As an atheist i use Dan as one of the best information outlets for my studies. The way the modern man missuses the Bible to make it say what they want is crazy.
@joestfrancois9 ай бұрын
I am a non-believer in Christianity. I read and study the bible because it is fascinating and permeates so much of my life as a 21st century American whether I believe it or not. Lately I have been struck with what Dan said towards the end of this video, that Paul was saying there was not time for big life changes before the return of Jesus. To see the early Christians in this light, waiting for the imminent return of a savior, gives them, for me, a real cultish sort of feel.
@Genesis-xd1id9 ай бұрын
For sure. For them it was imminent!
@ashorter9 ай бұрын
When you consider that since the time of Paul, they have still been waiting on the imminent return of their savior…….
@joestfrancois9 ай бұрын
@@ashorter wrote "When you consider that since the time of Paul, they have still been waiting on the imminent return of their savior……." Also, because if you understand that, that they thought the return was happening right now, it makes them a Heaven's gate or Jim Jones kind of cult. Creepy.
@travcollier9 ай бұрын
Dan is definitely the sort of religious person (Mormon no less) who most of us non-believers can respect. And yeah, the Abrahamic religions, especially Christianity, have had such a huge influence on the world... We should be interested in their myths.
@joestfrancois9 ай бұрын
@@travcollier wrote "Dan is definitely the sort of religious person (Mormon no less) who most of us non-believers can respect." He said one time, "I am not, and have never been an atheist." And yet, he does not seem to value faith above truth. Not that he downgrades his faith, he just lets the data speak. Actually though, there is no clear indications of what he believes.
@VulcanLogic9 ай бұрын
I remember watching the apologetics for these passages on TBN 30 years ago when I was a believer. I think it was Kenneth Copeland. He said, "well, that church was renowned for its loud mouthed women and he just meant that church." Then his wife came on to sell books and ask for seed money.
@ericreed45359 ай бұрын
Dan is now a critical mass accelerator 🙏. He's much needed.
@ykalon9 ай бұрын
As an atheist I really enjoy your views of the Bible.
@danielkover71577 ай бұрын
That last part is very accurate and true to human nature. Facts don't matter to most people. It has to become personal.
@lennierofthethirdfaneofchu72866 ай бұрын
The Boomerang Effect.
@tomesplin41309 ай бұрын
Yes, the ‘Word of God’ is absolutely God’s instruction for all people of all time, EXCEPT where it is inconvenient and then it just a situational instruction from the man writing the passage.
@KendallW9 ай бұрын
Every video you make is helping to move us all forward to that "critical mass" you mention. Thanks Dan!
@GnosticInformant9 ай бұрын
This is exactly what I was saying in my recent video about the first 100 years of Christianity. It is really cool to see someone with your expertise affirm this point. It just doesn't make sense given Paul's constant egalitarian comments about no Jew nor Greek nor male nor female under God. We see this over and over in Paul's rhetoric and in the sayings of Jesus. Also, 1 Timothy and 2 Timothy seem way too concerned with Bishop regulations to be an early letter from the 40s before any of that stuff would be a concern yet while people are waiting for Jesus to come back.
@st.anic_panic9 ай бұрын
My trump annotated bible orange letter edition says it's in One Corinthians.
@st.anic_panic9 ай бұрын
@@yerpyaboy thanks for the heads up 🤣
@archivist179 ай бұрын
Didn't Paul appoint women (Phoebe is a name that rings a bell)?
@Uryvichk9 ай бұрын
In Romans 16:1-2 (NRSV), Paul writes "I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae, so that you may welcome her in the Lord, as is fitting for the saints, and help her in whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well." Given that Paul is instructing the Roman church to treat her in specific ways, and that Phoebe is mentioned first in Paul's greetings and recognitions, it seems highly probable that Phoebe was the one entrusted to take Paul's letter to Rome while he went to Jerusalem. While there is some dispute about her status in other translations, she appears to have been a deaconess or minister. It's not stated that Paul appointed her, but if he's introducing her to the Roman church as a deacon then apparently HE thinks she's a deacon.
@archivist179 ай бұрын
@@Uryvichk Thank you! Yes, that was the passage. I used to cite it to my CofE friends when there was all the hoo-hah about women vicars.
@BrentJohnson-ki7jy9 ай бұрын
Even more, she is not only a deacon, but as the one who delivers Paul’s letter to the Romans, is the reader and interpreter of Paul’s letter, which is an important nuance to her presence on behalf of Paul.
@Guishan_Lingyou9 ай бұрын
Hey Dan, I don't know if you or your audience would be interested in this but I think it might be worth talking in a little more depth about what does and does not influence people's ethical beliefs. You touched on this briefly at the end of the video, maybe it's a topic you'd like to spread some information about. It's a very important topic.
@joesmith40989 ай бұрын
Its amazing how this guy just asserts there was this fertility goddess infiltrating the church, but never mentions where he got the info or even what her name was. Honest question, where do you start to dig and find out if there was a goddess in that church at that time in history?
@canwelook9 ай бұрын
Yes. Wild and unfounded speculation, and (even worse) shouted in preaching mode to add emphasis... as if known to be some essentially unchallengeable truth.
@BrentJohnson-ki7jy9 ай бұрын
There is a considerable amount of scholarship to back up that Paul (or whovever the writer is) was responding to some who had fallen under the influence of an adherent to the cult of Artemis. He misspoke as Artemis is not a fertility goddess. However, I’m not sure I buy the Artemis angle either, but his claim is not unfounded speculation.
@canwelook9 ай бұрын
@@BrentJohnson-ki7jy Could you provide your actual counter source that shows Paul was responding to a specific situation only and not making global statements? For example, in 1 Corinthians 14: 33-35, Paul explicitly made generalised statements about the submissive, inferior role of women, did he not? "As in all the churches of the saints the women must keep silent ... etc"
@KaiHenningsen9 ай бұрын
@@canwelook It's wild to me how to Americans, "preaching mode" is associated with shouting, whereas to me (a German), it's the exact opposite. If anything, I associate preaching with a monotone voice putting me to sleep.
@BrentJohnson-ki7jy9 ай бұрын
@@canwelookSure, from within the letter itself we see that Paul is responding to a report from Chloe’s people (1:10) and a letter the Corinthians wrote to Paul with questions (7:1). The phrase you mention (v.33) should not be read as an opening to verses 34-35, but should be read with Paul’s comments on spiritual gifts (tongues, prophesying, etc.) in verses 1-32 that closes out the particular issue. And, even if we include it with verses 34-35, Paul’s proscription is very specific, “wives ask your husbands questions at home.” Inquiry is a specific form of speech and does not include all forms of speech and doesn’t even touch on the question of what an unmarried woman is to do. Last, all of chapters 11-14 are one unit within the letter. The context is disruptions during their times of worship in Corinth, which includes the Lord’s Supper along with the manifestation of spiritual gifts. Thus, it speaks to something specific to the Corinthian community and is not a universal statement prohibiting women from participating in worship (there are women teachers, apostles, and prophets elsewhere in the NT). If you would like secondary resources I recommend, Gordon Fee’s NICNT Commentary Richard Hays Interpretation Commentary Anthony Thistelton’s NIGCT Commentary Lucy Peppiatt’s Women and Worship at Corinth: Paul’s Rhetorical Arguments in 1 Corinthians & Unveiling Paul’s Women: making Sense of 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 Cynthia Westfall’s Paul and Gender: Reclaiming the Apostle’s vision for Men and Women in Christ
@thestaciesmompodcast9 ай бұрын
And my journey has come full circle! I’ve been to his church before… crazy that one of these commentary videos, I know the pastor 😮
@emilyly9 ай бұрын
How come there were female prophets during the time of the Old Testament like Deborah, and even during the time of New Testament like Anna from Luke 2:36: « And there was one Anna, a prophetess, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Aser »? Did the female prophets have right to preach?
@hrvatskinoahid10489 ай бұрын
Moses is the ultimate and supreme prophet for all time. It turns out he was a man.
@emilyly9 ай бұрын
@revilo178 Thanks but I actually know that. My comment is not really asking for answers but wanted to point out that people just turned a blind eye on things from the scriptures that are actually so obvious.
@Philusteen6 ай бұрын
Well said, good sir.
@inukleist52589 ай бұрын
Its actually pretty good with greenlandic culture, women enjoyed a much higher social status in greenland than rest of teh world (pre christianizstion) But makes sense why we have so many women priests in Greenland ;D
@johnalexir76349 ай бұрын
Yes, they'll get over it with this issue, but may take a couple more centuries like with other contentious or once-contention issues. Change is very slow with this bunch.
@AMoniqueOcampo9 ай бұрын
I like the hat.
@democrat74419 ай бұрын
In another mythology book what does the little red Riding Hood say about the big bad wolf?
@jamescutler4282 ай бұрын
Wait a minute, I would really like to know, how exactly do you personally help someone else trapped in a dogmatic world view lower their guard so they can think critically??? I’ve been dying to know the secret to this for years. If someone already knows how to do that then we could help A LOT of people.
@georgheinrich5224Ай бұрын
I think a careful reading of the text shows that Paul is actually saying the opposite. The clue is the rhetorical question: "What? was it from you that the word of God went out? or did it only come in to you?" This does not make sense if "you" refers to the women, as the same argument would have to be made regarding the men. It does make sense, however, if Paul is telling the men that the word has not only come to them and neither went out from them and thus it is wrong for the men to silence the women. This is further supported by the fact that "only" is in the male form "nomos". There is further evidence for this even in the Hebrew Bible: The Sabbath commandment lists the individuals who are to be told to keep the Sabbath, and women are not listed there, as the commandment is addressed to them equally. OTOH, nothing appears to be missing if the verses 34-36 are left out, which is why it can be assumed the verses were not there in the first place.
@user-gr7wd4kg3e8 ай бұрын
I thought there was an idea that the interpolation of later Paulines un these passages was a response to some of the heavily anti-Paul patriarchal criticism... With the Acts of Paul & story of Thecla, Paul had become associated with a sort of anti-authoritarian rejection of patriarchal values, and this was seen as dangerous to his (& maybe even His) message.
@rosaysthis9 ай бұрын
Am I misremembering but did Paul talk about a woman called Phoebe who was a church leader in a positive light? Is this just an example of a contradiction within Paul's own writings or is this because we have another person writing as Paul (again)?
@alanb88849 ай бұрын
Pastorals written today: Women do be yakkin', amirite fellas?
@AaronWilkerson9 ай бұрын
Is "Brothers and sisters" the best translation in 1 Corinthians 14? Is "adelphos" not as gendered as it seems?
@SewblonАй бұрын
2:50 WM. O. Walker Jr. argued that those passages are forgeries. (1 Corinthians 11:2-16 and Paul's Views regarding Women Author(s): Wm. O. Walker, Jr. Source: Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 94, No. 1 (Mar., 1975), pp. 94-110) Do you think that he was right or wrong?
@bapster2229 ай бұрын
@dan have you read any of the public scholarships of Marg Mowczko, particularly her arguments about the word Epitrepō?
@hrvatskinoahid10489 ай бұрын
Paul says that by the deeds of the Law no one can be called righteous before the Almighty. The Jewish Bible calls people righteous.
@mariemeyer5 ай бұрын
Why is the guy in the black t-shirt shouting?
@waynefeller3 ай бұрын
It is a common rhetorical technique used by modern pastors. They feel it exudes and energetic and positive approach that people enjoy.
@Kanvers_Martian5 ай бұрын
Probably coming decade after,meaning they're not sure 😕
@TheRealBrit5 ай бұрын
It's very jarring to me that Dan can hold opinions like this but remain a Mormon, I'd love to hear more indepth about Dan's views and beliefs regarding his Mormonism
@QuinnPrice9 ай бұрын
Healthy organizations; figure out who does what and do what works according to the org's goals and people's gifts and skills. Unhealthy, dogmatic organizations; pigeon hole people by pretending to speak for God.
@deviouskris30129 ай бұрын
Given Paul acknowledged Junia is either ‘well known to’ or ‘outstanding among’ the apostles. A prohibition on women preaching, seems counterintuitive.
@Teejaye11009 ай бұрын
They’re being conditioned to spread this misogyny, they will get over it, that does not happen by sharing facts and data. What’s necessary is for people to have personal experiences or personal relationships with people that allow them to lower their guard and think critically about these things. One of the true lines ever spoken, he understands the psychological impact this stuff has on human beings. Dan is one of my modern day heroes.
@TheJinzoSpoon9 ай бұрын
Why does he have to scream tho?
@scottmaddow78799 ай бұрын
The creator likey heard about early Ashera (sp?) worship pre-centraluzed temple and imposed this on the Christian church hundreds of years later.
@digitaljanus9 ай бұрын
If it's Ephesus, he's likely thinking of the story from Acts 19, where Paul visits Ephesus and raised the ire of the city elders and merchants with his missionary work. Ephesus was an important centre of the Cult of Artemis--her Temple there being one of the Seven Wonders of the ancient world--and they feared the goddess' wrath and losing the prestige of being an important pilgrimage site.
@Darisiabgal75739 ай бұрын
But, but, but . . . with the epistles we never have more than half the conversation, and corinthians is a patchwork of epistles, so we are missing conversational context and maybe missing intrascribal context and therefore it could be part of the problem. Again, corinthians had trouble with the nearby cults, so . . . . But a key important point Dan makes much of Pauls theology christians reject Paul -was a Jew -did not believe Jesus was a god -did not believe he was bodily resurrected -believed Jesus's messianic nature came about as a consequence of his execution. So . . . . it kind of acedemic even among christians.
@digitaljanus9 ай бұрын
What does "in church" even mean in Paul's time? There are basically no dedicated Christian places of worship yet. Depending on the level of persecution in their region, early Christians are meeting either at someone's house, or somewhere clandestine like caves or catacombs. Does "in church" just mean any gathering of believers?
@juanausensi4999 ай бұрын
"Church" does mean "gathering". Churches as buildings was a latter addition.
@parker_chess9 ай бұрын
What about the priesthood? Can you explain the bases in the Bible for women holding or not holding the priesthood?
@tezzerii3 ай бұрын
@@yerpyaboy Originally Levite = member of the tribe of Levi. Male or Female. The male priest meaning came later, after the business with the golden calf, when the men of Levi were chosen for priestly duties. Being a Levite doesn't have anything to do with women holding / not holding the priesthood, because only male Levites were assigned.
@aintthatthetruth12359 ай бұрын
I have heard that there were many prominent women, wealthy leader, type of the cult for religions outside of the movement, so maybe that the houses that they were using were former or owned by some of those former pagan leaders that were women anti-authority if you get what I’m sayingor trying to say
@righty-o35859 ай бұрын
OK but it is also agreed upon among biblical scholars that NONE of the books of the Bible were written by the person who's name they fall under. That they were all written well after Jesus died.
@patrickwilliams31089 ай бұрын
Not entirely accurate. The current scholarly consensus is that Galatians, Romans, 1 Corinthians, 2 Corinthians, Philemon, Philippians, and 1 Thessalonians were actually written by Paul.
@AurorXZ9 ай бұрын
Most of "Paul's" letters were written by him-7 unanimously, 3 heavily debated, and 3 dismissed. The Revelation to John is also believed to be written by a real "John" later confused with the Apostle John. With the Hebrew Bible, too, the cores of the Prophets are indeed believed to be authentic (Hosea, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc.). Ezra-Nehemiah, likewise, heavily incorporates core writings by Ezra and Nehemiah.
@mh4zd9 ай бұрын
Regardless of the truth of the apologist's (extremely and admittedly theoretical) interpretation, what a lot of counter-apologists miss is that when such specious and potentially correct contextual interpretations are trotted out in order that modern sensibilities are not offended, two things are happening: One, the apologist is reading his Bible not "as a babe," but rather, in Christian lingo, "bringing man's morality" into it, and is potentially, and they are probably (because what are we to do if correct interpretations are not those that are the most prima facia?) bearing "false witness." This in-turn wreaks havoc with the rest of the canon - what might be the contextual caveats to the banning of all but heterosexual, monogamous relationships? That the conservative Christian won't strain for said issue like this apologist here is doing, is evidence of moral relativism at work inside, around and upon a religion. Point of order at 06:28 . It is more than an "identity marker," carrying with it pre-enculturation statistical preponderances in a variety of behavioral and cognitive attributes, most of which bear out somewhat subtly in the aggregate. While the subtlety precludes reliance on said preponderances for discriminatory decision making on the individual level, it does become relevant when statistics are used to allege conscious discrimination and/or enculturated effects in something such as the disparity between men and women in STEM enrollment in colleges, making the statement valid that said allegation must first assess the level of disparity and put it up against known, pre-enculturation statistics, to assess if, or how much, discrimination and/or enculturation is to blame. It is not all construct. To say so is to be a science-denier of its own sort. Efforts to eradicate enculturation-effect, discrimination and culturally forced gender role fulfilling are harmed when we are not precise in our rhetoric.
@rmalcordia18189 ай бұрын
Why is that preacher yelling?!
@ronm32459 ай бұрын
American
@Jeschneider9 ай бұрын
Coming from a mormon - how nice.
@BrentJohnson-ki7jy9 ай бұрын
The argument that Paul wasn’t the author of 1 Timothy and 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 are a potential interpolation are not sufficient arguments for dealing with this in churches. They are canonical and require explanation that situates them within their various contexts. 1 Corinthians 11 should not be read as an acceptance of a gendered hierarchy at creation. The term kephale there can also be rendered source (i.e. source of a river, etc.), which makes sense of Gen. 2 where eve is taken from Adam’s rib (hence the source of). Not that men have authority over women (something that doesn’t appear until after sin enters the world in Gen. 3). And, it’s not an overwhelming amount of scholars who posit 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as an interpolation, and, placing it at the end of the chapter happens in one manuscript (fuldensis) and then subsequent manuscripts from within the same family have the same move thus it’s really one set of closely related mss that reflect that. The text critic argument is not very strong. Last, it should be “wives” in 14:34 as it says to “ask your husbands at home,” which indicates a very specific situation that has arisen in worship that is contributing to the disruption during worship at Corinth. The questions abound from there. What if a woman doesn’t have a husband? What do we do with “x, y, z”? It’s a specific situation that Paul is trying to correct and not a question of whether women should be involved in worship as it is a given that they are involved in worship and there is no problem with that for Paul. One more quick note on head coverings. V.16 should be rendered, “we have NO such custom” in regards to women wearing head coverings while praying and prophesying. So, Paul is often misunderstood here as well. He does not require women to wear head coverings while in worship.
@Uryvichk9 ай бұрын
While I see your points, I guess my general question as to the initial objection would be, who made them canonical? If one is a Catholic or Orthodox I guess they might be stuck, sure, but Protestants have no reason to abide by the rulings of ecumenical councils and the Magisterium as to what is or is not canon. If a book is a probable fraud, then it can be discarded, unless we for some reason believe forged epistles are divinely inspired scripture that should be canon (which creates far more problems than it solves). Similar issue to something like the Trinity: If one does not accept the authority of the ecclesial church (in whatever form), one has no reason to accept credal statements on the nature of God made up and ratified solely by ancient bishops. It's also really funny to me that the "all scripture is god-breathed" line is itself from a forgery. Which isn't to say I disagree with your points -- I think you're largely correct -- but the very argument at issue undermines the importance of the objection as it would discard a popular prooftext.
@rainbowkrampus9 ай бұрын
Just commenting to see if Dan responds at all.
@BrentJohnson-ki7jy9 ай бұрын
@@Uryvichkwell, this assumes someone writing is Paul’s name would be considered fraudulent. Pseudepigraphy was common in the ancient world and didn’t always carry the same ethical concerns we attach to writing in someone else’s name in the present day. The motives of the person or persons writing in someone else’s name would be considered, etc. and, if a Christian community doesn’t view the pastorals as canonical then that’s fine if they take that position and Dan’s argument makes sense (there isn’t one contemporary biblical canon), however, for those who use these texts within faith communities they are authoritative and thus more work is required in helping them to think more fully about what is being said and how they apply to the church today. For example, authentein (the term Paul used in 1 Timothy 2) is not the normal word for authority and says something about the way the woman or women are relating to men in the passage, something that probably connotes manipulation or abuse that we as people would not view as acceptable in either direction (male-to-female or female-to-male). It’s not a blanket assertion that women in the church should not teach men. That’s silly and not how the early church functioned/operated. Dan’s argument is historically accurate that the PE reflect 2nd century concerns and may be written later (I don’t personally argue for Pauline or non-Pauline authorship. Both are possible), but that doesn’t change the fact that the majority of Christians must wrestle with them beyond that in their faith communities.
@BrentJohnson-ki7jy9 ай бұрын
@@rainbowkrampuslol, me too. I’ve commented on a handful of his videos with questions about different issues where a number of excellent scholars have a nuanced position that agrees in many ways with Dan, but is different and pushes back against some of his conclusions, but he’s never responded. And, I don’t take that personally. He’s busy and probably receives hundreds if not thousands of questions/responses and can’t engage everyone.
@Uryvichk9 ай бұрын
@@BrentJohnson-ki7jy Forgery was not approved of or accepted in antiquity. Claiming to be a disciple or of a school is one thing, claiming to relate the teachings or story of someone else is another, but claiming to actually be a specific person was fraud and was viewed as dishonest and morally blameworthy. Bart Ehrman discusses this in a few of his books. The Gospel of John, for instance, isn't a forgery because it not only never claims to have been by John, it also explicitly identifies its authors as individuals who have heard their testimony from someone else; Luke 1 likewise opens with an explanation that the author is putting together stories already known to his reader (and thus not the writer's own testimony). 1 and 2 Timothy state they are written by Paul, THAT Paul, the apostle Paul, and they aren't; that's dishonesty, it's fraud, and it would not have been acceptable to Paul, who famously was so concerned about people lying about his opinions that he signed the end of his letters in his own hand and wrote to the Galatians not to waver from what he initially preached to them EVEN IF HE HIMSELF SAID SO. There's an anecdote from the Roman physician Galen about how he once came upon two men arguing whether a book in a store was actually by Galen or not. The book was indeed a fraud, and this so upset Galen that he decided to write a treatise on how to identify which books he actually wrote, including a bibliography of his own confirmed work. One of his stated motivations for doing this is specifically that he did not want people to think he shared the opinions of people who wrote in his name. What specific people actually said did matter. Paul dealt with Pauline fraud in his own time and he did not approve of it. He would not have approved of 1 and 2 Timothy being written in his name. Whether he would have approved of their content or teachings is another matter, but even if he did, he would not have approved of the misrepresentation of authorship.
@MissMentats9 ай бұрын
That’s a… hoody. But nice T-shirt anyway
@terryriley89639 ай бұрын
Christian apologetic: This is what the bible literally says but I am now going to make some stuff up to tell you what I want it to mean.
@nsbd90now9 ай бұрын
The god of Abraham is clearly abusive, cruel, and immoral. I expect no better from anyone who worships such a monster.
@mountbeckworth19 ай бұрын
So Christians, you want to take anything about homosexuality literally, things about eating shellfish and planting different crops and stoning to death breaking the Sabbath and women in church with a grain of (Lot's Wife) salt. Oh, how convenient.
@honder18669 ай бұрын
I don’t get the appeal of the constantly yelling, manic preacher. Dude should calm down.
@nori_tutor9 ай бұрын
Dude, just accept that the bible is against women preaching at church and have authority over men. I gotta say, it's soo good that I'm not a Christian so I don't have to justify what the bible says here and there.
@nori_tutor9 ай бұрын
@@yerpyaboy Whose beliefs?
@nori_tutor9 ай бұрын
@@yerpyaboy You're forgiven sir, now let's all sit down to have a good glass of passion fruit juice with some cookies and forget this religious stuff for a while, shall we? 🗿👍
@nori_tutor9 ай бұрын
@@marvinmallette6795 Dude, don't twist the book you say you have faith on. You're trying to use what Paul has to say on marriage and judge women teaching at church in the same lens, even though Paul himself disagrees with you. Or do you think I don't know the bible? "A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve." 1 Timothy 2. Dude, I'm an Atheist, you're a Christian, if you really believe in this book, follow what it ACTUALLY says and don't try to twist it, or just don't follow it at all. It's honestly sad how you religious folks twist your own book to fit it with modern moral values. Many of the bible authors were simply ignorant, barbaric, sometimes homophobic, adherents to slavery, that's simply what it is.
@nori_tutor9 ай бұрын
@@marvinmallette6795 LMFAO. It's honestly insane how you twist the "Word of God" for your own values. Anyways, this conversation has become useless, take care.
@nori_tutor8 ай бұрын
@@marvinmallette6795 Take care :)
@loridyson5699 ай бұрын
Dan please look up the author N.T. Wright & his book on Paul. You will find you are wrong & the other guy is half correct. Paul worked with women who preached & taught. Paul trusted women to deliver his letters & read them to the church's when delivered. The writing on women to be silent was the fact that most women were not taught to read so in church they had a lot of questions & Paul said wait till you get home to ask your husband. Plus a lot of the pagan churches had prostitutes running them so did not want them talking in church. Please watch his videos on Paul in order to give better answers or read his book. Thank you & God Bless.
@0nlyThis9 ай бұрын
So, Paul and company are expecting the Parousia at any moment - yet Paul is somehow consented about women preaching? You must be kidding.😊
@ToySoldier19629 ай бұрын
Atheist support you dan? Same sex advocates support you dan. Does the historical jesus support you? Does the history of religious teaching support you? In the beginning hashem made them Male and Female, yes? Does truth support you, Dan? Just asking as one scholar to another. Majority opinion aside or personal reasons and opinions aside ... are you being honest, Dan? Shalom!
@tangerinetangerine44008 ай бұрын
What is he supposed to answer? Yes? No? Why don't you try being truthful and say what you want to say instead of all these rhetorical questions?
@SeanRhoadesChristopher9 ай бұрын
Define misogyny? The Ten Commandments are addressed to the men, as is the Sermon on the Mount. When Sarah wanted to oust Hagar and Ishmael Abraham refused to listen to her request, he listened to her only after Elohim asked him to listen to her regarding the issue. Elohim cursed the ground because Adam listened to the voice of his wife. The rule then should be that men do their best to learn from Elohim, through the patriarchal hierarchy and wives question their husbands. Wives and free women have the unique equal right concerning the eye for eye, tooth for tooth, …, life for life law that forces Mosaic law citizens to think about the consequences before acting out impulsively. Egalitarianism is not, nor is feminism Biblical. The democratic secular world view is the iron mixed with clay feet of Nebuchadnezzar’s statue.