And thus, by our modern standards and linguistic consensus, we ought to refer to him as "they/them" cause thats how we address persons that are neither male nor female
Such a distinction didnt exist in ancient hebrew where the male pronoun was used as a default one (because of the patriarchy). In english its "they/them"
He blocked me too! After I read one of his “scholarly articles” he sent me as a rebuttal. And after I told him I would discuss the problems with his article point by point. Said I wasn’t there in “good faith.” To be blunt, he sucks.
He said the same thing to me. We were talking about the shroud of Turin and he claimed that we should accept the scholarly consensus that it's a medieval forgery because neither of us are experts on the matter. I responded saying the notion that we can't be skeptical of the consensus just because we aren't experts is just fallacious. He then claimed that he never said we can't be skeptical of the consensus (even though his early statement clearly implied that) and left after saying I wasn't willing to engage in good faith.
@@briandiehl9257 Lol, I had also given him the nick name "Dogma Dan" a few months back when I first encountered his videos. Describes him so perfectly.
Dan : " Anyone that gives other interpretations to this passage is following dogmatism " IP : " Well that's a blatant poisoning the well " Dan : " Nuh uh " You gotta love debating in 2024 😭 Also great video IP , may God bless you and your family ❣️
A few McClellan tweets came across my timeline today and I started tweaking so came to watch this just to stay sane. Thanks for doing what you do in the level headed way that you do. Keep it up
Who is this guy? Never heard of him until IP’s videos. I looked up some of his older stuff and he definitely came off as an atheist. He had or has a podcast call The Devil is in the Details and at least the few that I listened to sounded very much like he was sort of the same ilk as Bart Erhman.
Dan McClellan considers himself to be an authoritative voice on textual interpretation, near eastern history, Christian theology, and to be an accurate psychoanalyst of the biblical authors. All of this despite being relatively early in his career and not well studied at all about the majority of the areas he speaks on.
@@harrygarris6921 he also pronounces on a variety of scientific issues, with presumed authority. Don’t get me wrong. I love when people read multiple disciplines. But there’s an obvious lack of humility coupled with pattern of being mistaken.
Dan has demonstrated considerable expertise, and unlike IP (who is less well qualified) actually provides an argument for his point which IP explicitly does not.
@@stevenbatke2475Dan has proven over and over that he can't do theology. Why would people even waste their time with this guy? He's trying to be another Ehrman but lacks Ehrman's charisma. So at least Ehrman is entertaining when spreading his lies. Dan isn't.
@@MrSeedi76 sorry, you’re expecting a bible scholar to do theology? Which denomination of theology? Do you know what bible scholars do? Because it ain’t theology.
As do most people, there’s basically no logic or rhetoric taught in a standard curriculum at all these days. You’re only going to learn this stuff if you’re self taught, had a classical education at home or in a private school, or took some very specific classes in university.
@@harrygarris6921 I had to take 2 different classes that taught logic in university, and I am not getting into any majors related to that, I think people just don't pay attention
True, in our conversation he solely relied on an argumentum ad populum fallacy to make his case. After I pointed it out to him, he said I wasn't engaging in good faith and left
Whenever anyone brings up that Dan might not be as objective as he thinks, his pride gets in the way. It's present in nearly all of his videos. Dan likes to dish out criticism, but he can't take the heat. He likes to be the one criticizing, but once he is criticized? Suddenly it is a very different story. Very strange for a channel almost solely focused on criticizing evangelicals for their beliefs. He does not recognize the huge amount of biases and dogmas that he takes to maintain his 'critical' demeanor.
"I'm a Christian" "Why?" "Because of all this evidence." "You only believe that evidence because you're a Christian" If we ever lost Pi, we could rediscover it from the circular nature of Dan's reasoning.
@@Chomper750 faith in God is not about intellectual assent to His existence. It's trust in His nature and promises. Your comment is comparing apples to oranges.
@@edwardtbabinski Just watched a video of Dan making the claim that Jesus is not God. Dan is not a Christian. He's a pawn of the enemy. I hope he does repent. He steers people away from the Lord, not to the Lord.
@@edwardtbabinski If Dan does not repent, I really fear for him. He makes it his life's mission to steer people from the Lord. The Lord is not pleased with that. I hope Dan repents.
@@edwardtbabinski thats great, and theres only one way to heaven, and only one way to the Father and that's through the Son. Without Christ there is nothing but gehenna
It's very frustrating (not to mention very annoying) that Dan is so quick to accuse people who disagree with him of clinging to their dogmas and biases, while at the same time being so coy about what he actually believes (e.g., does he even believe in God, does he believe Jesus rose bodily from the dead, etc.). At least other scholars will tell you upfront what they believe, thereby letting you take that into consideration when assessing their arguments.
He's a Mormon he has clearly stated that and he doesn't allow his faith to affect his scholarly work to the point that other Mormons don't like him too much.....maybe IP should borrow a leaf from him and distance his so called scholarly take of the bible from his dogma
@lennoxnderitu3659 Yeah, but merely stating that he is a Mormon is incredibly vague, especially when much of what he believes is at odds with the beliefs of your average Mormon. Not only is there a wide range of views within Mormonism, but his views are even argued by some Mormons to be outside those boundaries.
@@zachwalters5709His channel is purely for scholarly work and he's well aware that it conflicts with his faith that's why he differentiates between dogma and scholarly study of the bible. He's well aware of the fact that his scholarly work and his faith cannot agree which is a point I see you guys can't seem to comprehend because you only subscribe to scholars that are out to prove that the bible is true such as IP over here
He seems like a liberal atheist. All his arguments are aimed at countering and attacking traditional Christian beliefs. Just look at his followers, they're all Christianity hating liberal atheists. He attracts them because he promotes their beliefs.
@@zachwalters5709 But it's all he needs to say. You want him to offer more of what he believes not to actually know but to use as ammo so you can bad your own beliefs that he refutes.
Unfortunately, that's the way that modern discourse online goes. If you don't feel like engaging with an argument or feel you can't win it, you just shut it down. I think it's stupid and people need to hear both sides of an argument because that's the only way we can ever come to any conclusions about anything
It was Michael Jones who started personal attacks and was clearly getting louder. Michael Jones can do all the mental gymnastics he wants, the data clearly says what it says.
He's a Mormon. Mormons have animosity against Evangelicals and other Protestants for several reasons. It's because Mormons have added books that are completely made up and they don't subscribe to sola scriptura, in fact they think the KJV of the bible is corrupt. The Mormons have lost many converts to Evangelicals, because their prophecies never came to pass. This is why Dan continuously tries to make arguments that the KJV bible is corrupt because he is Mormon and that's essential to their beliefs.
@@scripturalcontexts He deems everyone that he can't just bully and can't refute as worthy of being blocked so you got a chance. Ive heard hundreds of stories by people who he blocked.
The irritating part regarding the book of Jonah, is why send a prophet if there isnt some chance at salvation? Even when judgment is announced fatalistically it is usually in a wider context that sees judgment falling as an end of an affair, not an out of the blue condemnation.
@@LockeTheAuthentic seems like Jonah was written as a fictional story. The prophet of God seems like the worst person in the story and all the gentiles understand God better than him, so maybe it was even a critique of prophets. The geography of the story of Noah makes no sense. I’ve always found it interesting that cultural depictions of Nineveh will often show it on the coast when it’s actually very far inland. I’ve even seen maps of the story of Jonah that just teleport him and the big fish from the Mediterranean to Nineveh.
It feels a bit similar to the Muslim response to Jesus' divinity: Muslims: Where did Jesus say "I am God, worship me". McClellan: Where is it explicitly said this is conditional? For neither of them does the context seem to matter.
@@henningstedtfeld7121No. The books of the Bible were not written to be read alone. If you know how the Bible was used prior to Protestantism this would be clear. Most people could not read in 1AD and back. So the Bible was spoken to people and then explained by a priest. This has always been the tradition. The writers assume you’re not reading this alone and have a teacher with you because that was the norm. You didn't write it for people to read at home since this was borderline impossible unless someone had the money.
@@sweetxjc I completely agree with your argument about the historical emergence of the Bible. The texts were written on different scrolls over the centuries and read aloud during the sermons to illiterate people by a priest, who could add individual interpretations that are not in the texts. However, this is also the reason why I believe that the Bible is not of devine origin, it's a book written by men for men with an ancient moral code.
@@henningstedtfeld7121 idk bro, Mormonism and Islam, which both allow a man to satisfy his lust and marry more than one woman, seem like man made ones to me, whereas Christianity goes against what men want & tells us to restrain and limit our lust/wives/etc
@@0NoOne1nParticular Well, Mormons and Muslims don't drink alcohol, but Christians do. I guess every religion, culture or group has its own taboos. The tradition of monogamy in Christianity isn't proof that the Bible is of devine origin imho.
I'm no scholar but I'm legitimately surprised that Dan thinks the audience wouldn't know why Jonah was reluctant... I would assume it would be abundantly clear to the original audience considering so many would have presuppositions about the Ninevites. That tension wasn't exactly a secret back then.
Dan: data over dogma Anybody with a brain: i disagree with your position. Dan: youre wrong becasue all of the scholars i arbitrarily pick agree with me
@christianchaidez I've never seen IP do that. Keep in mind that citing scholars can attest to your point, but having scholars agree alone does not make your position true.
@christianchaidez yeah, that's not fallacious, an appeal to authority fallacy, or a problem at all. It's only a problem when you rely on the credentials of scholars or experts solely and abandon their argumentation to prove a point. Dan Mclellan is known for saying "scholarly consensus" then nothing else to prove his point.
I notice Dan follows a pattern here with people online. He will say the same phrases to people who disagree with him and even appeal to the consensus on a certain topic he thinks is a valid interpretation of the Bible, but he never gives in depth reasons and evidences as to why this specific interpretation is hold amongst the consensus.
I used to listen to Dan a few months back but i started to realize that the way he studies the Bible and interprets it was off, so i stopped watching. I even thought about ''what if he debates with Inspiringphilosophy? ''. i think i mentioned him in one of your videos too months before they ''debated''. But it's low of Dan to block Insp though. It proves he lost.
One thing that confuses me is why do some people say the pharaoh of exodus was rameses? Wouldn’t it make more sense if it was Thutmose III because the Bible says 480 years after the exodus when Solomon started building the first holy temple ?
@@xplicitgoofy1015Because a large group of Semites abandoned Avaris during the reign of Rameses the Second. You can see the documentary "Exodus Rediscovered" that IP made with Dr David Falk
@@MeanBeanComedy So what does the 480 years mean? Does it mean 12 generations have passed since the exodus happened ? Like I did research and nowhere within the Bible does it say pharaoh died in the sea of reeds but it explicitly states his army perished in the sea, and in the whole Old Testament God never declared the pharaoh died in the sea of reeds, just one time it mentions in psalms chapter 136 but that was never God declaring it, it was a poem by king David I think and he was trying to convey a message about the massive defeat pharaoh and his army had in that moment if I’m not mistaken So like it makes sense we have the pharaohs body in his tomb, but what does the 480 years mean ?
@@MeanBeanComedy So what does the 480 years mean? Does it mean 12 generations have passed since the exodus happened ? Like I did research and nowhere within the Bible does it say pharaoh passed away in the sea of reeds but it explicitly states that his army perished in the sea, and in the whole Old Testament God never declared the pharaoh passed away in the sea of reeds, just one time it mentions in psalms chapter 136 but that was never God declaring it, it was a poem by king David I think and he was trying to convey a message about the massive defeat pharaoh and his army had in that moment thanks to the blessings of God and him being thankful to God if I’m not mistaken So like it makes sense we have the pharaohs body in his tomb, but what does the 480 years mean ?
Same. That was one reason I got off Tik-Tok because of the bite size "Gotchas". Though looking back, I wish that I could have been warned my friend of the subtle and dangerous nature of this.
And by Mormon, he's as much of a Mormon as a lapsed Catholic is Catholic. We Latter-day Saints do believe in conditional prophecies. Whether that be in our core theology (as, if the prophecies weren't conditional, Zion would have been firmly established in Jackson County, MO and the Civil War would have marked the Final Battle) to individual Patriarchal Blessings (which are always prefaced with the statement that the blessings stated are conditional, not fate), it's pretty obvious that Dan's theology does not resemble LDS theology.
@@ericwolford5685 The problem is that he's active in the LDS church and teaches at LDS institutions. He compartmentalizes his personal religious beliefs from his research and politics. His research is no different than any atheist critical scholar and he's extremely Far-Left in his political views, including pushing LGBTQ ideology. The late Senator Harry Reid was the same way, on the one hand he was the extremely liberal Democratic Party majority leader who pushed radical views, and on the other he was a supposedly faithful Mormon in good standing.
Yep, he's pro-LGBT too. He has videos on how he justifies those beliefs. The Mormon church would likely distance themselves from him. Mormonism is also a corrupt religion with racist beliefs.
@@Frodojack I get it. Dan has his cake and eats it too. I do find it odd that, on the one hand, he still publishes for BYU's Religious Studies Center while, on the other, he regularly works with John Dehlin - an ex-Mormon who uses his platform to lead people away from the Church to secular humanism. I think Dan hasn't left for the same reason why Dan Reynolds of Imagine Dragons tried staying in the Church until fairly recently: they want to use their influence in the Church to push the Church into a more progressive direction. It's only a matter of time when Dan McClellan chooses what he will do: will he reconcile himself to God, or will he go the way of Dan Reynolds, John Dehlin, David Archuleta, etc and leave?
I once asked Dan to engage WLC because he’s offered serious scholarly rebuttals (of Dan’s arguments, although not of Dan himself). Dan said, “he’s not a scholarly critic” and left it at that. I asked why Dan doesn’t do debates with critics he does consider scholarly. He said something like, “wouldn’t prove who’s right; only who’s better at speaking and memorizing details.” Then surely Dan at least publishes engagements… right? Nah, not really. The only “engagements” I could find are nothing of the sort. If you disagree, cite the paper and I’ll read it and update my comment (I can think of one, but in it he literally says he isn’t going to discuss the actual arguments…) Dan also authoritatively pronounces on topics he hasn’t studied. It’s cringe. Dan thinks (or acts as if he thinks) he’s a theologian, and a historian of all fields, and a scientist, and a philosopher of religion, etc. The guy’s ego is too heavy for even the biggest bodybuilder to lift. Dan also says, “take the author at their word”… wait, on other occasions Dan is thoroughly postmodernist and thinks that texts don’t have any inherent meaning, and rather we always “negotiate and re-negotiate” interpretations. But when it’s HIS interpretation, suddenly it’s legit. Got it. I’m done with him. Some people “quietly quit” (silly phrase that is abused by lazy people, but leave aside). Dan quietly manifests. PS Dan wants to say “their” instead of “his” when referring to God, specifically in the context of Jonah. I thought we were supposed to understand authors on their own terms. (Again, only when it’s convenient for Dan, otherwise texts have no meaning, per my earlier comment.) Ok, then say “his.” God changed HIS mind, not “their mind.” Also, it can be plausibly argued that this is an anthropomorphism and God didn’t literally change his mind. The conditional reading fits. Here I highly recommend Craig’s lecture “On Behalf of a Molinist Perspective.” Meow Post PS. Although I think Mike clearly won this debate, I’ve been reluctant to view much of the Old Testament in high regard. BUT, IP, Shamoun, and others are increasing my confidence in OT. And that confidence increases the more I see Dan making errors or misunderstandings.
@@raphaelfeneje486 He is Mormon. He particularly likes the idea that the Israelites believed in many gods as it is an argument against the Trinity, and is pro Mormon because they believe that God the Father is not the first god, that there were more before him. Of course, that is not what the Israelites meant by many gods but he seems to really like it.
I was reading a Jewish article on Daniel the other day and thought it was so interesting. The author was saying that they interpret prophecy as conditional so he believed that the Messiah could have come in the days of the Maccabean revolt if they had given the throne to the true heir of David instead of taking it for themselves. And that the coming of the Messiah had multiple potential times it could have worked if people had been righteous. Not saying I totally agree with that exact interpretation but the general perspective on prophecy certainly aligns with what IP is saying here. Jews can misinterpret scripture just as much as Christians, but I think we benefit from at least considering how they interpret the Old Testament when trying to reach the best understanding of a passage.
One of my best friends is an orthodox Jew and he always has very good insights into the Bible that I never could perceive so I totally understand. I would like to read this article as well
That's not what the book of Daniel teaches. The Maccabbean revolt is mentioned in the book as expressly NOT the appointed end (Dan. 11:32-35). The Greek "little horn" of Antiochus 4 would set up the Abomination of Desolation, and stop the daily sacrifices from being offered correctly for 1150 days, after which the desolation is averted. Desolation is NOT decreed in this case, rather, "Then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state" (Dan. 8:9-14). There is NO mention of any praise of the Maccabbean revolters, they are not heros, and their kingdom is not the Kingdom of God. Neither are they condemned, nor faulted in any way. Rather, after that, Israel is the "divided kingdom" of Dan. 2:40, the kingdom of iron and clay, joined together by marriages but brittle, not united. This disunity is in no way a sin or fault for which she is punished. Rather, "And the wise among the people shall make many understand, though for some days they shall stumble by sword and flame, by captivity and plunder. When they stumble, they shall receive a little help. And many shall join themselves to them with flattery, and some of the wise shall stumble, so that they may be refined, purified, and made white, until the time of the end, for it still awaits the appointed time." (Dan. 11:33-25). This is not stated as a sin or grounds for judgment. It is stated as the fated state of affairs, for the wise to suffer and fall and fail, not having dominance, and being purified, till the appointed time of the end. The appointed time of the end is when another "little horn" arises, not a King of the North, nor a King of the South, but a king arising from within Israel herself. He arises as a willful king, a rebel, as the "little horn" of the Fourth Kingdom, Second Temple Israel, overthrowing the prior government in Dan. 7, to rule for "time, times and half a time" the period of or during the last "seven" of Second Temple Israel of Dan. 9. He arises, sets up another "Abomination of Desolation" and this time desolation will not be averted, rather, it is DECREED in the war to the end, destroying Second Temple Israel, Jerusalem and the Second Temple, and the desolator himself and his government (Dan. 9:26-27). As a result of his rise, he and his "many" whom he makes a covenant with, they, the many, awake from the dust to shame and everlasting contempt (Dan. 12:2), when "the power of the holy people has been shattered" (Dan. 12:7), when the Great Tribulation comes upon Israel (Dan. 12:1) and he sets up the Abomination of Desolation (Dan. 12:11). This is the time of the end, when the wise and their "many" that they turn to "righteousness" (Dan. 12:2-3) bring in "everlasting righteousness" (Dan. 9:24) of the eternal kingdom of Dan. 2 and 7. Just read the book of Daniel, and look for the connections and statements that link it all together as a single eschatological consummation, at the fall of the Second Temple, many generations after the Maccabbean revolt.
@@hillaryfamilythat was a hit and a miss. The point wasn't the Maccabees but the fact of conditional prophecy. There is an idea for example amongst jews that the end will come once all of Israel keeps one perfect Sabbath. That's just another example for this attitude.
@@MrSeedi76 that may be true that some Jewish people or groups thought that the Hope of Israel would be fulfilled when the conditions were right, which might be any time. However, my comment was that the book of Daniel taught that it was to come at the fall of the Second Temple, and the destruction or Second Temple Israel when “the power of the holy people has been shattered” long after the time of Antiochus 4. The “Jews” were a diverse bunch and many of their eschatological expectations were quite wrong. That said, the New Testament eschatology is well within the mainstream of Jewish thought and understanding: that the eschatological consummation was to take place in their generation at the fall of the Second Temple.
You mean the guy who has an abysmal grasp of philosophy of language, is a practicing Mormon, slandered the hell out of Dr. Falk, and makes his opponents out to be dogmatic fundamentalists couldn’t take a reasonable critique? Next you’ll tell me the sky is blue.
@@Chomper750no,Kipp is an academic bully who learned not to pick fights with Falk after he’s exposed his ignorance in two presentations, one on his channel (particularly when it comes to text criticism) and most recently with IP.
OH MAN! One of your best videos and video formats! I also LOVE that you never attacked him personally, and instead rebuffed him by firing a barrage of clear and sensible facts!
Dan DOES not understand Second Temple Judaism. It is a problemmmmmmmmm. Dan just says Dogma and Data constantly. This type of rhetoric is polarizing dangerous.
Fair, but saying this as a Christian, isn’t Jesus clearly saying “some of you”? So it couldn’t be just John. Tbh I feel like it just refers to his death resurrection and ascension, as well as the coming destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Jesus states the exact same thing to the high priest, only he’s indicating that from THEN ON he will see the son of man seated at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven. Jesus is quoting Daniel 7, which was a prophecy about the coming messiah. It seems like he’s just stating pretty clearly that’s he’s the messiah and all power will be granted to him and he will be vindicated in their lifetime. But I’m open to other interpretations as well
@@onetowardslove I think you are on the right tract. My understanding of Mathew 24:34 is He is talking about the things that must come before the Second Coming such as the Destruction of the Temple and the persecution of the Church . My understanding of Matthew 16:28 is He is talking about His enthronement in Heaven and the Fulfillment of Daniel 7 just like you say.
Thank you IP for clarifying why Jonah was reluctant to go to Nineveh. I just thought it was because he hated the people and the city (which is true) but you clarifying that it was Jonah knowing that the prophecy is conditional adds another layer to that reluctance.
Dan blocked you ? Welcome to the club.!! Dan's main arguments when it comes to traditional Christians is psycologising them ( he never does this with any other group ( except Conservative Christians )
I recently saw how Dan straight up thinks the author of Revelations was "antisemitic". That was my last straw to where it's pretty obvious to me that he's dogmatic at quite extreme levels. 😂
Yeah he's a Mormon. Many Mormons are out to discredit the bible. They only believe in their version of the bible which has added books and verses. Many people don't realize this. Joseph Smith believed that the bible was corrupted. It's very similar to Islam in that regard.
The book of Revelation barely even made it into the canon and was believed to be written by a gnostic named Cerinthus. The book of revelation is clearly not a book about the future and to think it is makes you selfish asf because you're ignoring everything the early church went through. You guys have someone disagree with you and call it "persecution". The early church was being persecuted, burned alive, fed to lions, killed for being followers of the Way. That book in so many ways teaches different things from Jesus' love your enemies teaching, depicts him like pagan deities, calls a gentile church the synagogue of Satan. You guys flatly ignore all these things and negotiate with the texts to make them fit your narrative. When you study the Bible you need to study the Historical, Cultural and Literary context. Not to mention textual criticism to have a better understanding of what you are reading. Dan focuses on the data and saying he is the one that's being by dogma is flat out ignorant. Another thing to note is that the Bible is NOT univocal, let's remember how the canon was put together and by who. We can thank Marcion of Sinope for the canon we now have because if he hadn't made his own then there would be no canon. They were all seperate books full of different beliefs and perspective hence why we see many inconsistencies and contradictions when we read it but are taught that the word is perfect and cannot contradict itself, wait what? DOGMA.
@@christianchaidez Even if you do not look at the book of revelation, there are many other passages in the Bible that speaks of a day of judgment and also a day of the vengeance of God. And love is not always soft. God is very patient, but he has a day where the time of repentance and grace ends.
I mean he does have a point that book of revelation is the fakest book in the whole New Testament, shocks me how the church can allow such a book within the canon!
From the moment Dan called his podcast Data Over Dogma I noticed a problem... You can't do anything with data without frameworks that have been built by others... Dogmas of another name. Data is just that... It needs to be interpreted through a lens to make anything out of it.
I think that Dan is relying on the strength of arguments as supported by available data. For example, the two stories regarding Judas' death-- two finite events cannot really be true at the same time. Dan is suggesting we don't try to shoe horn the data into a funnel to fit our narrative, but rather focus on what the text is trying to tell us. Two authors, two versions. Not so difficult to believe.
@@Sammo212 Oh, yeah. As I said elsewhere, while I'm normally more inclined to agree with the sort of secular scholarship that McClellan tries to champion than IP's work (no disrespect), McClellan adhering to a belief system that completely contradicts the established archaeology of the Americas because a treasure-hunting, bank-defrauding, ceremonial magician found tablets that no one else could see and that he couldn't consistently translate makes anything McClellan gets right about history a "stopped clock" moment (no matter how often that may or may not happen).
Thanks for providing the whole context of these exchanges as well as the full clip of Dans original video. Really lets me grasp the overall strength of the argument.
You are not a slave! Your religion likens you to a herd animal, a sheep. Time to wake up, all gods are made in the image of man, all around the earth men did this to make sense of the world they live on. But there isnt a heaven up above the clouds, demons dont cause illnesses, the universe was not created in 6 days.
There is more to faith than data. It take both good information and spiritual conversion to be a follower of Jesus Christ. Why do you think that Dan made you start to question your faith, where deconstructing was on the table for you?
You and me both, brother. There are inconsistencies, I'll admit, but that's a good thing. There is nothing wrong with being skeptical. I choose to believe, and therefore, I keep searching.
@@doublejay74 why is what Dan teaching causing you to question your faith? Or caused you to do so? He's literally teaching the Bible, albeit his scholarly perspective of the Bible?
Worse yet, dogma is always wrong because it is dogma, so if you ever argue in defense of dogma, you are obviously wrong. This is not a dogmatic statement whatsoever.
@@josephmoya5098oh you're right, the great scholar Dan is the most unbiased most charitable person in the scholarly world. No dogmas from him whatsoever
Seems that Dan is making giant assumptions about the exact word choice within the book of Jonah. However, it wasn’t written in English. Therefore if I’m going to ignore the broad themes and put a microscope up to the word choice, I would need to look at the original language (Hebrew) and then figure out if the original language contains those same nuances. To argue that changing of God’s mind isn’t the same as a conditional prophecy is a distinction that might not exist. That’s a very dangerous assumption.
How many times does McClellan claim "consensus" where anyone who's studied Theology at a university/college level knows there isn't consensus on the matter? The Olivet has a wide range of scholarly interpretations. I always find his arguments disingenuous, but he's got himself a huge following of atheists who think he's extremely scientific lol
PS: no one cites McClellan at university either. They may not cite IP either, but they cite the same sources as IP constantly. I also note I hardly ever hear McClellan cite ANYONE, for that matter. Red flag!
@@joelmcleay I watched Dan's rebuttal video, and in this clip alone Dan cited at least nine times that I counted references from the one source IP provided. I have to wonder if IP read the book, because it certainly doesn't support his position. It explicitly spells out the consensus view Dan mentions, and also posits a minority perspective. Hayes' book also admits that dogmatism is the way Christians avoid a problem with a plain reading of the text. None of these things are inherently bad, so I am not sure why IP is so heated about admitting that he applies a dogmatic approach. I do the same thing with areas of my faith for which I have no way of showing proof by means of the plain reading of the text. So what? IP seems to take this debate on a very personal level. I think he let his pride get the best of him. This discourse between these two guys is not healthy.
Finally I got to know some of Dan´s assumptions. Some months ago I asked for it and his weak reply was:"You can verify that by going and reading critical commentaries on the Gospel of John. I'm not here to relitigate long-established consensuses for people who won't be willing or able to think critically about it anyway." Dan McClellan.
Mike, I’ve been very critical of certain positions you hold, but I would like to say that you really knocked it out of the park in this video, and, have given me a new way to think about prophecy. Thank you very much and God bless you.
00:06 Jesus' prophecy of his return is conditional and subject to human response 02:03 Jesus's prophecy should be judged based on its own merit 06:03 Proclaiming the Gospel to All Nations 08:08 Analyzing conditional prophecies and logical consistency within Christianity. 12:24 The prophecy in Jonah was unconditional due to lack of stated conditions and cultural norms. 14:32 Most prophecies were understood as conditional based on cultural norms. 18:35 Jesus gave prophecies conditionally 20:31 Examination of conditional vs. fatalistic prophecy 24:19 Prophecy in Jonah and Jeremiah implies conditional aspects 26:17 Daniel's assumption about prophecy and conditions 30:00 Critiquing reliance on dogmatic arguments in debates Crafted by Merlin AI.
as a mormon myself, it should be clear and stated that he regularly goes against lds teachings and perspectives. reason being that he, in his videos, is not seeking to present the lds perspective or dogma. he is seeking to represent the scholarly consensus.
Dan has misused fallacies and rarely engages with arguments in favor of poisoning the well and argues his specific idea. Then his fans strut around acting like he's done something. It's the one reason I ignore him. There's not much substance with him
I knew this video was coming out soon. Something about the way he prepared his response FELT like a double standard, I just hadn’t come back to pick it apart. I think what made it feel that way is Dan’s argument tactics kind of remind me of Pop Atheists
It is kind of hilarious when critics of Christianity assume their own bizarre ideas about reality and then argue as if we agreed with them, essentially doing what they accuse Christians of doing. For example I recently heard an atheist making an argument against the Bible where he assumed that alien civilizations must exist on other planets and that proves why an aspect of the Bible is false. Okay dude.
I'm not even joking, I hear that argument literally all the time. It's so damned stupid, I usually start making fun of the person saying it right away. The reason why it's dumb: 1. The Bible never said there's no life on other planets. 2. There's still no evidence to believe there is life on other planets besides a probability calculation, so why assume there is?
Honestly I'm genuinely disappointed. A lot of your previous interactions with Dan seemed largely mature and good faith even when he was clearly wrong, and they were more educational than your usual tiktok slapfights. Sad to see he took the low road and blocked you.
Quick summary of the "discussion" IP makes his case. Dan disagrees. IP accuses Dan of committing fallacies. Dan accuses IP of dogmatism. IP accuses Dan of dogmatism. Dan accuses IP of stealing his go to move and blocks IP. We all go on to have a nice day.
I remember I came across one of his videos thinking he sounded scholarly and breaking down facts. I watched 2 more videos and realised he was neither of those things.
Dan Mclellan frequently uses the phrase "That's not supported by any data" instead of interacting *with. the. data. that. people. use. to. support. stuff.* This is one of his catch phrases that he often uses to get out of other people's arguments. Glad someone like IP called him out and showed him the. literal. data. Like jeremiah's prophecies, jonahs, etc. Mclellan literally ignored the fact that *those passages ARE the data* and just said "The idea that prophecies are conditional is not supported by the data." *Dude, look at the data. Conditional prophecies are literally all over the old testament. That's the data.*
I love how IP cuts like half of Dan's videos. When Dan requests to hear the argument that does *not* presuppose the existence of God, IP simply... doesn't respond to that. IP is also kinda crazy to think the way to respond to evidence against your theory starts by presupposing that your theory is correct.
Oh brother. IP did respond to Dan accusing him of assuming God exists. Remember when IP was talking about the "internal critique" stuff. Watch that again. An internal critique assumes the view is correct, and critiques the consistency of that view from that perspective. So yeah. IP is assuming God exists. Because the video was an internal critique. And internal critiques of Christianity must assume God exists. I'm not ragging on you for not understand that, I'm ragging on Dan for not understanding that. It's elementary logic. If the "evidence against your theory" is an internal critique, then you have to resolve the critique INTERNALLY, yes? 1. If God gave a false prophecy, then God does not exist. 2. God gave a false prophecy. 3. Therefore, God does not exist. Now, how is anyone supposed to talk in any reasonable manner about this argument if they can't entertain the existence of God as a possibility? Here's the truth: THE ARGUMENT ITSELF PRESUPPOSES GOD'S EXISTENCE TO DISPROVE GOD. That's what an internal critique does. For the same reason that the person making the above argument doesn't have to prove God's existence just to show it's impossible for God to exist because of a false prophecy, Michael doesn't have to show God exists in order to demonstrate that this argument doesn't work. I hope this makes sense. Like I said, I'm not ragging on you, I'm ragging on Dan because at this point he should know better, and he has mislead a lot of people on how fallacies and logic works.
@@imwatchingyouiminyourwalls But IP insists that his position is "the best explanation of the data". Is this *only* the case if you assume that God exists? This is what Dan was pointing out: the hypocrisy of saying you're allowed to presuppose christian dogmas, but insisting that your argument has merit in a critical environment and is the best explanation of the data. This is the difference between IP and the book he's quoting from: the book acknowledges that this is a dogmatic argument to solve a dogmatic problem, and that the research doesn't point in this direction (in other words, the book agrees with Dan). Also, it's not an internal critique to say that we have *external* evidence indicating that Jesus uttered a false prophecy, and that this undermines several christian dogmas. IP is just confused here. Dan pointed this out, too.
@@Nickesponja Dan was responding to a video of IP responding to an internal critique. IP's argument about conditional prophecy does not require God's existence if that's what you mean. There isn't any presupposition of any Christian dogmas in saying that the intent of the text was conditional. IP isn't arguing from Christian dogmas to show the prophecy was conditional. He was assuming Christianity when he was responding to the internal critique, sure. That's what you're supposed to do. However, with regards to the prophecy being conditional, he didn't assume any Christian dogmas. He made various arguments from scholars. As for discrediting the book cited because its "dogmatic" this is the genetic fallacy. The motives behind who makes the argument has no weight on the argument itself. Respond to the arguments. Who cares why someone makes an argument? Who cares if they have other motives? It's irrelevant. That's why this actually is a logical fallacy. The only question we should have is "what are their arguments?" And if you reject their argument because of any reason besides the argument itself is wrong, then you have failed to respond. The "data" and "research" is awfully vague. The "data" is the passages michael brought up. That's the data. Dan fumbles over himself to explain it. That data is what they should be arguing about, not the motives of whoever is presenting it. Michael is right to call Dan out over this. The book Michael cited doesn't agree with Dan. The book advocates for conditional prophecy. It's literally known for it. If you mean that it agrees that a dogmatic argument cant enter critical scholarship, then I'm a bit confused where it says anything along those lines. It acknowledges that the scholars writing are religious. Duh. The arguments aren't religious, though. They are arguments from the text. This is critical scholarship. Can a religious person not make an argument based on the text itself instead of dogma? As for your statement that it's not an internal critique to show external evidence, it actually is. The intent is to show that the Christian worldview is internally inconsistent, however I also think I could be misunderstanding you here. All of that is to say: Michael makes arguments to support his view that prophecy was conditional. He shows the data, and argues about it. It doesn't assume God's existence and rather relies on the text. If it does assume God's existence, feel free to show me how. This should be a debate over the sources, not who's dogmatic and who isn't.
@@imwatchingyouiminyourwalls "with regards to the prophecy being conditional, he didn't assume any Christian dogmas" then why does he say he does? IP's entire argument is trying to show that prophecy was typically understood to be conditional. Dan asks him, "are you saying your argument only works if you assume a certain set of christian dogmas?", and IP responds, "in some sense, yes" (what kind of answer is that). What gives? My two cents here is, IP's argument that prophecy was understood to be conditional is only compelling if you accept the dogma that Jesus couldn't have been wrong about his prophecies. Otherwise, there's just no good reason to think there was this convention of understanding prophecy as conditional unless stated otherwise. There's actually good evidence against it, since the plot twist of the book of Jonah doesn't work if the reader implicitly assumes that the prophecy is conditional (Dan explained this, too). On top of, you know, the fact that we have no record of this apparently widespread convention ever existing. I'm not discrediting the book based on its motives, I'm pointing out what the book itself says. It says, several times, that the research clearly shows that Jesus prophesied his second coming within a generation. Which was Dan's whole point, that you don't get this idea that Jesus' prophecies were conditional from the data. Here are some of the times the book says this (Dan pointed this out, too): "Having maneuvered through the exegetical intricacies of Jesus scholarship, we concluded that Jesus did indeed prophesy his second coming and the consummation of the kingdom of God sometime within a generation of his preaching", page 23. "Schweitzer, Allison, and Ehrman are essentially correct that Jesus prophesied the consummation of the kingdom of God to occur within striking distance of his earthly ministry (certainly within several decades)", page 18. "The intent is to show that the Christian worldview is internally inconsistent" I obviously don't know what the person asking the question intended, but generally speaking when a question is of the form, "if your theory is correct, why does this evidence contradict it?", this is simply a straightforward case of presenting evidence against said theory.
@@Nickesponja '"with regards to the prophecy being conditional, he didn't assume any Christian dogmas' then why does he say he does? IP's entire argument is trying to show that prophecy was typically understood to be conditional. Dan asks him, 'are you saying your argument only works if you assume a certain set of Christian dogmas?', and IP responds, 'in some sense, yes' (what kind of answer is that). What gives?" What gives is the very next thing IP says. In some sense, that is true because of the very same reasons I laid out earlier. The next line Michael says is literally "because the critic says if God is real how could he have uttered a false prophecy so to answer that objection we have to assume God actually did give the prophecy." In this sense, yes you do have to assume a certain set of Christian dogmas. Because you're responding to an internal critique. "My two cents here is, IP's argument that prophecy was understood to be conditional is only compelling if you accept the dogma that Jesus couldn't have been wrong about his prophecies. Otherwise, there's just no good reason to think there was this convention of understanding prophecy as conditional unless stated otherwise." That is not what IP is saying here. Nothing else really to add. Just listen to the full quote. "Otherwise, there's just no good reason to think there was this convention of understanding prophecy as conditional unless stated otherwise. There's actually good evidence against it, since the plot twist of the book of Jonah doesn't work if the reader implicitly assumes that the prophecy is conditional (Dan explained this, too)." Michael gives various reasons, whether they convince you or not is up to you. He argues that it's a parsimonious and possible reading of the text. As for the book of Jonah thing, that honestly was kind of the moment I thought Dan lost. The twist is exactly what Michael was saying. That was his entire point. Jonah knew God would change his mind. That's the twist. It's baked into the narrative. I don't have much interest in defending Michael's explanation, but I don't think Dan did well in this response. Here are the quotes that you provided from the book: "Having maneuvered through the exegetical intricacies of Jesus scholarship, we concluded that Jesus did indeed prophesy his second coming and the consummation of the kingdom of God sometime within a generation of his preaching", page 23. "Schweitzer, Allison, and Ehrman are essentially correct that Jesus prophesied the consummation of the kingdom of God to occur within striking distance of his earthly ministry (certainly within several decades)", page 18. Yes. The book says that. The same book that argues that the prophecy is conditional. Do you see the problem? The book is literally saying that these prophecies are meant to be interpreted as conditional. So yes. Jesus did prophesy his second coming in the consummation of the kingdom of God sometime within a generation of his preaching. Yes Schweitzer, Allison, and Ehrman are correct that Jesus prophesied the consummation of the kingdom of God within several decades. What you are missing is the argument of why that is. The book argues it should be interpreted as conditional. Dan unironically cherry picked the book. Rewatch Michael showing that the quote Dan said wasn't in the book was, in fact, in the book on page 57 (11:28). God doesn't have to exist for a conditional prophecy to take place in the text. God could not exist, and this prophecy will never happen. God could exist, and this prophecy could come to pass. Either way is irrelevant. The point is that the text allows for this reading. You aren't conceding that Jesus will come back if you're convinced by this. At most, you are just conceding that Christianity has a possible way to explain why Jesus didn't return in the first century. "'The intent is to show that the Christian worldview is internally inconsistent' I obviously don't know what the person asking the question intended, but generally speaking when a question is of the form, 'if your theory is correct, why does this evidence contradict it?', this is simply a straightforward case of presenting evidence against said theory." Not exactly. The question is an internal critique because the evidence in doesn't call into question the external consistency (I.E. Christianity is disproven by evolution), but internal consistency (I.E. Christianity is disproven by Jesus lying). I hope this helps a bit. Thanks for the amicable response.
Wait, so you were being snotty to someone (evidenced by the claim that you "called him out.") and he didn't feel like wasting his time arguing with you? I cannot imagine why.
Yet another example of why I appreciate David Wood's Scooby-Doo and the case of the silly septic video because the other side will not look at the evidence.
I had a very funny exchange with a Muslim guy in clubhouse once. It essentially went like this: Step 1) Muslim made a silly claim about the Bible (can’t remember exactly, but they do this constantly). I replied ‘That’s ridiculous’ Step 2) He replied ‘it’s YOUR TRUSTED SCHOLAR who shows this’. I ask him for the source Step 3) He sends me a link to a short Dan McClellan UA-cam video (I had never heard of him at that time). I watch it, it was laughable nonsense of course. Then I look Dan McClellan up and his LATEST Twitter video was titled: ‘The Bible has NO AUTHORITY’. I go back to the Muslim and while I confront him on his deceptive tactics, ‘Ultimate Truth’, a well known Muslim online heretic was talking. That dude follows a 19th Century false prophet according to Islam…just like Joseph Smith😊. I point out to the Muslim: ‘ if you think you have the right to call a heretic who follows a 19th century false profit in Mormonism, who just said the Bible has no authority, MY TRUSTED SCHOLAR, then I get to say Ultimate Truth is a true Muslim’ Step 4) Muslim guy didn’t respond and ran away.
Because he portrays himself as a non biased "data" only guy. He puts on a facade of neutrality as he pushes liberal atheism. He also acts like he is the ultimate authority on the subject. And he's smug, so smug.
@@saulmighty well, yeah, but his anger is suppressed and he doesn’t lash out until McClellen belabors the point for the, what?...5th time. McClellen becomes insufferable sooner for me than for Jones.
I now understand that Dan does PTW... presenting a point by telling "everything that comes next it's dogmatic and not a result of a evidence based investigation, so not worth considering".
Yeah I was blocked as well. I was actually very interested in his interpretations, but he went off the rails completely, When he declared that Moloch didn't exist. So I posted basic historical information to present my case, Unfortunately he hand waved them. Dan Is what I like to call a scholar miner. He searches far and wide for scholars with theories outside the mainstream, and then he presents them on his channels as fact.
the case for Moloch's existence is very very very bad to be sure. If you somehow uncovered some proof that guarantees we can say "moloch" was not simply the name of a type of sacrifice, but instead the name of a proper deity, I'd be very interested to take a look.
Recently, Dan McClellan's posts started showing up on my IG feed. Having no idea who he was (and always being open to well-reasoned arguments), I watched a few of his posts. I quickly began to detect signs that he was an angry man with an obvious axe to grind and that he seems to get a thrill out of trashing Christianity with his own (IMHO) narrow, dare I say 'dogmatic', almost sectarian(?) arguments. I still occasionally watch, but with careful attention and awareness to his rather flagrant biases. I can perhaps understand his disgruntlement when you consider that he has spent a large portion of his life in the pursuit of academic credentials studying something he doesn't believe is true. I suppose I might be grumpy too if I had a bunch of graduate degrees in "flat earth studies" or "the societal benefits of Marxism". What a waste! Of course, God IS real (I guess he would just accuse me of being dogmatic😆), and the study of His revelation to man is the highest form of pursuit. Hopefully some day he will realize that himself. Thank you Michael for your polite yet firm response to Dan's reaction.
Go to his channel, some point out his flaws but most are in overwhelming agreement. Dr Kipp made it a point to comment under Dans last video about IP and call Michael an “exhausting and pedantic moron who he is convinced can’t read” Which is not even close to the language that IP used about Kipp. And even then IP never attacks the character of his critics like this
The fact is that Christian’s have a differing theology on this subject. To state something and pass it off as something all christian’s accept is plain wrong. The only consistency is the end result that Jesus was not wrong. There are many different accepted ways among Christian’s as to why. My father accepts transfiguration as fulfilling the prophecy. What is being argued here is that the prophecy was conditional. Two completely different dogmas. It cannot even be argued that Christian’s have the same view on this. To try to pass it off as the real scholarly consensus is completely wrong. My father went to seminary for pastoral studies and can read Greek and was a fundamental baptist missionary in Romania for 25 years. He is about as hard core Christian as I have met, but his theology differs from what was presented here. Having a dogmatic view is great, wonderful, and a personal matter of faith. To state that dogma as a fact is missing the mark in a big way, and entirely irrelevant in believing that Jesus died for the sins of the world and accepting him to be ones personal lord and savior.
Dan stitched one of my videos about Exodus 21:20 where the Hebrew word “naqam” is used which is translated to “punished”. I said in my video “every time the word naqam shows up in the Old Testament, it’s always used in reference to the death penalty”. Dan’s rebuttal, after giving a huge word salad, was “naqam doesn’t mean the death penalty.” Which he is correct. But that’s not what I argued. Naqam actually means “to avenge”. And in this passage the situation is if a master kills his servant, he will be “avenged”. In other words, the context of the passage itself informs us “naqam” is being used in reference to the death penalty just like it’s used in the rest of the Old Testament and just like I argued. For a scholar, he doesn’t represent his critics very scholarly.
This is excellent stuff. Dan speaks authoritatively for a young buck in this space. He makes a lot of unproven assertions in short order in a deep voice and people get knocked over with a feather. Good work. Are you an open theist? Or a partial preterist? Both of those stances make this conversation much more simple.
Okay. The example with Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar really helped illustrate the conditional nature to me. That was a perfect example to help me see what you were explaining. Go with that one to help explain it. 😊 If you explain it again, then maybe slow down a teensy bit. I get that I’m not necessarily the audience.
Dan: "Data over Dogma"
Pilate: "What is data?" (John 18:38)
😅😅😅😅😅
Data is an android in the 24th century who was created by Doctor Arik Soong.
😂😂😂😂
what are data...
@@HenryLeslieGraham I wanted people to get the reference to Pilate quickly
I always find it hilarious that Librals will use "they/them" pronuns for God. They respect everyone's chosen pronouns except God's
Thats probably because they see the evils of patriarchy behind thr use of "he/him" pronouns for God
And also because they follow mainstream theology since 2nd century where earliest Christians clearly expressed that God is neither male nor female
And thus, by our modern standards and linguistic consensus, we ought to refer to him as "they/them" cause thats how we address persons that are neither male nor female
Such a distinction didnt exist in ancient hebrew where the male pronoun was used as a default one (because of the patriarchy). In english its "they/them"
I just go with the Bible where God presents Himself as God the Father and in which the authors use He/Him/His as God's pronouns.
He blocked me too! After I read one of his “scholarly articles” he sent me as a rebuttal. And after I told him I would discuss the problems with his article point by point. Said I wasn’t there in “good faith.” To be blunt, he sucks.
What article did he suggest reading? And what was he talking about in his video (what should’ve been the two of you)?
Constructive criticism?! How evil of you!
He said the same thing to me. We were talking about the shroud of Turin and he claimed that we should accept the scholarly consensus that it's a medieval forgery because neither of us are experts on the matter. I responded saying the notion that we can't be skeptical of the consensus just because we aren't experts is just fallacious. He then claimed that he never said we can't be skeptical of the consensus (even though his early statement clearly implied that) and left after saying I wasn't willing to engage in good faith.
@@KD-eh3qo Is there a consensus among Bible scholars that Mormonism is false? Asking for a friend
@@houstoneuler probably should watch trent Horn's problems with the book of Mormon
For someone who says he loves 'data over dogma' he sure loves ignoring data to fit his dogma
Then blocks him 😂😂😂😂😂
@@dirkjensen969Is that a Star Trek joke by chance?
@@TommyNitro yep that's dogmatic dan for you
@@briandiehl9257 Lol, I had also given him the nick name "Dogma Dan" a few months back when I first encountered his videos. Describes him so perfectly.
@reasonforge9997 what dogma is he following?
Dan : " Anyone that gives other interpretations to this passage is following dogmatism "
IP : " Well that's a blatant poisoning the well "
Dan : " Nuh uh "
You gotta love debating in 2024 😭
Also great video IP , may God bless you and your family ❣️
W edits
_"Nuh uh is undefeated"_
What about "No u"?
Dan: You have to given evidence to support your claims.
IP cultist: Nu uh.
@@Chomper750Are we watching the same video? Are you telling me even if you disagree IP had no evidence???
@@Chomper750Bro did not watch the Video, Btw the Glazing for Dan Is outrageous since they Guy even Rage-quit because he knew where it was Going.
A few McClellan tweets came across my timeline today and I started tweaking so came to watch this just to stay sane. Thanks for doing what you do in the level headed way that you do. Keep it up
I'm really glad someone is standing up to Dan McClellan
There is a small channel called Veracity Hill that does a good job calling him out.
Highly recommend David Wilbur's channel as he's had a handful of great videos responding to Dan and over all his channel is solid.
yh the way he sounds is so convincing especially when he says he's a bible scholar
Who is this guy? Never heard of him until IP’s videos. I looked up some of his older stuff and he definitely came off as an atheist. He had or has a podcast call The Devil is in the Details and at least the few that I listened to sounded very much like he was sort of the same ilk as Bart Erhman.
Lots of people stand up to Dan, but he rarely acknowledges it because he only finds dumb statements by non experts to give himself softballs.
Dan McClellan considers himself to be an authoritative voice on textual interpretation, near eastern history, Christian theology, and to be an accurate psychoanalyst of the biblical authors. All of this despite being relatively early in his career and not well studied at all about the majority of the areas he speaks on.
@@harrygarris6921 yes! A much more concise summary than my own comment
@@harrygarris6921 he also pronounces on a variety of scientific issues, with presumed authority.
Don’t get me wrong. I love when people read multiple disciplines. But there’s an obvious lack of humility coupled with pattern of being mistaken.
Dan has demonstrated considerable expertise, and unlike IP (who is less well qualified) actually provides an argument for his point which IP explicitly does not.
What authority do you have to say it? Are you qualified to discuss ancient Greek or Aramaic to see his failures?
@@francisa4636 He literally does, did you not watch the video?
Dan is a prime example of arguing yourself into a corner because you are too prideful to admit you are wrong.
Also a prime example of “confession through projection “
I’d encourage you to watch Dan’s video of the response, and not just IP’s side of the argument.
@@stevenbatke2475Dan has proven over and over that he can't do theology. Why would people even waste their time with this guy? He's trying to be another Ehrman but lacks Ehrman's charisma. So at least Ehrman is entertaining when spreading his lies. Dan isn't.
@@MrSeedi76 sorry, you’re expecting a bible scholar to do theology? Which denomination of theology? Do you know what bible scholars do? Because it ain’t theology.
@@stevenbatke2475IP shows the general arguments of both sides.
ASMR debunking of "Trust me bro + I'm a scholar" combo
@@dirkjensen969Shout-out to The Dirk himself
@@dirkjensen969you like it vp the bvm
@@dirkjensen969dude how do you have 400 comments on ips channel get a life
IP is trust me bro, Jesus was god so the bible is real because "stuff"
@@piage84 that funny way of saying you're projecting
McClellan shows a consistent inability to understand fallacies. I'm glad IP calls him out on this.
As do most people, there’s basically no logic or rhetoric taught in a standard curriculum at all these days. You’re only going to learn this stuff if you’re self taught, had a classical education at home or in a private school, or took some very specific classes in university.
@@harrygarris6921 I had to take 2 different classes that taught logic in university, and I am not getting into any majors related to that, I think people just don't pay attention
True, in our conversation he solely relied on an argumentum ad populum fallacy to make his case. After I pointed it out to him, he said I wasn't engaging in good faith and left
@@briandiehl9257Probably the attention thing.
@@KD-eh3qo I love when calling someone out on his underhanded tactics is "not good faith."
Whenever anyone brings up that Dan might not be as objective as he thinks, his pride gets in the way. It's present in nearly all of his videos.
Dan likes to dish out criticism, but he can't take the heat. He likes to be the one criticizing, but once he is criticized? Suddenly it is a very different story.
Very strange for a channel almost solely focused on criticizing evangelicals for their beliefs. He does not recognize the huge amount of biases and dogmas that he takes to maintain his 'critical' demeanor.
"I'm a Christian"
"Why?"
"Because of all this evidence."
"You only believe that evidence because you're a Christian"
If we ever lost Pi, we could rediscover it from the circular nature of Dan's reasoning.
A math/geometry burn? That is powerful
FR
Where is faith in evidence? It doesn’t exist. That is what Jesus taught doubting Thomas.
@@Chomper750 faith in God is not about intellectual assent to His existence. It's trust in His nature and promises.
Your comment is comparing apples to oranges.
@@Chomper750you need evidence for faith, you don't just make beliefs, you think about evidence and then come to beliefs
Well done, brother! I hope he is humbled enough by this to repent. With that condition met, we know God would be quick to forgive.
Repent of what exactly? They disagree on a matter of bias. Seems like a common disagreement.
@@edwardtbabinski Just watched a video of Dan making the claim that Jesus is not God. Dan is not a Christian. He's a pawn of the enemy. I hope he does repent. He steers people away from the Lord, not to the Lord.
@@edwardtbabinski If Dan does not repent, I really fear for him. He makes it his life's mission to steer people from the Lord. The Lord is not pleased with that. I hope Dan repents.
@@bilbojohnson9191 I am a universalist, the fear that all-or-nothing theologies torture people with do not seem like truly spiritual aspirations.
@@edwardtbabinski thats great, and theres only one way to heaven, and only one way to the Father and that's through the Son. Without Christ there is nothing but gehenna
It's very frustrating (not to mention very annoying) that Dan is so quick to accuse people who disagree with him of clinging to their dogmas and biases, while at the same time being so coy about what he actually believes (e.g., does he even believe in God, does he believe Jesus rose bodily from the dead, etc.). At least other scholars will tell you upfront what they believe, thereby letting you take that into consideration when assessing their arguments.
He's a Mormon he has clearly stated that and he doesn't allow his faith to affect his scholarly work to the point that other Mormons don't like him too much.....maybe IP should borrow a leaf from him and distance his so called scholarly take of the bible from his dogma
@lennoxnderitu3659
Yeah, but merely stating that he is a Mormon is incredibly vague, especially when much of what he believes is at odds with the beliefs of your average Mormon. Not only is there a wide range of views within Mormonism, but his views are even argued by some Mormons to be outside those boundaries.
@@zachwalters5709His channel is purely for scholarly work and he's well aware that it conflicts with his faith that's why he differentiates between dogma and scholarly study of the bible. He's well aware of the fact that his scholarly work and his faith cannot agree which is a point I see you guys can't seem to comprehend because you only subscribe to scholars that are out to prove that the bible is true such as IP over here
He seems like a liberal atheist. All his arguments are aimed at countering and attacking traditional Christian beliefs. Just look at his followers, they're all Christianity hating liberal atheists. He attracts them because he promotes their beliefs.
@@zachwalters5709 But it's all he needs to say. You want him to offer more of what he believes not to actually know but to use as ammo so you can bad your own beliefs that he refutes.
Dan really believes that lies become truths just by staring at the camera and not blinking
😂
I always trust a guy with a really well trimmed beard
@@yunusahmed2940 funniest comment I seen all day this literally what he does
😂😂😂
He is following the Bart Ehrman school of twisted thought.
Dan rage quitting is both funny and makes him look so bad.
Unfortunately, that's the way that modern discourse online goes. If you don't feel like engaging with an argument or feel you can't win it, you just shut it down. I think it's stupid and people need to hear both sides of an argument because that's the only way we can ever come to any conclusions about anything
Almost as bad as IP rage quitting and blocking Kipp Davis.
It was Michael Jones who started personal attacks and was clearly getting louder. Michael Jones can do all the mental gymnastics he wants, the data clearly says what it says.
@TheLastFryBender
when was that
@@JayWest14 It sounds like you're in a dogma, Dan's dogma. 🥁 Tss
“ You’re just trying to save your dogma”. Appeal to motivation is also a fallacy.
@@CasualMysticUnionEnjoyer You’re assuming that was intended to be part of a logical argument against IP’s position. I don’t think it was.
@@jcbrown0 then he shouldn’t have mentioned it like it was.
First! Dan McClelan has officially gone off the deep end!
Dan is easily one of the worst most deceptive atheist youtubers.
I don't think he's an atheist. I heard he's Mormon or teaches at a Mormon school.
It’s sad to see that comments on both his page and IPs page both say that the respective channels destroyed the other.
@@requirementsrequired4384so, at best, he pays lip service to faith.
JW ACTUALLY
He's a Mormon. Mormons have animosity against Evangelicals and other Protestants for several reasons. It's because Mormons have added books that are completely made up and they don't subscribe to sola scriptura, in fact they think the KJV of the bible is corrupt. The Mormons have lost many converts to Evangelicals, because their prophecies never came to pass. This is why Dan continuously tries to make arguments that the KJV bible is corrupt because he is Mormon and that's essential to their beliefs.
The dude blocked me years ago. It's his favorite tool when you call him out.
A friend of mine got blocked by him a few years ago as well.
I lowkey wanna get blocked by him just do be on the list
@@idkbro-n5c I kind of do as well, except I don't think he would deem me problematic enough
@@scripturalcontexts He deems everyone that he can't just bully and can't refute as worthy of being blocked so you got a chance. Ive heard hundreds of stories by people who he blocked.
@@idkbro-n5c what are a couple examples of people he blocked?
The irritating part regarding the book of Jonah, is why send a prophet if there isnt some chance at salvation?
Even when judgment is announced fatalistically it is usually in a wider context that sees judgment falling as an end of an affair, not an out of the blue condemnation.
@@LockeTheAuthentic seems like Jonah was written as a fictional story. The prophet of God seems like the worst person in the story and all the gentiles understand God better than him, so maybe it was even a critique of prophets. The geography of the story of Noah makes no sense. I’ve always found it interesting that cultural depictions of Nineveh will often show it on the coast when it’s actually very far inland. I’ve even seen maps of the story of Jonah that just teleport him and the big fish from the Mediterranean to Nineveh.
Dang it! This was my favorite internet beef.
But I'm pretty sure this means Mike won.
Same 😂
listening to both of them responding to each other day after day makes me feel like I'm watching good american TV series 😂
@@vedinthorn yeah, I was hoping there was going to be a full-fledged debate but I guess not
It feels a bit similar to the Muslim response to Jesus' divinity:
Muslims: Where did Jesus say "I am God, worship me".
McClellan: Where is it explicitly said this is conditional?
For neither of them does the context seem to matter.
Why do we have to use context at all to understand the bible? Shouldn't be the plain text self explaining, if it was inspired by God?
@@henningstedtfeld7121No. The books of the Bible were not written to be read alone. If you know how the Bible was used prior to Protestantism this would be clear. Most people could not read in 1AD and back. So the Bible was spoken to people and then explained by a priest. This has always been the tradition. The writers assume you’re not reading this alone and have a teacher with you because that was the norm. You didn't write it for people to read at home since this was borderline impossible unless someone had the money.
@@sweetxjc I completely agree with your argument about the historical emergence of the Bible. The texts were written on different scrolls over the centuries and read aloud during the sermons to illiterate people by a priest, who could add individual interpretations that are not in the texts. However, this is also the reason why I believe that the Bible is not of devine origin, it's a book written by men for men with an ancient moral code.
@@henningstedtfeld7121 idk bro, Mormonism and Islam, which both allow a man to satisfy his lust and marry more than one woman, seem like man made ones to me, whereas Christianity goes against what men want & tells us to restrain and limit our lust/wives/etc
@@0NoOne1nParticular Well, Mormons and Muslims don't drink alcohol, but Christians do. I guess every religion, culture or group has its own taboos. The tradition of monogamy in Christianity isn't proof that the Bible is of devine origin imho.
I'm no scholar but I'm legitimately surprised that Dan thinks the audience wouldn't know why Jonah was reluctant... I would assume it would be abundantly clear to the original audience considering so many would have presuppositions about the Ninevites. That tension wasn't exactly a secret back then.
Dan: data over dogma
Anybody with a brain: i disagree with your position.
Dan: youre wrong becasue all of the scholars i arbitrarily pick agree with me
You might want to change "arbitrarily pick" to "cherrypick" :)
IP does the exact same thing 👀
@christianchaidez I've never seen IP do that. Keep in mind that citing scholars can attest to your point, but having scholars agree alone does not make your position true.
@@ayo123 what do you mean? He brings up historians and scholars that agree with his point of view all the time 🤔
@christianchaidez yeah, that's not fallacious, an appeal to authority fallacy, or a problem at all. It's only a problem when you rely on the credentials of scholars or experts solely and abandon their argumentation to prove a point. Dan Mclellan is known for saying "scholarly consensus" then nothing else to prove his point.
I notice Dan follows a pattern here with people online. He will say the same phrases to people who disagree with him and even appeal to the consensus on a certain topic he thinks is a valid interpretation of the Bible, but he never gives in depth reasons and evidences as to why this specific interpretation is hold amongst the consensus.
I used to listen to Dan a few months back but i started to realize that the way he studies the Bible and interprets it was off, so i stopped watching. I even thought about ''what if he debates with Inspiringphilosophy? ''. i think i mentioned him in one of your videos too months before they ''debated''. But it's low of Dan to block Insp though. It proves he lost.
One thing that confuses me is why do some people say the pharaoh of exodus was rameses? Wouldn’t it make more sense if it was Thutmose III because the Bible says 480 years after the exodus when Solomon started building the first holy temple ?
@@xplicitgoofy1015 No, that's been covered elsewhere.
@@xplicitgoofy1015Because a large group of Semites abandoned Avaris during the reign of Rameses the Second. You can see the documentary "Exodus Rediscovered" that IP made with Dr David Falk
@@MeanBeanComedy So what does the 480 years mean? Does it mean 12 generations have passed since the exodus happened ?
Like I did research and nowhere within the Bible does it say pharaoh died in the sea of reeds but it explicitly states his army perished in the sea, and in the whole Old Testament God never declared the pharaoh died in the sea of reeds, just one time it mentions in psalms chapter 136 but that was never God declaring it, it was a poem by king David I think and he was trying to convey a message about the massive defeat pharaoh and his army had in that moment if I’m not mistaken
So like it makes sense we have the pharaohs body in his tomb, but what does the 480 years mean ?
@@MeanBeanComedy So what does the 480 years mean? Does it mean 12 generations have passed since the exodus happened ?
Like I did research and nowhere within the Bible does it say pharaoh passed away in the sea of reeds but it explicitly states that his army perished in the sea, and in the whole Old Testament God never declared the pharaoh passed away in the sea of reeds, just one time it mentions in psalms chapter 136 but that was never God declaring it, it was a poem by king David I think and he was trying to convey a message about the massive defeat pharaoh and his army had in that moment thanks to the blessings of God and him being thankful to God if I’m not mistaken
So like it makes sense we have the pharaohs body in his tomb, but what does the 480 years mean ?
I feel for IP trying to speak to someone who creates their own absolutes and then expect you to work inside them.
Thank you! This guy is ruining my best friend.
Same. That was one reason I got off Tik-Tok because of the bite size "Gotchas". Though looking back, I wish that I could have been warned my friend of the subtle and dangerous nature of this.
It's weird how many friends people like that can sway.
@@MyCupOfTea101No one should ever be getting information or forming opinions from social media.
@TrumpOnIce You would think it would be commonplace, but when folks don't want to exercise their faith, they'll find an excuse for anything.
He’s a weird, super liberal Mormon.
And by Mormon, he's as much of a Mormon as a lapsed Catholic is Catholic. We Latter-day Saints do believe in conditional prophecies. Whether that be in our core theology (as, if the prophecies weren't conditional, Zion would have been firmly established in Jackson County, MO and the Civil War would have marked the Final Battle) to individual Patriarchal Blessings (which are always prefaced with the statement that the blessings stated are conditional, not fate), it's pretty obvious that Dan's theology does not resemble LDS theology.
@@ericwolford5685amen.
@@ericwolford5685 The problem is that he's active in the LDS church and teaches at LDS institutions. He compartmentalizes his personal religious beliefs from his research and politics. His research is no different than any atheist critical scholar and he's extremely Far-Left in his political views, including pushing LGBTQ ideology. The late Senator Harry Reid was the same way, on the one hand he was the extremely liberal Democratic Party majority leader who pushed radical views, and on the other he was a supposedly faithful Mormon in good standing.
Yep, he's pro-LGBT too. He has videos on how he justifies those beliefs. The Mormon church would likely distance themselves from him. Mormonism is also a corrupt religion with racist beliefs.
@@Frodojack I get it. Dan has his cake and eats it too. I do find it odd that, on the one hand, he still publishes for BYU's Religious Studies Center while, on the other, he regularly works with John Dehlin - an ex-Mormon who uses his platform to lead people away from the Church to secular humanism. I think Dan hasn't left for the same reason why Dan Reynolds of Imagine Dragons tried staying in the Church until fairly recently: they want to use their influence in the Church to push the Church into a more progressive direction. It's only a matter of time when Dan McClellan chooses what he will do: will he reconcile himself to God, or will he go the way of Dan Reynolds, John Dehlin, David Archuleta, etc and leave?
This Dan guy really did just poison the well and fail at argument on every level.
Everyone should pray for him and not hate him. Hope for his soul
I once asked Dan to engage WLC because he’s offered serious scholarly rebuttals (of Dan’s arguments, although not of Dan himself). Dan said, “he’s not a scholarly critic” and left it at that.
I asked why Dan doesn’t do debates with critics he does consider scholarly. He said something like, “wouldn’t prove who’s right; only who’s better at speaking and memorizing details.”
Then surely Dan at least publishes engagements… right? Nah, not really. The only “engagements” I could find are nothing of the sort. If you disagree, cite the paper and I’ll read it and update my comment (I can think of one, but in it he literally says he isn’t going to discuss the actual arguments…)
Dan also authoritatively pronounces on topics he hasn’t studied. It’s cringe. Dan thinks (or acts as if he thinks) he’s a theologian, and a historian of all fields, and a scientist, and a philosopher of religion, etc.
The guy’s ego is too heavy for even the biggest bodybuilder to lift.
Dan also says, “take the author at their word”… wait, on other occasions Dan is thoroughly postmodernist and thinks that texts don’t have any inherent meaning, and rather we always “negotiate and re-negotiate” interpretations. But when it’s HIS interpretation, suddenly it’s legit. Got it.
I’m done with him.
Some people “quietly quit” (silly phrase that is abused by lazy people, but leave aside). Dan quietly manifests.
PS Dan wants to say “their” instead of “his” when referring to God, specifically in the context of Jonah. I thought we were supposed to understand authors on their own terms. (Again, only when it’s convenient for Dan, otherwise texts have no meaning, per my earlier comment.) Ok, then say “his.” God changed HIS mind, not “their mind.” Also, it can be plausibly argued that this is an anthropomorphism and God didn’t literally change his mind. The conditional reading fits. Here I highly recommend Craig’s lecture “On Behalf of a Molinist Perspective.” Meow
Post PS. Although I think Mike clearly won this debate, I’ve been reluctant to view much of the Old Testament in high regard. BUT, IP, Shamoun, and others are increasing my confidence in OT. And that confidence increases the more I see Dan making errors or misunderstandings.
What does he believe??
@@raphaelfeneje486 He is Mormon. He particularly likes the idea that the Israelites believed in many gods as it is an argument against the Trinity, and is pro Mormon because they believe that God the Father is not the first god, that there were more before him. Of course, that is not what the Israelites meant by many gods but he seems to really like it.
@@TheProdigalMeowMeowMeowReturns hahahaha low bar bill 💸 one in a million aye?🤣
@@josephmoya5098 Bro,Israelites DID believe in many Gods,one of which was Yahweh..jeez..🙄
@@SabracadabrOThey were not supposed to be worshipping many gods.
I was reading a Jewish article on Daniel the other day and thought it was so interesting. The author was saying that they interpret prophecy as conditional so he believed that the Messiah could have come in the days of the Maccabean revolt if they had given the throne to the true heir of David instead of taking it for themselves. And that the coming of the Messiah had multiple potential times it could have worked if people had been righteous. Not saying I totally agree with that exact interpretation but the general perspective on prophecy certainly aligns with what IP is saying here. Jews can misinterpret scripture just as much as Christians, but I think we benefit from at least considering how they interpret the Old Testament when trying to reach the best understanding of a passage.
That sounds very interesting, tayh. I would like to read the article, could you perhaps send me the link to it?
One of my best friends is an orthodox Jew and he always has very good insights into the Bible that I never could perceive so I totally understand. I would like to read this article as well
That's not what the book of Daniel teaches. The Maccabbean revolt is mentioned in the book as expressly NOT the appointed end (Dan. 11:32-35). The Greek "little horn" of Antiochus 4 would set up the Abomination of Desolation, and stop the daily sacrifices from being offered correctly for 1150 days, after which the desolation is averted. Desolation is NOT decreed in this case, rather, "Then the sanctuary shall be restored to its rightful state" (Dan. 8:9-14).
There is NO mention of any praise of the Maccabbean revolters, they are not heros, and their kingdom is not the Kingdom of God. Neither are they condemned, nor faulted in any way. Rather, after that, Israel is the "divided kingdom" of Dan. 2:40, the kingdom of iron and clay, joined together by marriages but brittle, not united. This disunity is in no way a sin or fault for which she is punished. Rather, "And the wise among the people shall make many understand, though for some days they shall stumble by sword and flame, by captivity and plunder. When they stumble, they shall receive a little help. And many shall join themselves to them with flattery, and some of the wise shall stumble, so that they may be refined, purified, and made white, until the time of the end, for it still awaits the appointed time." (Dan. 11:33-25). This is not stated as a sin or grounds for judgment. It is stated as the fated state of affairs, for the wise to suffer and fall and fail, not having dominance, and being purified, till the appointed time of the end.
The appointed time of the end is when another "little horn" arises, not a King of the North, nor a King of the South, but a king arising from within Israel herself. He arises as a willful king, a rebel, as the "little horn" of the Fourth Kingdom, Second Temple Israel, overthrowing the prior government in Dan. 7, to rule for "time, times and half a time" the period of or during the last "seven" of Second Temple Israel of Dan. 9. He arises, sets up another "Abomination of Desolation" and this time desolation will not be averted, rather, it is DECREED in the war to the end, destroying Second Temple Israel, Jerusalem and the Second Temple, and the desolator himself and his government (Dan. 9:26-27). As a result of his rise, he and his "many" whom he makes a covenant with, they, the many, awake from the dust to shame and everlasting contempt (Dan. 12:2), when "the power of the holy people has been shattered" (Dan. 12:7), when the Great Tribulation comes upon Israel (Dan. 12:1) and he sets up the Abomination of Desolation (Dan. 12:11). This is the time of the end, when the wise and their "many" that they turn to "righteousness" (Dan. 12:2-3) bring in "everlasting righteousness" (Dan. 9:24) of the eternal kingdom of Dan. 2 and 7.
Just read the book of Daniel, and look for the connections and statements that link it all together as a single eschatological consummation, at the fall of the Second Temple, many generations after the Maccabbean revolt.
@@hillaryfamilythat was a hit and a miss. The point wasn't the Maccabees but the fact of conditional prophecy.
There is an idea for example amongst jews that the end will come once all of Israel keeps one perfect Sabbath. That's just another example for this attitude.
@@MrSeedi76 that may be true that some Jewish people or groups thought that the Hope of Israel would be fulfilled when the conditions were right, which might be any time. However, my comment was that the book of Daniel taught that it was to come at the fall of the Second Temple, and the destruction or Second Temple Israel when “the power of the holy people has been shattered” long after the time of Antiochus 4.
The “Jews” were a diverse bunch and many of their eschatological expectations were quite wrong. That said, the New Testament eschatology is well within the mainstream of Jewish thought and understanding: that the eschatological consummation was to take place in their generation at the fall of the Second Temple.
You mean the guy who has an abysmal grasp of philosophy of language, is a practicing Mormon, slandered the hell out of Dr. Falk, and makes his opponents out to be dogmatic fundamentalists couldn’t take a reasonable critique? Next you’ll tell me the sky is blue.
@@deadalivemaniac 😂😂
@@deadalivemaniac Dr Falk is a clown once he steps out of his studies of Egypt. Kipp Davis has torn him to shreds multiple times.
@@Chomper750no,Kipp is an academic bully who learned not to pick fights with Falk after he’s exposed his ignorance in two presentations, one on his channel (particularly when it comes to text criticism) and most recently with IP.
@@Chomper750the same Kipp Davis who can’t figure the date of a case mate wall lol
@@Chomper750 nice take, Kipp
Dang, nobody but you catches Dan in his inconsistencies. Well done, your research and work are appreciated. God bless.
OH MAN! One of your best videos and video formats! I also LOVE that you never attacked him personally, and instead rebuffed him by firing a barrage of clear and sensible facts!
Dan DOES not understand Second Temple Judaism. It is a problemmmmmmmmm. Dan just says Dogma and Data constantly. This type of rhetoric is polarizing dangerous.
@@rebelresource Dangerous only to theological baggage that isn’t supported by the texts.
@@Chomper750 I don’t care about theology
Bro looked for words “conditional prophecy” in the book he provided, couldn’t find it, and said “Nuh uh” 🤣
His take on Jonah is absolutely wild. Single handedly undermines whatever point he was trying to make
Let's not forget that John did see the second coming in his revelation.
exactly and for all we know others did too that were not recorded.
But McClellan has to believe that John is still alive because his pedophilic prophet told him so.
Don't tell Dan that one, otherwise he'll just respond to you with one of his univocality arguments
Fair, but saying this as a Christian, isn’t Jesus clearly saying “some of you”? So it couldn’t be just John.
Tbh I feel like it just refers to his death resurrection and ascension, as well as the coming destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. Jesus states the exact same thing to the high priest, only he’s indicating that from THEN ON he will see the son of man seated at the right hand of power and coming on the clouds of heaven.
Jesus is quoting Daniel 7, which was a prophecy about the coming messiah. It seems like he’s just stating pretty clearly that’s he’s the messiah and all power will be granted to him and he will be vindicated in their lifetime. But I’m open to other interpretations as well
@@onetowardslove I think you are on the right tract. My understanding of Mathew 24:34 is He is talking about the things that must come before the Second Coming such as the Destruction of the Temple and the persecution of the Church . My understanding of Matthew 16:28 is He is talking about His enthronement in Heaven and the Fulfillment of Daniel 7 just like you say.
Thank you IP for clarifying why Jonah was reluctant to go to Nineveh. I just thought it was because he hated the people and the city (which is true) but you clarifying that it was Jonah knowing that the prophecy is conditional adds another layer to that reluctance.
It’s nice to see you smiling in your thumbnails for once IP!
Dan blocked you ? Welcome to the club.!!
Dan's main arguments when it comes to traditional Christians is psycologising them (
he never does this with any other group ( except Conservative Christians )
That is what happens when you do not want to be challenged with a weak argument! Too funny….. Keep up the great work from one of your Patreons…
I recently saw how Dan straight up thinks the author of Revelations was "antisemitic". That was my last straw to where it's pretty obvious to me that he's dogmatic at quite extreme levels. 😂
Yeah he's a Mormon. Many Mormons are out to discredit the bible. They only believe in their version of the bible which has added books and verses. Many people don't realize this. Joseph Smith believed that the bible was corrupted. It's very similar to Islam in that regard.
The book of Revelation barely even made it into the canon and was believed to be written by a gnostic named Cerinthus. The book of revelation is clearly not a book about the future and to think it is makes you selfish asf because you're ignoring everything the early church went through. You guys have someone disagree with you and call it "persecution". The early church was being persecuted, burned alive, fed to lions, killed for being followers of the Way. That book in so many ways teaches different things from Jesus' love your enemies teaching, depicts him like pagan deities, calls a gentile church the synagogue of Satan. You guys flatly ignore all these things and negotiate with the texts to make them fit your narrative. When you study the Bible you need to study the Historical, Cultural and Literary context. Not to mention textual criticism to have a better understanding of what you are reading. Dan focuses on the data and saying he is the one that's being by dogma is flat out ignorant. Another thing to note is that the Bible is NOT univocal, let's remember how the canon was put together and by who. We can thank Marcion of Sinope for the canon we now have because if he hadn't made his own then there would be no canon. They were all seperate books full of different beliefs and perspective hence why we see many inconsistencies and contradictions when we read it but are taught that the word is perfect and cannot contradict itself, wait what? DOGMA.
@@christianchaidezyou’re wrong in so much lmao
@@christianchaidez
Even if you do not look at the book of revelation, there are many other passages in the Bible that speaks of a day of judgment and also a day of the vengeance of God.
And love is not always soft.
God is very patient, but he has a day where the time of repentance and grace ends.
I mean he does have a point that book of revelation is the fakest book in the whole New Testament, shocks me how the church can allow such a book within the canon!
I can't believe I used to watch Dan, I'm so glad I found IP instead.
From the moment Dan called his podcast Data Over Dogma I noticed a problem... You can't do anything with data without frameworks that have been built by others... Dogmas of another name. Data is just that... It needs to be interpreted through a lens to make anything out of it.
This is explained perfectly.
Critique of Pure Reason. Kant was on to this some time ago.
I think that Dan is relying on the strength of arguments as supported by available data. For example, the two stories regarding Judas' death-- two finite events cannot really be true at the same time. Dan is suggesting we don't try to shoe horn the data into a funnel to fit our narrative, but rather focus on what the text is trying to tell us. Two authors, two versions. Not so difficult to believe.
Dan blocks anyone who ACTUALLY knows the Bible. He only attracts those (fans) who know nothing about the Bible.
Dan did the only logical atheist move when they fail the debate: rage quit.
He's mormon, actually.
@@abyssimus even worse based on the type of arguments he’s making
@@Sammo212 Oh, yeah. As I said elsewhere, while I'm normally more inclined to agree with the sort of secular scholarship that McClellan tries to champion than IP's work (no disrespect), McClellan adhering to a belief system that completely contradicts the established archaeology of the Americas because a treasure-hunting, bank-defrauding, ceremonial magician found tablets that no one else could see and that he couldn't consistently translate makes anything McClellan gets right about history a "stopped clock" moment (no matter how often that may or may not happen).
Thanks for providing the whole context of these exchanges as well as the full clip of Dans original video. Really lets me grasp the overall strength of the argument.
Dan put me in a rough spot in my faith, but instead of deconstructing, I kept looking for truth. Praise God for his truth
You are not a slave! Your religion likens you to a herd animal, a sheep.
Time to wake up, all gods are made in the image of man, all around the earth men did this to make sense of the world they live on. But there isnt a heaven up above the clouds, demons dont cause illnesses, the universe was not created in 6 days.
There is more to faith than data. It take both good information and spiritual conversion to be a follower of Jesus Christ.
Why do you think that Dan made you start to question your faith, where deconstructing was on the table for you?
You and me both, brother. There are inconsistencies, I'll admit, but that's a good thing. There is nothing wrong with being skeptical. I choose to believe, and therefore, I keep searching.
@@doublejay74 why is what Dan teaching causing you to question your faith? Or caused you to do so? He's literally teaching the Bible, albeit his scholarly perspective of the Bible?
@ ua-cam.com/video/zmMBY1O0Wzw/v-deo.htmlsi=VueN2fIvvWjvE30A
"I'm right and you're wrong so if you disagree with me, you're only doing so because of dogma"- Dogmatic Dan
Worse yet, dogma is always wrong because it is dogma, so if you ever argue in defense of dogma, you are obviously wrong. This is not a dogmatic statement whatsoever.
@@josephmoya5098oh you're right, the great scholar Dan is the most unbiased most charitable person in the scholarly world. No dogmas from him whatsoever
@@josephmoya5098 Dogma IS stupid,brutal fact.
@@SabracadabrO You say, toting it as dogmatic fact.
@@artistforthefaith9571 Brutal Fact boy..I have no masters..I’m free.
If someone blocked you instead of giving evidence, that means that person is wrong.
Seems that Dan is making giant assumptions about the exact word choice within the book of Jonah. However, it wasn’t written in English. Therefore if I’m going to ignore the broad themes and put a microscope up to the word choice, I would need to look at the original language (Hebrew) and then figure out if the original language contains those same nuances. To argue that changing of God’s mind isn’t the same as a conditional prophecy is a distinction that might not exist. That’s a very dangerous assumption.
When you are in hole, you need to stop digging. The problem is, Dan doesn't realise he is in a hole.
He's such a thin-skinned little baby for blocking you. Honestly pretty disgraceful.
Imagine being the guy who started a fight and then start blocking people when yoy begin to lose
How many times does McClellan claim "consensus" where anyone who's studied Theology at a university/college level knows there isn't consensus on the matter? The Olivet has a wide range of scholarly interpretations. I always find his arguments disingenuous, but he's got himself a huge following of atheists who think he's extremely scientific lol
PS: no one cites McClellan at university either. They may not cite IP either, but they cite the same sources as IP constantly.
I also note I hardly ever hear McClellan cite ANYONE, for that matter. Red flag!
@@joelmcleay He is constantly citing others' published works.
@@timtriolo4421 "constantly"? Nope. IP is constant with citations. Most McLellan videos I've come across have zero citations.
@@joelmcleay I watched Dan's rebuttal video, and in this clip alone Dan cited at least nine times that I counted references from the one source IP provided. I have to wonder if IP read the book, because it certainly doesn't support his position. It explicitly spells out the consensus view Dan mentions, and also posits a minority perspective. Hayes' book also admits that dogmatism is the way Christians avoid a problem with a plain reading of the text. None of these things are inherently bad, so I am not sure why IP is so heated about admitting that he applies a dogmatic approach. I do the same thing with areas of my faith for which I have no way of showing proof by means of the plain reading of the text. So what? IP seems to take this debate on a very personal level. I think he let his pride get the best of him. This discourse between these two guys is not healthy.
The internet, where skeptics block you if you expose them! ❤
If you just started watching this video. Pause and go make popcorn. Trust me.
Good stuff. Dan also got dogmas
Out the whazooo
Dan´s dogma: If the author of John has something unique, it is invented. And he backs up his claim with academic consensus.
dogmatic dan
@@briandiehl9257 with his Hole-y underwear
Finally I got to know some of Dan´s assumptions. Some months ago I asked for it and his weak reply was:"You can verify that by going and reading critical commentaries on the Gospel of John. I'm not here to relitigate long-established consensuses for people who won't be willing or able to think critically about it anyway." Dan McClellan.
Mike, I’ve been very critical of certain positions you hold, but I would like to say that you really knocked it out of the park in this video, and, have given me a new way to think about prophecy. Thank you very much and God bless you.
00:06 Jesus' prophecy of his return is conditional and subject to human response
02:03 Jesus's prophecy should be judged based on its own merit
06:03 Proclaiming the Gospel to All Nations
08:08 Analyzing conditional prophecies and logical consistency within Christianity.
12:24 The prophecy in Jonah was unconditional due to lack of stated conditions and cultural norms.
14:32 Most prophecies were understood as conditional based on cultural norms.
18:35 Jesus gave prophecies conditionally
20:31 Examination of conditional vs. fatalistic prophecy
24:19 Prophecy in Jonah and Jeremiah implies conditional aspects
26:17 Daniel's assumption about prophecy and conditions
30:00 Critiquing reliance on dogmatic arguments in debates
Crafted by Merlin AI.
"Data over dogma" said the Mormon
He must want those space babies real bad
@@ayo123 i bet he cant wait to become god of his own planet
as a mormon myself, it should be clear and stated that he regularly goes against lds teachings and perspectives. reason being that he, in his videos, is not seeking to present the lds perspective or dogma. he is seeking to represent the scholarly consensus.
@@germanmarine6582 the problem is, "muh scholarly consensus" is about all he has in terms of arguments
@@Pyr0Ben exactly, not once have I actually seen him refute an apologist based on actual non fallacious argumentation or reasoning
Dan has misused fallacies and rarely engages with arguments in favor of poisoning the well and argues his specific idea. Then his fans strut around acting like he's done something. It's the one reason I ignore him. There's not much substance with him
Ruslan and Inspiring Philosophy in a video together!? God is good!
"Scholars have to presuppose certain things to cover gaps in epistemological uncertainty"
Also atheists: "God of the gaps! God of the gaps! Fallacy!"
IP has a proud grin in the thumbnail haha😂 victory!
I knew this video was coming out soon. Something about the way he prepared his response FELT like a double standard, I just hadn’t come back to pick it apart. I think what made it feel that way is Dan’s argument tactics kind of remind me of Pop Atheists
I still don't understand why McClellan is still given the time of day and taken remotely seriously by anyone.
It is kind of hilarious when critics of Christianity assume their own bizarre ideas about reality and then argue as if we agreed with them, essentially doing what they accuse Christians of doing. For example I recently heard an atheist making an argument against the Bible where he assumed that alien civilizations must exist on other planets and that proves why an aspect of the Bible is false. Okay dude.
I'm not even joking, I hear that argument literally all the time.
It's so damned stupid, I usually start making fun of the person saying it right away.
The reason why it's dumb:
1. The Bible never said there's no life on other planets.
2. There's still no evidence to believe there is life on other planets besides a probability calculation, so why assume there is?
Honestly I'm genuinely disappointed. A lot of your previous interactions with Dan seemed largely mature and good faith even when he was clearly wrong, and they were more educational than your usual tiktok slapfights. Sad to see he took the low road and blocked you.
Quick summary of the "discussion"
IP makes his case.
Dan disagrees.
IP accuses Dan of committing fallacies.
Dan accuses IP of dogmatism.
IP accuses Dan of dogmatism.
Dan accuses IP of stealing his go to move and blocks IP.
We all go on to have a nice day.
Dan's reasoning is so terrible.. I've seen so many of his videos and he is a fallacy master
I remember I came across one of his videos thinking he sounded scholarly and breaking down facts. I watched 2 more videos and realised he was neither of those things.
Dan acts like he has no bias no dogma 🥰
McClellan’s central problems is very poor hermeneutics and his own presuppositions and dogmas
So glad this guy has been called out not many people on the internet spread blatant misinformation so confidentlyas McClellan
The fact that he blocked you, shows that he is triggered. He cannot take the same heat he is putting on others. Pretty narcissistic.
Dan Mclellan frequently uses the phrase "That's not supported by any data" instead of interacting *with. the. data. that. people. use. to. support. stuff.*
This is one of his catch phrases that he often uses to get out of other people's arguments. Glad someone like IP called him out and showed him the. literal. data. Like jeremiah's prophecies, jonahs, etc. Mclellan literally ignored the fact that *those passages ARE the data* and just said "The idea that prophecies are conditional is not supported by the data." *Dude, look at the data. Conditional prophecies are literally all over the old testament. That's the data.*
THANK YOU MIKE FOR DEFENDING TRUTH
I love how IP cuts like half of Dan's videos. When Dan requests to hear the argument that does *not* presuppose the existence of God, IP simply... doesn't respond to that. IP is also kinda crazy to think the way to respond to evidence against your theory starts by presupposing that your theory is correct.
Oh brother. IP did respond to Dan accusing him of assuming God exists. Remember when IP was talking about the "internal critique" stuff. Watch that again. An internal critique assumes the view is correct, and critiques the consistency of that view from that perspective. So yeah. IP is assuming God exists. Because the video was an internal critique. And internal critiques of Christianity must assume God exists.
I'm not ragging on you for not understand that, I'm ragging on Dan for not understanding that. It's elementary logic.
If the "evidence against your theory" is an internal critique, then you have to resolve the critique INTERNALLY, yes?
1. If God gave a false prophecy, then God does not exist.
2. God gave a false prophecy.
3. Therefore, God does not exist.
Now, how is anyone supposed to talk in any reasonable manner about this argument if they can't entertain the existence of God as a possibility? Here's the truth: THE ARGUMENT ITSELF PRESUPPOSES GOD'S EXISTENCE TO DISPROVE GOD. That's what an internal critique does.
For the same reason that the person making the above argument doesn't have to prove God's existence just to show it's impossible for God to exist because of a false prophecy, Michael doesn't have to show God exists in order to demonstrate that this argument doesn't work. I hope this makes sense. Like I said, I'm not ragging on you, I'm ragging on Dan because at this point he should know better, and he has mislead a lot of people on how fallacies and logic works.
@@imwatchingyouiminyourwalls But IP insists that his position is "the best explanation of the data". Is this *only* the case if you assume that God exists? This is what Dan was pointing out: the hypocrisy of saying you're allowed to presuppose christian dogmas, but insisting that your argument has merit in a critical environment and is the best explanation of the data. This is the difference between IP and the book he's quoting from: the book acknowledges that this is a dogmatic argument to solve a dogmatic problem, and that the research doesn't point in this direction (in other words, the book agrees with Dan).
Also, it's not an internal critique to say that we have *external* evidence indicating that Jesus uttered a false prophecy, and that this undermines several christian dogmas. IP is just confused here. Dan pointed this out, too.
@@Nickesponja Dan was responding to a video of IP responding to an internal critique. IP's argument about conditional prophecy does not require God's existence if that's what you mean.
There isn't any presupposition of any Christian dogmas in saying that the intent of the text was conditional. IP isn't arguing from Christian dogmas to show the prophecy was conditional. He was assuming Christianity when he was responding to the internal critique, sure. That's what you're supposed to do. However, with regards to the prophecy being conditional, he didn't assume any Christian dogmas. He made various arguments from scholars.
As for discrediting the book cited because its "dogmatic" this is the genetic fallacy. The motives behind who makes the argument has no weight on the argument itself. Respond to the arguments. Who cares why someone makes an argument? Who cares if they have other motives? It's irrelevant. That's why this actually is a logical fallacy. The only question we should have is "what are their arguments?" And if you reject their argument because of any reason besides the argument itself is wrong, then you have failed to respond.
The "data" and "research" is awfully vague. The "data" is the passages michael brought up. That's the data. Dan fumbles over himself to explain it. That data is what they should be arguing about, not the motives of whoever is presenting it. Michael is right to call Dan out over this.
The book Michael cited doesn't agree with Dan. The book advocates for conditional prophecy. It's literally known for it. If you mean that it agrees that a dogmatic argument cant enter critical scholarship, then I'm a bit confused where it says anything along those lines. It acknowledges that the scholars writing are religious. Duh. The arguments aren't religious, though. They are arguments from the text. This is critical scholarship. Can a religious person not make an argument based on the text itself instead of dogma?
As for your statement that it's not an internal critique to show external evidence, it actually is. The intent is to show that the Christian worldview is internally inconsistent, however I also think I could be misunderstanding you here.
All of that is to say: Michael makes arguments to support his view that prophecy was conditional. He shows the data, and argues about it. It doesn't assume God's existence and rather relies on the text. If it does assume God's existence, feel free to show me how. This should be a debate over the sources, not who's dogmatic and who isn't.
@@imwatchingyouiminyourwalls "with regards to the prophecy being conditional, he didn't assume any Christian dogmas" then why does he say he does? IP's entire argument is trying to show that prophecy was typically understood to be conditional. Dan asks him, "are you saying your argument only works if you assume a certain set of christian dogmas?", and IP responds, "in some sense, yes" (what kind of answer is that). What gives? My two cents here is, IP's argument that prophecy was understood to be conditional is only compelling if you accept the dogma that Jesus couldn't have been wrong about his prophecies. Otherwise, there's just no good reason to think there was this convention of understanding prophecy as conditional unless stated otherwise. There's actually good evidence against it, since the plot twist of the book of Jonah doesn't work if the reader implicitly assumes that the prophecy is conditional (Dan explained this, too). On top of, you know, the fact that we have no record of this apparently widespread convention ever existing.
I'm not discrediting the book based on its motives, I'm pointing out what the book itself says. It says, several times, that the research clearly shows that Jesus prophesied his second coming within a generation. Which was Dan's whole point, that you don't get this idea that Jesus' prophecies were conditional from the data. Here are some of the times the book says this (Dan pointed this out, too):
"Having maneuvered through the exegetical intricacies of Jesus scholarship, we concluded that Jesus did indeed
prophesy his second coming and the consummation of the kingdom
of God sometime within a generation of his preaching", page 23.
"Schweitzer, Allison, and Ehrman are essentially correct that Jesus prophesied the consummation of the kingdom of God to occur within striking distance of his earthly ministry (certainly within several decades)", page 18.
"The intent is to show that the Christian worldview is internally inconsistent" I obviously don't know what the person asking the question intended, but generally speaking when a question is of the form, "if your theory is correct, why does this evidence contradict it?", this is simply a straightforward case of presenting evidence against said theory.
@@Nickesponja
'"with regards to the prophecy being conditional, he didn't assume any Christian dogmas' then why does he say he does? IP's entire argument is trying to show that prophecy was typically understood to be conditional. Dan asks him, 'are you saying your argument only works if you assume a certain set of Christian dogmas?', and IP responds, 'in some sense, yes' (what kind of answer is that). What gives?"
What gives is the very next thing IP says. In some sense, that is true because of the very same reasons I laid out earlier. The next line Michael says is literally "because the critic says if God is real how could he have uttered a false prophecy so to answer that objection we have to assume God actually did give the prophecy." In this sense, yes you do have to assume a certain set of Christian dogmas. Because you're responding to an internal critique.
"My two cents here is, IP's argument that prophecy was understood to be conditional is only compelling if you accept the dogma that Jesus couldn't have been wrong about his prophecies. Otherwise, there's just no good reason to think there was this convention of understanding prophecy as conditional unless stated otherwise."
That is not what IP is saying here. Nothing else really to add. Just listen to the full quote.
"Otherwise, there's just no good reason to think there was this convention of understanding prophecy as conditional unless stated otherwise. There's actually good evidence against it, since the plot twist of the book of Jonah doesn't work if the reader implicitly assumes that the prophecy is conditional (Dan explained this, too)."
Michael gives various reasons, whether they convince you or not is up to you. He argues that it's a parsimonious and possible reading of the text. As for the book of Jonah thing, that honestly was kind of the moment I thought Dan lost. The twist is exactly what Michael was saying. That was his entire point. Jonah knew God would change his mind. That's the twist. It's baked into the narrative. I don't have much interest in defending Michael's explanation, but I don't think Dan did well in this response.
Here are the quotes that you provided from the book:
"Having maneuvered through the exegetical intricacies of Jesus scholarship, we concluded that Jesus did indeed
prophesy his second coming and the consummation of the kingdom
of God sometime within a generation of his preaching", page 23.
"Schweitzer, Allison, and Ehrman are essentially correct that Jesus prophesied the consummation of the kingdom of God to occur within striking distance of his earthly ministry (certainly within several decades)", page 18.
Yes. The book says that. The same book that argues that the prophecy is conditional. Do you see the problem? The book is literally saying that these prophecies are meant to be interpreted as conditional. So yes. Jesus did prophesy his second coming in the consummation of the kingdom of God sometime within a generation of his preaching. Yes Schweitzer, Allison, and Ehrman are correct that Jesus prophesied the consummation of the kingdom of God within several decades. What you are missing is the argument of why that is. The book argues it should be interpreted as conditional. Dan unironically cherry picked the book. Rewatch Michael showing that the quote Dan said wasn't in the book was, in fact, in the book on page 57 (11:28). God doesn't have to exist for a conditional prophecy to take place in the text. God could not exist, and this prophecy will never happen. God could exist, and this prophecy could come to pass. Either way is irrelevant. The point is that the text allows for this reading. You aren't conceding that Jesus will come back if you're convinced by this. At most, you are just conceding that Christianity has a possible way to explain why Jesus didn't return in the first century.
"'The intent is to show that the Christian worldview is internally inconsistent' I obviously don't know what the person asking the question intended, but generally speaking when a question is of the form, 'if your theory is correct, why does this evidence contradict it?', this is simply a straightforward case of presenting evidence against said theory."
Not exactly. The question is an internal critique because the evidence in doesn't call into question the external consistency (I.E. Christianity is disproven by evolution), but internal consistency (I.E. Christianity is disproven by Jesus lying). I hope this helps a bit.
Thanks for the amicable response.
Prophet Dan blocked me when I called him out for being to insecure about his phd and his biblical scholarship.
Wait, so you were being snotty to someone (evidenced by the claim that you "called him out.") and he didn't feel like wasting his time arguing with you? I cannot imagine why.
Yet another example of why I appreciate David Wood's Scooby-Doo and the case of the silly septic video because the other side will not look at the evidence.
I had a very funny exchange with a Muslim guy in clubhouse once. It essentially went like this:
Step 1) Muslim made a silly claim about the Bible (can’t remember exactly, but they do this constantly). I replied ‘That’s ridiculous’
Step 2) He replied ‘it’s YOUR TRUSTED SCHOLAR who shows this’. I ask him for the source
Step 3) He sends me a link to a short Dan McClellan UA-cam video (I had never heard of him at that time). I watch it, it was laughable nonsense of course. Then I look Dan McClellan up and his LATEST Twitter video was titled: ‘The Bible has NO AUTHORITY’. I go back to the Muslim and while I confront him on his deceptive tactics, ‘Ultimate Truth’, a well known Muslim online heretic was talking. That dude follows a 19th Century false prophet according to Islam…just like Joseph Smith😊. I point out to the Muslim: ‘ if you think you have the right to call a heretic who follows a 19th century false profit in Mormonism, who just said the Bible has no authority, MY TRUSTED SCHOLAR, then I get to say Ultimate Truth is a true Muslim’
Step 4) Muslim guy didn’t respond and ran away.
Download this video before Dan tries to have it taken down.
Why is Dan McClellen so unlikable. Poisoning the well may not be the issue, McClellen may essentially be the poison well.
@@wmarkfish it's called bitterness and pride, makes an incredibly distasteful poison.
He comes across very "çūñty."
Because he portrays himself as a non biased "data" only guy. He puts on a facade of neutrality as he pushes liberal atheism. He also acts like he is the ultimate authority on the subject.
And he's smug, so smug.
IP comes off unlikable as well, always looking angry when talking.
@@saulmighty well, yeah, but his anger is suppressed and he doesn’t lash out until McClellen belabors the point for the, what?...5th time. McClellen becomes insufferable sooner for me than for Jones.
“Because of the implication”
Jesus giving off Dennis vibes
the word parcemonius doesn’t get used enough in daily conversation
I now understand that Dan does PTW... presenting a point by telling "everything that comes next it's dogmatic and not a result of a evidence based investigation, so not worth considering".
He couldn't handle the facts IP... Keep sending them
Dan should’ve just admitted that he got cooked.
Yeah I was blocked as well. I was actually very interested in his interpretations, but he went off the rails completely,
When he declared that Moloch didn't exist. So I posted basic historical information to present my case, Unfortunately he hand waved them.
Dan Is what I like to call a scholar miner. He searches far and wide for scholars with theories outside the mainstream, and then he presents them on his channels as fact.
the case for Moloch's existence is very very very bad to be sure. If you somehow uncovered some proof that guarantees we can say "moloch" was not simply the name of a type of sacrifice, but instead the name of a proper deity, I'd be very interested to take a look.
@ro.kn.2665
Your entire premise is ridiculous on its face. It's deities that are offered sacrifices to.
Recently, Dan McClellan's posts started showing up on my IG feed. Having no idea who he was (and always being open to well-reasoned arguments), I watched a few of his posts. I quickly began to detect signs that he was an angry man with an obvious axe to grind and that he seems to get a thrill out of trashing Christianity with his own (IMHO) narrow, dare I say 'dogmatic', almost sectarian(?) arguments. I still occasionally watch, but with careful attention and awareness to his rather flagrant biases. I can perhaps understand his disgruntlement when you consider that he has spent a large portion of his life in the pursuit of academic credentials studying something he doesn't believe is true. I suppose I might be grumpy too if I had a bunch of graduate degrees in "flat earth studies" or "the societal benefits of Marxism". What a waste! Of course, God IS real (I guess he would just accuse me of being dogmatic😆), and the study of His revelation to man is the highest form of pursuit. Hopefully some day he will realize that himself. Thank you Michael for your polite yet firm response to Dan's reaction.
Dan Fans take note: This is what happens when your boy picks on someone his own size. He rage quits and hides like a coward.
Go to his channel, some point out his flaws but most are in overwhelming agreement. Dr Kipp made it a point to comment under Dans last video about IP and call Michael an “exhausting and pedantic moron who he is convinced can’t read”
Which is not even close to the language that IP used about Kipp. And even then IP never attacks the character of his critics like this
@@1surfpesca_
That's because I.P.and Dr Falk took him to school
@@ramadadiver7810 ... no no they didn't
@Cediedash22 yes they did.
The fact is that Christian’s have a differing theology on this subject. To state something and pass it off as something all christian’s accept is plain wrong. The only consistency is the end result that Jesus was not wrong. There are many different accepted ways among Christian’s as to why. My father accepts transfiguration as fulfilling the prophecy. What is being argued here is that the prophecy was conditional. Two completely different dogmas. It cannot even be argued that Christian’s have the same view on this. To try to pass it off as the real scholarly consensus is completely wrong. My father went to seminary for pastoral studies and can read Greek and was a fundamental baptist missionary in Romania for 25 years. He is about as hard core Christian as I have met, but his theology differs from what was presented here. Having a dogmatic view is great, wonderful, and a personal matter of faith. To state that dogma as a fact is missing the mark in a big way, and entirely irrelevant in believing that Jesus died for the sins of the world and accepting him to be ones personal lord and savior.
Dan stitched one of my videos about Exodus 21:20 where the Hebrew word “naqam” is used which is translated to “punished”. I said in my video “every time the word naqam shows up in the Old Testament, it’s always used in reference to the death penalty”.
Dan’s rebuttal, after giving a huge word salad, was “naqam doesn’t mean the death penalty.”
Which he is correct. But that’s not what I argued. Naqam actually means “to avenge”. And in this passage the situation is if a master kills his servant, he will be “avenged”. In other words, the context of the passage itself informs us “naqam” is being used in reference to the death penalty just like it’s used in the rest of the Old Testament and just like I argued.
For a scholar, he doesn’t represent his critics very scholarly.
This is excellent stuff. Dan speaks authoritatively for a young buck in this space. He makes a lot of unproven assertions in short order in a deep voice and people get knocked over with a feather.
Good work. Are you an open theist? Or a partial preterist?
Both of those stances make this conversation much more simple.
Okay. The example with Daniel to Nebuchadnezzar really helped illustrate the conditional nature to me. That was a perfect example to help me see what you were explaining. Go with that one to help explain it. 😊 If you explain it again, then maybe slow down a teensy bit. I get that I’m not necessarily the audience.
Imagine blocking someone because of corrections?