Dude, that kind of behavior is utterly uncalled for-christian, atheist, or whomever. Good on you for calling it out. I’m glad you two were able to work it out and pick up the debate once more.
to be fair, he asked Dan to respond to the rest of the previous video where he said Dan lied/changed his position, from what i can tell the apology video is the newer one
@kentstallard6512 Well, two things can be true at once. I could be wrong about the apology, AND he can still be a terrible person. And I agree with you. Everything I have seen from him has been garbage.
While I disagree with Jakob's claims, I give him credit for his apology. He is the first apologist I have seen that has given an apology for making a wrong statement, conclusion, etc. There might be hope with him, lol.
Yeah . . . I have no desire to tell creators what they should and should not do, but I do not think there is ever going to be any sort of agreement here. I'm not even halfway into the video and I'm BORED.
I have never understood the propensity of some folks to take a scholarly argument so personally that they resort to uncivil discourse; e.g. harassing Jakob. The same sort of descent to incivility happens in politics as well, with the same result. The rational discussion of issues is drowned in a sea of vitriol and name calling.
Dan doesn’t need attack dogs. He can stick up for himself. The creator is demeaned by their followers if they go snapping at someone just for disagreeing. We can see the argument from here.
Its unfortunate that even with Dan's disclaimer on his videos to not attack and harass, people seem to glaze over that and ignore his request. Sorry to hear that and hopefully this reminder works to resolve that. Happy Wednesday.
Glad he apologized. Dan's responding to creators errors. Attacking or harassing those creators discourages them from engaging with that dialogue. It defeats the purpose of encouraging them to reevaluate their own positions. IMO.😊
Conservative, dogmatic sorts are kind of known for just accusing you of doing exactly what they are doing. They usually rip off your argument to accuse you of it, too. It's a very common strategy they employ. It's whataboutism, but with the "whatabout" removed.
This was what I came to the comments to say. Pretty much their entire repertoire is to choose the least likely interpretation, the least likely set of facts. Christians and projection. Any body surprised?
Pretty much the foundation of all modern apologetics. "Well, it's not IMPOSSIBLE. So I am justified in believing it and deriving all further arguments from it regardless of how improbable and undemonstrable the thing is." They recognize that they are relying on a bad epistemology which they would not accept in any other scenario. Because you would not feel a need to make this kind of argument if you didn't. But they're motivated to downplay how hypocritical the whole charade is. So the whole thing devolves into what we've seen here. An eternal wheel of suffering as the apologist is forced to retreat from one argument to the next.
This reminds of the Looney Tunes cartoon where Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog mercilessly pursue and attack each other until the work whistle blows, at which point they immediately and calmly stop, punch their timecards, and walk home together. It's not personal; it's business.
Except when you think you spot an erorr in your opponent's reasoning, you immediatly accuse them of intentionally lying. If you do that, then it is personal, because you're attacking the person's character, not their argument.
...I'm wearing a bizarro superman tee. I wear it all the time. It's my favorite. I'm taking same fit as a sign "Because you coward with no power, that make you our greatest hero!"
Wait... is Dan suggesting there are those who start with a dogmatic conclusion an gin up some sort of a "not impossible" argument for it? Have to admit, though, apologist bro is pretty striking looking. Suggest he take some acting lessons and head for tinsel town for a go.
@maklelan I get into so many arguments with Christians talking about paganism and misusing/misquoting the bible to do so. Any of your schooling delve into THAT area, or just the Biblical/Hebrew/Christianity side? Also, The term kyrios is an ancient Greek word that refers to the head of a household and is central to understanding social structure in ancient Greece. The kyrios was responsible for the family's property, wife, children, and unmarried female relatives. The kyrios was also responsible for arranging marriages for his female relatives, providing dowries, and representing them in court. Hence the loose usage for Lord.
I don't think there is any argument that triggers Christians more than telling them that Jesus is not a god on earth, but it goes that he was adopted by god to be accepted as divine, like an angel.
That's the thing. People like him have no inner dialogue. They just flap the hole on the front of their face and listen for the noises to learn what they were thinking. They're the same as the characters in shite TV shows who only appear to be conscious when they're on screen.
LXX = 70 = septuaginta in Latin. The full title in latin is Vetus Testamentum ex versione Septuaginta Interpretum ("The Old Testament from the version of the Seventy translators")
Honestly, the Divine Images stuff is pretty complicated and difficult to understand. It seems to be a dogma that has been superseded by the dogmas of the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union.
It's incomprehensible. Christology is the only subject I've studied that becomes less coherent and comprehensible the deeper I dived into it. Mixing Iron Age mythology and neo-Platonic philosophy results in a strange concoction.
You don't? 1. this exchange over social media is not a debate. A debate would have more structure and rules. 2. Meanness can be used in social exchanges to serve a different purpose. If you think about it, you'll get it. 3. Some things aren't always up for debate. For example, if my opponent thinks that people who are not men are not human.. we have a problem. At that point, it's not a debate. It's a "I will end you and remove this threat to my life and safety.' There is no polite or civilized response to an animal who claims that one is not human. (And yeah, the person who starts the dehumanization game is the animal. They forfeited their humanity the moment they refused to acknowledge the humanity of another person.)
I think there's a significant two-party debate frame of reference here contending with what Dan wants to shape as a three-party problem. For Jakob, it seems he wants to debate with Dan; the two parties being Jakob and Dan. For Dan, I think he sees it not as a tête-à-tête bilateral debate, but a circle of three parties; Jakob is sharing his perspective with Dan, Dan is sharing the perspective of the Scholarly Consensus, and Dan is guiding Jakob that the way to engage properly is to engage the Scholarly Consensus. In this frame of reference, the three parties are Dan, Jakob, and the Scholarly Consensus. Generally speaking the realm of faith, at least since the ecumenical councils, has been void of any broad consensus building institutions. Denominations are authorities until themselves and today many Evangelicals exist outside of that formal structure in an ambiguous web, often where funding and strength of voice creates more influence than credentials or mastery of the material. There's a huge gap simply because Jakob values individualistic understandings of these matters and Dan sees humanity more working in a concerted effort in the endeavors of knowledge.
this is an excellent way to put it and an excellent way to fix evangelicals. for me, it was ex-evangelical --> catholic-curious --> historical critical theory a la Bart Ehrman. im still a christian, but the whole way has been a pursuit of truth (critical) and a pursuit of authority (scholarly) and unity (consensus). Jesus literally prays his final prayer before the cross that Christians would be unified. the Reformation and now the position that practicef religion is a personal matter or that a personal relationship with jesus is all that Christianity is about has really poisoned the well on how the Christian religion is supposed to serve people
This a pretty broad sweep of the brush. What constitutes an "evangelical" is really somewhat nebulous, not only describing biblical innerantists and young earth creationists. That's who you seem to be talking about. Many who consider themselves to be evangelical do engage with critical scholarship, and some are scholars themselves. Traditionally, the terms "evangelical" and "evangelism" derive from the Greek euangelion, which is more about sharing good news of the faith. It's only in the last century or so that it has come to describe not only one's theology but also your political affiliation and literal (as opposed to literary and historical-contextual) interpretations of Scripture in reaction to secularity and (supposedly problematic) scientific discoveries. Even biblical inerrantists are not de facto literal readers of scripture. As far as I can tell, Jakob doesn't seem to fit into that characterization of "evangelical." Noll is a well-reputed historian who talks about the changing identity and meaning of "evangelical" in North America. Would recommend everyone here check out his work! Not always the most accessible, Noll being a historian and researcher, but very insightful. With that in mind, evangelicals are not this uniform group that has isolated itself from scholarship. The branch of evangelicals that sees the Bible as perfectly historically and scientifically accurate book is the one that is held up often as the straw man of Christian biblical understanding when it certainly does not represent the whole. Not sure what background you are coming from, but I just wanted to challenge this characterization of (supposed) evangelicals.
My only comment is that Dan drops the ball on this often. He continually makes statements that any reasonable person would interpret as him stating a personal position and then, when called on it, retreats to the statement that it is the consensus view. It would be refreshing to understand Dan's actual position; yes he states that the rhetorical goals of this channel is to relay the consensus view as he sees it, but if that is the case it would be beneficial if he was more careful about making himself clear. Dan has made it clear that he is not interested in debate. He understands that debate is far more about who is a better debater than who is the stronger subject matter expert. Nothing wrong with a man knowing his limitations.
@@oltedders it's the only way to explain the inconsistencies in the Bible. If you start with Yahweh being an insecure local diety exaggerating his accomplishments, everything else makes sense. Even the contradictions can be explained by him just not being able to keep his lies straight.
@Grauenwolf Amazing how an irascible Titan of the Sinai in a typical bronze age pantheon, hurling thunderbolts, ends up with more accretions than a warm camel turd rolling down a sand dune.
Of what use is an apology, even a sincere one, if you are simply going to continue in the same vein? He is still quite deliberately misquoting Dan and misrepresenting the text.
Pay better attention. There are two different videos from Jakob here. First is his apology, then is a continuation of the older video that sparked the dispute. If anyone is being disingenuous, its Dan who pretends to accept the apology but then wouldn't drop it.
@@byrondickens Having taken a second look, I see your are correct. However, I will modify my comment only slightly. What is the point of an apology for one part of what was said if he fail to recognise that he makes the same type of errors in the rest of his video? As for Dan not 'dropping it', the whole point of this exchange is Jakob claiming Dan is wrong. Why should Dan drop it if Jakob has not recognised his error? That would mean Dan acknowledged Jakob's argument as valid.
Glad I was sitting down while watching this. An apologist admitting a mistake and apologising for it? That's certainly not something I see every day. At least it now convinces me that Jakob was genuinely confused rather than intentionally being dishonest. However, the fact that he immediately assumed Dan was Lying and publically accused him of such, rather than seeking clarification of any potential confusion, doesn't reflect well on Jakob's overall character and willingness to engage in good faith.
No, he is intellectually dishonest. He apologized to save face then jumped right back into his smug sophistry. Apologists are inherently dishonest. It's a feature not a bug.
He isn’t a Christian, he’s a wolf masquerading as a sheep, leading people astray. His life’s mission is to steer people from the Lord. I hope he changes. We should pray for Dan, I will rn
In no way do I mean this in bad faith, I'm just very curious... what is Jacob's accent? It's very unique and I dont think I've heard it before, does anyone know?
I think people are just confused by you representing the scholarship and not your own opinion, they just don't grok it. Most of what you say requires careful concentration to the details of what you're saying and sadly most people don't have much practice on that area. Maybe you could try using some kind of visual indicator every time you switch between telling what the scholarship says and what your personal opinion or response is, just to make it explicit? It must be tiresome having to correct people all the time.
How many times are you gonna spam this crap? A holes like you are why public discourse has degenerated to the level it has. Let the man apologize. Back when the world was civilized, people could put disagreements behind them and move on.
Question for all religious folk: Would you rather be right, or would you rather be happy, filled with the love and joy of Jesus? Why all the focus on where we might disagree, rather than stand together as 1 bride?
When what you agree about is a message of self hatred, I'm content to continue fighting against you. We can be friends when you stop telling people they were born sinners and only human sacrifice can absolve them.
If that is all the case, that none of this matters except my experience in Christ, then why read scripture at all? What’s the point of holy writ? If you argue that scriptures bring one closer to Christ and that is their purpose, then understanding the context of those scriptures are of utmost importance. How can I know how to use the scriptures to situate myself in Christ if I don’t know what the authors’ meant? Your argument is ultimately one of moral relativism. If every person can point to their own idiosyncratic experience with Christ as somehow fully authoritative, devoid of some sort of shared referent, then each of us can bend the teachings of Christ, to mean almost anything as long as it’s how I “ feel“.
@@bradleythornock8627 the scriptures are not meant to be read. You can call them to win an argument, but there's no way to read them without coming to the conclusion that Yahweh is evil. So you don't, you just pick and choose the passages that make you feel good and ignore the rest.
@@bradleythornock8627 Christ in us doesn't allow all the evil and the disrespect. There is no sin here! Discard religion, it is EVIL and suppresive. Allow Christ in you, to lead the way. You don't have to situate yourself in Christ. Let Him situate himself in you. Stop trying to earn salvation. It's not you place 😀. There is no sin here
God is Good!!! I just Acquired a new House also receiving $52K bi-weekly profits. Despite all the financial struggles i and my family faced, everything is finally falling into place I'm so grateful to God.
After I raised up to 325k trading with her I bought a new House and a car here in the states 🇺🇸🇺🇸 also paid for my daughter's surgery (Joey). Glory to God.shalom.
Dan points out the reason why people should not be relying on Mark for their theology. Let’s reframe Marks narrative to fit 2024. Disciples “Gee Jesus you are wonderful, are you the messiah” Jesus “Shh, don’t tell people that” Later in the story Jesus “My god, my god, why have you foresaken me” In the afterlife God “Wake up dude we have to go” Jesus “You let me die” God “It’s Ok, I’m going to give you a promotion” Jesus “I’m dead, dude, sleepy-sleepy. Too late for promotions, anyway what is that”? God “You know that Messiah thing you were denying” Jesus 🤦♂️ God “No, for real” Jesus “Messiahs are not supposed to die before people recognize them” God “Yeah, err, well I changed that” Jesus “I didn’t get the memo” God “My goat ate it” Jesus “😳, so anyway, none of your chosen people will believe this” God “err, well, you see, I changed my mind on that also” Jesus “On what?” God “well you see I kind of made it hard for the Jews to recognize you, but as a concession I made it easy for the random gentiles to recognize you” Jesus “You mean like Samaritans and Lost tribesmen” God “Err, no, I made it easiest for the illiterate guy in Corinth who carries the honeypots to realize you’re the messiah” Jesus “seriously?” Three years later. God “Hmm, OK, I found this guy by the name of Paul. I’ll send him to the desert for three years, then you can tell him what you want” Jesus 🤦♂️”You tell him, I’m going back to sleep, wake me up when you get this strategy all worked out” God walks away mumbling “I should have given this job to haSatan, what an interrogation” Satan off in the distance “Dude, you cut me loose, I’m down here with all the other gods you drop kicked along the way” God “Damn”. Satan whispers “I wonder if he knows I was talking to both of them in the desert” 2000 years later. At a table in some corner of heaven scribbling noises can be heard “Shit, that doesn’t work either. Hey Gabriel have you seen this Jesus fellow?” …..”No?” …..”When did he leave?” Somewhere behind a bush in the garden of Eden “He’ll never find us here” On a more serious note. The problem with Mark begins when one tries to find Marks sources. We have source material for Luke and Matthew, Luke having as many as a dozen sources, the major ones are Mark, The shared material, Marcion’s Evaggelion, the source material for Acts, Antiquities. Even though these authors had sources they still managed to introduce errors. There are only a few things in Mark that appears to be to be uncorrupted. 1. Jesus was baptized 2. He spoke in parables and explained then in private. 3. The Herodians did not like him 4. He was executed. The rest of the narrative is BS, seriously. The timeline is wrong, the stories in the Q are significantly altered, the passion narrative does not agree with late second temple practices. No one sees the resurrected Jesus, the women go away and tell no one, which contradicts 1 cor 15.
It's all good. Enough anger hate over religion. Nice he apologized. A rare thing on goof tube chat . The original Septuagint 72 rabbis were forced to translate into Greek was only Genesis to Deuteronomy only.. The Lxx Septuagint later was put together by Hellenistic apostates Greeks. תודה רבה
Honestly, you two just need to get face to face and get it over with. Dan does often talk about the target audience. It seems to me that the target audience of Mark (or any other book mentioned) and perhaps even the author of Mark himself would lack the linguistic, philosophical, and intellectual sophistication to recognize these two presented arguments as anything other than synonymous. This is why we have post Biblical innovations in the first place. An honest question for Dan, is it reasonable to hypothesize that the author of Mark modified the passages in question to accommodate Greco-Roman koine Greek manners of speech and dialect that existed in the local geographic area at the time of authorship? If that IS a reasonable hypothesis, do we have enough information about that particular dialect to begin to look at the text at this level of granularity?
He's from another country (Norway or Sweden maybe?) where that may be the customary spelling. Even if not, usually the spelling of one's name is the choice of the parents and not the person bearing the name. Either way, the criticism seems rather petty.
@@weebunny It is 100% fine. I would not make such stupid jokes if I didn't get people to grouse at me for it. Win win win. Also I apologize for being a card.
Rashi explains that this is the angel Metatron, whose name is like the name of his Master. This is childishly simple. In fact, Rashi clarifies the simple meaning of the text so that a bright child of five could understand it. Come on Gentiles. Let's do better.
Then why does it contradict what Jesus said according to the other gospels? And if Jesus is Yahweh, why does it also contradict the Old Testament? Your claim presupposes that Jesus is insane, possibly with a multiple personality disorder.
@@gabbygood6813 Jesus said that no law would be changed until the end of time. Jesus said to hate your parents. Yahweh said to honor your parents and his words was law. The contradictions are easy to see. You just blind yourself to them because they hurt you.
@Grauenwolf I no longer have pain of any kind. Not sadness, not anger, nothing but perfect peace. I understand your frustration tho. I remember what it was like before God took it all away from me so I do understand it. ( If your parents tell you to go against the teachings of Christ then they are not your true family. Your family is anyone who follows the commandments of God.)
Contextually Jeshu' has been passed the keys and has full authority. Contextual changes included. In kindergarten I was taught a couple of things about Yeshu' I hold true to this day. One, he/she performed works that were preordained. Two, he/she is the olive branch. Three, his/her name is Emmanuel. It is of immense profit to have someone educated in language to explain what everything means. I'm more of a what's good for the goose is good for the gander kind of guy myself. And thank you! (so to the first reply: starting with the deluge; without anything breathing you can kiss your firmament goodbye. A vacuum leaving things looking like either freezing or boiling soup, or both. I didn't pull that name out of thin air. Think again. It's interesting how the lords favorite left Israel without a king. Yet to this day Israel and the world over try to subvert that fact. Purely to satiate some requirement for carnage. Overkill being the only suitable entertainment. Demands made and met by people that can't even procure their own meals. It's shamelessness far beyond depravity. Throwing their petty stones till the very end, and burning everything down around their selves. To the second reply: deleting comments isn't mythology, and the only thing clung to is boot licking back stabbing.)
Can anything breathe on a world covered in water? No, therefore kiss your firmament goodbye; and hello to frozen or boiling soup.... I was there man. (btw i didn't pull that name from thin air. THINK AGAIN). Interesting how how the Lords favorite left Israel without a king. Israel still looking to subvert that somehow, and people round' the world just the same. Through carnage no less. Something that doesn't stand a chance (like kittens thrown to pit fighting dogs, total over kill) for entertainment purposes. Incapable of producing their own meals, demanding carnage. It's shamelessness beyond depravity. Hurling their petty stones. For that reason man is helpless against himself. Quite deservedly.
@@josefpollard6271 The firmament is above you. It's what holds back the water that makes the sky blue. Climate change was caused when we sent spaceships into orbit, breaking holes into the firmament and disrupting the water cycle.
Dude, that kind of behavior is utterly uncalled for-christian, atheist, or whomever. Good on you for calling it out. I’m glad you two were able to work it out and pick up the debate once more.
Nothing like apologizing for arguing in bad faith to the go on and argue in bad faith.
to be fair, he asked Dan to respond to the rest of the previous video where he said Dan lied/changed his position, from what i can tell the apology video is the newer one
@lukeyboiii ah, you may be right. I may have been mistaken. If that is the case, my bad.
No you are not mistaken.
This guy is intellectually dishonest. Period. He apologized to save face.
Apologists are INHERENTLY DISHONEST.
@kentstallard6512 Well, two things can be true at once. I could be wrong about the apology, AND he can still be a terrible person. And I agree with you. Everything I have seen from him has been garbage.
While I disagree with Jakob's claims, I give him credit for his apology. He is the first apologist I have seen that has given an apology for making a wrong statement, conclusion, etc. There might be hope with him, lol.
A tactic. He's intellectually dishonest.
Dan, please make this the last response. You are able to teach everyone so much more besides arguing with that person.
Yeah . . . I have no desire to tell creators what they should and should not do, but I do not think there is ever going to be any sort of agreement here. I'm not even halfway into the video and I'm BORED.
But Dan doesn’t teach anything because his message is contrary to the Bible. He’s only deceived people, he is not educating people.
Yeah, I have the least fun with the "responding to" videos.
I hope people continue to let these talks happen. Dont harass people you dont agree with. Thank you Dan for all your videos. Love them. Helps so much
I have never understood the propensity of some folks to take a scholarly argument so personally that they resort to uncivil discourse; e.g. harassing Jakob. The same sort of descent to incivility happens in politics as well, with the same result. The rational discussion of issues is drowned in a sea of vitriol and name calling.
Dan doesn’t need attack dogs. He can stick up for himself. The creator is demeaned by their followers if they go snapping at someone just for disagreeing. We can see the argument from here.
Its unfortunate that even with Dan's disclaimer on his videos to not attack and harass, people seem to glaze over that and ignore his request. Sorry to hear that and hopefully this reminder works to resolve that. Happy Wednesday.
If god is Kyrios then Jakob is a kyriopractor.
I admire your approach and explanation.
I was hoping that Jakob would end his response by saying, "The fit for this video was NASA !"
So far, Jakob is better than IP.
Granted the bar IP set is about 15 feet under the floor
Maybe not related but Jakob’s hair and beard are so on point. I have full beard envy.
That beard has restored my faith in humanity.
The scholarly consensus, my 4 month old grandson and me, puts Jakob well ahead on the beard scale.
@@sillyrabbit77 Same here
Ahh, argument from personal follicularity!
Glad he apologized. Dan's responding to creators errors. Attacking or harassing those creators discourages them from engaging with that dialogue. It defeats the purpose of encouraging them to reevaluate their own positions. IMO.😊
7:08 - Jakob critiques Dan by saying he's making "an argument based on what is not impossible" - Basically a good chunk of christian apologetics
Conservative, dogmatic sorts are kind of known for just accusing you of doing exactly what they are doing. They usually rip off your argument to accuse you of it, too. It's a very common strategy they employ. It's whataboutism, but with the "whatabout" removed.
This was what I came to the comments to say.
Pretty much their entire repertoire is to choose the least likely interpretation, the least likely set of facts.
Christians and projection. Any body surprised?
Pretty much the foundation of all modern apologetics. "Well, it's not IMPOSSIBLE. So I am justified in believing it and deriving all further arguments from it regardless of how improbable and undemonstrable the thing is."
They recognize that they are relying on a bad epistemology which they would not accept in any other scenario. Because you would not feel a need to make this kind of argument if you didn't. But they're motivated to downplay how hypocritical the whole charade is. So the whole thing devolves into what we've seen here. An eternal wheel of suffering as the apologist is forced to retreat from one argument to the next.
Good on him for apologizing that was amazing
Insincere tactic to save face. He's intellectually dishonest.
@kentstallard6512 that is very possible but we shall see if he make another video
Possible?
It's obvious.
While I have not harrassed Jakob I must admit that I was wrong and totally did not expect his apology. So now he deserves my compliment.
No he doesn't. He remains intellectually dishonest.
@ KentS: that was not what my comment was about.
This reminds of the Looney Tunes cartoon where Ralph Wolf and Sam Sheepdog mercilessly pursue and attack each other until the work whistle blows, at which point they immediately and calmly stop, punch their timecards, and walk home together. It's not personal; it's business.
One of my favorites!
Except when you think you spot an erorr in your opponent's reasoning, you immediatly accuse them of intentionally lying. If you do that, then it is personal, because you're attacking the person's character, not their argument.
@@1970PhoenixExcept ALL apologists are intellectually dishonest.
It's a prerequisite.
Such a rare sight seeing an apologist actually apologising. Good on him
A tactic. He's intellectually dishonest.
Very thoughtful. I love the respect. ❤
...I'm wearing a bizarro superman tee. I wear it all the time. It's my favorite. I'm taking same fit as a sign
"Because you coward with no power, that make you our greatest hero!"
Classy as always Dan
Schrodinger's chips
And thus ended the Religious Beard Wards...
It's nice to see this!
Dan's beard is graying. And I think thats neat
I have no interest in visiting Jakob's pages.
Another C- for a stubborn student.
🕵♂️ Fun Fact: Dan owns 3 SpongeBob shirts 😉
Wait... is Dan suggesting there are those who start with a dogmatic conclusion an gin up some sort of a "not impossible" argument for it? Have to admit, though, apologist bro is pretty striking looking. Suggest he take some acting lessons and head for tinsel town for a go.
❤❤❤❤❤❤ thanks Dan!!!
Can i comment on his appearance if it's about how good his beard is?
His beard is marvellous and impressive!
It is indeed very good. Allowable (unless one is being weird).
That is a beard of Biblical proportions.
@oltedders on par with the beard of the Ancient of Days
@Greyz174
Michelangelo couldn't outdo that magnificent beard.
@maklelan
I get into so many arguments with Christians talking about paganism and misusing/misquoting the bible to do so. Any of your schooling delve into THAT area, or just the Biblical/Hebrew/Christianity side?
Also, The term kyrios is an ancient Greek word that refers to the head of a household and is central to understanding social structure in ancient Greece. The kyrios was responsible for the family's property, wife, children, and unmarried female relatives. The kyrios was also responsible for arranging marriages for his female relatives, providing dowries, and representing them in court. Hence the loose usage for Lord.
So similar to the Roman role of the paterfamilias? (No idea if spelled correctly.)
@wartgin similar.
I don't think there is any argument that triggers Christians more than telling them that Jesus is not a god on earth, but it goes that he was adopted by god to be accepted as divine, like an angel.
Somehow a bizzare post-biblical dogma became the litmus test for Christianity.
Can we get a Dogma Gin alcohol brand created? 😎
Don't sound so smug when you are wrong Jake. You are obviously punching way above your weight here. Also this is what internal dialogue is meant for.
That's the thing. People like him have no inner dialogue. They just flap the hole on the front of their face and listen for the noises to learn what they were thinking. They're the same as the characters in shite TV shows who only appear to be conscious when they're on screen.
Question; why in some commentaries the Septuagint referred to as "LXX"
LXX = 70 = septuaginta in Latin. The full title in latin is Vetus Testamentum ex versione Septuaginta Interpretum ("The Old Testament from the version of the Seventy translators")
Now I'm craving potato chips....
I'm craving fries
GREAT FOR BOTH OF YOU.
Dan isn't intellectually dishonest.
truly you have a dizzying intellect
“Wait ‘til [he] gets going!”
The Princess Bride. Classic ❤️
Not responding under somone's videos ? That's not fair, that's why the YT comment are there for.
You are one of the most patient people online.
Possibly one of the most patient people on earth.
Honestly, the Divine Images stuff is pretty complicated and difficult to understand. It seems to be a dogma that has been superseded by the dogmas of the Trinity and the Hypostatic Union.
It's incomprehensible.
Christology is the only subject I've studied that becomes less coherent and comprehensible the deeper I dived into it.
Mixing Iron Age mythology and neo-Platonic philosophy results in a strange concoction.
credit where credit's due - he apologised for his mistake. That's way more than some other apologists I can think of.
There's nothing more sad than an unapologetic apologist.
(sorry.)
@@stephenspackman5573 sad clown?
@@stephenspackman5573
And sadly they are far too numerous.
A tactic. Not sincere.
@@kentstallard6512 and who are you to decide that
Jacob would've made a great Jehovahs Witness
Magnanimous of you, Dan!
Too generous. This guy isn't sincere.
How do you spell your name Dr. Dan? Ooh..I know... C-L-A-S-S-Y.
Terima kasih.
I don't get people who purposefully harass people. I get a healthy and friendly debate, but not being mean. That serves no purpose at all.
You don't? 1. this exchange over social media is not a debate. A debate would have more structure and rules. 2. Meanness can be used in social exchanges to serve a different purpose. If you think about it, you'll get it. 3. Some things aren't always up for debate. For example, if my opponent thinks that people who are not men are not human.. we have a problem. At that point, it's not a debate. It's a "I will end you and remove this threat to my life and safety.' There is no polite or civilized response to an animal who claims that one is not human.
(And yeah, the person who starts the dehumanization game is the animal. They forfeited their humanity the moment they refused to acknowledge the humanity of another person.)
The Man (With Arguments) of Steel!
I think there's a significant two-party debate frame of reference here contending with what Dan wants to shape as a three-party problem. For Jakob, it seems he wants to debate with Dan; the two parties being Jakob and Dan. For Dan, I think he sees it not as a tête-à-tête bilateral debate, but a circle of three parties; Jakob is sharing his perspective with Dan, Dan is sharing the perspective of the Scholarly Consensus, and Dan is guiding Jakob that the way to engage properly is to engage the Scholarly Consensus. In this frame of reference, the three parties are Dan, Jakob, and the Scholarly Consensus. Generally speaking the realm of faith, at least since the ecumenical councils, has been void of any broad consensus building institutions. Denominations are authorities until themselves and today many Evangelicals exist outside of that formal structure in an ambiguous web, often where funding and strength of voice creates more influence than credentials or mastery of the material. There's a huge gap simply because Jakob values individualistic understandings of these matters and Dan sees humanity more working in a concerted effort in the endeavors of knowledge.
No. It's like a high school basketball player challenging LeBron James to enhance his own image.
@@kentstallard6512 And LeBron spending a few minutes on the court with him and then pointing the poor guy to the NBA Draft Combine.
this is an excellent way to put it and an excellent way to fix evangelicals. for me, it was ex-evangelical --> catholic-curious --> historical critical theory a la Bart Ehrman.
im still a christian, but the whole way has been a pursuit of truth (critical) and a pursuit of authority (scholarly) and unity (consensus).
Jesus literally prays his final prayer before the cross that Christians would be unified. the Reformation and now the position that practicef religion is a personal matter or that a personal relationship with jesus is all that Christianity is about has really poisoned the well on how the Christian religion is supposed to serve people
This a pretty broad sweep of the brush. What constitutes an "evangelical" is really somewhat nebulous, not only describing biblical innerantists and young earth creationists. That's who you seem to be talking about. Many who consider themselves to be evangelical do engage with critical scholarship, and some are scholars themselves.
Traditionally, the terms "evangelical" and "evangelism" derive from the Greek euangelion, which is more about sharing good news of the faith. It's only in the last century or so that it has come to describe not only one's theology but also your political affiliation and literal (as opposed to literary and historical-contextual) interpretations of Scripture in reaction to secularity and (supposedly problematic) scientific discoveries. Even biblical inerrantists are not de facto literal readers of scripture. As far as I can tell, Jakob doesn't seem to fit into that characterization of "evangelical." Noll is a well-reputed historian who talks about the changing identity and meaning of "evangelical" in North America. Would recommend everyone here check out his work! Not always the most accessible, Noll being a historian and researcher, but very insightful.
With that in mind, evangelicals are not this uniform group that has isolated itself from scholarship. The branch of evangelicals that sees the Bible as perfectly historically and scientifically accurate book is the one that is held up often as the straw man of Christian biblical understanding when it certainly does not represent the whole.
Not sure what background you are coming from, but I just wanted to challenge this characterization of (supposed) evangelicals.
My only comment is that Dan drops the ball on this often. He continually makes statements that any reasonable person would interpret as him stating a personal position and then, when called on it, retreats to the statement that it is the consensus view. It would be refreshing to understand Dan's actual position; yes he states that the rhetorical goals of this channel is to relay the consensus view as he sees it, but if that is the case it would be beneficial if he was more careful about making himself clear.
Dan has made it clear that he is not interested in debate. He understands that debate is far more about who is a better debater than who is the stronger subject matter expert. Nothing wrong with a man knowing his limitations.
Hmm I stand corrected! I'm happy about that! 😁
Jakob's from Scandinavia. Shouldn't he be praying to Odin?
Ass a hispano I'll worship Bachue, the kkkhristian myth is too bloody...😇
Only if he is still living there. God are local. If you move to a different city you should be praying to the god of your new home.
@@Grauenwolf
Ah! The tutelary deities.
@@oltedders it's the only way to explain the inconsistencies in the Bible. If you start with Yahweh being an insecure local diety exaggerating his accomplishments, everything else makes sense.
Even the contradictions can be explained by him just not being able to keep his lies straight.
@Grauenwolf
Amazing how an irascible Titan of the Sinai in a typical bronze age pantheon, hurling thunderbolts, ends up with more accretions than a warm camel turd rolling down a sand dune.
Nice
Dan, you are an example of how to behave, thank you
Well done, lads. What do the kids say these days? Very demure. Very mindful. Very classy. 😂
These unlearned people please sit down🙄🙄🙄
Of what use is an apology, even a sincere one, if you are simply going to continue in the same vein? He is still quite deliberately misquoting Dan and misrepresenting the text.
THANK YOU!
No one else is noting this. The apology was tactical not sincere. He's still intellectually dishonest.
Pay better attention. There are two different videos from Jakob here. First is his apology, then is a continuation of the older video that sparked the dispute.
If anyone is being disingenuous, its Dan who pretends to accept the apology but then wouldn't drop it.
@@byrondickens True. But Dan says that Jakob wanted to talk about the rest of his video. So pay better attention I guess.
@@byrondickens Having taken a second look, I see your are correct.
However, I will modify my comment only slightly.
What is the point of an apology for one part of what was said if he fail to recognise that he makes the same type of errors in the rest of his video?
As for Dan not 'dropping it', the whole point of this exchange is Jakob claiming Dan is wrong. Why should Dan drop it if Jakob has not recognised his error? That would mean Dan acknowledged Jakob's argument as valid.
@@byrondickens
BS.
Dan is not dishonest.
Troll.
And the arguments against Dan have been Bizarro.
Religion is bizzaro.
Nice. Thanks Dan. ❤
Well done guys!
Well done Dan. The other guy remains intellectually dishonest.
Glad I was sitting down while watching this. An apologist admitting a mistake and apologising for it? That's certainly not something I see every day. At least it now convinces me that Jakob was genuinely confused rather than intentionally being dishonest. However, the fact that he immediately assumed Dan was Lying and publically accused him of such, rather than seeking clarification of any potential confusion, doesn't reflect well on Jakob's overall character and willingness to engage in good faith.
Yeah well, Dan thinking anyone who believes in the trinity is gay bashing isn't great either. No one is perfect.
No, he is intellectually dishonest.
He apologized to save face then jumped right back into his smug sophistry.
Apologists are inherently dishonest. It's a feature not a bug.
@@ronjones1414 I have a feeling you might be slightly misrepresenting Dan's view here.
@@1970Phoenix Of course I was?
Unbelief man watch yourself
He isn’t a Christian, he’s a wolf masquerading as a sheep, leading people astray. His life’s mission is to steer people from the Lord. I hope he changes. We should pray for Dan, I will rn
In no way do I mean this in bad faith, I'm just very curious... what is Jacob's accent? It's very unique and I dont think I've heard it before, does anyone know?
That's what I'm trying to figure out
Idk man... That beard is divine asf absolute perfection
I think people are just confused by you representing the scholarship and not your own opinion, they just don't grok it.
Most of what you say requires careful concentration to the details of what you're saying and sadly most people don't have much practice on that area.
Maybe you could try using some kind of visual indicator every time you switch between telling what the scholarship says and what your personal opinion or response is, just to make it explicit?
It must be tiresome having to correct people all the time.
The apologists don't want to understand. They are propagandists. Not truth seekers.
❤Jakob! I knew you were a good man! ❤
No. He's intellectually dishonest.
The apology is a tactic to save face.
Bro always makes hareful inflammatory comments then pretends he is a nice guy ooook
Oof, super cringy of people to go from these videos to heckle whoever Dan's responding to.
Dan is too generous.
This guy is trying to save face.
He's intellectually dishonest.
How many times are you gonna spam this crap? A holes like you are why public discourse has degenerated to the level it has. Let the man apologize. Back when the world was civilized, people could put disagreements behind them and move on.
Question for all religious folk: Would you rather be right, or would you rather be happy, filled with the love and joy of Jesus?
Why all the focus on where we might disagree, rather than stand together as 1 bride?
When what you agree about is a message of self hatred, I'm content to continue fighting against you.
We can be friends when you stop telling people they were born sinners and only human sacrifice can absolve them.
If that is all the case, that none of this matters except my experience in Christ, then why read scripture at all? What’s the point of holy writ?
If you argue that scriptures bring one closer to Christ and that is their purpose, then understanding the context of those scriptures are of utmost importance. How can I know how to use the scriptures to situate myself in Christ if I don’t know what the authors’ meant?
Your argument is ultimately one of moral relativism. If every person can point to their own idiosyncratic experience with Christ as somehow fully authoritative, devoid of some sort of shared referent, then each of us can bend the teachings of Christ, to mean almost anything as long as it’s how I “ feel“.
@@bradleythornock8627 the scriptures are not meant to be read. You can call them to win an argument, but there's no way to read them without coming to the conclusion that Yahweh is evil. So you don't, you just pick and choose the passages that make you feel good and ignore the rest.
@@Grauenwolf There is no sin here, is my motto. Chist in us, and we in Him. This is a learning curve, not religious damnation, hence the question.
@@bradleythornock8627 Christ in us doesn't allow all the evil and the disrespect. There is no sin here! Discard religion, it is EVIL and suppresive. Allow Christ in you, to lead the way. You don't have to situate yourself in Christ. Let Him situate himself in you. Stop trying to earn salvation. It's not you place 😀. There is no sin here
God is Good!!! I just Acquired a new House also receiving $52K bi-weekly profits. Despite all the financial struggles i and my family faced, everything is finally falling into place I'm so grateful to God.
It's Christina Ann Tucker doing she's changed my life. A BROKER- like her is what you need.
After I raised up to 325k trading with her I bought a new House and a car here in the states 🇺🇸🇺🇸 also paid for my daughter's surgery (Joey). Glory to God.shalom.
I do know Christina A. Tucker, I also have even become successful....
Absolutely! I've heard stories of people who started with little to no knowledge but made it out victoriously thanks to Christina Ann Tucker.
How do I get connection to this woman you speak about!!?
Dan points out the reason why people should not be relying on Mark for their theology.
Let’s reframe Marks narrative to fit 2024.
Disciples “Gee Jesus you are wonderful, are you the messiah”
Jesus “Shh, don’t tell people that”
Later in the story
Jesus “My god, my god, why have you foresaken me”
In the afterlife
God “Wake up dude we have to go”
Jesus “You let me die”
God “It’s Ok, I’m going to give you a promotion”
Jesus “I’m dead, dude, sleepy-sleepy. Too late for promotions, anyway what is that”?
God “You know that Messiah thing you were denying”
Jesus 🤦♂️
God “No, for real”
Jesus “Messiahs are not supposed to die before people recognize them”
God “Yeah, err, well I changed that”
Jesus “I didn’t get the memo”
God “My goat ate it”
Jesus “😳, so anyway, none of your chosen people will believe this”
God “err, well, you see, I changed my mind on that also”
Jesus “On what?”
God “well you see I kind of made it hard for the Jews to recognize you, but as a concession I made it easy for the random gentiles to recognize you”
Jesus “You mean like Samaritans and Lost tribesmen”
God “Err, no, I made it easiest for the illiterate guy in Corinth who carries the honeypots to realize you’re the messiah”
Jesus “seriously?”
Three years later.
God “Hmm, OK, I found this guy by the name of Paul. I’ll send him to the desert for three years, then you can tell him what you want”
Jesus 🤦♂️”You tell him, I’m going back to sleep, wake me up when you get this strategy all worked out”
God walks away mumbling “I should have given this job to haSatan, what an interrogation”
Satan off in the distance “Dude, you cut me loose, I’m down here with all the other gods you drop kicked along the way”
God “Damn”.
Satan whispers “I wonder if he knows I was talking to both of them in the desert”
2000 years later.
At a table in some corner of heaven scribbling noises can be heard “Shit, that doesn’t work either. Hey Gabriel have you seen this Jesus fellow?” …..”No?” …..”When did he leave?”
Somewhere behind a bush in the garden of Eden “He’ll never find us here”
On a more serious note. The problem with Mark begins when one tries to find Marks sources. We have source material for Luke and Matthew, Luke having as many as a dozen sources, the major ones are Mark, The shared material, Marcion’s Evaggelion, the source material for Acts, Antiquities. Even though these authors had sources they still managed to introduce errors. There are only a few things in Mark that appears to be to be uncorrupted.
1. Jesus was baptized
2. He spoke in parables and explained then in private.
3. The Herodians did not like him
4. He was executed.
The rest of the narrative is BS, seriously. The timeline is wrong, the stories in the Q are significantly altered, the passion narrative does not agree with late second temple practices. No one sees the resurrected Jesus, the women go away and tell no one, which contradicts 1 cor 15.
It's ALL BS.
Absurd mythology.
It's all good.
Enough anger hate over religion.
Nice he apologized.
A rare thing on goof tube chat .
The original Septuagint 72 rabbis were forced to translate into Greek was only Genesis to Deuteronomy only..
The Lxx Septuagint later was put together by Hellenistic apostates Greeks.
תודה רבה
No it's not. He's intellectually dishonest and the apology was to save face.
All apologists are dishonest. It's a prerequisite.
Honestly, you two just need to get face to face and get it over with.
Dan does often talk about the target audience. It seems to me that the target audience of Mark (or any other book mentioned) and perhaps even the author of Mark himself would lack the linguistic, philosophical, and intellectual sophistication to recognize these two presented arguments as anything other than synonymous. This is why we have post Biblical innovations in the first place.
An honest question for Dan, is it reasonable to hypothesize that the author of Mark modified the passages in question to accommodate Greco-Roman koine Greek manners of speech and dialect that existed in the local geographic area at the time of authorship? If that IS a reasonable hypothesis, do we have enough information about that particular dialect to begin to look at the text at this level of granularity?
It's over. Dishonest, smug sophist debunked.
Does he really spell it with a K, Lame.
He's from another country (Norway or Sweden maybe?) where that may be the customary spelling. Even if not, usually the spelling of one's name is the choice of the parents and not the person bearing the name. Either way, the criticism seems rather petty.
Hey, wait a second... I just looked at your handle. Maybe you were making a joke? My apologies.
@@weebunny It is 100% fine. I would not make such stupid jokes if I didn't get people to grouse at me for it.
Win win win.
Also I apologize for being a card.
@@JakobVirgil Hey, don't worry about it, I laughed pretty hard! I could have deleted my comment but I thought you'd get a kick out of it 😄
@@weebunny win
Rashi explains that this is the angel Metatron, whose name is like the name of his Master. This is childishly simple. In fact, Rashi clarifies the simple meaning of the text so that a bright child of five could understand it. Come on Gentiles. Let's do better.
Let's do better and drop the absurd, barbaric mythology.
The messenger might be John but the message is from Jesus
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
Then why does it contradict what Jesus said according to the other gospels?
And if Jesus is Yahweh, why does it also contradict the Old Testament?
Your claim presupposes that Jesus is insane, possibly with a multiple personality disorder.
@Grauenwolf Jesus is not God. There are no contradictions only those who cannot see.
@@gabbygood6813 Jesus said that no law would be changed until the end of time. Jesus said to hate your parents. Yahweh said to honor your parents and his words was law.
The contradictions are easy to see. You just blind yourself to them because they hurt you.
@Grauenwolf I no longer have pain of any kind. Not sadness, not anger, nothing but perfect peace. I understand your frustration tho. I remember what it was like before God took it all away from me so I do understand it. ( If your parents tell you to go against the teachings of Christ then they are not your true family. Your family is anyone who follows the commandments of God.)
Contextually Jeshu' has been passed the keys and has full authority. Contextual changes included. In kindergarten I was taught a couple of things about Yeshu' I hold true to this day. One, he/she performed works that were preordained. Two, he/she is the olive branch. Three, his/her name is Emmanuel. It is of immense profit to have someone educated in language to explain what everything means. I'm more of a what's good for the goose is good for the gander kind of guy myself. And thank you! (so to the first reply: starting with the deluge; without anything breathing you can kiss your firmament goodbye. A vacuum leaving things looking like either freezing or boiling soup, or both. I didn't pull that name out of thin air. Think again. It's interesting how the lords favorite left Israel without a king. Yet to this day Israel and the world over try to subvert that fact. Purely to satiate some requirement for carnage. Overkill being the only suitable entertainment. Demands made and met by people that can't even procure their own meals. It's shamelessness far beyond depravity. Throwing their petty stones till the very end, and burning everything down around their selves. To the second reply: deleting comments isn't mythology, and the only thing clung to is boot licking back stabbing.)
Was Jesus ever called Emmanuel when he was alive?
No. He never bore that name. So either you have the wrong prophecy or the wrong guy.
Can anything breathe on a world covered in water? No, therefore kiss your firmament goodbye; and hello to frozen or boiling soup.... I was there man. (btw i didn't pull that name from thin air. THINK AGAIN). Interesting how how the Lords favorite left Israel without a king. Israel still looking to subvert that somehow, and people round' the world just the same. Through carnage no less. Something that doesn't stand a chance (like kittens thrown to pit fighting dogs, total over kill) for entertainment purposes. Incapable of producing their own meals, demanding carnage. It's shamelessness beyond depravity. Hurling their petty stones. For that reason man is helpless against himself. Quite deservedly.
@@josefpollard6271 The firmament is above you. It's what holds back the water that makes the sky blue.
Climate change was caused when we sent spaceships into orbit, breaking holes into the firmament and disrupting the water cycle.
LOL
It's the 21st century and so many still cling to this absurd mythology.
Removing comments isn't mythology....and the only thing being clung to is boot licking back stabbing.