I'm a Christian and I THANK GOD for people like Dan. There's a lot of dogmatism in Christianity, and I have to say it, many Christians doesn't know their Bible really well at all! Many of us just repeat interpretations somebody teached us since childhood, but we are not trained nor teached to think critically, nor to Google competently 😆 (plug intended) so, even if I don't agree with Dan in everything, I can actually LEARN a lot from his point of view. And I also respect that he doesn't fall in childish fights with other content creators that attack him plainly. He actually shows us how a Christian should conduct.
@@upupandaway2728 I love Sam Shamoun, and I love his postures and interpretations about the Bible, that doesn't hinder me to also love Dan's Biblical approach. I'm not sure if Sam is a "scholar", not that I care BTW , he calls himself a 'Biblist'. And I don't really subscribe to all that "Mormons aren't Christians" rhetoric, for me, a Christian is someone who believes Jesus is the Messiah, everything else is up to debate and personal negotiations with the text. So, if a brother believes in Jesus, welcome! I would rather "include" than "exclude". There's a lot of division in the church already. God bless you brother.
Dan is such a good content creator, he knows his subject matter, he calmly and methodically lays out his reasoning, cites his sources and does all this with a dry wit. Data > dogma
But in his back and forth with IP when Dan made an error, he claimed he would apologise if rectified, he was and then just ignored the apology. IP called him out on it and..... Crickets
Test Christianity i say this as a christian. Go to the Resurrection to sources as Josephus, Bar Mara Serapion, Celsus, Thallus and more than test the gospels. You will find authenticity, but if you are more wanting to speak than to act than you are a hypocrite and you will be judges by the standart yoh have used on others
@@Ben94729 A) I am not a belief system, nor have I ever suggested that I am, so I'm not sure why I should be tested by the standard I mentioned. B) Nowhere did I say that this is a standard that should be applied uniquely to Christianity or even only to religion. It should be applied by anyone who chooses to follow a belief system to that very system.
@@blinkybli8326 if you are atheist thats a belief system mate. There is not atheist who believes in God. Test what you believe, and compare it to the Resurrection evidences. If not then do not have anything to do with the debates.
@@blinkybli8326 i think you have a very very bad understanding of theism vs atheism or the other debates to be confused about the minimal things. I have 2 questions for you to find awnsers: 1-What do you life for? 2-And what are the evidences? I know what i live for and i know whom i have trusted. Can you say the same? If not then find awnser and i point you to the historical Resurrection of Jesus with evidences and real scholarship.
Dan, it is one of the most informative Scholars on RUclips when it comes to debunking bad apologetics. There's plenty of pseudo archaeologists out there that rely on the gullibility of fundamentalism inerrancy in their apologetics.
Dan has opened my eyes to see the truth in the Bible. It is very true that many seminary students know what Dan teaches. Example, it's like one pastor once said, "if I teach the truth about tithing, my church may go bankrupt." My pastor disliked having talks with me because I would ask the hard questions, the questions he did not want to answer. God is much bigger than the Bible.
I liked and subbed, my friend. I completely agree. Dogma is well-embedded in the Christian community. It was like a ton of bricks hit me when Dan started to uncover some of the inaccuracies within the Bible. The more I listened, the more it made sense. It made me question my own faith, and I began to ask what other things had been hidden. I have been challenged, and I keep on digging for the truth.
its mormon dogma that jesus isnt god. what your saying is that once you heard the dogmatic beliefs of a mormon you became less christian. listen to him all you want, but understand your listening to someone hostile to christianity.
I think that is it...if it made us dig more and ask interesting questions about our personal believes and the Bible itself, then that is net positive to me. It brings more excitement to this 2000 year old faith that has been so over simplified by so many. Peace my friend
@@OctavioMoss I'm not Christian. My father was a loving, blessed, amazing man who was an ordained, trained Methodist minister. I loved watching him preach, and watching him navigate his life as he changed and grew, in a foundational religion that denied his right to change and grow. He had a set of ideas in the 60s, but as he moved through the 70s, especially with the influence of other world religions, and with the now-lived ramifications of civil rights, he had to say "is this really what god wants". I think he would have been fascinated to have scholars like McClellan say "well, there's other alternatives" especially if you still want to believe, but want to do so in a more "grown up" way. I'm a scholar of native American religions. one of the best parts of the hopi religion, is that children are taught about the gods they should fear or be aware of. and kachina dance around them on different nights of the year, reinforcing this lesson. but then, on or around the 12th year, the child is kidnapped by the kachina, and taken to the kiva, where the kachina take off their masks, to reveal that the "gods" are just representations and humans were dancing. The gods, they are told, are still real, but they are more about our minds, and we have to learn how to understand what they want through our path in life. it's a really powerful statement to me, about letting a religion become MORE than a book of lists of what to do and how to think, but a path for you to figure out for yourself what is your right, and your wrong, and how to navigate your culture and your person!
Just came across this on Bluesky. I've never heard of McLellan, despite being a Presbyterian pastor for nearly 40 years. What he's teaching is what I preach and teach about the Bible every week. This is basic historical-critical method I was taught in seminary. I'm always astonished to meet adult Christians who are literalists and try to justify that perspective logically.
Heres what many of his critics ivnore: saying hes a mormon doesnt negate his point. If hes wrong the focus should be refuring him with better scholarship not dismissing him for being mormon.
Christianity is one of the few religions that requires you to constantly check your own dogma, test it, welcome rebuke when in error, and thank the person for the correction. It’s the only religion you can attack without fear of physical reprisal. Anyone violating this dogma is automatically not of the faith. Peace.
@@dmnemaine Well, yes, it is. It’s right there in black and white. Google it if you feel the need to research the exact verses. You’ll learn a deal more than dogmatic hatred for Christ and his teachings.
@ I feel sad that you have been shaped by people who “don’t like their dogma being called into question.” Real followers of the risen Christ test every doctrine, welcome questions, and know the value of reason. The name “Israel” is literally “contends with God.” We hate dogma and love lives lived in accord with reasoned truth. I hope you seek out these people. They are water in the desert to those thirsty for goodness.
I love Dan's videos. It's so much easier to be a christian when you understand the bible. Not being able to understand the bible has led to many terrible things, usually hateful things.
Moses will soon return. Having thus looked upon the Promised Land (summer), Moses died, and buried himself in a valley in the land of Moab (water-father = Aquarius = Moses), "but no man knoweth of his sepulcher unto this day" (Deut. 34.6). Although one hundred and twenty years old, " his eyes," it is said, " were not dim (his stars shine as brightly now as they did then), nor his natural force abated (the rainy season still comes on every year) " However, the people wept thirty days, i.e., during the passage of the Sun through Aquarius, the Wash-pot (Ps 60.8), or the rainy month.
From time to time, you could hear a priest saying one true fact about Christianity. What Dan did, is that he grouped all these facts and gave it to Christians all at once.
I am not a literalist, and I sometimes like to touch base with scholars like McClellan, Bart Ehrmann and Elaine Pagels from time to time, considering their degree of scholarship and expertise over a variety of topics.
@langreeves6419 Bart Ehrman claimed there's lots of differences in manuscripts of the New Testament, strongly implying it affected reliability of the NT text, in one of his popular level works. Then in the second edition, an FAQ was added to the book where he admitted no Christian doctrine is affected by any manuscript difference (because in reality 95% of manuscript difference are matters of spelling and grammar). Ehrman's academic level works are good, because they're peer-reviewed and so Ehrman knows he can't get away with the aforementioned sort of behavior. His popular level works are trash.
@joelmcleay oh, so if you don't agree, it's trash? Do you realize scholars don't agree? Often they are good friends and colleagues, but they disagree. There is NO teacher, scholar, or preacher that I agree with completely. But that doesn't mean they're trash. And the nt is not a reliable history, but you're right: Bart makes a big deal out of that. He's not wrong, but his emphasis shows his biases. All human have those. He's lived a life among conservative Christians, and he thinks a few errors of conservative Christianity need to be exposed. He is called trash by fundamentalists.
@langreeves6419 that's not the argument I used whatsoever. His popular work is trash because it's so heavily biased and makes misleading claims, a bias he keeps under control for his academic work, which is absent of misleading claims. His popular work is therefore trash, just like Graham Hancock's work is trash.
Imagine basing your understanding of the Bible on the best available archaeological, anthropological, historical and lexical data rather than magic. Ludicrous!
I agree that tribal thinking needs to be avoided (see at 12:30). Unfortunately, tribal thinking is taught in the Bible itself - see e.g. Galatians 1:8-9, 1 John 3:10, and 1 John 5:19, along with various other passages and examples.
Pride is diso2ning gods and Jesus's teaching in the bibl3 for what is written and you clea4ly wrote this disregarding many writings. Like I said wesley Hoff would eat all of you for breakfast with facts. You all interpret what you want to here not what is. And that is pride.
Who are you to not reading and dismissed the eye witness accounts of the 12 apostles? Hmm? Nobody . Pride. All these gospels are traced back to origin. The codex sinaiticus in own is just the oldest written form of co.bine gospels that came from the scrolls and paers found then that took a journey to get where they are from the drying p re n itss3lf. But I'm sure you don't know about say p66. For example hmm. A relationship with jesus christ is the way and the only way. Not your way to red3fine anything. You are not god and n3ither is the billie carlson wanna be
As a former Christian, I truly appreciate your stance on scholarship and the benefits (and necessity) of being informed about our beliefs. Keep up the great work! Liked & sub'd.
It’s worth pointing out that Dan was refuting the notion that Jesus claims to be God not asserting that Jesus is not God. Those are two different things. It is also worth noting that Mormons do believe that Jesus is God, although they have a different conception of the Holy Trinity than mainstream Christianity, so the claim that Dan MacLellan is saying this because he’s a Mormon is just ignorant of their theology.
You are right there. But, from all of the videos that I've watched from him, I am almost 99% sure that he does not believe Jesus is God either...but there is a chance I am wrong there
True, @aaronlund4250. Dr. Bart Ehrman has written an entire book, "How Jesus Became God", about that very subject -- that Jesus did not claim to be God. But in my opinion, if Jesus did not believe he was God, the foundation of the idea of Christianity is a fully a human construction. And I say that as a 70 year old, brought up firmly in the faith and now an agnostic.
It is likely that Dan's personal beliefs differ from what is found in the Bible. That is, Dan could simultaneously believe Jesus is God and that the Bible does not directly claim Jesus is God.
Месяц назад
there is no such thing as "mainstream christianity" There are THOUSANDS of christian sects and they all think they are the only true one.
Anyone who attacks another based on their beliefs and faith automatically show their ignorance and lack of knowledge. Does this guy have multiple degrees and lived experience in the very places of the Bible? Dan does. I defend him because if a person has to step so low as to question ones ability to be impartial based on the factual evidence at play then they have nothing to stand on and really should just be ignored. Dan always comes from a place of records, writings and facts. Dan has never lead anyone astray with sharing his knowledge.
Therein lies the danger. He sounds so calm and studied, but if you know the scriptures, you will easily catch him teaching against the plain language of the text. He posted a whole video on how there is no hell. You have to throw out I and II Peter and half and the entire purpose of Jesus Christ if there is no hell.
Hey Octavio! Great video! I'm baffled that it has a very few likes! all of your suscribers should watch and like this video! come on people! we can be Chrsitians and instead of getting mad a Dan, learn a thing or two! 😆
Yes, great video indeed! It is helpful advertisement for Dan McClellan and shows how little you have to say, Octavio. Please do more of these videos that really endorse Dan McClellan.
@@OctavioMoss Jesus was putting the pieces together that he was indeed God, as in a member of The Godhead. So to say that nowhere in scripture did Jesus say 'I am God' is not correct.
@@CuriousThinker1776 Basic 101 in orthodox theology. A departure for that essential doctrine, teaching or 'dogma' (as some use for nefarious reasons) and that's a departure from the Christian faith. Some teachings are not negotiable.
Also, he called evolution a fact, which is a glaringly inaccurate statement. If schools taught all of the massive holes and illogical assumptions that are required to believe in the theory of evolution, then very few people would take it as anything more than a theory. Scientific fact requires something to be observable and repeatable. Macro evolution has never been observed. It is not a fact. This statement betrays the man, he claims to have no agenda in interpreting scripture. Everyone has a view point and agenda in interpreting anything, his statement about evolution proves that.
Dan McClellan loves to think he is incredibly smart and will block you if you disagree with him. He sometimes has some interesting insights but he mixes it in with complete garbage or pure opinion.
Месяц назад+5
I disagree with Dan all the time and he never blocks me. Maybe it's just you.
Yes that is what I am saying he looks at it through his own lens his pride and doesn't look at it for what it states. Pride is satan and he also knows the bible. How is it they cannot see this?
The entire point is do you believe God exists without the Bible? Try it! Throw away your Bible. Then tell me what you see here. Think feel that is true to be God. Hint. Instead of praying to Jesus or God. Find out what the holy spirit is and pray to the holy
We’ve sinned against God and God alone, therefore it is God alone (not a created being) who must be crucified for our sin to redeem us; either that or we all die: Psalm 51:4; Hebrews 9:22; Hebrews chapter 10
That's a scripture salad of two texts written centuries apart from each other, one from a Psalmist who, if he had a concept of a messiah that far back it was a political one, and one from a book that even the church father Origen said was falsely attributed to Paul. Not a great argument.
@@melaniephillips4238 interesting point about possible political attribution, but isn’t it a fact that in the scope of eternity we have sinned against our creator God and God alone? If Jesus was created then he’d simply be another part of creation. If that’s the case then I can see why man would be tempted to worship him, but why did God say “let all the angels of God worship Him”?
Месяц назад
@@jimmyallen9188 "isn’t it a fact that in the scope of eternity we have sinned against our creator God" Nope. I never even had a parking ticket. Meanwhile that AH in the Bible is a mass murderer.
But He gave you life, and not just life, but life created in His image to joy in His creation, and if that weren’t enough He sent His Son to take upon Himself those things you’ve done which are shameful, so that He may give you new life of forgiveness in being washed clean to reconcile your relationship to Him such as was in your innocence as a child; washed clean and conformed to the image of His Son to raise you to new life in Him to joy in His pure love
Viewing the Bible as a multi-vocal work, allowing each author to speak, makes it much more interesting! And if we accept that θεόπνευστος (theopneustos) means life giving and harkening back to God breathing life into Adam, then it is implied that God is behind these texts and is perhaps actively interacting with the readers to give them life! Jesus is recorded as saying that man does not live on bread alone but by every utterance coming forth from God's mouth!
Isn't that the original question, "Yea hath God said...?" Destroying faith in the word of God has always been the devil's goal. With "friends" like this, who needs enemies? In fact, if none of it's true that includes the Salvation part, as well. There's no middle ground: a 99.99999999999% truth is still a lie.
If anything, the more i hear from Dan or for that matter any scholar on the bible Christian or otherwise, it certainly weakens the dogma of sola scriptura in my eyes at least. Am i alone in that respect?
It certainly does undermine sola scriptura I think, but I would also argue that it does not do so any more than it undermines most other common ways people develop theological ideas, precisely because these ideas are just... developed. By people. A big through line of Dan's public messaging is that people "negotiate with the text" to make it more meaningful to them. Crucially, negotiation happens in many ways. If someone imposes sola scriptura, then this negotiation occurs by working with just the bible they have and reinterpreting its passages. A different approach is having St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas riff on what they think makes sense for the nature of hell and differential punishment of sins to be (random example), and then just placing that interpretation in your tradition alongside your bible. At the end of the day, an interpretative tradition is an interpretative tradition, subject only to what we want and need our religion to mean.
I don't listen to or follow "bible scholars", I read, I pray as jesus instructed and I decide for myself, and usually what I discern conflicts with the typical right wing religious dribble being promoted because it;s obvious they want to revert to the old ways of the tribes and honor a dead old covenant
Great video. It is important to clarify that Mormons believe that Jesus/Jehovah/YHWH is God, Son of Heavenly Father/El who is also God, but in a non-trinitarian henotheistic way. I would assume that Dan shares those beliefs, but he's just saying that the Bible doesn't clearly spell that out.
Would you say that the topics he presents in his videos are fringe?, honestly i listen to his videos and just find them interesting and dont give them too much weight.
A lot of his topics are, for sure (at least to me). He is a scholar after all. Having said that, making scholarship accessible, or somewhat accessible is important for everyday Christians and non-Christians. Most people need to have their eyes opened to how ancient languages work, to how much disagreement there is amongst biblical scholars, and to how many dogmas we've decided to believe without knowing the logic behind them nor their origin.
He's the opposite of fringe. As repeatedly mentioned, Dan's videos are mainly covering the academic scholarly CONSENSUS. The reason for the push-back is because most evangelical christians, especially Americans, find that they have been taught VERY differently and their ideas are unsupported by the bible.
@@msmdg88 That's hardly an explanation. I am as well and many of our people find what he says uncomfortable. Labels are a way to avoid engaging with an argument. I love Dan's content, but he's not kidding when he says he leaves his beliefs out of it.
His argument against the one voice of scripture is not very good since it contradicts the main thrust of Jesus’ understanding and use of scripture to support his own arguments. Also everyone prioritize some scripture or teaching. You have to do so to interpret it at all. He does it also. The problem also is that those who created the Bible disagree with him. They thought the Bible spoke in one main voice. Different flavors maybe but one God speaking through scripture. Jesus and argued for Jesus as messiah and God because he was foretold to be so according to the scriptures. Paul and Jesus argued that if one understood the old testament then one would know who Jesus was which was Messiah and God.
And the angel of the Lord is thought to be God by many. He neglected to say that. God also says he will not share his glory which is tied to his name. No one in the OT is creator or Lord except God. Jesus was said to be in the beginning multiple times in the NT and that everything was created through Him. There is also one name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that is common to them. There is just too much to counteract his claim that Jesus never claimed to be God. But then Paul, Peter, and John claim that Jesus was God too which is a real problem for him since Jesus did not write any books in the Bible.
Dont be afraid of Jesus he said. God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
Echo chambers are such a funny thing. Here I am thinking that Dan is such a moron who never goes up against other Bible scholars and when he found a youtuber on par him in the form Mike Jones, Mike obliterated him so badly that Dan ended up blocking him.
By denying the deity of Christ, he by default calls Jesus a liar, and therefore a liar, for liars have their part in the lake of fire and no part in the New Jerusalem. As liars are accursed by God for committing an abomination against Him, for He is Truth, he has by default violated I Corinthians 12:3: Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. Jesus says that it is a Broadway that leads to destruction, and those who try to broaden the margins of Christianity are anathema to it. Does this make me doctrinaire and dogmatic? How much more restrictive was Christ when He said that He was the only Door and no one comes to God except through Him, and all who seek another way are thieves!! There are many counterfeits in the world, but only one is Truth, and Christians must be wise enough to not swallow poison, no matter how sweet the flavor or attractive the bottle.
Месяц назад
Jesus is just a character in a 2000 year old book of fairy tales. I'm pretty sure he never mentioned Broadway.
What the Bible teaches is very clear. Theology was developed from what is in the text. It’s not like Theology, or what he calls Dogma, came from nowhere. Most modern theological thought comes from the reformation, so a lot of his claims about the impact of inerrancy, etc., make no sense. He takes a purely deconstructionist view and apparently completely ignores how compellingly intertwined scripture is, as Jordan Peterson states, “The Bible is the world’s first hyperlinked text.” I’m curious what he is specifically talking about, examples per se.
Historically, Christians didn’t view the Bible like the Muslims do the Koran. It seems to me that Dan presumes this modern view held by Protestants. Moreover, Dan doesn’t seem to understand the way the Bible functioned in the ancient church. Lastly, it’s not possible for Dan’s personal beliefs to not influence his “research”. Thinking otherwise is silly.
McClellan agrees that all people have biases, including himself. That's why it is important to debate the strength of ideas, and not indulge in the comforting value of certain conclusions. If his argument is flawed, he asks you to attack it.
12 дней назад+2
"It seems to me that Dan presumes this modern view held by Protestants." Amazingly, "seems to me" isn't actually an argument. If you have a point, you should try to make it.
LOL…Dan is using a modern fundamentalist understanding of the Bible…historically Christians didn’t view the Bible the way Muslims do the Koran. Dan demonstrates his ignorance in this video.
He is a famous bible scholar??? Who is he? I know Bart Ehrman, NT Wright, Darrell Bock, Daniel Wallace, David Wenham, C John Collins, John Walton, Pete Enns, Tremper Longman III, William Mounce, the late Bruce Metzger, Bruce Waltke, DA Carson, Scot McKnight, my goodness, so many more, but who is this Daniel Mcwho? Just because he has many views or followers on social media doesn't mean he is a well known or very famous BIBLE SCHOLAR. I'm going to thumbs down this bollocks.
I am happy you know all of those people...I also hope you read many of their books as I have. BUT , in the context of my video, I clearly mentioned that he is the most famous in terms of overall social media followers in the PAST YEAR, not of all time, but THE PAST YEAR.
And again no one just comes to data without dogma or preconceived beliefs. No one. And it is not helpful. Irene us from the second century argues against Dan. but I thought he said that dogma over data was an 18th century assertion. Maybe that is his dogma? Irenaeus talked about arranging of tiles into a mosaic. One can arrange them as a picture of a fo or a picture of a king. Both cannot be right. Those who arranged them as a king were right. He argues that those who interpret scripture through Jesus Christ are right also.
There is an atheist's channel called Mindshift, and he made a video blaming God for 'inventing' cancer. In my opinion, it's the most shallow and ridiculous argument someone can make. If you're going to blame God for inventing cancer, then you can blame him for EVERYTHING, even something like stubbing your toe. Obviously, his shallow perspective is going to twist his interpretation of the Bible into a picture of something foolish while also claiming he's only being logical. Dan is guilty of doing the same exact thing.
Месяц назад
data = deducing conclusions from facts dogma = deducing facts from conclusions Can you understand the difference?
Saying that something is 'highly agreed' upon among scholars does not make it a fact.
Месяц назад
@@carlpeterson8182 You didn't. All you did was assert that. Everyone does hundreds of acts every day that require no dogma. Dogma is just a cognitive bias ie sloppy thinking. I doubt that you understand the difference between data and dogma, even though I just explained it to you.
@@1969cmp "Dogma is a set of beliefs that are held as authoritative and are accepted without question." The key words here are "without question". Really look deeply into the origins of the biblical texts and you will find reason to question.
I find Dan's videos compelling as he finds faults in the biblical narrative. I guess this is why conservative Christians dislike him. What i find confusing is that he doesnt seem to apply the same scholarly skepticism to his Mormonism (yes he mentions this in the video). ie just the fact he remains a Mormon contradicts, to me at least, his approach to Christianity.
@@OctavioMoss 'Evolution of man' defaults to the Darwinian evolution idea and that mankind, apes and monkeys evolved from a common 'ape-like' ancestor.
@@OctavioMoss Biblically, the first human being were created. Humanity did not evolve from non-humans and do not share common ancestoral lineage with monkeys or apes.
Месяц назад
it's a "red flag" that the commenter flunked biology
@@jupiterjones64 Started to realized this after reviewing other Christian Scholars work. Realized, that Dan also has a bias and I’ve seen arguments where his points doesn’t hold up. This is good though, opposing ideas and thoughts push growth.
@@dmnemaine your message is "his claims are what everyone thinks". mmk. Show me one of his claims (on biblical inaccuracy) that's a consensus among anyone who matters. I posit that he's as far out on a limb as bart ehrman. arrogant or not, he hates the bible, and he's gonna keep getting embarrased by proper scholarship.
I agree with much of what he says. My issue is when he assumes that the most Christians say/believe. He says that Christian scholars claim a very literal interpretation of the age of the universe. He is simply ignoring a lot of great scholars who nuance this very well. He claims that none accept the difference between biblical authors. Once again ignoring scholars such as William Lane Craig, Mike Winger, Mike Licona. The issue as presented here is very weak. Although most of it is correct the presentation is very one dimensional
Yep. Dan believes in truth and honesty. If your "christianity" cannot handle truth, is it really Christianity? I find Christianity that teaches the truth much better than a religion which requires me to be dishonest.
I had a powerful encounter with Jesus over 40 years ago, I went to Seminary and I was a missionary to Russia. I have come to the understanding that we don’t know everything and never will in this life but all this rubbish over debates over finer theology is foolishness. We are called to evangelize the world and make disciples of Jesus but in this day and age we get sidetracked by trivial arguments. Unless a man is born from above he will never see the Kingdom of God! It’s not how articulate or educated you are like the guy in your video but what matters is a divine encounter with the Resurrected Messiah Yeshua ❤️👍
A few concerns. 1) You say many Christian schools teacher this kind of higher critical scholarship. Conservative schools and scholars use it different and arrive at very different conclusions. There are plenty of legitimate scholars who still hold to the presuppositions and beliefs attacked here. 2) How does someone consistently promote all this liberal theology and scholarship while being a member of the LDS? Or am I misunderstanding and he was a former member? Sounds like present. If so, that's totally suspicious and not unwarranted for Christians to call out. A Mormon attacking the reliability of the Bible and distinct Orthodox doctrines? How is that out of bounds to address? 3) You warn against tribalism, which I agree in principle, but how does that fit here? Liberal theology was recognized as outside the bounds of historic Christianity over a century ago now. Mormons have never been accepted. There are boundaries. Jesus and the apostles warn Christians about false teachers and give us instruction on how to separate from them. These are not small issues within the faith. So, your counsel is out of place.
Lots of christians accept Mormons. Lots of people have espoused truth about the bible throughout history. Quit pretending the last 2000 years have been fundamentalism.
@@langreeves6419 I said he is attacking the reliability of the Bible, which he is. Saying authors of the Bible have their own private interpretations, for example, directly contradicts what Peter says about the Holy Spirit carrying holy men to produce Scripture.
@lcs-salam that's not attacking the bible. Accurately portraying the bible is not attacking it. It. Is reliable that the bible is a collection of books. And we can reliably say some of paul's letters were written by paul. Other letters we can reliably say are forged in paul's name. And a few letters that are supposedly written by paul, you can reliably say we can't know. The book of peter was not written by peter. And we did not have an established cannon when it was written. So you'll have to just guess at what scriptures the man pretending to be Peter was referring to.
@@langreeves6419 You have a very different definition of reliable. Forged letters are not typically understood as reliable. Peter (or whoever you think wrote 1 Peter) explicitly says the Holy Spirit guided writers of Scripture so that the writing is not a private opinion but rather from God. Is that true or not? Is the claim reliable - does it accord with reality? This is what I mean by reliable.
It might be possible to explain what god is without quoting someone else’s thoughts on god, it might be possible to explain what God is without reading something that was written about god. Can anyone explain what god is…. Try to explain to me what God is without quoting me any scriptures or anything said by A person remember, no using the Bible when you explain God. Try it. You can do it
@@BrianHaney-rr8rm that is impossible my friend, well, unless you’ve lived under a rock all this time. It is naive to think you can do that. All of the thoughts or images about God or the gods you can come up with would necessarily have been directly influenced by the words and imagination of someone else. Quoting Scripture or quoting someone else to explain God is simply being honest about who or what influenced your ideas.
@@OctavioMoss God is directly influenced by the words and imaginations of someone Who told you that? Where did you read that that’s awesome. Thank you for telling me what God is. else
Actually, I was going in a different direction, but I love that you explained what God is without quoting scripture or someone else. Would you agree with the writings of Buddha I would love to hear more of your thoughts.
@@Stranzua Almost every human gets a direct revelation from God at different levels. But our personal experiences with God will always go alongside our won understanding of the world in our time and our understanding of how deities work in our time. Moses, Abraham and Noah would have described God very differently than you and I would today because of the influence of their cultures in their imaginations of the world and the gods.
Well said my friend. Would you agree that it is simply a matter of trust? Trusting what you heard or read would you agree? We simply don't know the origin of intelligent life we either trust science or trust the Bible or trust the Koran. Or..... Follow the philosophy of Buddha. Knowing it is a matter of trust, can we assume one has more authority than the other? Would love to hear your thoughts
I love this guy is playing Dan's explanation and then rationalizing exactly what Dan talks about that he's negotiating with the text to put what he believes is more important than the other. To me you're not making any good argument why Dan McClellan is wrong when he destroys what most people say the Bible says... Sorry I believe Dan over you all day long...
Sounds as though Dan McClellan is a nominal Mormon. I agree with almost everything he says in the clips in this video. I think the way he describes Jesus' divinity best reflects the biblical emphasis on Jesus' divinity, but I disagree that Jesus never claims to be God. I think it's more a matter of western Christendom traditionally emphasizing aspects of Jesus' divinity that are irrelevant to the story of Scripture, but more necessary for theological systems. The theological system can be accurate, but it's a distraction from the point of Scripture. Our focus should be on what the Scriptures are telling us, not on how to reconcile this all within an encyclopedic framework. It is necessary for western-culture Gentiles, due to the culture, to want to rationalize and organize all knowledge, including biblical knowledge, but we do better to transcend and universalize the culture into ways that the Scripture would shop and govern our thinking.
Also the most Famous Bible Scholar is Tim Mackie of the Bible Project. Saying Dan is bigger than that is not true at all. Bible Project has over 5 million subs just on RUclips alone. And he claims that Jesus is God, because of all the ways he fulfills biblical prophecy
I am so thankful to have the Holy Spirit of the true living God in my life. God would have me to stay away from anyone that teaches against his word. I remember watching only one video before by Mr. McClellan. I had not prior knowledge of him. But from that one brief video the Holy Spirit was letting me know not to listen to this man. I mean no disrespect to Mr. Meclellan he speaks with scholarly biblical knowledge. But when I hear him speak it come across as if the only way to understand God's word is through historical biblical theology and man's intelecual logic. As if the Holy Spirit that dwells in all believer does not play a major roll in what God would speak into us individually as beleiver in Christ. This verse comes to mind. Galatians 3:3 New King James Version 3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh. Christians should seek guidance from Gods word and allow the Holy Spirit to lead you to the truth revealed within it. God will not lead you astray if you seek him for the truth in his word.
you and Dan along with everyone else who takes an intellectual approach to the Bible completely miss that the divine purpose for the entirety of scripture is to reveal Jesus in order that we might be saved from death through faith in Him and restored in relationship with God. Everything else is of no consequence. One either believes that, or does not and will then have to live with the consequences of their decision.
My friend you are also using your brain in order to belief and follow Jesus. The thing is that you don't like how we, on the other hand, are using our brains in order to read the same text and believe
Of course its good to hear other points of view, but Dan is lying when he says he doesnt let his own beliefs affect his content. Everything he shares about Jesus and the bible is from a mormon perspective. And mormons are as christian as atheists so thats how good the information is. He may sound very intelligent and convincing talking about the 'data', but what it really is, is his own dogmatic mormon beliefs of the bible. He says Jesus isnt God, you know who disagrees with him? The apostles themselves. All of them were violently murdered because they wouldnt renounce their belief that Jesus is God. From the apostles, to the early church fathers, all the way thru church history to today, its been the core belief of Christianity that Jesus is God. Dan is doing satans work. Mormonism was started by an angel seen by John Smith, just like Muhammed with Islam. Those were demons not angels, its in Revelation. If your christian, dont watch Dan unless you understand your watching a person trying to disprove christianity for the benefit of mornonism.
"The most famous and followed bible scholar" Yet nobody in my reputable, secular institution's theology and biblical studies programs cites his work. It's never recommended in the Further Reading sections of our coursebooks. Whereas non-believing biblical scholars like Dr. Bart Ehrman are. His arguments regularly contain logical fallacies, and his entire "data over dogma" thing is in fact a dogma of it's own. Any biblical scholar worth their salt has a specialization, ie. Dr. Michael S. Heiser was an expert on Old Testament and Hebrew, Ehrman is New Testament, etc. etc.... McClellan seems to present himself as an expert in all things and just sticks to the "biblical scholar" moniker with little discussion about his actual qualifications. He also does a few subtle visual things - he wears comic book t-shirts to appear more like the fictional genius Dr. Sheldon B. Cooper of "Big Bang Theory" fame. He regularly presents things as academic consensus when it's either not as universally agreed as he implies, or doesn't mention credible minority positions in academia like a reputable scholar would. Either way, one cannot fact-check his assertions because he regularly doesn't cite sources (when claiming academic consensus, one should cite a study with the particular subject for the sole purpose of recognizing where the aggregated consensus is, so that one's own biases aren't involved in the declaration of consensus "because all my colleagues I know seem to all agree"). He also uses lots of what academics call "weasel words" (such as "scholars agree" with no citations of which scholars, etc.). He may be "most famous and followed, with 1M followers" but I must ask if this content creator checked out all the social media followings of other biblical scholars across all platforms in the same manner. McClellan has only 72k subs on YT, while Heiser has 194k, and Mike Jones has 446k subs.... most of McClellan's followers are on TikTok, and I don't think that fame really counts when nobody talks about him in the field he works in professionally, just like Logan and Jake Paul are famous but there's very little respect for them in, say, professional boxing.
Месяц назад
Data = deriving conclusions from facts Dogma = selecting facts to support conclusions See how many words I needed for that?
There is no ce as a Christian. There is bc and ad. He isn't reading the bible as it is written. He looks at the bible through his lens. His version. Pride is in the way and arrogance. You humble yours3lf to have a relationship with jesus to get to god.
THIS is why you need the Tradition of the Church to give understanding of how the Early Church interpreted the Scripture and documents they had. Welcome to the Catholic Church.
Месяц назад
Catholics disagree with each other all over the place
Dan is actually a fake. He’s a self proclaimed “scholar” without a phd. He’s just another average person questioning the Bible, nothing wrong with that, but I’ve seen the same if not better arguments by atheist haters than Dan. He doesn’t show any credentials whatsoever. He’s an author of books, but he ISNT a scholar. Wesley huff is a scholar and his work speaks for itself, Dan has YET to do anything remotely close or mimic what Wesley huff does. Dan is fraud. I hope people can open their eyes when they research who he is.
The Church of the Lord Jesus Christ has nothing to gain by bringing Mormons and Muslims to the doctrinal table. There. I said it. Call me a "tribalist"... lol, as if that should matter...
He has a master from Oxford, England. That’s the most scholarly you can get imo. On top of that he’s got a PhD from the (research) University of Exeter, England. While I’m not certain of the quality of the diverse universities in the USA, I’m pretty certain about the quality of this universities.
I'm a Christian and I THANK GOD for people like Dan. There's a lot of dogmatism in Christianity, and I have to say it, many Christians doesn't know their Bible really well at all! Many of us just repeat interpretations somebody teached us since childhood, but we are not trained nor teached to think critically, nor to Google competently 😆 (plug intended) so, even if I don't agree with Dan in everything, I can actually LEARN a lot from his point of view. And I also respect that he doesn't fall in childish fights with other content creators that attack him plainly. He actually shows us how a Christian should conduct.
wow. that is sad. go to sam shamoun channel and hear a real scholar. mormans are not christians.
@@upupandaway2728everyone want the piece of the pie 🥧
@@upupandaway2728 I love Sam Shamoun, and I love his postures and interpretations about the Bible, that doesn't hinder me to also love Dan's Biblical approach. I'm not sure if Sam is a "scholar", not that I care BTW , he calls himself a 'Biblist'.
And I don't really subscribe to all that "Mormons aren't Christians" rhetoric, for me, a Christian is someone who believes Jesus is the Messiah, everything else is up to debate and personal negotiations with the text. So, if a brother believes in Jesus, welcome! I would rather "include" than "exclude". There's a lot of division in the church already. God bless you brother.
@@krest2012 I'm not hungry, but thanks anyway
You know he's a MORMON, not a Christian?
Dan is such a good content creator, he knows his subject matter, he calmly and methodically lays out his reasoning, cites his sources and does all this with a dry wit. Data > dogma
no he dont.
But in his back and forth with IP when Dan made an error, he claimed he would apologise if rectified, he was and then just ignored the apology. IP called him out on it and..... Crickets
Data > dogma is dogma in and of itself.
@joelmcleay not really, it's just a slogan
@@DC-Aust a slogan that is oft-repeated and treated as a core value is... dogma.
Being 'a problem for Christians' and being 'in trouble' are not synonymous.
💯
Any belief system that is not willing to put itself under the spotlight of scrutiny, logic and scholarship is a belief system not worth following.
🔥
Test Christianity i say this as a christian. Go to the Resurrection to sources as Josephus, Bar Mara Serapion, Celsus, Thallus and more than test the gospels. You will find authenticity, but if you are more wanting to speak than to act than you are a hypocrite and you will be judges by the standart yoh have used on others
@@Ben94729 A) I am not a belief system, nor have I ever suggested that I am, so I'm not sure why I should be tested by the standard I mentioned.
B) Nowhere did I say that this is a standard that should be applied uniquely to Christianity or even only to religion. It should be applied by anyone who chooses to follow a belief system to that very system.
@@blinkybli8326 if you are atheist thats a belief system mate. There is not atheist who believes in God. Test what you believe, and compare it to the Resurrection evidences. If not then do not have anything to do with the debates.
@@blinkybli8326 i think you have a very very bad understanding of theism vs atheism or the other debates to be confused about the minimal things. I have 2 questions for you to find awnsers:
1-What do you life for?
2-And what are the evidences?
I know what i live for and i know whom i have trusted. Can you say the same? If not then find awnser and i point you to the historical Resurrection of Jesus with evidences and real scholarship.
Dan, it is one of the most informative Scholars on RUclips when it comes to debunking bad apologetics.
There's plenty of pseudo archaeologists out there that rely on the gullibility of fundamentalism inerrancy in their apologetics.
Dan has opened my eyes to see the truth in the Bible. It is very true that many seminary students know what Dan teaches. Example, it's like one pastor once said, "if I teach the truth about tithing, my church may go bankrupt." My pastor disliked having talks with me because I would ask the hard questions, the questions he did not want to answer. God is much bigger than the Bible.
“When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser.”
- Socrates.
🔥🔥
I liked and subbed, my friend. I completely agree. Dogma is well-embedded in the Christian community. It was like a ton of bricks hit me when Dan started to uncover some of the inaccuracies within the Bible. The more I listened, the more it made sense. It made me question my own faith, and I began to ask what other things had been hidden. I have been challenged, and I keep on digging for the truth.
its mormon dogma that jesus isnt god. what your saying is that once you heard the dogmatic beliefs of a mormon you became less christian. listen to him all you want, but understand your listening to someone hostile to christianity.
I think that is it...if it made us dig more and ask interesting questions about our personal believes and the Bible itself, then that is net positive to me.
It brings more excitement to this 2000 year old faith that has been so over simplified by so many.
Peace my friend
@@OctavioMoss I'm not Christian. My father was a loving, blessed, amazing man who was an ordained, trained Methodist minister. I loved watching him preach, and watching him navigate his life as he changed and grew, in a foundational religion that denied his right to change and grow. He had a set of ideas in the 60s, but as he moved through the 70s, especially with the influence of other world religions, and with the now-lived ramifications of civil rights, he had to say "is this really what god wants". I think he would have been fascinated to have scholars like McClellan say "well, there's other alternatives" especially if you still want to believe, but want to do so in a more "grown up" way.
I'm a scholar of native American religions. one of the best parts of the hopi religion, is that children are taught about the gods they should fear or be aware of. and kachina dance around them on different nights of the year, reinforcing this lesson. but then, on or around the 12th year, the child is kidnapped by the kachina, and taken to the kiva, where the kachina take off their masks, to reveal that the "gods" are just representations and humans were dancing. The gods, they are told, are still real, but they are more about our minds, and we have to learn how to understand what they want through our path in life.
it's a really powerful statement to me, about letting a religion become MORE than a book of lists of what to do and how to think, but a path for you to figure out for yourself what is your right, and your wrong, and how to navigate your culture and your person!
@@tanyanguyen3704 Loved it. Thank you for sharing this
Just came across this on Bluesky. I've never heard of McLellan, despite being a Presbyterian pastor for nearly 40 years. What he's teaching is what I preach and teach about the Bible every week. This is basic historical-critical method I was taught in seminary. I'm always astonished to meet adult Christians who are literalists and try to justify that perspective logically.
Basic indeed…unfortunately not for everyone
Heres what many of his critics ivnore: saying hes a mormon doesnt negate his point. If hes wrong the focus should be refuring him with better scholarship not dismissing him for being mormon.
@@ParanormalEncyclopedia Definitely
Mormons do not believe in Jesus Christ.
They don't like their dogma being called into question.
Christianity is one of the few religions that requires you to constantly check your own dogma, test it, welcome rebuke when in error, and thank the person for the correction. It’s the only religion you can attack without fear of physical reprisal. Anyone violating this dogma is automatically not of the faith. Peace.
@@garywhitt98 LOL No, it's not.
@@dmnemaine Well, yes, it is. It’s right there in black and white. Google it if you feel the need to research the exact verses. You’ll learn a deal more than dogmatic hatred for Christ and his teachings.
@@garywhitt98 I don't "hate" Christ. Having grown up in the Christian religion, I understand how precious dogma is to Christians.
@ I feel sad that you have been shaped by people who “don’t like their dogma being called into question.” Real followers of the risen Christ test every doctrine, welcome questions, and know the value of reason. The name “Israel” is literally “contends with God.” We hate dogma and love lives lived in accord with reasoned truth. I hope you seek out these people. They are water in the desert to those thirsty for goodness.
I love Dan's videos. It's so much easier to be a christian when you understand the bible.
Not being able to understand the bible has led to many terrible things, usually hateful things.
Moses will soon return.
Having thus looked upon the Promised Land (summer), Moses died, and buried himself in a valley in the land of Moab (water-father = Aquarius = Moses), "but no man knoweth of his sepulcher unto this day" (Deut. 34.6). Although one hundred and twenty years old, " his eyes," it is said, " were not dim (his stars shine as brightly now as they did then), nor his natural force abated (the rainy season still comes on every year) " However, the people wept thirty days, i.e., during the passage of the Sun through Aquarius, the Wash-pot (Ps 60.8), or the rainy month.
I think that is his real intention.
From time to time, you could hear a priest saying one true fact about Christianity.
What Dan did, is that he grouped all these facts and gave it to Christians all at once.
The problem Christians have with Dan McClellan: he is right. 😉
Haha… I do tend to agree with him on most things.
... and he is well educated and knows his Bible. Way to go!
Spot on!
"We are engaged in a process of creating meaning"
The trade secret of every heretic.
@@garrygraham Jesus was a heretic.
I am not a literalist, and I sometimes like to touch base with scholars like McClellan, Bart Ehrmann and Elaine Pagels from time to time, considering their degree of scholarship and expertise over a variety of topics.
Things tend to be shocking, because we don't want our beliefs to be challenged instead of making the actual work and think
John Hamer, Dan Mcclellan, and Bart Erhman.
I thank God for honest scholars who share their knowledge with us.
Bart Ehrman's popular level work isn't really all that honest lol
@joelmcleay lol at baseless claims
@langreeves6419 Bart Ehrman claimed there's lots of differences in manuscripts of the New Testament, strongly implying it affected reliability of the NT text, in one of his popular level works.
Then in the second edition, an FAQ was added to the book where he admitted no Christian doctrine is affected by any manuscript difference (because in reality 95% of manuscript difference are matters of spelling and grammar).
Ehrman's academic level works are good, because they're peer-reviewed and so Ehrman knows he can't get away with the aforementioned sort of behavior. His popular level works are trash.
@joelmcleay oh, so if you don't agree, it's trash?
Do you realize scholars don't agree?
Often they are good friends and colleagues, but they disagree. There is NO teacher, scholar, or preacher that I agree with completely. But that doesn't mean they're trash.
And the nt is not a reliable history, but you're right: Bart makes a big deal out of that. He's not wrong, but his emphasis shows his biases. All human have those. He's lived a life among conservative Christians, and he thinks a few errors of conservative Christianity need to be exposed.
He is called trash by fundamentalists.
@langreeves6419 that's not the argument I used whatsoever. His popular work is trash because it's so heavily biased and makes misleading claims, a bias he keeps under control for his academic work, which is absent of misleading claims. His popular work is therefore trash, just like Graham Hancock's work is trash.
Religion is true for the commoner, false for the wise, useful for the politician - Seneca the Younger 65CE
Honestly when he talks it’s like education not biblical wisdom
Imagine basing your understanding of the Bible on the best available archaeological, anthropological, historical and lexical data rather than magic. Ludicrous!
@@exhumusthat's how we progressive Christians do it
@@exhumus science right why we where masked and 6ft way some 'dr' said it was science and he was right
I agree that tribal thinking needs to be avoided (see at 12:30). Unfortunately, tribal thinking is taught in the Bible itself - see e.g. Galatians 1:8-9, 1 John 3:10, and 1 John 5:19, along with various other passages and examples.
religion is tribal. that is its main function.
You just said it. You don't read the bible for what it is and written. You look at it through your lens that fits you and that is pride.
@@kennethsurprise4624 I read the bible same as any other book. Pride has nothing to do with it. Thanks for sharing your projection.
Pride is diso2ning gods and Jesus's teaching in the bibl3 for what is written and you clea4ly wrote this disregarding many writings. Like I said wesley Hoff would eat all of you for breakfast with facts. You all interpret what you want to here not what is. And that is pride.
Who are you to not reading and dismissed the eye witness accounts of the 12 apostles? Hmm? Nobody . Pride. All these gospels are traced back to origin. The codex sinaiticus in own is just the oldest written form of co.bine gospels that came from the scrolls and paers found then that took a journey to get where they are from the drying p re n itss3lf. But I'm sure you don't know about say p66. For example hmm. A relationship with jesus christ is the way and the only way. Not your way to red3fine anything. You are not god and n3ither is the billie carlson wanna be
As a former Christian, I truly appreciate your stance on scholarship and the benefits (and necessity) of being informed about our beliefs.
Keep up the great work!
Liked & sub'd.
❤
It’s worth pointing out that Dan was refuting the notion that Jesus claims to be God not asserting that Jesus is not God. Those are two different things. It is also worth noting that Mormons do believe that Jesus is God, although they have a different conception of the Holy Trinity than mainstream Christianity, so the claim that Dan MacLellan is saying this because he’s a Mormon is just ignorant of their theology.
You are right there. But, from all of the videos that I've watched from him, I am almost 99% sure that he does not believe Jesus is God either...but there is a chance I am wrong there
True, @aaronlund4250. Dr. Bart Ehrman has written an entire book, "How Jesus Became God", about that very subject -- that Jesus did not claim to be God. But in my opinion, if Jesus did not believe he was God, the foundation of the idea of Christianity is a fully a human construction. And I say that as a 70 year old, brought up firmly in the faith and now an agnostic.
It is likely that Dan's personal beliefs differ from what is found in the Bible. That is, Dan could simultaneously believe Jesus is God and that the Bible does not directly claim Jesus is God.
there is no such thing as "mainstream christianity" There are THOUSANDS of christian sects and they all think they are the only true one.
@@fredeisele1895 true
I love Dan. I don't always agree with him but he's insanely educated and worth listening to.
100%
Anyone who attacks another based on their beliefs and faith automatically show their ignorance and lack of knowledge. Does this guy have multiple degrees and lived experience in the very places of the Bible? Dan does. I defend him because if a person has to step so low as to question ones ability to be impartial based on the factual evidence at play then they have nothing to stand on and really should just be ignored. Dan always comes from a place of records, writings and facts. Dan has never lead anyone astray with sharing his knowledge.
Therein lies the danger. He sounds so calm and studied, but if you know the scriptures, you will easily catch him teaching against the plain language of the text. He posted a whole video on how there is no hell. You have to throw out I and II Peter and half and the entire purpose of Jesus Christ if there is no hell.
This was very well done and a good representation of Dan's ideas!!
🙂 Thanks
Hey Octavio! Great video! I'm baffled that it has a very few likes! all of your suscribers should watch and like this video! come on people! we can be Chrsitians and instead of getting mad a Dan, learn a thing or two! 😆
Yes, great video indeed! It is helpful advertisement for Dan McClellan and shows how little you have to say, Octavio. Please do more of these videos that really endorse Dan McClellan.
❤...thanks
@@christianeberhart8568 lol you don't have to be sarcastic brother. If you don't like Dan's videos it's fine.
@christianeberhart8568 who pissed in your corn flakes?
'Before Abraham was, I Am'. 😊
?
@@OctavioMoss Jesus was putting the pieces together that he was indeed God, as in a member of The Godhead. So to say that nowhere in scripture did Jesus say 'I am God' is not correct.
Exactly, and the Jewish leaders knew he was saying he was God. Otherwise, why would they pick up stones to stone him?
@@CuriousThinker1776 Basic 101 in orthodox theology. A departure for that essential doctrine, teaching or 'dogma' (as some use for nefarious reasons) and that's a departure from the Christian faith.
Some teachings are not negotiable.
@@1969cmp I do get what you are saying, Here is where I disagree with Dan
Also, he called evolution a fact, which is a glaringly inaccurate statement. If schools taught all of the massive holes and illogical assumptions that are required to believe in the theory of evolution, then very few people would take it as anything more than a theory. Scientific fact requires something to be observable and repeatable. Macro evolution has never been observed. It is not a fact. This statement betrays the man, he claims to have no agenda in interpreting scripture. Everyone has a view point and agenda in interpreting anything, his statement about evolution proves that.
Do you agree with the scientific based theory of evolution?
Dan McClellan loves to think he is incredibly smart and will block you if you disagree with him. He sometimes has some interesting insights but he mixes it in with complete garbage or pure opinion.
I disagree with Dan all the time and he never blocks me. Maybe it's just you.
Yes that is what I am saying he looks at it through his own lens his pride and doesn't look at it for what it states. Pride is satan and he also knows the bible. How is it they cannot see this?
Dan is right We love what he teaches
'....the evolution of humanity....' 🤔
Apparently, "deconstructionism" is alive and well.
you don't need to put that word in quotes. it's a real word lol.
Dan has destroyed all of these apologist clowns.. he uses facts and they use interpretations
I absolutely love your perspective on theology!!! Please keep your voice loud!!!
I didn't watch the video. Does he affirm the virgin birth and resurrection?
You will have to watch the video to find out I guess...;)
Did you affirm the talking horse and the flying elephant?
No I never did. But that's not the most basic fundamental part of my belief.
Although that was a devastating burn. I'm feeling corrected and humbled
@@OctavioMoss I saw some comments. He not a Christian
The entire point is do you believe God exists without the Bible? Try it! Throw away your Bible. Then tell me what you see here. Think feel that is true to be God. Hint. Instead of praying to Jesus or God. Find out what the holy spirit is and pray to the holy
We’ve sinned against God and God alone, therefore it is God alone (not a created being) who must be crucified for our sin to redeem us; either that or we all die:
Psalm 51:4; Hebrews 9:22; Hebrews chapter 10
?
That's a scripture salad of two texts written centuries apart from each other, one from a Psalmist who, if he had a concept of a messiah that far back it was a political one, and one from a book that even the church father Origen said was falsely attributed to Paul. Not a great argument.
@@melaniephillips4238 interesting point about possible political attribution, but isn’t it a fact that in the scope of eternity we have sinned against our creator God and God alone? If Jesus was created then he’d simply be another part of creation. If that’s the case then I can see why man would be tempted to worship him, but why did God say “let all the angels of God worship Him”?
@@jimmyallen9188 "isn’t it a fact that in the scope of eternity we have sinned against our creator God" Nope. I never even had a parking ticket. Meanwhile that AH in the Bible is a mass murderer.
But He gave you life, and not just life, but life created in His image to joy in His creation, and if that weren’t enough He sent His Son to take upon Himself those things you’ve done which are shameful, so that He may give you new life of forgiveness in being washed clean to reconcile your relationship to Him such as was in your innocence as a child; washed clean and conformed to the image of His Son to raise you to new life in Him to joy in His pure love
Viewing the Bible as a multi-vocal work, allowing each author to speak, makes it much more interesting! And if we accept that θεόπνευστος (theopneustos) means life giving and harkening back to God breathing life into Adam, then it is implied that God is behind these texts and is perhaps actively interacting with the readers to give them life! Jesus is recorded as saying that man does not live on bread alone but by every utterance coming forth from God's mouth!
great video, seems like a sound summary
Isn't that the original question, "Yea hath God said...?"
Destroying faith in the word of God has always been the devil's goal.
With "friends" like this, who needs enemies?
In fact, if none of it's true that includes the Salvation part, as well. There's no middle ground: a 99.99999999999% truth is still a lie.
no part of that is coherent. amazing.
Broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat.
If anything, the more i hear from Dan or for that matter any scholar on the bible Christian or otherwise, it certainly weakens the dogma of sola scriptura in my eyes at least. Am i alone in that respect?
It certainly does undermine sola scriptura I think, but I would also argue that it does not do so any more than it undermines most other common ways people develop theological ideas, precisely because these ideas are just... developed. By people.
A big through line of Dan's public messaging is that people "negotiate with the text" to make it more meaningful to them. Crucially, negotiation happens in many ways. If someone imposes sola scriptura, then this negotiation occurs by working with just the bible they have and reinterpreting its passages. A different approach is having St. Augustine and Thomas Aquinas riff on what they think makes sense for the nature of hell and differential punishment of sins to be (random example), and then just placing that interpretation in your tradition alongside your bible. At the end of the day, an interpretative tradition is an interpretative tradition, subject only to what we want and need our religion to mean.
Please interview Wes Huff that would be interesting 😎 cos he knows his bible ❤❤❤
I don't listen to or follow "bible scholars", I read, I pray as jesus instructed and I decide for myself, and usually what I discern conflicts with the typical right wing religious dribble being promoted because it;s obvious they want to revert to the old ways of the tribes and honor a dead old covenant
Bible scholarship is a reaI thing you know...you wouldn't have the bible you read without it. ...I would recommend you do both...
@@OctavioMoss may be a real thing to academics, only words in the Bible that matter are the words Jesus spoke.
Great video. It is important to clarify that Mormons believe that Jesus/Jehovah/YHWH is God, Son of Heavenly Father/El who is also God, but in a non-trinitarian henotheistic way. I would assume that Dan shares those beliefs, but he's just saying that the Bible doesn't clearly spell that out.
Would you say that the topics he presents in his videos are fringe?, honestly i listen to his videos and just find them interesting and dont give them too much weight.
A lot of his topics are, for sure (at least to me). He is a scholar after all. Having said that, making scholarship accessible, or somewhat accessible is important for everyday Christians and non-Christians. Most people need to have their eyes opened to how ancient languages work, to how much disagreement there is amongst biblical scholars, and to how many dogmas we've decided to believe without knowing the logic behind them nor their origin.
He’s a Mormon. Or was. That’s red flag.
He's the opposite of fringe. As repeatedly mentioned, Dan's videos are mainly covering the academic scholarly CONSENSUS.
The reason for the push-back is because most evangelical christians, especially Americans, find that they have been taught VERY differently and their ideas are unsupported by the bible.
@@msmdg88 That's hardly an explanation. I am as well and many of our people find what he says uncomfortable. Labels are a way to avoid engaging with an argument. I love Dan's content, but he's not kidding when he says he leaves his beliefs out of it.
@msmdg88 yes, we shouldn't judge him on what he says or his education....
We should judge him on our assumptions about his personal beliefs.
My feeling is that this guy's aim is to promote his social media platform rather than seek the truth
His argument against the one voice of scripture is not very good since it contradicts the main thrust of Jesus’ understanding and use of scripture to support his own arguments. Also everyone prioritize some scripture or teaching. You have to do so to interpret it at all. He does it also.
The problem also is that those who created the Bible disagree with him. They thought the Bible spoke in one main voice. Different flavors maybe but one God speaking through scripture. Jesus and argued for Jesus as messiah and God because he was foretold to be so according to the scriptures. Paul and Jesus argued that if one understood the old testament then one would know who Jesus was which was Messiah and God.
And the angel of the Lord is thought to be God by many. He neglected to say that. God also says he will not share his glory which is tied to his name. No one in the OT is creator or Lord except God. Jesus was said to be in the beginning multiple times in the NT and that everything was created through Him. There is also one name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit that is common to them. There is just too much to counteract his claim that Jesus never claimed to be God. But then Paul, Peter, and John claim that Jesus was God too which is a real problem for him since Jesus did not write any books in the Bible.
farts
too many people make God in their image
Data over Dogma...show me your data and I show you your dogma.
Dan doesnt seem to realize his own 'data' is also his own dogma.
@@alexhanson8697 he said, not understanding the difference.
Dont be afraid of Jesus he said.
God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God's one and only Son.
Echo chambers are such a funny thing. Here I am thinking that Dan is such a moron who never goes up against other Bible scholars and when he found a youtuber on par him in the form Mike Jones, Mike obliterated him so badly that Dan ended up blocking him.
lol nice delusion
Amen
2nd, Timothy 2:14 isn't it? It is a sin to argue about the word it will cause confusion,it isn't beneficial for the building up of the kingdom, is it?
Who told it is a sin? Don't you discuss the Bible every Sunday? The thing is that you don't like how we discuss the Bible
By denying the deity of Christ, he by default calls Jesus a liar, and therefore a liar, for liars have their part in the lake of fire and no part in the New Jerusalem. As liars are accursed by God for committing an abomination against Him, for He is Truth, he has by default violated I Corinthians 12:3:
Wherefore I give you to understand, that no man speaking by the Spirit of God calleth Jesus accursed: and that no man can say that Jesus is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost.
Jesus says that it is a Broadway that leads to destruction, and those who try to broaden the margins of Christianity are anathema to it.
Does this make me doctrinaire and dogmatic? How much more restrictive was Christ when He said that He was the only Door and no one comes to God except through Him, and all who seek another way are thieves!! There are many counterfeits in the world, but only one is Truth, and Christians must be wise enough to not swallow poison, no matter how sweet the flavor or attractive the bottle.
Jesus is just a character in a 2000 year old book of fairy tales. I'm pretty sure he never mentioned Broadway.
What the Bible teaches is very clear. Theology was developed from what is in the text. It’s not like Theology, or what he calls Dogma, came from nowhere. Most modern theological thought comes from the reformation, so a lot of his claims about the impact of inerrancy, etc., make no sense. He takes a purely deconstructionist view and apparently completely ignores how compellingly intertwined scripture is, as Jordan Peterson states, “The Bible is the world’s first hyperlinked text.” I’m curious what he is specifically talking about, examples per se.
Historically, Christians didn’t view the Bible like the Muslims do the Koran. It seems to me that Dan presumes this modern view held by Protestants. Moreover, Dan doesn’t seem to understand the way the Bible functioned in the ancient church. Lastly, it’s not possible for Dan’s personal beliefs to not influence his “research”. Thinking otherwise is silly.
Dan is super biased and I'm not convinced he even believes it. I certainly could be wrong about the last part though.
@@loudogg73 He has no motive to lie about being a Mormon
McClellan agrees that all people have biases, including himself. That's why it is important to debate the strength of ideas, and not indulge in the comforting value of certain conclusions. If his argument is flawed, he asks you to attack it.
"It seems to me that Dan presumes this modern view held by Protestants." Amazingly, "seems to me" isn't actually an argument. If you have a point, you should try to make it.
LOL…Dan is using a modern fundamentalist understanding of the Bible…historically Christians didn’t view the Bible the way Muslims do the Koran. Dan demonstrates his ignorance in this video.
You mean the guy that refuses to debate anyone?
He is a famous bible scholar??? Who is he? I know Bart Ehrman, NT Wright, Darrell Bock, Daniel Wallace, David Wenham, C John Collins, John Walton, Pete Enns, Tremper Longman III, William Mounce, the late Bruce Metzger, Bruce Waltke, DA Carson, Scot McKnight, my goodness, so many more, but who is this Daniel Mcwho? Just because he has many views or followers on social media doesn't mean he is a well known or very famous BIBLE SCHOLAR.
I'm going to thumbs down this bollocks.
I am happy you know all of those people...I also hope you read many of their books as I have. BUT , in the context of my video, I clearly mentioned that he is the most famous in terms of overall social media followers in the PAST YEAR, not of all time, but THE PAST YEAR.
The mysteries of God are with him.
And again no one just comes to data without dogma or preconceived beliefs. No one. And it is not helpful. Irene us from the second century argues against Dan. but I thought he said that dogma over data was an 18th century assertion. Maybe that is his dogma? Irenaeus talked about arranging of tiles into a mosaic. One can arrange them as a picture of a fo or a picture of a king. Both cannot be right. Those who arranged them as a king were right. He argues that those who interpret scripture through Jesus Christ are right also.
There is an atheist's channel called Mindshift, and he made a video blaming God for 'inventing' cancer. In my opinion, it's the most shallow and ridiculous argument someone can make. If you're going to blame God for inventing cancer, then you can blame him for EVERYTHING, even something like stubbing your toe. Obviously, his shallow perspective is going to twist his interpretation of the Bible into a picture of something foolish while also claiming he's only being logical.
Dan is guilty of doing the same exact thing.
data = deducing conclusions from facts
dogma = deducing facts from conclusions
Can you understand the difference?
I think I showed how no one does data without some dogma first
Saying that something is 'highly agreed' upon among scholars does not make it a fact.
@@carlpeterson8182 You didn't. All you did was assert that. Everyone does hundreds of acts every day that require no dogma. Dogma is just a cognitive bias ie sloppy thinking. I doubt that you understand the difference between data and dogma, even though I just explained it to you.
Great video! Dan doesn't have to worry. The Dogmatists have already lost. They just don't know it yet.
You may want to reconsider your claim and do more research.
May want to take Mormon dan off that pedestal of yours.
The secularization of the USA just began to increase. The creepy evangelicals are doomed to become a footnote in history.
'Dogmatist'. Dogma simply means 'teaching'. Teachingist 😊
@@1969cmp "Dogma is a set of beliefs that are held as authoritative and are accepted without question." The key words here are "without question". Really look deeply into the origins of the biblical texts and you will find reason to question.
@melaniephillips4238 ....that would be 'dogmatic'. Dogma v dogmatic.
I find Dan's videos compelling as he finds faults in the biblical narrative. I guess this is why conservative Christians dislike him.
What i find confusing is that he doesnt seem to apply the same scholarly skepticism to his Mormonism (yes he mentions this in the video). ie just the fact he remains a Mormon contradicts, to me at least, his approach to Christianity.
Randal Rauser is another Christian scholar worth listening to. www.youtube.com/@Randal_Rauser
'.....the evolution of humanity.....', thats a red flag 🚩 🤔
?
@@OctavioMoss 'Evolution of man' defaults to the Darwinian evolution idea and that mankind, apes and monkeys evolved from a common 'ape-like' ancestor.
@@OctavioMoss Biblically, the first human being were created. Humanity did not evolve from non-humans and do not share common ancestoral lineage with monkeys or apes.
it's a "red flag" that the commenter flunked biology
This is so good. Found him on tiktok the guy knows his stuff, I would appreciate a scholarly debate on certain topic though. hope this happen soon.
He knows something. But it sure ain't everything. If you learn more, you won't be as impressed with his thin claims
@@jupiterjones64 Started to realized this after reviewing other Christian Scholars work. Realized, that Dan also has a bias and I’ve seen arguments where his points doesn’t hold up. This is good though, opposing ideas and thoughts push growth.
@@jupiterjones64 His claims are the scholarly consensus. So you're saying the scholarly consensus is thin?
@@dmnemaine your message is "his claims are what everyone thinks". mmk. Show me one of his claims (on biblical inaccuracy) that's a consensus among anyone who matters.
I posit that he's as far out on a limb as bart ehrman. arrogant or not, he hates the bible, and he's gonna keep getting embarrased by proper scholarship.
@@jupiterjones64 Who "matters" in your opinion? "Scholars" who subscribe to the same religious dogma that you do?
I agree with much of what he says. My issue is when he assumes that the most Christians say/believe. He says that Christian scholars claim a very literal interpretation of the age of the universe.
He is simply ignoring a lot of great scholars who nuance this very well.
He claims that none accept the difference between biblical authors. Once again ignoring scholars such as William Lane Craig, Mike Winger, Mike Licona.
The issue as presented here is very weak. Although most of it is correct the presentation is very one dimensional
First time I've heard of him. Bible Sojourner is excellently Biblical.
This guy is not a believer. ..... and then he announces that is actually not a christian but a Mormon. Unbelievable.
Yep. Dan believes in truth and honesty.
If your "christianity" cannot handle truth, is it really Christianity?
I find Christianity that teaches the truth much better than a religion which requires me to be dishonest.
Mormans are Christians... what is with Christians and the no true Scotsman?
It's hilarious how supposed adults argue about which one has the real magic sky daddy
I had a powerful encounter with Jesus over 40 years ago, I went to Seminary and I was a missionary to Russia. I have come to the understanding that we don’t know everything and never will in this life but all this rubbish over debates over finer theology is foolishness. We are called to evangelize the world and make disciples of Jesus but in this day and age we get sidetracked by trivial arguments. Unless a man is born from above he will never see the Kingdom of God! It’s not how articulate or educated you are like the guy in your video but what matters is a divine encounter with the Resurrected Messiah Yeshua ❤️👍
farts
Hard to defend faith against scholarship.
A few concerns.
1) You say many Christian schools teacher this kind of higher critical scholarship. Conservative schools and scholars use it different and arrive at very different conclusions. There are plenty of legitimate scholars who still hold to the presuppositions and beliefs attacked here.
2) How does someone consistently promote all this liberal theology and scholarship while being a member of the LDS? Or am I misunderstanding and he was a former member? Sounds like present. If so, that's totally suspicious and not unwarranted for Christians to call out. A Mormon attacking the reliability of the Bible and distinct Orthodox doctrines? How is that out of bounds to address?
3) You warn against tribalism, which I agree in principle, but how does that fit here? Liberal theology was recognized as outside the bounds of historic Christianity over a century ago now. Mormons have never been accepted. There are boundaries. Jesus and the apostles warn Christians about false teachers and give us instruction on how to separate from them. These are not small issues within the faith. So, your counsel is out of place.
Dan is not attacking the bible. He's simply teaching the bible.
Lots of christians accept Mormons.
Lots of people have espoused truth about the bible throughout history. Quit pretending the last 2000 years have been fundamentalism.
@@langreeves6419 I said he is attacking the reliability of the Bible, which he is. Saying authors of the Bible have their own private interpretations, for example, directly contradicts what Peter says about the Holy Spirit carrying holy men to produce Scripture.
@lcs-salam that's not attacking the bible.
Accurately portraying the bible is not attacking it.
It.
Is reliable that the bible is a collection of books.
And we can reliably say some of paul's letters were written by paul.
Other letters we can reliably say are forged in paul's name.
And a few letters that are supposedly written by paul, you can reliably say we can't know.
The book of peter was not written by peter. And we did not have an established cannon when it was written.
So you'll have to just guess at what scriptures the man pretending to be Peter was referring to.
@@langreeves6419 You have a very different definition of reliable. Forged letters are not typically understood as reliable. Peter (or whoever you think wrote 1 Peter) explicitly says the Holy Spirit guided writers of Scripture so that the writing is not a private opinion but rather from God. Is that true or not? Is the claim reliable - does it accord with reality? This is what I mean by reliable.
It might be possible to explain what god is without quoting someone else’s thoughts on god, it might be possible to explain what God is without reading something that was written about god. Can anyone explain what god is…. Try to explain to me what God is without quoting me any scriptures or anything said by A person remember, no using the Bible when you explain God. Try it. You can do it
@@BrianHaney-rr8rm that is impossible my friend, well, unless you’ve lived under a rock all this time. It is naive to think you can do that. All of the thoughts or images about God or the gods you can come up with would necessarily have been directly influenced by the words and imagination of someone else. Quoting Scripture or quoting someone else to explain God is simply being honest about who or what influenced your ideas.
@@OctavioMoss God is directly influenced by the words and imaginations of someone Who told you that? Where did you read that that’s awesome. Thank you for telling me what God is. else
Actually, I was going in a different direction, but I love that you explained what God is without quoting scripture or someone else. Would you agree with the writings of Buddha I would love to hear more of your thoughts.
@@OctavioMoss How is it impossible? Didn't God directly reveal himself to people like Noah, Abraham, and even Moses. Who influenced them?
@@Stranzua Almost every human gets a direct revelation from God at different levels. But our personal experiences with God will always go alongside our won understanding of the world in our time and our understanding of how deities work in our time. Moses, Abraham and Noah would have described God very differently than you and I would today because of the influence of their cultures in their imaginations of the world and the gods.
Well said my friend. Would you agree that it is simply a matter of trust? Trusting what you heard or read would you agree? We simply don't know the origin of intelligent life we either trust science or trust the Bible or trust the Koran. Or..... Follow the philosophy of Buddha. Knowing it is a matter of trust, can we assume one has more authority than the other? Would love to hear your thoughts
Go Dan!
Use your pride because you know more than god. Yup that is the message.
I love this guy is playing Dan's explanation and then rationalizing exactly what Dan talks about that he's negotiating with the text to put what he believes is more important than the other. To me you're not making any good argument why Dan McClellan is wrong when he destroys what most people say the Bible says... Sorry I believe Dan over you all day long...
Sorry dan whoever is not going to change my christianity. It is all about the triune God real in your life.
not going to learn grammar either I see
You got me. I typed too fast.
Wes Huff will overtake him as a credible scholar. I’d also suggest that Wes could counter his arguments.
I respect Wes' scholarship and knowledge. BUT disagree with many of the conclusions and theology he draws from all of the data he collects.
Sounds as though Dan McClellan is a nominal Mormon. I agree with almost everything he says in the clips in this video. I think the way he describes Jesus' divinity best reflects the biblical emphasis on Jesus' divinity, but I disagree that Jesus never claims to be God. I think it's more a matter of western Christendom traditionally emphasizing aspects of Jesus' divinity that are irrelevant to the story of Scripture, but more necessary for theological systems. The theological system can be accurate, but it's a distraction from the point of Scripture. Our focus should be on what the Scriptures are telling us, not on how to reconcile this all within an encyclopedic framework. It is necessary for western-culture Gentiles, due to the culture, to want to rationalize and organize all knowledge, including biblical knowledge, but we do better to transcend and universalize the culture into ways that the Scripture would shop and govern our thinking.
I like you Glen...fire
People have so much talk about Christians. I see how afraid people are of Jesus 😅
Also the most Famous Bible Scholar is Tim Mackie of the Bible Project. Saying Dan is bigger than that is not true at all. Bible Project has over 5 million subs just on RUclips alone. And he claims that Jesus is God, because of all the ways he fulfills biblical prophecy
Jesus doesn't fill all of the prophesies. Tell, you what. Watch Dan's videos or any video that is honest, or read a book, and it will explain it.
He is? Never heard of him.
Well, there you go. You are welcome
I am so thankful to have the Holy Spirit of the true living God in my life. God would have me to stay away from anyone that teaches against his word.
I remember watching only one video before by Mr. McClellan. I had not prior knowledge of him. But from that one brief video the Holy Spirit was letting me know not to listen to this man.
I mean no disrespect to Mr. Meclellan he speaks with scholarly biblical knowledge. But when I hear him speak it come across as if the only way to understand God's word is through historical biblical theology and man's intelecual logic. As if the Holy Spirit that dwells in all believer does not play a major roll in what God would speak into us individually as beleiver in Christ.
This verse comes to mind.
Galatians 3:3
New King James Version
3 Are you so foolish? Having begun in the Spirit, are you now being made perfect by the flesh.
Christians should seek guidance from Gods word and allow the Holy Spirit to lead you to the truth revealed within it.
God will not lead you astray if you seek him for the truth in his word.
What makes you think that both approaches are at odds?
you and Dan along with everyone else who takes an intellectual approach to the Bible completely miss that the divine purpose for the entirety of scripture is to reveal Jesus in order that we might be saved from death through faith in Him and restored in relationship with God. Everything else is of no consequence. One either believes that, or does not and will then have to live with the consequences of their decision.
My friend you are also using your brain in order to belief and follow Jesus. The thing is that you don't like how we, on the other hand, are using our brains in order to read the same text and believe
Well, he's right - get used to it.
Jesus said that scripture was God speaking.
Would you care to mention include those passages?
@OctavioMoss Matthew 22: 31 is the passage that comes to mind. He equates scripture with God speaking.
Of course its good to hear other points of view, but Dan is lying when he says he doesnt let his own beliefs affect his content. Everything he shares about Jesus and the bible is from a mormon perspective. And mormons are as christian as atheists so thats how good the information is. He may sound very intelligent and convincing talking about the 'data', but what it really is, is his own dogmatic mormon beliefs of the bible. He says Jesus isnt God, you know who disagrees with him? The apostles themselves. All of them were violently murdered because they wouldnt renounce their belief that Jesus is God. From the apostles, to the early church fathers, all the way thru church history to today, its been the core belief of Christianity that Jesus is God. Dan is doing satans work. Mormonism was started by an angel seen by John Smith, just like Muhammed with Islam. Those were demons not angels, its in Revelation. If your christian, dont watch Dan unless you understand your watching a person trying to disprove christianity for the benefit of mornonism.
🙉Dan said we evolved from monkies ? Jesus never claimed to be God? now who is crazy here ? Dan is eloquently crazy .
So your name is Dan. Got it.
Nobody thinks humans evolved from monkeys except a few back births in the southern US. Thanks for lowering the curve.
"The most famous and followed bible scholar"
Yet nobody in my reputable, secular institution's theology and biblical studies programs cites his work. It's never recommended in the Further Reading sections of our coursebooks. Whereas non-believing biblical scholars like Dr. Bart Ehrman are. His arguments regularly contain logical fallacies, and his entire "data over dogma" thing is in fact a dogma of it's own. Any biblical scholar worth their salt has a specialization, ie. Dr. Michael S. Heiser was an expert on Old Testament and Hebrew, Ehrman is New Testament, etc. etc.... McClellan seems to present himself as an expert in all things and just sticks to the "biblical scholar" moniker with little discussion about his actual qualifications. He also does a few subtle visual things - he wears comic book t-shirts to appear more like the fictional genius Dr. Sheldon B. Cooper of "Big Bang Theory" fame. He regularly presents things as academic consensus when it's either not as universally agreed as he implies, or doesn't mention credible minority positions in academia like a reputable scholar would. Either way, one cannot fact-check his assertions because he regularly doesn't cite sources (when claiming academic consensus, one should cite a study with the particular subject for the sole purpose of recognizing where the aggregated consensus is, so that one's own biases aren't involved in the declaration of consensus "because all my colleagues I know seem to all agree"). He also uses lots of what academics call "weasel words" (such as "scholars agree" with no citations of which scholars, etc.).
He may be "most famous and followed, with 1M followers" but I must ask if this content creator checked out all the social media followings of other biblical scholars across all platforms in the same manner. McClellan has only 72k subs on YT, while Heiser has 194k, and Mike Jones has 446k subs.... most of McClellan's followers are on TikTok, and I don't think that fame really counts when nobody talks about him in the field he works in professionally, just like Logan and Jake Paul are famous but there's very little respect for them in, say, professional boxing.
Data = deriving conclusions from facts
Dogma = selecting facts to support conclusions
See how many words I needed for that?
There is no ce as a Christian. There is bc and ad. He isn't reading the bible as it is written. He looks at the bible through his lens. His version. Pride is in the way and arrogance. You humble yours3lf to have a relationship with jesus to get to god.
THIS is why you need the Tradition of the Church to give understanding of how the Early Church interpreted the Scripture and documents they had. Welcome to the Catholic Church.
Catholics disagree with each other all over the place
thank you sir. this so called scientist/theologian is so deep in the bs
Indeed. The 'evolution of man' is a serious problem and straying from the Bible, Hebraic, the belief of the early church.....
See also: Dr. Bart Ehrman
Dan is actually a fake. He’s a self proclaimed “scholar” without a phd. He’s just another average person questioning the Bible, nothing wrong with that, but I’ve seen the same if not better arguments by atheist haters than Dan. He doesn’t show any credentials whatsoever. He’s an author of books, but he ISNT a scholar. Wesley huff is a scholar and his work speaks for itself, Dan has YET to do anything remotely close or mimic what Wesley huff does. Dan is fraud. I hope people can open their eyes when they research who he is.
A lot of human debate. Little of scripture. Or none.
The Church of the Lord Jesus Christ has nothing to gain by bringing Mormons and Muslims to the doctrinal table. There. I said it. Call me a "tribalist"... lol, as if that should matter...
If you speak really fast, you must be right.
The pride of satan making up your own verwion of what is written. How sad to sad all this.
Most famous? Most followed, etc.? A bit overblown. He's Mormon, so all he is is a Mormon scholar. Moving on...
So only those you deem as Christians can be Biblical scholars?
Unitarian christians have phd also.
He has a master from Oxford, England. That’s the most scholarly you can get imo. On top of that he’s got a PhD from the (research) University of Exeter, England.
While I’m not certain of the quality of the diverse universities in the USA, I’m pretty certain about the quality of this universities.
That seems pretty close to an ad hominem attack. I am as well and he teaches things that make many of us uncomfortable as well.
Wow. You have the most faulty logic of anyone.
Dan makes sense, you don't.
Dan Mcclellan
Michael Heiser
Karen Armstrong
3 people I believe they're speaking the truth