When apologists resort to personal attacks and the inflammatory language of bullies, you know they're weak. Apologists exist to convince true believers not to look at contradictory evidence, never to promote truth.

Sometimes “alright let’s see it” has “come at me bro” energy in the most positive way possible, and I love it.

It's always quite stunning to see someone so spectacularly ignorant of scholarship speak with such condescension to an actual biblical scholar. It's sad to see such adherence to dogma over data, but it's not surprising in itself. What *is* surprising is the smug superiority on display by this particular apologist. I'm quite amazed at your ability to remain so calm and level in your responses, Dr McClellan. Kudos as always :)

All I heard is that Dan’s videos are so well researched that all this dude can do is insult. And insult poorly.

Whilst this apologist is obviously entitled to voice his opinion, it is significant that he seems unable to do so without being deliberately unpleasant. Dan, by contrast, not only produced his original video calmly and factually but maintains that dignity in his response. This alone should make us doubt the apologist. I don't know who he is but I seriously doubt his scholarship or credentials.

God grant me the patience needed to respond to that opener with "Okay, let's see it"

Dan struck a nerve, again. Sometimes logic and reason are frightening to some.

Dan, I’ve never hear you call someone “stupid” or that their argument was “stupid” or an “embarrassment to academia.” I’m not sure if this person is in academia, but the way they speak does not make me want to treat them seriously. I don’t like when my views, i.e. dogma, are challenged by data, that doesn’t mean that the data is incorrect. Neither does it mean I call the persons argument “crappy”, “stupid”, or “embarrassing”. Those pejoratives just mean that you’re getting emotional about the things you don’t like and that also makes me less likely to take the creator’s arguments.

Woah! That guy got very personal.

When you are in a cult it is difficult to see that you are in a cult. You go Dan.

This "creator" is the exact person I think of when Dan types his disclaimer about not "harassing or commenting" on someone else's page. His smarmy and sanctimonious tone is driving me bananas.

Dude is way too hostile. Obviously he likes flexing his ignorance with arrogance.

I truly enjoy watching Dan swat away all these ill-prepared apologetic responses; I think they may be my favorite videos. It's especially gratifying to watch him completely dismantle the rude and indignant apologists that cherry-pick facts from a Wikipedia page on ancient biblical texts and then believe they're a real PhD. (It's a cherry on top if the apologist is an actual PhD, but from a conservative evangelical school with no accreditations.)

So that other creator thinks that the Gospels were written by Matthew, Mark, Luke and John which is not the prevailing scholarly view and the fact that they record events that they could not have possibly been eyewitnesses to such as the events prior to Jesus's birth, him preaching as a teenager in the temple, his temptation in the wilderness, Jesus's trial and many others.

He sure sounds angry😂 must be hitting close to his heart.

I welcome this young man’s feckless display of ‘Christian love’ - speaking your mind in public is the essence of freedom! Dan’s response? Chef’s kiss, five stars ⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️

You and Bart Ehrman are doing the world a great service - moving these conversations outside of academia and into the public sphere. Thank you.

The one thing that will make me distrust a person’s arguments the most is reverting to name calling and ad-hominem statements. And a large chunk of this apologist’s arguments are interweaved with personal attacks against Dan.

I'm pretty sure that Dan wrote the Book of Daniel...

Dan, kudos to you for keeping it civil. I'd be hard pressed to do so in similar circumstances. It's a testament to your patience that you're able to do it.

Quite how Dan remains so calm with these people amazes me.

Dan McClellan, I admire your continued informed calmness, in the face of these unapologetic apologist reality deniers. It's frustrating to think that this insulting dogmatist's audience will mostly never see your comprehensive response video.

God is supposedly omnipotent, but somehow he needs an army of apologists to defend him. (Seems a bit suspect… 🤔) Oh, and he always needs money. Lots and lots of MONEY!!!

It’s like a kid arguing with the other kids (who know Santa isn’t real) that they’re stupid and “of course he’s real. How else to presents get to the end of my bed?”

Ah, the same person who defended biblical slavery in one of Dan's earlier videos. Why am I not surprised? 😐

Yeah, that creator should reflect on the way he approaches conversation and debate. He never offered any data, just insults and fan-fictions.

All that personal attacks already say everything. He knows he is wrong, so he chooses rhetorical violence.

What I can deduce is that Dan did not respond in a single setting but at least two settings. This is based upon the shirt changes (Spiderman vs Batman). This tells me that Dan carefully made sure that he articulated his position, as well as understood the argument from the apologists. He not only provided us with greater insight. He provided us with a teaching example of how we should respond in all matters. Thanks Dan.

Have him on for a debate/discussion. Good job Dan

Always fun to see apologists be this confidently incorrect 😂

This apologist's entire approach can be summarized as "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain." Thank you, Dan, for pulling back the curtain and allowing us to assess the data for ourselves.

Confidence is a dangerous tools for people who don't earn it. Well done Dan

its awesome to see that they at least started learning your vocabulary hahahah

The apologist, despite his struggles with logic and kindness, still exposed some areas that benefitted from the clarification in this video. I think we are now much better prepared for Papias enthusiasts. Papias described his own methodology as ,to paraphrase, repeating what people claimed if they claimed it came from the Lord. He delighted only in those who taught the “truth”, which implies that he thought he knew the truth already and filtered out testimony that didn’t match what he already believed.

Dan Shows us the difference between a serious scholar and a faithful apologist who works backward from a conclusion and will not move off that conclusion, no matter the data that contradicts that conclusion.

If the other creator has anything useful to say I cant tell, because Im so distacted by how rude he was, resorting to personal attacks and insults instead of arguing his points and ideas.

Whoever this KZfaq guy is that Dan is refuting, he just goes to prove that religious faith is the abandonment of reason for the comfort of belief.😂

The usage of personal attacks by this other creator really undermines their credibility. If they want to be taken seriously, they need to stick to the data.

When you need something to be true - you do whatever it takes.

You remaining calm really speaks for your interest in the matter and the facts.. That dude really needs to calm down.

Gin up: To exaggerate. To stir up, stimulate, enliven, incite. In case anyone else was curious about this phrase.

If Peter consulted Mark on the construction of his gospel, its intriguing that this gospel is missing key elements like: the virgin birth and the post resurrection appearances of Jesus. Its interesting that Papias would prefer hearing tales from elders over the gospels. If the Gospels are eyewitness accounts, they're immediately more preferable than elders including elders that were eyewitnesses. Memory fails overtime and his work is dated to about 95-110 AD. This wouldve made John the Elder 89 years old if John the Elder was the Apostle John and our ideas of his age are accurate. Pretty sure an apostle like Matthew writing 15 or so years earlier wouldve had a better memory than John who was older at the time. And it seems like Papias' ideas of what occurred based off oral tradition contradicts scripture so ig Papias heard eyewitness Elder testimony that heavily contridicts what this guy says Matthew, Peter, Paul, and John claimed. Theres no way you get what he said about Judas any other way.

Keep plucking those strings Dan. I enjoy seeing apologists flustered.

Nicely done.

I have to say. I am impressed that you kept your cool, explained how the other creator was wrong, and did not resort to any personal attacks on the other creator. Honestly, it makes it seem ae though you Dan, are on the side of logic and believability. Everyone who attacks you in this matter is just mad that you know more, and are taking their ball and going home so to speak..

I hope he gets the help he needs

These types of responses are to be expected when scholarship pokes holes in the beliefs of a particular conspiracy such as Christianity

Thank you Dan. I deeply appreciate your engagement. Your scholarship is a blessing to academia.

I appreciate how Dan says he thinks or it is his theory.

Dan way to keep it classy! Love this. They draw me closer to Jesus Christ.

Dan, you might be a modern day prophet to teach the world the TRUTH of the Bible. I'm not gonna state that as a fact, but it's what I believe. Peace be with you, God bless!

I don't know how you managed to even response to this video. You're infinitely more patient than I am.

Good stuff! Who was the other person and what are his credentials?

This is why I don’t listen to apologists. I prefer a reasoned approach, without the conclusion already being decided

Psst. Dan. Not everyone is worthy of a reply.

No one responds in kind. When academics argue it is about the grey areas where one makes logical, educated deductions based on where they consider the evidence is pointing. Debate can be heated. The people who criticise Dan don’t seem to even know how to debate interpretations of evidence. They are only scratching the surface. Most only refer to one source and that is the source in question! It was good that this guy had some knowledge but, you know, maybe the Dunning Kruger effect is in play if he thinks he can speak on behalf of academia.

When you can't pound the facts you pound the theories. When you can't pound the theories you pound the facts. When you can pound neither the theories nor the facts you pound the table. And this apologist is pounding the table.

Honestly, you have the patience of a saint, man!

Dan on point as always

Wow, hats of for staying calm in the face of "this creator".

As a Christian, I have no issue with accepting that the authors of the Gospels are anonymous. To me, it makes the most sense. I would never attribute my name to a work that would have me executed.

Well done!

Whatever apologists say their beliefs are based upon hearsay - and hearsay is the worst type of evidence

Dan, I love how you ignore the Ad-homenims These apologists sling at you. I do the same. Attack the argument, not the argumentor.

🤘

Even if I knew nothing about Dan and if this had been my first video about conflicts in biblical scholarship, I am for sure going to be against the one who keeps saying the other one is stupid and being generally insulting

Well said Dan

I always wondered why, in fiction, when there was a protagonist that was supremely over-powered that the antagonist(s) would still press their attack on them even though they should have known there would be only one outcome. So, you know, some poor schmuck sidekick punching Batman. It always seemed ridiculous that someone would, with full knowledge beforehand, pick a fight they could not win. I was sure that this would not happen in real life. And then it does 🤣

Whoever makes too much hand gesture just to convince something. Most of the time they are either lying or nervous. As psychology suggest

Toddfather t-shirt for the win

When you have multiple degrees and have been engaged in the study of something for years and find yourself debating a guy who gets all his facts from google.

He "made" the argument talking about tags and cover pages......🤔

It’s clear that the he is simply responding out of a need to be opposed to what you said, for no other reason then to fire up his followers in a quest to “protect the truth” aka dogma.

Anyone who has to wag their fingers as air quotes isn't a person whose opinion can be relied on. It's juvenile.

people should realizes by now that marcion started the gospel tradition either by writing, redacting or collecting the very first gospel in existence and ten letters of paul thus starting the concept of a christian canon and stating later that the other christians added to it to make it more jewish to tie it up with judaism thus earning the respect of greco roman people who tolerates ancient religion and has disdain for new supersttitions like neo platonic christianity

resorting to insults during a debate means you already lost. I salute you brother Dan🖖

Creators like that one and his haughty attitude turns me off to anything that he might have to say. No wonder people are leaving the church.

Yeesh the ad hominem attacks show the insecurity of the argument. Keep playing it cool Dan!

Apologists exist to apologize for not presenting any evidence, let alone proof, of the deities they espouse to purportedly believe in - with conviction, devoutness and faith!

That man is just insufferably rude. Good grief.

Love that Spider-Man shirt

Can someone identify the angry dogmatic unprofessional individual in glasses whom Dan addresses in this vid? I’d like to pay a visit to their account and see what other unhinged nonsense they’re spewing under the guise of “spreading facts.”

Go Dan

"argument from silence" you mean if we have no data to indicate a thing happened then it probably didn't happen? That's a great argument actually

Could you make a video about the apologists involved in the writing of the Bible, up to the current Bible?

That poor guy is stressed right out 😅

Get his ass!

I also like saying a lot of words and having my ideas still make no forward progress.

We also know that Shakespeare probably didn't write all of the poetry and plays attributed to him, maybe none of it. And while this is historically interesting, it says nothing at all about the value of the writings.

I don't understand why so many people complain about name-calling. Insults have zero relevance to argument-merit. Insults from a Christian do nothing to hurt the case for Christianity, and insults from an atheist do not hurt the case for atheism. Don't we have enough maturity to simply ignore the insults and respond on the merits?

I actually felt sorry for this creator as he called out your name and you proceeded forward with detached discipline. You have persuasively impacted his beliefs. More deeply, he likes you and he doesn't know what to do with his beliefs or feelings. I give this creator one of the higher grades on engagement because, unlike so many you disassemble into the pit of "utter nonsense," this sweet fellow knows you have the superior argument.

Algormancy!

I'm afraid this creator is getting roundly hammered on social media for his lack of research. He's attacked Islam using a similar approach and should feel embarrassed at the results

The Revalation is written by John for sure

🕷🕷🦇🦇🕷🕷🦇🦇🕷🕷👍👍

Please, please, please, Dan, will you challenge this chum bucket to a debate 😂😂🙏🙏🙏.

What is there to say about apologists (or just any Christian) believing that logic is a trick of the devil?

Well. He seems mean.

I'm not sure why youtube is removing my comments. I've been trying to ask about the Papias reference and whether it actually says that (i am sire it does, but i was trying to point to a History Valley video which shows the quote where it doesnt appear to say quite that). I'll put the History Valley link in a separate reply below this one and see if iy works this time. It's very relevant to this because it's John Kloppenborg talking about Papias and how tjat might be a reference to Q. Link below, unless youtube deletes it again.

As I said in a comment in the original video, Christians have no good evidence for their authorship claims for any of the gospels. The best that they can do is come up with unsupported scenarios about how it is *plausible* that the assigned authors wrote the gospels. If they had good authorship evidence, they would simply present that, instead of coming up with ever more outlandish rescue mechanisms for their beliefs. In this case, being very butt-hurt while doing so.