firstborn son, who was to succeed him as king, and offered him as a sacrifice on the city wall. The fury against Israel was great; they withdrew and returned to their own land. Fulfilled they were not promised to overthrow the King just his land which they did.
@steveangell1072 no I'm not talking about micromanagement. I'm talking about omnipresence. The bible clearly shows the christian gods are not omnipresent. Not sure why you are trying to use parents as an example as parents are not omnipresent. They are not around their kids 24/7. So it's a false equivalence How do you not know that the christian gods can be defeated with iron chariots? Everyone knows that bible story. Even non christians know it. It seems you've never read the bible.
It seems like too many concrete thinkers read the bible without ever realizing that they are reading literature.
It’s not to be taken literally. That’s people biggest mistake.
They just can’t enjoy the literary literature.
You can call them concrete thinkers. I prefer the term 'cement heads'.
What a silly comment. We all realize it’s literature. But we think it’s more than just literature.
@@johnrichardson7629”Cement head”???
@@toddstevens9667 Except I isn't more than literature, its overblown pretenses notwithstanding.
Omnipotence is also relative to people's understanding of the universe. The god of the 'firmament enclosed universe' does not need to be as powerful, to be all powerful, as the god of an 'infinite universe'.
You know I'm watching this video today and in my desk is sitting Koyre's From the Closed World to the Infinite Universe
Omnipotence also doesn't mean that someone can do all things, it just means they are capable of all things. The difference is choice.
In the bible, it claims that the devil accused God of being a liar and a terrible ruler. Omnipotence would give the power to God to destroy the devil, but would doing that prove him a liar?
It would be like someone being abusive to their kids. It wouldn't make a difference if you could bend steel or crush cement bricks with your bare hands to child services workers gauging the validity of the claims. In fact, displays of violence would likely prove the opposite.
So, Omnipotence isn't always a fix for every situation.
It's not like christians nowadays even think that God is really omnipotent. How many times do you hear them say, "God can't..." or "God must..." or give some lame apologetic for God's actions by comparing him to a potent human ("When you teach your child to ride a bike, you have to let them fail for them to learn..." Yeah, but I'M NOT OMNIPOTENT!!! If I could teach my child to ride a bike without having them crash, don't you think I would? )
I love how he has a specific catalog number for each video. That’s dedication and precision my friends
That's academic rigor and yeah, it's very appreciated.
How do you find the number on each video? At least on mobile, I can't see it anywhere. Not in the tags, not in the description, and not in the title. He refers to them, but I dunno how to match them.
It brings to mind the common phrase "all things considered", where you don't actually mean you considered ALL things.
I believe there was a teaching (thought I could be remembering incorrectly) that Adonai wanders homeless because the Temple has been destroyed, and so Adonai and the Shekinah can no longer meet as there is no home for them to meet. It's definitely not the trait of an omnipresent deity.
This guy is super eloquent. Even if you were a believer, you have to give him his props.
I am a believer. And I enjoy listening to him. And, like Ehrman, he uses his eloquence to mislead his followers. But I’ve watched most of his videos at this point and enjoy listening to him.
@@toddstevens9667 he doesn't intend to mislead of course. He has pure intentions to educate, whether he is correct or not.
@@redder-switch you’re right
@@toddstevens9667 Right. . . because an educated person talking about actual factual research that contradicts your ignorant religion is misleading. The fact you've never considered that your faith leaders are the ones misleading people, and a number of them are knowingly lying for their own benefit, is hilarious. Well not that hilarious but its better to laugh about it than focus too hard on what people like you are doing to humanity in the name of a bronze age deity that got an iron age update.
But, by all means, what is inaccurate and misleading? And please come up with something steonger than a Hovind tier argument. Preferably better than clowns like Turek and Craig. Even better if you offer research from someone who didn't sign a statement of faith requiring that they'd basically just make up their research to conform to preconceived theological notions of their particular faith. Yeah. . . Those honest Christian scholars.
Hey Dan! I’m an exmo and atheist but just want to say, thanks for your videos. They have helped me deal with my rage by helping me separate the data from the dogma.
When I watch his videos, I always come away with the feeling that how could we have gotten it wrong for so long. I used to be a believer, and whenever I start to feel like I'm backsliding, it's these videos that remind me that all I've thought in the past were just mistaken interpretations. 😔
Good heavens. Don’t be so freakin narrow. What you’re experiencing is not your ‘wrongness,’ but growth. Incorporate Dan’s work and LEARN. MORE.
I mean, he’s a Mormon, this guy, so he swallows a whole lotta balderdash whole. Recognize that Dan is fallible as well …and move forward. The Christian tradition is absolutely a phenomenal, explosive revelation of God in the world, in Christ. Nothing Dan opines effects that reality.
Your God is too small. Open your heart and mind to much, much more. It’s not LESS than you believed? It’s much, much more. Be drawn where the Spirit takes you, and don’t fight it.
Also? God’s Omnipresence is the TRUTH. It is real, it is a fact, and when God presents Godself to you, you’ll realize it cannot be otherwise. Which is what both ancient Hebrews, and Christian’s now? Recognize.
@@dorothysay8327God doesn't reveal themselves to anyone. In fact, doesn't Jesus say that after he ascends he will no longer be with us? Is this not traditionally understood to mean that there will be no further interference on the part of the godhead?
I'm sorry the first person to respond to you was this crazy angry person who threw two unhinged comments, like you insulted their dog or something.
You're doing fine, and you're right. As you keep learning more, just like me you'll probably stop believing that god is a physically real being. But that's okay! It's actually a lot less scary than it seems and there are plenty of other christian's who still identify as christian's but believe the bible is all metaphor. You'll be okay, there are lots of kind people outside the church too who will welcome and care for you if you go that way. Hang in there, I hope your day today goes well!
@@dorothysay8327 We also should recognize that you are as fallible as anyone else, so everything you said here could be wrong.
I’ve never heard this before yet it is brilliant to me, probably common sense for scholars (and in retrospect) 😅
It makes me glad we have a living Apostolic tradition, and aren't wholly reliant on a static source of information.
@@MarcillaSmithYou clearly don’t understand New Testament scholarship then.
@UrMomsFavSnack the vast majority of christians don't understand the old or new testament. Hence there is no consensus on what it means or its translations. This is evidenced by the thousands of conflicting and contradictory sects in christianism.
Christians can't even agree on their core dogma such as how one is saved and from what, what their afterlife mythology is or even who or what their gods are. The lack of consensus among Christians is so great they slaughtered each other over it for the majority of the last 2000 years.
@@φαρμακεία-πρωταρχικόςWell I do. And most of what Dan says is just nonsense. But he’s fun to listen to. No doubt about that.
@@toddstevens9667 “Most of what Dan say’s is nonsense.”
That is one hell of a claim, care to back that up? 🤨
So, I love your work....so much so, that I started a new channel, and got the first of many videos to come, posted
The Serpentist
Thanks Dan. Religious beliefs are a defend or die proposition the deeper you are in a belief system. Thanks for sharing insights that can free people if they're ready.
It's crazy how some of the things you mentioned as hyperbole were things I took seriously in a philosophical sense or in a truth sense.
_"Nonono Mr. Guy Who Studied The Bible And Religious Texts Most Of His Adult Life. You're wrong about ______."_
-Guy Who Cherry Picks Bible Text And Doesn't Understand Nuance
Been saying for a long time that passages where "all" are included are not philosophically totalitarian or all-encompassing; but rather hyperbole
One of the best talks ever I hope people understand this. I wish everyone would see this video
Love that you mark your videos with unique hashtags! Very clever! I'm a computational chemical physicist out of UC Davis and work with lots of data, and I can see you have that data-driven PhD organization skills! haha Great content.
That's a cool t-shirt, where'd you get it? 👀
I was absolutely distracted by how rad that t-shirt is
maimonides-nutz! Search it and her store will come up :D
I used to be a unhinged, sad, and desperate conservative lutheran... then i found Dan's work. ❤
What are you now?
It would be disappointing if you were an unhinged, sad, and desperate atheist or Mormon.
(Dan is Mormon. If anyone here can explain that, please do. I don't understand how he can conclude that no scripture is divinely inspired and also claim to be a member of a religion that ostensibly requires that.)
I would suggest not putting too much stock in him. He’s just very eloquent and sounds knowledgeable. But he only represents one school of biblical scholarship, while there are others that are equally eloquent and just as knowledgeable that would completely disagree with most of his conclusions. Just sayin …
@@toddstevens9667 If you are right, the obvious thing to do is to find some issues we care about where both scholars have an opinion and compare the opinions and see who makes more sense.
It seems useless to have faith that the other guy exists without knowing anything about him.
Can you pick an issue that Dan covers that your other scholar also covers where they disagree, and point to the statement by the other scholar?
@@tim57243 Dan has dozens of videos and there is scholarship on both sides of all those issues. Honestly I doubt it’s worth all the effort of finding the necessary scholars. But just one example that comes to mind right off: Dan has a video attacking the notion that Jesus claimed to be, or was worshipped as, God. I recently read a companion book to Ehrman’s How Jesus Became God called How God became Jesus edited by Michael F. Bird. There are 7 or 8 essays (I forgot exactly how many) by Bible scholars evaluating the claims of Ehrman from a different theological perspective. I mention this because Dan agrees with Ehrman’s thesis. So feel free to read the book and we can discuss it if you choose. Just let me know so I can review Dan’s video, Ehrman’s book, and the collection of essays edited by Bird. But I’m not sure it’s worth quite all that time. But I’m game if you are.
The more I hear Dan talk about Adam and Eve the more convinced I am of the unjustness of the doctrine of original sin and the gross absurdity of the relationship between humankind and God layer out in Genesis.
You are correct, Dan
No, he really isn’t. But whatever …
While I agree that you are right in general about the development of strict dogmatic doctrines of omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence much later, those interpretive lenses were just grinding rougher versions which are found very early on, stated intuitively, without a canonical doctrinal form. These always come from merging Greek philosophical ideas into the Jewish historical narratives. I don't believe for one second that John would be made uncomfortable by any later statement about omniscience, omnipotence, and omnipresence, he definitely shares this point of view in some Platonic sense, and I think even the more Jewish Paul would accept some form of this idea. How far back these ideas extend into the OT is debatable, but I would argue that this philosophical point of view definitely appears obliquely in Ecclesiastes, which is focused on an idea of "hevel" or "world-illusion" similar to the idea of "Maya" in Hinduism, and gives God dominion without dogmatism. Actually Ecclesiastes is the strangest book in the Biblical canon from a doctrinal point of view. But I think it is the closest Jewish authors came to adopting a Platonic philosophy before the NT.
All things are possible includes the possibility that all things are not possible, which is a logical contradiction.
"Is omnipotence understood as the physics sense - the ability to do work with available energy, or the ruling sense - possessing all authority?"
This is a question I have been asking believers for a while because they assume God can physically do whatever he wants.
Nicely put Dan
Interesting that similar ideas about God's omniscience and omnipotence developed in both Christianity and Judaism after the two diverged.
They're both enmeshed in the Greco-Roman philosophical milieu of the Eastern Mediterranean of the Pax Romana era; much of their current thought is developed around that time.
@@digitaljanus Yeah. I'm not as clear on the development of Jewish thought on this. Was it really a parallel development in the first century or so CE? Or on a different time line than Christianity's development.
Well they were both existing in the same parts of the world and surely influencing eachothers thought
Remarkable. Thank you.
Great information !
On a side note, that shirt is freaking me out because it looks like the letters of my fraternity, Pi Alpha Nu.
But it is the Hebrew word "emet" of 'truth'.
Didn't Adam hide from God because he was naked?
If god was omnipresent and omniscient, he would have known where Adam was hiding.
Have you ever asked a child, "Where are you?" when you knew exactly where they were? Sometimes, we ask questions to find information for ourselves. Sometimes, we ask questions to allow someone else to process something. I never assumed Adam was successful in hiding from God, and read God's questions as being part of his interaction with Adam, rather than an actual indicator that God needed the information. I mean, it's very much a lens thing, as discussed in the video. If you assume an all-knowing God, it's not hard to view the interaction that way, but I can see that if you take away that assumption, you could read it as God genuinely wondering what the heck happened.
I thought the three categories of response would be:
1. The laughably ignorant
2. The bafflingly I'll informed
3. Propaganda put forth by right wing bigots trying to protect their privilege
ill informed
Thank you sir
Come see this dude!!!. Nevermind my last comment. I understand now.
Even TA PANTA is qualified in many places - all of a set but not everything.
The level of irony on that shirt 😅😂
Is that the truth being distorted? 🤷🏿
It's a huge problem for monotheists to claim the three omni-qualities the way that they do, because it makes the entire concept of contingency necessary in order to sensibly ground out the terms.
Hi Dan! On your shirt, is that the Hebrew word “emet” which is translated into the English word, “truth”?
It's a subliminal message
Looks like it.
It's a Golem of Prague reference, shirt made by maimonides-nutz
@@VishantiI came here to scream "the Golem of Prague!" Thanks for saving me from shouting.
If has *assertions* of Yahweh being omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, but no actual on-screen *feats* of those traits and plenty of feats that counter those assertions.
Peeople, words CHANGE over the course of a few decades. Imagine how they change over thousands of years. To helieve that these words mean the same thing in modern times is just silly. Go look at an etymological dictionary, and you can see this. Watch old movies, and you see this. Read Shakespeare or The Canturbury Tales and you see this (or Beowulf) or talk to your kids or grandkids (like the use of the word 'sick' as meaning something really cool.) We know this to be true in these instances and yet so many can not accept the Bible to be the same.
Not a bible scholar but don't you think that idea or philosophical view of omnipotence and/or omnipresence was what some authors were trying to get at, or express in what they wrote? (Either intentionally or unintentionally) As being descriptive of part of God's nature? (Especially in later writings)
Why should "the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" or "become like one of Us, knowing good and evil" necessarily be considered a merism? G-D can know other things. Why not consider it a contrast with the other animals? In other words, the tree of knowledge of good and evil is the awareness of higher morality? Many animals seem to have basic concepts of fairness, awareness of breaking rules, and long-term grudges, but not a moral code. The biblical authors were much more embedded in nature and very observant of their environment, so why were they not trying to express the distinction of humankind?
It seems that you make the common mistake of conflating the conceivable and the possible.
Who is the "you" in your reference?
Enlil's Rank or title , and the scars ,it left on Civilized man = lord of Command of earth mission 1 or ATLANTIS , that's what the 7 heads stand for sovereignty over all 7 continents , the 10 horns stand for the 10th planet
Man, people are really up in arms over this one.
Fortunately, Chemosh will never let you down, unlike Bible god.
👏🙌🫶🙌👏
It’s funny some people think God is everywhere, while some others think God is nowhere.
Talk about diametrically opposed world views!
Nothing is off limits when you believe in a being unbound by logic 💀
Believers should embrace the 3 omni being just hyperbole. If they are literal it means that god watches children being r*aped and killed without doing anything about it.
But some people think God is everywhere and also in heaven, and hell is just a place far away from God.
Not as bad as people who think the devil is omnipresent.
So why cannot God be everywhere and knowhere at the same time. His presence maybe felt but not revealed. God may omit itself from knowledge while still having knowledge of it's existence. I may know of war for example in some far distant land. But l chose to limit my knowledge of the details or my presence in it. So viewpoints are not opposed but consilidated by a dual reality.
this omni-god is more of a platonic idea
This would have been amazing if you had said "Let's see it" to yourself.
Ok, stop at 2:28. The process that you refer to, accumulation of powers begins almost from the beginning.
In the neolithic shamanistic-like beliefs system represented the world with sprites, we can see some aspect of this in the mother goddess religions. The gods were short stack with the world divided between many sprites that were actionaries of nature, nature itself acting as a sprite. If one wanted to one could assign a sprite to a gnat or a worm. There were often chief like gods that assumed power as permissive status, just like chiefs who assume status with the consent of tribal elders.
But in the neolithic we see the rise of the masculine divine that was represented in the power status of the bull, the more rows of horns the higher the status. As heirarchies grew so did the stack of gods, El and the supreme god Enlil on top, anunnuki in the middle (Cities), and villages and hamlet sprites on the bottom.
As these gods became colonial gods their power spread, El became the high god of Canaan replacing ba'al, dagan and Amurru. Then in the 24th century Sargon essentially promoted his favorite war god in the Eanna, essentially pushing the old high god as a provincial god. During Hammurabi the god Marduk of Babylon was a lessor god of minor importance, during the late bronze age its priest began promoting Marduks with legends about its creation. When the Assyrians accumulated large territories they promoted their god Asshur as the pentultimate divine. The bigger the empire the more powerful the high god, out on the margins El markedly loses his importance, and its about this time Yahweh merges with El and Asherah, but still Yahweh is no where near as important as Asshur or Marduk. Of course within 200 years both gods would be dead.
Asshur, at 640 BCE was undoubtedly to its believers the most powerful god the world had ever known, no doubt many believed Asshur created the universe.
Yeah so what. The doctrine of God emerges from the Bible, but does not remain there, stuck. Doctrine is filtered through culture and changes as humanity develops. We believe the Spirit moves where She will, and development is not just appropriate, but part of the plan.
That's the exact point though!
He's not saying it's wrong to believe these things, necessarily. He's saying you can't take the Bible as a source text for believing these things.
First claim (doctrine of God emerges) is asserting/presupposing univocality without evidence.
The rest is compatible with the idea that humans are negotiating with the text to structure power and values how they want
You’re really just confirming what Dan said in the video. Which is, the concepts of omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience developed after the books on the Bible were written. That was his whole point.
Dan is a Biblical scholar, so he is looking at it on its own terms. That's the entire point of his channel. If you want something outside that perspective you're frankly in the wrong place.
“the Spirit moves where *_She_* will” 😡
Heretic! The things you made up about God don’t conform to the orthodoxy of things made up about God!!!
P.S. Jokes. I like the cut of your jib, even if you are a theist 😃
Come see this dude. Wow. Freudian slip. Dan the apostate. All things are possible to those who believe. Depending on the measure if faith He gives to each. Romans 12:3. If He gives gobs of faith like He did to His Son, well....
Gid sees al things. One's hyperbolic rhetoric is another's truth. I supposed it depends on the measure of faith He has given one. Higher critics: doubting Thomases gone wild.
I swear man. I don't know what you believe in. I've listen for years. You constantly look to your left.ill ask a question. What do you believe?
Dan's not here to promote a belief. He's here to inform us of the facts, and cut through misinformation and misconceptions to what the best scholarship can tell us about what the bible actually says, and what it doesn't say. From that you can examine your beliefs about religion and make up your own mind.
I mean he is a Mormon he worked for the LDS Church as a translation supervisor. Pretty sure Mormons don't consider God to be omnipotent.
The host of scripture indicate that God has access to the thoughts, intents, motivations, imaginations, etc. in the heart of Mankind.
How then does He not have “eyes everywhere” and how does His gaze not cover all the earth? How can He not essentially see “All things” if He sees the inward soul?
This is how He is able to perfectly judge.
Also, Dan your videos are great. The stripping and sterilizing effect they have on the mystical and superstitious religious lens is wonderful.
I do wonder if you are an theist or atheist? What’s your slant?
He's a mormon
I think in your first sentence you wrote "indicate" but should have said "claim".
... and Dan is an active Mormon.
@@JP-JustSayin he's an active Mormon but he does not subscribe to the major truth claims of the church. Figuring out exactly where he stands personally on metaphysical issues is somewhat difficult. I can understand why he doesn't convey his own views totally as he is a mouth piece for concensus scholarship and wants us to make up our own minds. Historical scholarship begins with an assumption of naturalism and that is its bias.
@@jojones4685on top of the scholarship issue.. it's also not our business.
@@squiddwizzard8850 it really isn't our business to know
Oh good, more blah, blah
Thanks for commenting so the Al Gore rhythm will share the ‘blah, blah’ further and wider.
24 But when the Moabites came to the camp of Israel, the Israelites rose up and fought them until they fled. And the Israelites invaded the land and slaughtered the Moabites. 25 They destroyed the towns, and each man threw a stone on every good field until it was covered. They stopped up all the springs and cut down every good tree. Only Kir Hareseth was left with its stones in place, but men armed with slings surrounded it and attacked it.
If this is the Moabites winning what would it look like if they lost.
Yes the mission was over so they went back home but no no way was that losing. God gave them water.
The idea that God is not everywhere is nonsense. LDS believe their prayers are answered wherever on earth they are. How is that not omnipresence?
But the bible clearly shows the gods are not everywhere and do not know all things. Many times in the bible the abaramaic gods are shown to be incompetent, ignorant and are even defeated in battle with iron chariots.
@@jaclo3112 The Bible clearly shows that God does not micromanage us for sure. If that is what you mean. Just because God does not control our every move though does not mean God is not there. Children are watched very well by good parents but being a good parent means sometimes you allow your child do something stupid. You watch them learn by experience.
All right show me. So far I have not been shown.
Prove your claims with scripture.
This God that you claim is tri-Omni lost when assessed against his own declaration of what the outcome of the war would be:
“This is an easy thing in the eyes of the Lord; he will also deliver Moab into your hands. 19 You will overthrow every fortified city and every major town.” - 2 Kings 3: 18-19
@@boboak9168 I did not claim he was omni-tri just present. I do not believe that God knows all future events. Nor do I believe God can do absolutely anything. He can not force us to be good evidently for example.
25 They destroyed the towns, and each man threw a stone on every good field until it was covered. They stopped up all the springs and cut down every good tree. Only Kir Hareseth was left with its stones in place, but men armed with slings surrounded it and attacked it.
26 When the king of Moab saw that the battle had gone against him, he took with him seven hundred swordsmen to break through to the king of Edom, but they failed. 27 Then he took his firstborn son, who was to succeed him as king, and offered him as a sacrifice on the city wall. The fury against Israel was great; they withdrew and returned to their own land.
Fulfilled they were not promised to overthrow the King just his land which they did.
@steveangell1072 no I'm not talking about micromanagement. I'm talking about omnipresence. The bible clearly shows the christian gods are not omnipresent.
Not sure why you are trying to use parents as an example as parents are not omnipresent. They are not around their kids 24/7. So it's a false equivalence
How do you not know that the christian gods can be defeated with iron chariots? Everyone knows that bible story. Even non christians know it.
It seems you've never read the bible.
So basically you’re a heretic? Lol😂