For sure. For them it was imminent!

When you consider that since the time of Paul, they have still been waiting on the imminent return of their savior…….

@@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.

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.

@@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.

The Boomerang Effect.

@@yerpyaboy thanks for the heads up 🤣

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.

@@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.

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.

Yes. Wild and unfounded speculation, and (even worse) shouted in preaching mode to add emphasis... as if known to be some essentially unchallengeable truth.

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.

@@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"

@@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.

⁠@@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

Moses is the ultimate and supreme prophet for all time. It turns out he was a man.

@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.

It is a common rhetorical technique used by modern pastors. They feel it exudes and energetic and positive approach that people enjoy.

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.

"Church" does mean "gathering". Churches as buildings was a latter addition.

@@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.

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.

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.

American

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.

Just commenting to see if Dan responds at all.

@@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.

@@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.

@@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.

@@yerpyaboy Whose beliefs?

@@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? 🗿👍

@@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.

@@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.

@@marvinmallette6795 Take care :)

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?

The "iron mixed with clay" were the Seleucids.