Sometimes I wonder why apologetics is so toxic, especially online. However, I remembered when watching this video that the goal of apologetics isn't conversion (even if they make a compelling case, which they didn't in this case, who wants to join the side of an asshole?) it's about retention. It's convincing the in group that "no no no! Our faith is not threatened and we still have the right answer. Actually we have all the answers so no need to even engage with the folks with questions".
When I was a teenage fundamentalist, I read a work of apologetics to soothe my anxiety over doubts. It worked (at the time) not because the writer had convinced me, but because the writer portrayed themselves as convinced. I felt I was able to relax, even though my doubts still existed, because "smarter people than me" didn't seem to have those doubts.
@@jelliottleinI did much the same thing until I went to seminary. In my first course in apologetics, it seemed that I was being "taught", by way of rote memorization, the same apologetics that I'd heard as a child who was questioning their beliefs several decades prior. That's when I finally allowed the blinders to be fully removed and started looking at religious teachings and beliefs from a more critical lense.
@@billiwickey Fortunately, I had already left fundamentalism by the time I got to seminary; my mainline school wasn't super progressive but at least apologetics wasn't part of the curriculum and we studied the Bible under critical scholars. I've found the Bible to be so much more interesting and enjoyable when it's allowed to be what it is and when studying other religious texts and traditions alongside it.
There is an additonal reason for that toxicity: it is based on making the formula work around the answer. It uses and eisegetical approach, where one tries to shoehorn the text into a presupposed meaning, rather than the other way around.
Imagine being the kind of person whose position in a debate is so intellectually bankrupt that they feel the only way to win an argument is to seize on a moment when someone misspeaks. True class.
I'm glad you were firm in your response to that arrogant, rude content creator. There is no need to give him him the boost of responding to him. Also, I am getting more and more tired of the explicit hatred expressed by some "Christians" to LGBTQIA+ persons. I think it is a clear sign that those "Christians" have never read the Bible for themselves and are just listening to other "Christians" say hateful things and repeating them. One thing that is totally not justifiable by reading the Bible is the idea that homosexuality or sexual sins are worse than other sins. When that content creator bears false witness against you in his post, that sin is just as bad as all other sins.
I just heard a pastor defending empathy against the claim by other pastors that empathy is a sin. Maybe we shouldn’t be merely tired or annoyed at these small minded Christian leaders. Maybe we should understand that they are a threat to our physical safety.
christianity is just a hateful religion and christians who hate lgbtq and effeminacy and women's rights etc. are doing the bible and their religion correctly. that doesn't mean they interpret the bible correctly about everything, but they do interpret it correctly about those things.
Sadly as a recent "deconvert" I have to admit that hatred drives so much of apologetics. They're like the naked emperor insisting they have clothes but they're arguments prove the opposite.
It always surprises me when people who claim to represent God always take their perceived opponents in bad faith. Is that the example Jesus would’ve shown?
Actually Jesus did just that many times! Mathew 12 22Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?” 24But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.” 25Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you. 29“Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can plunder his house. 30“Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. 31And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come. 33“Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. 34You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of. 35A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. 36But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. 37For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”
For that "Christian" creator. Especially with Dan starting off asking us to respect them. Even if he is just allowing it, and not engaging in it, just more evidence of selective reading of the Bible.
Dan, I really appreciate the way in which you engage with your critics without being disrespectful. I also appreciate that you don't assume that your critics disagree with you because they are being dishonest and/or deceptive. Finally, I appreciate that you will change your mind as your understanding developed and as you are exposed to the ideas of others. Thanks for bringing both intellectual rigor and a spirit of humility to your youtube channel.
One of the reasons I needed to remove myself from the religious community (first the LDS, then Baptist) was specifically how so many Christians behave like this in the name of defending Christianity. I couldn't stomach the hypocrisy any longer and have gained so much peace from maintaining this boundary. It's even worse when it spills over to political figures with a large platform to spew hate and falsehood, and they eat it up.
Spanish is my first language and I have a few Spanish versions of the Bible on my computer, along with English and the original Greek. In all the Spanish versions I have, there is no doubt about Matthew 21:7, it clearly says Jesus sat on both animals. These are well-researched Spanish translations, and the people who worked on them didn't leave any doubt about it.
Buenas tardes, amigo. Your English is better than my Spanish, so I’ll continue with that. I think some forms of Christianity in the EEUU have become very different from the non-Catholic forms I have encountered in Mexico or indeed, the “mainline” Protestant denominations in the U.S. This other form of Christianity worships the Bible. When they say “God is in the Bible”, they believe it literally. That is why “Bible inerrancy” is so important to them. The most important part of the Bible is the death and resurrection of Christ, and the Bible “proves” that the resurrection really happened. And this is in part why they began to worship a book as their god.
@MarcosElMalo2 Christian evangelicals in the US are so apologetic that they are completely lost. They feel so persecuted that they have turned their religion in a judgemental and hateful one, but that's the problem when you have an old book with many voices and contradicts itself in many fundamental ideas, you'll always pick and choose whatever is best for your convenience.
Great vid, appreciate you revising your view on this and that is from the position of a learner about biblical scholarship. The incorrect grammar around personal pronouns still irks and could be construed as you misgendering *him. Imagine someone in the same situation, a thousand years from now, trying to decipher this grammar.
Dan, you addressed him very well. The guy's clearly a jerk. I literally just had several evangelicals insult me because I don't believe in the rapture. In fact I came to UA-cam to find your video on the subject so I could find your reference to apantesis. Apparently, I am not going to heaven and/or am insulting the word of God, because I think the rapture is nonsense. I think you handled yourself in a manner that is far more godly and Christian than any of these creeps are capable of. This is exactly why I will never go to another evangelical church again. They love to lecture others about their behavior, yet are too morally incontinent to restrain themselves from insults. Thank you for your videos. They have meant about to me as I try to figure out what I believe these days.
Thank you, Dan. Your integrity and commitment to intellectual honesty is greatly appreciated. You modifying your position in the face of new data is what we should all expect from ourselves if we want to engage in good faith.
The larger point being missed by the creator here is that we have to make a choice. Either Jesus and his people deliberately organised events to match prophecy, or Matthew tells an invented story for the same purpose. Both are dishonest ways of making Jesus appear as if he is the one mentioned in prophecy. Christians claim to see a great many prophecies and references to Jesus in the Hebrew bible but none of them stand alone clearly without wishful thinking, manipulation of the text via mistranslation or removal from context, or both.
The third possibility is that Jesus is exactly who he claimed to be! What are the chances one man could fulfill dozens of prophecies foretold hundreds of years before his birth? Did Jesus bribe the Romans to crucify him at the same time the lambs were being slaughtered on Passover? How would his manner of death just happen to include being crucified or his garments being divided? No the odds of all of these specific circumstances applying to just one person is astronomical! Psalm 22:1 "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning? 2 O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, and am not silent. 3 Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One; you are the praise of Israel. [1] 4 In you our fathers put their trust; they trusted and you delivered them. 5 They cried to you and were saved; in you they trusted and were not disappointed. 6 But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by men and despised by the people. 7 All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads: 8 "He trusts in the LORD; let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him." 9 Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast. 10 From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my God. 11 Do not be far from me, for trouble is near and there is no one to help. 12 Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan encircle me. 13 Roaring lions tearing their prey open their mouths wide against me. 14 I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax; it has melted away within me. 15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me [2] in the dust of death. 16 Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced [3] my hands and my feet. 17 I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me. 18 They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing."
I think you misunderstand prophecy. It's not predicting the future, it's making God's message relevant to his people. Matthew's "fulfilments" are not "this is what the Bible predicted and here you go it magically came true", especially when in this case Jesus deliberately acted to prearrange it. Rather, it's about the role of the divinely appointed king. Does he ride a horse like a military conqueror as the people were expecting, or ride a beast of burden like a servant? He sees Jesus as the latter and quotes scripture that paints a similar picture. This shows that Jesus's role, contrary to what Matthew's readers expected, is consistent with scripture. This might seem subtle to us today, but it would have been apparent to the original audience.
@@MusicalRaichu Whilst I understand your point, I cannot agree. Prophecy is certainly used to signify God's message but in order to do that, it relies upon the correct fulfilment of a prediction. In other words, we are meant to be in awe precisely because something came true which could not have been known when predicted. We can see that clearly in this particular case. The very reason there is a dispute is because Matthew appears to have misunderstood a prophecy in Zechariah 9:9 which refers to a mare and a colt and his narrative has Jesus riding both. This is obviously implausible but a strict adherhence to the letter of the prediction was considerered important, either by Jesus' folowers who arranged it or to Matthew who invented it. We cannot be sure which.
@@theoutspokenhumanist The Torah stated that if a message for God's people included a prediction that did not pan out, then that would call into question the veracity of the message. It doesn't mean prophecy equals prediction. Zac (mind if I call him Zac?) expressed hope for the future where God's king will be humble symbolized by the donkey. I have no idea whether Zac spoke about an event soon to take place or was actually talking about the future messiah. Either way, Jesus deliberately acted out Zac's symbol to show he was not the conquering warrior the Jews hoped for but a humble king who brings peace, in line with Zac's message. He "fulfilled" the message not by not making a prediction come true but by acting out Zac's symbolism to show that the actual messiah was still consistent with scripture. Whether Mat (mind if I call him that?) got the message a bit scrambled and altered his description of events accordingly is neither here nor there. Jesus riding on "them" could mean the clothing or an unspecified one of the pair. There's no reason to think that Mat deliberately wrote something illogical. This is even more pertinent with the young women bearing a child called Emanuel. The "prediction" was that by the time the young woman, likely already pregnant" in the king's court, gave birth, God would be "with his people" and rescue the capital from the Assyrian invasion. That came true. What Mat was saying that in a similar way, God is "with his people" to rescue them from sin and death. Mat did not mean that Isaiah predicted Jesus's birth centuries in the future. That's insane. Mat meant that Mat's message about Jesus is consistent with God's faithfulness now as in the past. You might like for some reason to choose to interpret the text in a way that doesn't make sense. I choose to interpret it in a way that actually makes sense. Up to you, but I think Mat would have intended his readers to make sense of what he wrote.
Good for you Dan! You are a great example of how to set boundaries and follow through with them. It's also amazing to see how academics and critical thinker can have their opinions changed. Thank you for being an example great online etiquette.
If apologists spent 10% of the effort they pour into fussing about how many donkeys Jesus rode or how many ways Judas could have bought a field into actually feeding the hungry and caring for the sick, we would have zero hungry people and sick people would be complaining about being too comfortable.
Why would Apologetic Christendom give a fig about feeding the hungry or caring for the sick? The life of Jesus and his teachings are of secondary importance (I’d argue third) to the death and resurrection of Christ. The resurrection is everything. The Bible comes close behind because it is their strongest tool to support their belief in the resurrection-and this is why they devote their energy to defending the inerrancy of the Bible. To defend Bible inerrancy is to defend the resurrection. The Bible is their armor. And this is why they freak out about people picking at the loose threads. They know that any of the loose threads might unravel their sweater, I mean armor. Christianity is not based on the teachings of Christ. It’s based on the death by crucifixion and the resurrection. Everything before that is chacter development (I consider prophecy fulfillment to be character development in this model of Apologetic Christianity).
That's why I only said "apologist", and did not mention a religion - I believe the specific term in Islam is dawah but the concept is essentially the same. I would levy the same charge against Islam as well as Christianity.
@Bible-Christian I am also a believer man and why are you giving a what-aboutism to this commenter? They're totally right in what they say that the church can spend less time squabbling amongst themselves and look outwards. I'm sorry friend, but people like you are the main reason that people push the church away. And I don't blame them. We need to start acting like Christ more. But the Church is too pre occupied with nonsense like this. It's just like Ghandi said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." It's time we start loving others more.
I think it's pretty obvious what happened: Jesus asks his Apostles for a Donkey and a Colt. The Apostles only got a donkey because the Colt .45 had not yet been invented and could not be procured in time.
That's always what bothers me. Even an honest evangelical could get so much additional meaning from just engaging with critical scholarship honestly. They get so triggered by just being told "Your reading is an interpretation. It may be a good one but it's an interpretation". Just being told that, that they are not somehow magically accessing truth directly, is beyond the pale.
When your whole venture is dishonest, it's not surprising that you think everyone who disagrees with you is dishonest. These apologists have nothing but projection and blind adherence to their dogma.
The way I like to think of it is there's two competing ideas when it comes to faith: spiritualism and religiosity. Spiritualism has to do with your personal connection to god. Prayer, meditation, study, etc. are used to understand with and connect with god and to find internal peace. That's spiritualism. Religiosity, on the other hand, is dogmatic and requires everyone to conform to a set of rules. Those who fail to conform are to be culled in some way (with some denominations culling by killing). You do not need religion to have spirituality and you can be spiritual about the philosophy of Jesus without having to conform to a specific religion. The fundamentalists/apologists who get mad at Dan and other Bible scholars for contradicting their interpretation get mad because contradicting them = defying them = defying their religion.
I think there comes a point a religious person needs to be honest about their faith. It says so right on the tin that it is a matter of faith, not one of evidence. Even my local bishop says it right to the congregation's face that your faith is a matter of faith; it ought not be conflated with fact. There would be no faith if religion were fact.
Thank you so much for this video. I have seen you respond to this guy several times and the way he has talked about you I don't know how you have taken it this long without getting angry and I so appreciate your last sentence
How Christ-like the opposing content creator is with his insults. Kindness & love seem to get a lot of talk but not a lot of play among these types of "Christians". What a wonderful testimony to the power of Christ to make a man better.
It is only useful when dealing with someone who presupposes inerrancy. The only goal in that case is to open the door to the fact that not everything in the book is true. To do this, you need passages that leave no wiggle room.
iirc Dr. Kipp Davis addresses this in one of his videos where he puts all 3 synoptic gospels together to show the kind of reading you can get in Matthew
There is a fine line on when not to respond to a creator who is abusive, personally you crossed what would have been my line here, but it's obviously your decision and judgement call. I like you admitting misspeaking and admitting a (slight) change in position, I think we all do both now and again
You said a lot of very wise things at the end there about why you will no longer engage with this creator. Like the Wood Brothers say in a song, "I got a soul that I won't sell / And I don't read postcards from Hell"
I love the turn of phrase, "exploiting the ambiguity." Would be great to go through a series of passages in which the authors are possibly or clearly doing this. "Univocality" is a key dogma you've latched onto. Another related dogma is that of "Unambiguity." People tend to forget that human language has both the conflicting goals of being intentionally clear and being intentionally ambiguous. Authors, including those of Scripture, do both.
So true, Buddha was a real man with a real life, they know the year he was born and the year he died. But as his following grew and his legend grew, when he was born he started taking steps and each foot step a flower would grow. People need to believe in the supernatural because they need to think that there is something greater than this world we live in. I dont mock it but I won't be mocked for not believing in it either lol
Beowulf was pretty hard to figure out, but with the help of a great English Literature teacher and some extra effort on my part, I finally understood the poem's plot and the parallels with Christian and pagan myths. Interpreting the Bible with any degree of certainty requires way more than I am capable of, and apparently everybody else because people still can't agree on the damn thing
So we have an apologist that tries to dismiss the claim of a fulfilled prophecy? That's a new one for me. (And we all know Matthew was very focused on fulfilling prophecies and made errors trying to).
What if he did ride both animals, with a foot on the back of each animal? Riding it daredevil style. Great way to get attention when he's coming into town!
Love your work! I also love that you're being the bigger person here, because I don't think i would have had the self constraint to respond like you did.
I'm always interested by the people who insist the bible must be followed, every letter, while blatantly violating it. This creator has significant tattoo coverage. Pretty much all Christian/Jewish traditions say tattooing is prohibited. I am heavily tattooed, but I don't think the bible is anything other than mythology.
Inevitably when someone holds this literalist position they tend to concentrate on no more than 5% of the total content. Everyone picks and chooses in order to justify their beliefs.
I would love to see some examples of historical devotional artwork depicting Jesus riding two animals at the same time. Just like the depictions of Jesus as a homunculus this seems like a really interesting window into the way historical people thought.
People did not think the infant Jesus literally looked like a miniature adult (as per the homunculus paintings). This was simply a contemporaneous symbolic way to show that Jesus was born mature and complete (in a spiritual or even incarnational way). Any artwork depicting Jesus sitting tandem on two donkeys would either be (1) symbolic or, (2) based on a lack of reflection on what Matthew intended to convey.
@Dan McClellan given that you've said that it's an accepted position among scholars, am I entitled to say that Jesus riding two animals is a reasonable interpretation of the text?
I am sorry that Dr. McClellan has to deal with ... that. Look, I have updated my understanding of Mithras and Jesus, Eostre and others due to the academic rigor and scholarship of experts such as Dr. McCellan who showed me my errors and my ignorance. That's what learning is all about. Thought.. I do confess that I blank out when Dr. McClellen says Hifel or grammar. I hated that part of English class. Now.. a thought popped in my head when Dr. McClellan was talking about Matthew referencing past texts. Don't we do this as well? In so much of our media, we refer to past art/subjects/cultural references and the audience must invoke that shared cultural past to understand the point. For example, in the show "community", there's a paintball episode. It's perfectly fine to see it because the story is there. But if you saw resident evil, you'd see the imagery being invoked and be in on the joke. With Matthew, the author is speaking to a Jewish audience and he's saying "remember this?", "here's a remix on that". Some of the kids were watching a children's cartoon and it was about destroying a magic hat... in other words Lord of the Rings. It's adding more information via the shared cultural past. But when we gentiles come into it with our Christian past, we're seeing it inverted. And thus, we might not get the callback because it's as if you watched that Paintball episode and then, you watched Resident Evil. That's the problem with these apologists. They're applying a retroactive interpretation with assumed univocality and they're missing the cultural call backs because it wasn't their culture.
Something I love about scholarship is the room for ambiguity. My professors often get excited when I disagree with them. They ask, "Ooh, why do you think that?" They listen, and sometimes they adjust their thinking. Other times, they give me context I hadn't considered, and other times we just have to agree that more than one explanation is plausible! It's the insistence and certainty I find offputting... Like, why do you need this one possible interpretation to be right? What do you have to gain, or lose? If religions were more reliant on faith like they profess to be, and could just stop insisting on being right, I might still be religious. The rash assertion strikes me as disingenuous, a thin veil covering fragility.
The King James Bible is the most intellectually dishonest version of the text one could possibly get. And yet it seems to be the most referenced by apologists.
I'm sorry but I can't upvote this. As soon as someone else ruins the 666 Upvote count, I'll upvote, too. I'm not superstitious... I just think it's funny.
I think it’s great when we are challenged and shift our view after careful consideration. But if the other creator is acting in bad faith Dan is right to refuse to engage with him. Also, it astounds me how people who call themselves Christians think hurling homophobic slurs or mocking others is fine. Is that what Jesus would do?
I notice people like to focus on the image of the donkeys but they fail to point out that Jesus says "go get me 2 donkeys so the prophecy can be fulfilled." (paraphrasing) this shows how knowledge of prophecy allows you to fulfill them
Honest question on the grammar here: Couldn't it just imply switching mounts? I don't know about Jerusalem at this time, but in other times and places in history it's a common practice to travel with multiple mounts in order to move quicker. You ride one animal for awhile with the other being led and switch every so often to keep the animals fresh. If someone told me that he rode his two donkeys to the next town over, I would assume this is what he meant. Unless he mentioned practicing his trick riding for the rodeo, it seems clearly implied in English despite the literal reading of "riding both." So is there the possibility in the Greek of implied mount switching?
@@Rhewin I would too! 😄 That's part of what has me intrigued, cuz I wouldn't blink if he said he was riding multiple donkeys. Language is a funny thing.
I had that thought as well. For me the important thing to note is that the ambiguity that leads to and even forces multiple possible interpretations means it cannot be “perfect word of God” as many Christians like to claim. Most of the Christians I know recognize that the Bible is an entirely human creation. If the Bible was perfect, and the result of divine inspiration, it would not be open to these ambiguities in interpretation. The very necessity for apologists to “explain” the meaning loses the Bible all credibility as a divine work.
@@Rhewin No worries. While I'm no cowboy or anything like that, I've been around livestock frequently in my life. I think that's what's influencing me. Horses, donkeys, llamas, camels, they're all heard animals. You frequently move them around in a group even when you only need or want one animal. So when our buddy "rides two donkeys into town," it's just the easier thing to say instead of "he rode one donkey while leading another donkey." The ambiguity of the first sentence isn't an issue in the context of (or familiarity with) livestock. Especially if we're mostly concerned with what happened in town. I'm wondering if the Greek works similarly...
I am one of those subscribers prone to aggressively defending creators I follow. I think in this mix, refered to as "Dan's boyfriends" (9:38.) The aspect of Dan's channel I like the most-- he doesn't require defense. It's one of the lowest maintenance self regulating consumer relationships I have ever had. Error rate is low and the signal is strong.
It is SO worrying that this matters so much to people. There are presumably hundreds or thousands of ancient texts from Europe to Japan and beyond that would be far more interesting to obssess over. This just seems ludicrous... though I appreciate Dan's efforts and scholarship in the face of this widespread preoccupation.
It always appalls me to see the harmful ways to react to which these purported followers of Christ seem to stoop. Hells, I've seen at least one comment on here equivocating a [falsely perceived, mind you] attack on one's faith and an attack on one's person or appearance, and that is simply not the case. There is nothing wrong with asking questions about a book, and there's even less wrong with seeking the answers *honestly,* and if one thinks a divine will would prefer they didn't ask questions, maybe consider how harmful those answers might turn out to be, and not only to yourself for just accepting them without question. Keep up the good work on the "good book," Dan.
Could the passage be some sort of literary hyperbole? Our teacher/leader is so great one donkey isn't enough we need two! We still do the same sort of thing today. In "One bourbon , One scotch and a beer" Thurogoood sings "one drink ain't enough Jack you better bring three". The "I caught a fish "THIS" big" or "I'm so crazy I'll kick my own butt" type of thing is what I'm thinking of.
I don't know how many times I heard this passage discussed. It is one of those places where it seems all are making mountains out of mole hills. A couple of reasonable assumptions: 1) Matthew knew Greek and wrote Greek well. A grammatical error seems unlikely. 2) Matthew knew the Old Testament well. He knew as virtually everyone knew about synonymous parallelism in Hebrew poetry. And this passage quotes Hebrew poetry. He knew that the two mentions of donkeys was intended to refer only to one. 3) This passage we have is a copy and not Matthew's original text. So, the place where some error could creep in is in the copying. A copyist who did not know about the parallelism of Hebrew poetry and might not have known the passage in Zechariah would have found Matthew's singular pronoun (probably _autou_) ungrammatical. The right thing to do was to correct Matthew and make it plural (_autwn_) so that it agreed in number with what seems like a plural referent - though it was not really a plural referent. (The form _autwn_ which is what he chose is the same in masculine, feminine and neuter, so it would agree in gender with any of the possible referents.) So, if there is anyone to blame for this fuss it is the copyist. But it was only one word and, in fact, only the form of one word making it a plural rather than a singular. It makes no difference in the meaning of the text. Arguing about it is simply stupid and it doesn't matter who is doing it. The arguments are really about inerrancy not about the meaning of the text. One word, guys. Get over it.
Does this creator's shirt read "The academic consensus is codswalllop"? Are they building their entire brand on reacting to Dan? Sad, pathetic clout-chasing behaviour if true.
I'm curious which version of the event you think is the original. I could see either interpretation, where either the story was fluffed up to match the earlier prophecy or the story was simplified to make it seem less like it was arranged deliberately to match the earlier prophecy.
Dan I am sorry you have to deal with all that. This creator claims to follow Jesus but obviously is not following the command to love his neighbor in his behavior. I am reminded of Romans where Paul criticized people for boasting in their religion and not living up to it and says, "For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” (Romans 2: 24)
This passage pops up so often in my head when I watch this kind of content. I'm always like: "Why would anyone be inclined to become a Christian when this would mean becoming like you?" I surely wouldn't consider it if I wasn't a Christian already.
@@DoloresLehmann I saw a statistic recently that Gen Z are massively non-religious. A lot of Christians don't really understand why that is. It's scholars like Dan who are trying to understand the bible and what the authors intended, it's their own behavior. Christians in America have done far more damage to the faith than anyone else.
Apparently, Matthew was written in fluent Greek (unlike some other texts in the New Testament), and the author seems to have been a biblical scholar, so he knew what he was doing.
Regardless of the reasoning underlying whether or not Jesus rode one or two animals into Jerusalem, the most important and obvious question is being ignored: WHY DIDN'T HE JUST TAKE THE BUS?
But, it would take a MIRACLE for an author who was EXTREMELY VERY WELL VERSED prophecies written in an earlier story, to write a new story fulfilling the prophesy. Something like that doesn't just happen.
This conversation is pointless. The important part of the prophecy is the following verse, which implies no more wars and peace. That, Jesus clearly didn't fulfill....
First of all, David is your king who will be raised up for you. David rides the donkey and the Bride of David rides the colt of the donkey. In scripture, Jesus rules from David's throne and rides on David's donkey but, it is still David's kingdom and the Son of David hands the kingdom over to his Father, David. The Lord God will give him the throne of David his Father (Luk 1:32 NABO) Blessed is the kingdom of our Father David that is to come! (Mar 11:10 NABO) Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father (1Co 15:24 NABO) I am the root and offspring of David, the bright Morning Star. (Rev 22:16 NABO) David, their king, whom I will raise up for them. (Jer 30:9 NABO) From David's throne, and over his kingdom, which he confirms and sustains By judgment and justice, both now and forever. (Isa 9:6 NABO) David's people set out from Babylon seeking a promised land. your kingdom shall be preserved for you, once you have learned it is heaven that rules (Dan 4:23 NABO) At the same time my reason returned to me, and for the glory of my kingdom, my majesty and my splendor returned to me. My nobles and lords sought me out; I was restored to my kingdom, and became much greater than before. (Dan 4:33 NABO) David, the Morning Star, takes a seat upon a throne on the Mount of Assembly as the Ancient One of Days. His people will be a kingdom of priests, the Assembly on the Mount. Is not my house firm before God? He has made an eternal covenant with me, set forth in detail and secured. Will he not bring to fruition all my salvation and my every desire? (2Sa 23:5 NABO)
Zechariah 9: 5 "Ashkelon will see it and fear; Gaza will writhe in agony, and Ekron too, for her hope will wither. Gaza will lose her king and Ashkelon will be deserted." Obviously not talking about the time of Jesus, unless Gaza had a king in the 1st century. The Romans probably would have objected to that. I also doubt Ashkalon was deserted. If some people think it refers to current times, I guess a lot of Israelis will need to vacate Ashkelon for it to be fulfilled. It was outside the borders of Judah, so it was plausible in the distant past, but it's inside Israel now.
If Jesus was going to ride one animal why did he ask for two? And why clothes were placed on two animals? When I call Uber or taxi I ask for one car not two if I am riding in only one.
Dan mentioned a podcast, I went to Google and it brought up Apple podcasts. I appreciate his work, but I dislike the tiktok forward approach to his media. Is there a way for older Millennials to access his work on UA-cam?
Sometimes I wonder why apologetics is so toxic, especially online. However, I remembered when watching this video that the goal of apologetics isn't conversion (even if they make a compelling case, which they didn't in this case, who wants to join the side of an asshole?) it's about retention. It's convincing the in group that "no no no! Our faith is not threatened and we still have the right answer. Actually we have all the answers so no need to even engage with the folks with questions".
When I was a teenage fundamentalist, I read a work of apologetics to soothe my anxiety over doubts. It worked (at the time) not because the writer had convinced me, but because the writer portrayed themselves as convinced. I felt I was able to relax, even though my doubts still existed, because "smarter people than me" didn't seem to have those doubts.
@@jelliottleinI did much the same thing until I went to seminary. In my first course in apologetics, it seemed that I was being "taught", by way of rote memorization, the same apologetics that I'd heard as a child who was questioning their beliefs several decades prior. That's when I finally allowed the blinders to be fully removed and started looking at religious teachings and beliefs from a more critical lense.
@@billiwickey Fortunately, I had already left fundamentalism by the time I got to seminary; my mainline school wasn't super progressive but at least apologetics wasn't part of the curriculum and we studied the Bible under critical scholars. I've found the Bible to be so much more interesting and enjoyable when it's allowed to be what it is and when studying other religious texts and traditions alongside it.
@@jelliottleinisn't this the truth. 🙌 like trusting a doctor knows what they're telling you is correct (it better be!?! 😨), same hope
There is an additonal reason for that toxicity: it is based on making the formula work around the answer. It uses and eisegetical approach, where one tries to shoehorn the text into a presupposed meaning, rather than the other way around.
What I’m getting from this
“Did Jesus ride one or 2 animals?”
Matthew- “whatever convinces you he fulfilled the prophecy.” Lol
The author of Matthew was basically a 1st century apologist.
😂
Q: Did Jesus ride one or two animals?
A: Yes.
@@enlacostaizquierda 😂
Imagine being the kind of person whose position in a debate is so intellectually bankrupt that they feel the only way to win an argument is to seize on a moment when someone misspeaks. True class.
Almost certainly by the kind of people who would take that kind of behavior being done to them or their group as being elitist and mean.
@fredericchristie3472 Absolutely. Every time...
No accusation is more serious than one of dishonesty. I would be outraged, goodness knows how Dan keeps his patience.
A person loses credibility with me when they are condescending and use insult to argue their position.
same
Thats because its a logical fallacy used when you dont know what youre talking about
I agree one hundred percent, but with that being said the guy is probably really angry that he reminds me of a Qtip. 😂😂
@Bible-Christian For starters, insulting a religion and insulting a person are different things.
And who is "religion" to be insulted, after all?
@Bible-Christian Well. Can you give an example of somebody insulting a religion of others hypocritically? A real case. Do you mean Dan?
The mental gymnastics of apologists are often breathtaking
At least he admits that the Bible uses pronouns. Thats more than most.
“So much breath to take away the breath of others” is fun rhetorical play… 🤔 I’m taking this. Thank you.
@AnimaOrphei Well played, Enjoy 😁
Like an Olympian sport level
Dan shaking the dust from his feet.
Underrated comment!
I'm glad you were firm in your response to that arrogant, rude content creator. There is no need to give him him the boost of responding to him.
Also, I am getting more and more tired of the explicit hatred expressed by some "Christians" to LGBTQIA+ persons. I think it is a clear sign that those "Christians" have never read the Bible for themselves and are just listening to other "Christians" say hateful things and repeating them.
One thing that is totally not justifiable by reading the Bible is the idea that homosexuality or sexual sins are worse than other sins. When that content creator bears false witness against you in his post, that sin is just as bad as all other sins.
I just heard a pastor defending empathy against the claim by other pastors that empathy is a sin.
Maybe we shouldn’t be merely tired or annoyed at these small minded Christian leaders. Maybe we should understand that they are a threat to our physical safety.
christianity is just a hateful religion and christians who hate lgbtq and effeminacy and women's rights etc. are doing the bible and their religion correctly. that doesn't mean they interpret the bible correctly about everything, but they do interpret it correctly about those things.
Sadly as a recent "deconvert" I have to admit that hatred drives so much of apologetics. They're like the naked emperor insisting they have clothes but they're arguments prove the opposite.
It always surprises me when people who claim to represent God always take their perceived opponents in bad faith. Is that the example Jesus would’ve shown?
Just the straight-white-American-with-a-MAGA-hat Jesus.
Reactionaries fundamentally operate in bad faith.
That’s because they don’t engage in good faith and think everyone must be attacking the same way they do.
@@Rhewin yup, every accusation is an admission with them.
Actually Jesus did just that many times!
Mathew 12
22Then they brought him a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute, and Jesus healed him, so that he could both talk and see. 23All the people were astonished and said, “Could this be the Son of David?”
24But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, “It is only by Beelzebul, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.”
25Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, “Every kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every city or household divided against itself will not stand. 26If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his kingdom stand? 27And if I drive out demons by Beelzebul, by whom do your people drive them out? So then, they will be your judges. 28But if it is by the Spirit of God that I drive out demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you.
29“Or again, how can anyone enter a strong man’s house and carry off his possessions unless he first ties up the strong man? Then he can plunder his house.
30“Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters. 31And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven. 32Anyone who speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven, but anyone who speaks against the Holy Spirit will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
33“Make a tree good and its fruit will be good, or make a tree bad and its fruit will be bad, for a tree is recognized by its fruit. 34You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of. 35A good man brings good things out of the good stored up in him, and an evil man brings evil things out of the evil stored up in him. 36But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken. 37For by your words you will be acquitted, and by your words you will be condemned.”
When the personal insults start they've lost the debate.
Cue: "...and your father smells of elderberries!"
Guy broke Dan's one rule, dont mock appearance or person. Fuck around and find out boys
There is no acceptable justification for that creator to mock you and make/allow homophobic jokes. That's disgusting.
Yes, if you find it funny. Subjective fellas
For that "Christian" creator. Especially with Dan starting off asking us to respect them. Even if he is just allowing it, and not engaging in it, just more evidence of selective reading of the Bible.
@@lxstcheckll9348 Finding it funny to do something immoral doesn't magically make it moral.
@@jrobinprescott it moral
@@lxstcheckll9348 it’d strongly recommend thinking about your current moral positions. If this is anything to go by, they’re on extremely shaky ground
Dan, I really appreciate the way in which you engage with your critics without being disrespectful. I also appreciate that you don't assume that your critics disagree with you because they are being dishonest and/or deceptive. Finally, I appreciate that you will change your mind as your understanding developed and as you are exposed to the ideas of others. Thanks for bringing both intellectual rigor and a spirit of humility to your youtube channel.
Data over Dogma
"this is just pure and utter nonsense" is one of my favorite Dan lines for sure lol
Me too, i also like "in no way, shape or form"
I love that you use the "eat cake and have it too" in the original usage
One of the reasons I needed to remove myself from the religious community (first the LDS, then Baptist) was specifically how so many Christians behave like this in the name of defending Christianity. I couldn't stomach the hypocrisy any longer and have gained so much peace from maintaining this boundary. It's even worse when it spills over to political figures with a large platform to spew hate and falsehood, and they eat it up.
Maybe you’re more of a Jesusian than a Christian.
FairLDS has driven more people out of the church than the CES letter! lol!!
@waynefeller dang that's profound! That's like getting run over by an ambulance.
So much blood and misinformation has been shed in Jesus’ name it’s a damn shame
Spanish is my first language and I have a few Spanish versions of the Bible on my computer, along with English and the original Greek. In all the Spanish versions I have, there is no doubt about Matthew 21:7, it clearly says Jesus sat on both animals. These are well-researched Spanish translations, and the people who worked on them didn't leave any doubt about it.
Buenas tardes, amigo. Your English is better than my Spanish, so I’ll continue with that. I think some forms of Christianity in the EEUU have become very different from the non-Catholic forms I have encountered in Mexico or indeed, the “mainline” Protestant denominations in the U.S.
This other form of Christianity worships the Bible. When they say “God is in the Bible”, they believe it literally. That is why “Bible inerrancy” is so important to them.
The most important part of the Bible is the death and resurrection of Christ, and the Bible “proves” that the resurrection really happened. And this is in part why they began to worship a book as their god.
@MarcosElMalo2 Christian evangelicals in the US are so apologetic that they are completely lost. They feel so persecuted that they have turned their religion in a judgemental and hateful one, but that's the problem when you have an old book with many voices and contradicts itself in many fundamental ideas, you'll always pick and choose whatever is best for your convenience.
Great vid, appreciate you revising your view on this and that is from the position of a learner about biblical scholarship.
The incorrect grammar around personal pronouns still irks and could be construed as you misgendering *him.
Imagine someone in the same situation, a thousand years from now, trying to decipher this grammar.
Same with the German and the Dutch.
Dan, you addressed him very well. The guy's clearly a jerk. I literally just had several evangelicals insult me because I don't believe in the rapture. In fact I came to UA-cam to find your video on the subject so I could find your reference to apantesis. Apparently, I am not going to heaven and/or am insulting the word of God, because I think the rapture is nonsense. I think you handled yourself in a manner that is far more godly and Christian than any of these creeps are capable of. This is exactly why I will never go to another evangelical church again. They love to lecture others about their behavior, yet are too morally incontinent to restrain themselves from insults. Thank you for your videos. They have meant about to me as I try to figure out what I believe these days.
Thank you, Dan. Your integrity and commitment to intellectual honesty is greatly appreciated. You modifying your position in the face of new data is what we should all expect from ourselves if we want to engage in good faith.
The larger point being missed by the creator here is that we have to make a choice. Either Jesus and his people deliberately organised events to match prophecy, or Matthew tells an invented story for the same purpose. Both are dishonest ways of making Jesus appear as if he is the one mentioned in prophecy.
Christians claim to see a great many prophecies and references to Jesus in the Hebrew bible but none of them stand alone clearly without wishful thinking, manipulation of the text via mistranslation or removal from context, or both.
The third possibility is that Jesus is exactly who he claimed to be!
What are the chances one man could fulfill dozens of prophecies foretold hundreds of years before his birth?
Did Jesus bribe the Romans to crucify him at the same time the lambs were being slaughtered on Passover? How would his manner of death just happen to include being crucified or his garments being divided?
No the odds of all of these specific circumstances applying to just one person is astronomical!
Psalm 22:1
"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? Why are you so far from saving me, so far from the words of my groaning?
2
O my God, I cry out by day, but you do not answer, by night, and am not silent.
3
Yet you are enthroned as the Holy One; you are the praise of Israel. [1]
4
In you our fathers put their trust; they trusted and you delivered them.
5
They cried to you and were saved; in you they trusted and were not disappointed.
6
But I am a worm and not a man, scorned by men and despised by the people.
7
All who see me mock me; they hurl insults, shaking their heads:
8
"He trusts in the LORD; let the LORD rescue him. Let him deliver him, since he delights in him."
9
Yet you brought me out of the womb; you made me trust in you even at my mother's breast.
10
From birth I was cast upon you; from my mother's womb you have been my God.
11
Do not be far from me, for trouble is near and there is no one to help.
12
Many bulls surround me; strong bulls of Bashan encircle me.
13
Roaring lions tearing their prey open their mouths wide against me.
14
I am poured out like water, and all my bones are out of joint. My heart has turned to wax; it has melted away within me.
15
My strength is dried up like a potsherd, and my tongue sticks to the roof of my mouth; you lay me [2] in the dust of death.
16
Dogs have surrounded me; a band of evil men has encircled me, they have pierced [3] my hands and my feet.
17
I can count all my bones; people stare and gloat over me.
18
They divide my garments among them and cast lots for my clothing."
I think you misunderstand prophecy. It's not predicting the future, it's making God's message relevant to his people. Matthew's "fulfilments" are not "this is what the Bible predicted and here you go it magically came true", especially when in this case Jesus deliberately acted to prearrange it.
Rather, it's about the role of the divinely appointed king. Does he ride a horse like a military conqueror as the people were expecting, or ride a beast of burden like a servant? He sees Jesus as the latter and quotes scripture that paints a similar picture. This shows that Jesus's role, contrary to what Matthew's readers expected, is consistent with scripture.
This might seem subtle to us today, but it would have been apparent to the original audience.
@@MusicalRaichu its just misquoting the Hebrew text and apply it to Jesus.
@@MusicalRaichu Whilst I understand your point, I cannot agree.
Prophecy is certainly used to signify God's message but in order to do that, it relies upon the correct fulfilment of a prediction.
In other words, we are meant to be in awe precisely because something came true which could not have been known when predicted.
We can see that clearly in this particular case. The very reason there is a dispute is because Matthew appears to have misunderstood a prophecy in Zechariah 9:9 which refers to a mare and a colt and his narrative has Jesus riding both. This is obviously implausible but a strict adherhence to the letter of the prediction was considerered important, either by Jesus' folowers who arranged it or to Matthew who invented it. We cannot be sure which.
@@theoutspokenhumanist The Torah stated that if a message for God's people included a prediction that did not pan out, then that would call into question the veracity of the message. It doesn't mean prophecy equals prediction.
Zac (mind if I call him Zac?) expressed hope for the future where God's king will be humble symbolized by the donkey. I have no idea whether Zac spoke about an event soon to take place or was actually talking about the future messiah.
Either way, Jesus deliberately acted out Zac's symbol to show he was not the conquering warrior the Jews hoped for but a humble king who brings peace, in line with Zac's message. He "fulfilled" the message not by not making a prediction come true but by acting out Zac's symbolism to show that the actual messiah was still consistent with scripture.
Whether Mat (mind if I call him that?) got the message a bit scrambled and altered his description of events accordingly is neither here nor there. Jesus riding on "them" could mean the clothing or an unspecified one of the pair. There's no reason to think that Mat deliberately wrote something illogical.
This is even more pertinent with the young women bearing a child called Emanuel. The "prediction" was that by the time the young woman, likely already pregnant" in the king's court, gave birth, God would be "with his people" and rescue the capital from the Assyrian invasion. That came true. What Mat was saying that in a similar way, God is "with his people" to rescue them from sin and death. Mat did not mean that Isaiah predicted Jesus's birth centuries in the future. That's insane. Mat meant that Mat's message about Jesus is consistent with God's faithfulness now as in the past.
You might like for some reason to choose to interpret the text in a way that doesn't make sense. I choose to interpret it in a way that actually makes sense. Up to you, but I think Mat would have intended his readers to make sense of what he wrote.
Good for you Dan! You are a great example of how to set boundaries and follow through with them. It's also amazing to see how academics and critical thinker can have their opinions changed. Thank you for being an example great online etiquette.
👍Totally a supporter. My degrees are in philosophy. I love how you dissect everything.
I cannot believe it's taken Dan this long to finally say he's not going to engage this "creator" anymore.
If apologists spent 10% of the effort they pour into fussing about how many donkeys Jesus rode or how many ways Judas could have bought a field into actually feeding the hungry and caring for the sick, we would have zero hungry people and sick people would be complaining about being too comfortable.
Why would Apologetic Christendom give a fig about feeding the hungry or caring for the sick? The life of Jesus and his teachings are of secondary importance (I’d argue third) to the death and resurrection of Christ. The resurrection is everything. The Bible comes close behind because it is their strongest tool to support their belief in the resurrection-and this is why they devote their energy to defending the inerrancy of the Bible. To defend Bible inerrancy is to defend the resurrection. The Bible is their armor.
And this is why they freak out about people picking at the loose threads. They know that any of the loose threads might unravel their sweater, I mean armor.
Christianity is not based on the teachings of Christ. It’s based on the death by crucifixion and the resurrection. Everything before that is chacter development (I consider prophecy fulfillment to be character development in this model of Apologetic Christianity).
@Bible-Christian red herring
That's why I only said "apologist", and did not mention a religion - I believe the specific term in Islam is dawah but the concept is essentially the same. I would levy the same charge against Islam as well as Christianity.
@Bible-Christian I am also a believer man and why are you giving a what-aboutism to this commenter? They're totally right in what they say that the church can spend less time squabbling amongst themselves and look outwards. I'm sorry friend, but people like you are the main reason that people push the church away. And I don't blame them. We need to start acting like Christ more. But the Church is too pre occupied with nonsense like this. It's just like Ghandi said, "I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."
It's time we start loving others more.
@Bible-Christian- Yout argument is a piss poor straw man, wrapped in your personal obsession with Islam.
I think it's pretty obvious what happened:
Jesus asks his Apostles for a Donkey and a Colt. The Apostles only got a donkey because the Colt .45 had not yet been invented and could not be procured in time.
The Bible is much more fascinating through the lens of critical scholarship than apologetics.
Apologetics tells you more about the readers of the material while scholarship (when done well) tells you more about the writers
That's always what bothers me. Even an honest evangelical could get so much additional meaning from just engaging with critical scholarship honestly.
They get so triggered by just being told "Your reading is an interpretation. It may be a good one but it's an interpretation". Just being told that, that they are not somehow magically accessing truth directly, is beyond the pale.
When your whole venture is dishonest, it's not surprising that you think everyone who disagrees with you is dishonest. These apologists have nothing but projection and blind adherence to their dogma.
I can’t understand Christians as a Christian trying to make some sense of my faith these types of people are a conundrum for me.
The way I like to think of it is there's two competing ideas when it comes to faith: spiritualism and religiosity. Spiritualism has to do with your personal connection to god.
Prayer, meditation, study, etc. are used to understand with and connect with god and to find internal peace. That's spiritualism.
Religiosity, on the other hand, is dogmatic and requires everyone to conform to a set of rules. Those who fail to conform are to be culled in some way (with some denominations culling by killing).
You do not need religion to have spirituality and you can be spiritual about the philosophy of Jesus without having to conform to a specific religion.
The fundamentalists/apologists who get mad at Dan and other Bible scholars for contradicting their interpretation get mad because contradicting them = defying them = defying their religion.
I think there comes a point a religious person needs to be honest about their faith. It says so right on the tin that it is a matter of faith, not one of evidence. Even my local bishop says it right to the congregation's face that your faith is a matter of faith; it ought not be conflated with fact. There would be no faith if religion were fact.
I totally thought for a second that you were going to say you changed your mind, and that Matthew has Jesus riding three donkeys lol
Thank you so much for this video. I have seen you respond to this guy several times and the way he has talked about you I don't know how you have taken it this long without getting angry and I so appreciate your last sentence
It is clear from the text Jesus rode into town "Ringling Bro" style with one foot on each animal.
How Christ-like the opposing content creator is with his insults. Kindness & love seem to get a lot of talk but not a lot of play among these types of "Christians". What a wonderful testimony to the power of Christ to make a man better.
Jesus called a woman/ all Gentiles dog😂
Of all the things to argue about, what Jesus was riding is not one.
It is only useful when dealing with someone who presupposes inerrancy. The only goal in that case is to open the door to the fact that not everything in the book is true. To do this, you need passages that leave no wiggle room.
iirc Dr. Kipp Davis addresses this in one of his videos where he puts all 3 synoptic gospels together to show the kind of reading you can get in Matthew
There is a fine line on when not to respond to a creator who is abusive, personally you crossed what would have been my line here, but it's obviously your decision and judgement call.
I like you admitting misspeaking and admitting a (slight) change in position, I think we all do both now and again
You have a good manners to engage with this type of people with this amount of respect. May God reward you for your patience
You said a lot of very wise things at the end there about why you will no longer engage with this creator. Like the Wood Brothers say in a song, "I got a soul that I won't sell / And I don't read postcards from Hell"
I love the turn of phrase, "exploiting the ambiguity." Would be great to go through a series of passages in which the authors are possibly or clearly doing this. "Univocality" is a key dogma you've latched onto. Another related dogma is that of "Unambiguity." People tend to forget that human language has both the conflicting goals of being intentionally clear and being intentionally ambiguous. Authors, including those of Scripture, do both.
When someone opens up with “this guy lied to you”, your credibility is hanging on by a thread.
Mad respect for you, Dan! ❤
So true, Buddha was a real man with a real life, they know the year he was born and the year he died. But as his following grew and his legend grew, when he was born he started taking steps and each foot step a flower would grow. People need to believe in the supernatural because they need to think that there is something greater than this world we live in. I dont mock it but I won't be mocked for not believing in it either lol
Gosh I love your content so much! What a classy response to such a toxic and nonsensical attack. Thank you for all you do, Dan!
The power of the Preposition compels you!
Always love and respect your honesty and integrity Dan. Keep up the great work.
you've become a regular source of dopamine. not saying i'm addicted to you, just hearing a scholar do a schol with this much rizzzzz
Bravo, Dan, for using your intelligence, expertise, and self-respect to always take responsibility, yet set the record straight.
I tried so hard, and got so far, but in the end, it doesn't really matter...
Yeah, bad faith with this creator
This iron age blood cult tale has been translated and re-interpreted how many times? I heard a dozen times. Thanks Dan.
That was immature and rude of those people.
Beowulf was pretty hard to figure out, but with the help of a great English Literature teacher and some extra effort on my part, I finally understood the poem's plot and the parallels with Christian and pagan myths.
Interpreting the Bible with any degree of certainty requires way more than I am capable of, and apparently everybody else because people still can't agree on the damn thing
So we have an apologist that tries to dismiss the claim of a fulfilled prophecy?
That's a new one for me.
(And we all know Matthew was very focused on fulfilling prophecies and made errors trying to).
What if he did ride both animals, with a foot on the back of each animal? Riding it daredevil style. Great way to get attention when he's coming into town!
Love your work!
I also love that you're being the bigger person here, because I don't think i would have had the self constraint to respond like you did.
A Christian apologist calling anyone a liar is an absurd hypocrisy in the first place. Absolutely laughable.
Hmmm....a christian going out of his way to attack you as a person rather than engage your argument honestly. Who woulda thunk it?
Thanks Dan, keep up the great work. You are really appreciated.
Your videos are always informative. I’m definitely grateful for you helping me learn in my faith journey.
I'm always interested by the people who insist the bible must be followed, every letter, while blatantly violating it. This creator has significant tattoo coverage. Pretty much all Christian/Jewish traditions say tattooing is prohibited. I am heavily tattooed, but I don't think the bible is anything other than mythology.
Inevitably when someone holds this literalist position they tend to concentrate on no more than 5% of the total content. Everyone picks and chooses in order to justify their beliefs.
I would love to see some examples of historical devotional artwork depicting Jesus riding two animals at the same time. Just like the depictions of Jesus as a homunculus this seems like a really interesting window into the way historical people thought.
People did not think the infant Jesus literally looked like a miniature adult (as per the homunculus paintings). This was simply a contemporaneous symbolic way to show that Jesus was born mature and complete (in a spiritual or even incarnational way). Any artwork depicting Jesus sitting tandem on two donkeys would either be (1) symbolic or, (2) based on a lack of reflection on what Matthew intended to convey.
@Dan McClellan given that you've said that it's an accepted position among scholars, am I entitled to say that Jesus riding two animals is a reasonable interpretation of the text?
Absolutely. There were medieval Christians who painted pictures of Jesus riding two animals at the same time.
I agree with this. I think Matthew was embarrassed at the prophecy and so made the wording ambiguous so that it could be taken either way.
I am sorry that Dr. McClellan has to deal with ... that. Look, I have updated my understanding of Mithras and Jesus, Eostre and others due to the academic rigor and scholarship of experts such as Dr. McCellan who showed me my errors and my ignorance. That's what learning is all about. Thought.. I do confess that I blank out when Dr. McClellen says Hifel or grammar. I hated that part of English class.
Now.. a thought popped in my head when Dr. McClellan was talking about Matthew referencing past texts. Don't we do this as well? In so much of our media, we refer to past art/subjects/cultural references and the audience must invoke that shared cultural past to understand the point. For example, in the show "community", there's a paintball episode. It's perfectly fine to see it because the story is there. But if you saw resident evil, you'd see the imagery being invoked and be in on the joke. With Matthew, the author is speaking to a Jewish audience and he's saying "remember this?", "here's a remix on that". Some of the kids were watching a children's cartoon and it was about destroying a magic hat... in other words Lord of the Rings. It's adding more information via the shared cultural past.
But when we gentiles come into it with our Christian past, we're seeing it inverted. And thus, we might not get the callback because it's as if you watched that Paintball episode and then, you watched Resident Evil. That's the problem with these apologists. They're applying a retroactive interpretation with assumed univocality and they're missing the cultural call backs because it wasn't their culture.
Excellent aa always Dan - thank you
This is pretty interesting. It makes sense, but I don't think I've heard this rationalisation before for this passage.
Something I love about scholarship is the room for ambiguity. My professors often get excited when I disagree with them. They ask, "Ooh, why do you think that?" They listen, and sometimes they adjust their thinking. Other times, they give me context I hadn't considered, and other times we just have to agree that more than one explanation is plausible!
It's the insistence and certainty I find offputting... Like, why do you need this one possible interpretation to be right? What do you have to gain, or lose? If religions were more reliant on faith like they profess to be, and could just stop insisting on being right, I might still be religious. The rash assertion strikes me as disingenuous, a thin veil covering fragility.
Always the Christians will go to great lengths to tell you what their Bible does not say.
The King James Bible is the most intellectually dishonest version of the text one could possibly get. And yet it seems to be the most referenced by apologists.
I'm sorry but I can't upvote this. As soon as someone else ruins the 666 Upvote count, I'll upvote, too.
I'm not superstitious... I just think it's funny.
I think it’s great when we are challenged and shift our view after careful consideration. But if the other creator is acting in bad faith Dan is right to refuse to engage with him. Also, it astounds me how people who call themselves Christians think hurling homophobic slurs or mocking others is fine. Is that what Jesus would do?
I notice people like to focus on the image of the donkeys but they fail to point out that Jesus says "go get me 2 donkeys so the prophecy can be fulfilled." (paraphrasing) this shows how knowledge of prophecy allows you to fulfill them
Honest question on the grammar here: Couldn't it just imply switching mounts?
I don't know about Jerusalem at this time, but in other times and places in history it's a common practice to travel with multiple mounts in order to move quicker. You ride one animal for awhile with the other being led and switch every so often to keep the animals fresh. If someone told me that he rode his two donkeys to the next town over, I would assume this is what he meant. Unless he mentioned practicing his trick riding for the rodeo, it seems clearly implied in English despite the literal reading of "riding both."
So is there the possibility in the Greek of implied mount switching?
If my friend said he drove two cars into town, I would ask him to clarify
@@Rhewin I would too! 😄
That's part of what has me intrigued, cuz I wouldn't blink if he said he was riding multiple donkeys. Language is a funny thing.
I had that thought as well. For me the important thing to note is that the ambiguity that leads to and even forces multiple possible interpretations means it cannot be “perfect word of God” as many Christians like to claim. Most of the Christians I know recognize that the Bible is an entirely human creation. If the Bible was perfect, and the result of divine inspiration, it would not be open to these ambiguities in interpretation. The very necessity for apologists to “explain” the meaning loses the Bible all credibility as a divine work.
@@TheMosv I guess I’m just not seeing what you’re seeing. Not saying you’re incorrect, but I don’t see it.
@@Rhewin No worries. While I'm no cowboy or anything like that, I've been around livestock frequently in my life. I think that's what's influencing me. Horses, donkeys, llamas, camels, they're all heard animals. You frequently move them around in a group even when you only need or want one animal.
So when our buddy "rides two donkeys into town," it's just the easier thing to say instead of "he rode one donkey while leading another donkey." The ambiguity of the first sentence isn't an issue in the context of (or familiarity with) livestock. Especially if we're mostly concerned with what happened in town.
I'm wondering if the Greek works similarly...
I am one of those subscribers prone to aggressively defending creators I follow. I think in this mix, refered to as "Dan's boyfriends" (9:38.) The aspect of Dan's channel I like the most-- he doesn't require defense. It's one of the lowest maintenance self regulating consumer relationships I have ever had. Error rate is low and the signal is strong.
Love your work Dan!
It is SO worrying that this matters so much to people. There are presumably hundreds or thousands of ancient texts from Europe to Japan and beyond that would be far more interesting to obssess over. This just seems ludicrous... though I appreciate Dan's efforts and scholarship in the face of this widespread preoccupation.
Wow, the ending of this video. It just reveals how "Un-Christian" that person's following is.
Does "Them" refer to the clothes or the animals?
Matthew: Yes!
Ambiguity is rhetorically useful, innit?
It always appalls me to see the harmful ways to react to which these purported followers of Christ seem to stoop. Hells, I've seen at least one comment on here equivocating a [falsely perceived, mind you] attack on one's faith and an attack on one's person or appearance, and that is simply not the case.
There is nothing wrong with asking questions about a book, and there's even less wrong with seeking the answers *honestly,* and if one thinks a divine will would prefer they didn't ask questions, maybe consider how harmful those answers might turn out to be, and not only to yourself for just accepting them without question.
Keep up the good work on the "good book," Dan.
Jesus. The first stuntman.
Could the passage be some sort of literary hyperbole? Our teacher/leader is so great one donkey isn't enough we need two! We still do the same sort of thing today. In "One bourbon , One scotch and a beer" Thurogoood sings "one drink ain't enough Jack you better bring three". The "I caught a fish "THIS" big" or "I'm so crazy I'll kick my own butt" type of thing is what I'm thinking of.
I don't know how many times I heard this passage discussed. It is one of those places where it seems all are making mountains out of mole hills.
A couple of reasonable assumptions: 1) Matthew knew Greek and wrote Greek well. A grammatical error seems unlikely. 2) Matthew knew the Old Testament well. He knew as virtually everyone knew about synonymous parallelism in Hebrew poetry. And this passage quotes Hebrew poetry. He knew that the two mentions of donkeys was intended to refer only to one. 3) This passage we have is a copy and not Matthew's original text.
So, the place where some error could creep in is in the copying.
A copyist who did not know about the parallelism of Hebrew poetry and might not have known the passage in Zechariah would have found Matthew's singular pronoun (probably _autou_) ungrammatical. The right thing to do was to correct Matthew and make it plural (_autwn_) so that it agreed in number with what seems like a plural referent - though it was not really a plural referent. (The form _autwn_ which is what he chose is the same in masculine, feminine and neuter, so it would agree in gender with any of the possible referents.)
So, if there is anyone to blame for this fuss it is the copyist. But it was only one word and, in fact, only the form of one word making it a plural rather than a singular. It makes no difference in the meaning of the text. Arguing about it is simply stupid and it doesn't matter who is doing it. The arguments are really about inerrancy not about the meaning of the text.
One word, guys. Get over it.
Does this creator's shirt read "The academic consensus is codswalllop"? Are they building their entire brand on reacting to Dan? Sad, pathetic clout-chasing behaviour if true.
Much like creationists, they take pride in denying reality
I'm curious which version of the event you think is the original. I could see either interpretation, where either the story was fluffed up to match the earlier prophecy or the story was simplified to make it seem less like it was arranged deliberately to match the earlier prophecy.
Dan I am sorry you have to deal with all that. This creator claims to follow Jesus but obviously is not following the command to love his neighbor in his behavior. I am reminded of Romans where Paul criticized people for boasting in their religion and not living up to it and says, "For, as it is written, “The name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you.” (Romans 2: 24)
This passage pops up so often in my head when I watch this kind of content. I'm always like: "Why would anyone be inclined to become a Christian when this would mean becoming like you?" I surely wouldn't consider it if I wasn't a Christian already.
@@DoloresLehmann I saw a statistic recently that Gen Z are massively non-religious. A lot of Christians don't really understand why that is. It's scholars like Dan who are trying to understand the bible and what the authors intended, it's their own behavior. Christians in America have done far more damage to the faith than anyone else.
Jesus taught to hate your own family and didnt love the gentile woman he called a dog. Paul was antisem... and pretty harsh towards non Paulians
These apologists think with their hearts, disposing their brains like the Egyptians did with the mummified.
Apparently, Matthew was written in fluent Greek (unlike some other texts in the New Testament), and the author seems to have been a biblical scholar, so he knew what he was doing.
Regardless of the reasoning underlying whether or not Jesus rode one or two animals into Jerusalem, the most important and obvious question is being ignored: WHY DIDN'T HE JUST TAKE THE BUS?
But, it would take a MIRACLE for an author who was EXTREMELY VERY WELL VERSED prophecies written in an earlier story, to write a new story fulfilling the prophesy. Something like that doesn't just happen.
This conversation is pointless. The important part of the prophecy is the following verse, which implies no more wars and peace. That, Jesus clearly didn't fulfill....
Great job with your response Dan! The other creator has some real growing up to do!
Every single time you say "two... at the same time", i want to insert a gif of Diedrich Bader's character from Office Space. 😅
Good choice! I agree.
Hopefully he grows to put away the childish things so beloved by many Christians nowadays and moves on to solid food.
First of all, David is your king who will be raised up for you. David rides the donkey and the Bride of David rides the colt of the donkey. In scripture, Jesus rules from David's throne and rides on David's donkey but, it is still David's kingdom and the Son of David hands the kingdom over to his Father, David.
The Lord God will give him the throne of David his Father (Luk 1:32 NABO)
Blessed is the kingdom of our Father David that is to come! (Mar 11:10 NABO)
Then comes the end, when he hands over the kingdom to his God and Father (1Co 15:24 NABO)
I am the root and offspring of David, the bright Morning Star. (Rev 22:16 NABO)
David, their king, whom I will raise up for them. (Jer 30:9 NABO)
From David's throne, and over his kingdom, which he confirms and sustains By judgment and justice, both now and forever. (Isa 9:6 NABO)
David's people set out from Babylon seeking a promised land.
your kingdom shall be preserved for you, once you have learned it is heaven that rules (Dan 4:23 NABO)
At the same time my reason returned to me, and for the glory of my kingdom, my majesty and my splendor returned to me. My nobles and lords sought me out; I was restored to my kingdom, and became much greater than before. (Dan 4:33 NABO)
David, the Morning Star, takes a seat upon a throne on the Mount of Assembly as the Ancient One of Days. His people will be a kingdom of priests, the Assembly on the Mount.
Is not my house firm before God? He has made an eternal covenant with me, set forth in detail and secured. Will he not bring to fruition all my salvation and my every desire? (2Sa 23:5 NABO)
Healthy boundaries ftw!
Zechariah 9: 5 "Ashkelon will see it and fear; Gaza will writhe in agony, and Ekron too, for her hope will wither. Gaza will lose her king and Ashkelon will be deserted." Obviously not talking about the time of Jesus, unless Gaza had a king in the 1st century. The Romans probably would have objected to that. I also doubt Ashkalon was deserted. If some people think it refers to current times, I guess a lot of Israelis will need to vacate Ashkelon for it to be fulfilled. It was outside the borders of Judah, so it was plausible in the distant past, but it's inside Israel now.
Wait, a person who made an error admits their error?
And then they can change their mind on the data based on new information and thinking?
Weird…
If Jesus was going to ride one animal why did he ask for two? And why clothes were placed on two animals? When I call Uber or taxi I ask for one car not two if I am riding in only one.
Dan mentioned a podcast, I went to Google and it brought up Apple podcasts. I appreciate his work, but I dislike the tiktok forward approach to his media. Is there a way for older Millennials to access his work on UA-cam?