Cue: "...and your father smells of elderberries!"

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...

Underrated comment!

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?

Thank you for this very articulate description.

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

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.

Yes, if you find it funny. Subjective fellas

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.”

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

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

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.

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.

Me too, i also like "in no way, shape or form"

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.

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.

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.

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.

Jesus called a woman/ all Gentiles dog😂

The author of Matthew was basically a 1st century apologist.

😂

Q: Did Jesus ride one or two animals? A: Yes.

​@@enlacostaizquierda 😂

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.

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

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.

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...

Absolutely. There were medieval Christians who painted pictures of Jesus riding two animals at the same time.

Much like creationists, they take pride in denying reality

They're groking MYTHOLOGY. Inherently ambiguous and contradictory mythology.

Yeah, and Dan, like any intellectually honest person, was willing to rethink his conclusions when provided with a compelling alternative.

@@Rhewin I agree. There are others who also moved towards acknowledging another viewpoint. The Christians who won’t acknowledge the other side, however, are less intellectually honest.

@@infiniti28160 Ancient Greece was at the height of its power between 500 and 300 BCE. What does that have to do with this?

@@infiniti28160 If you have a point to make, make it. I’m not going to slog through a wall of questions. Back to your original comment, Dan, a Biblical scholar with a PhD, is in a place to draw conclusions based on his extensive study. Conclusions are not absolute, and never should be considered so.

Maybe there were two cakes! 😂

@@nightwyrm4354Underrated comment

He's switching the order back to the original, to clarify the meaning. It's not possible to eat and then still have.

🤔 or is it? Eat your cake and have it too. Anyway, I'm going to eat some cake 🎂 and you can't have any! By cake 🎂 I mean whisky 🥃😉