@@emptyhand777 it's more you shouldn't attack a person for their appearance. Commenting on how someone looks like someone else isn't quite the same, unless it's used in derision which I think this user with a wonderful name was not doing.
There are still monkeys because monkeys are monkeys. They aren't anything but monkeys and never will be and never were anything but monkeys. @@DrPhilGoode
I’m grateful that I’ve encountered Biblical scholarship on RUclips. It has helped me deconstruct all of the dogmas that was taught to me . I personally believe that Christians who proclaim openly their truth over others are unaware that what was taught to them is either false or imposed interpretations on the Biblical texts. Also, confidence does not equal accuracy.
I sincerely hope you didn't just rely on RUclips scholars and that you took time to examine real biblical scholarship. I watched one minute of this guy and he was in blatant error.
@@Dude_bruh look at my other comment in the comments section, he completely misunderstands how the church understood the apocryphal literature, it was not viewed as equal to scripture for all of church history. It was often viewed as valuable and useful but not equal. Those that saw it as equal to scripture like Augustine were people who did not know Hebrew and could not differentiate the difference between the apocryphal literature (written in Greek not Hebrew) and the Hebrew Scriptures (22-24 books of the Old Testament). The version of the Old Testament the early church used before it was translated to Latin was written in Greek and the apocryphal was often read next to it. The author of this video vastly over simplifies things and misrepresents the truth. Maybe he just did not know, or he is purposefully being deceptive? Whatever the case, that was his first statement and after that I would have a hard time trusting him.
Stand up comedy and preaching have a lot in common. Bill Hicks came out of a Southern Baptist background. Sam Kinison was literally a Pentecostal preacher before becoming a comic.
@@TacticusPrime maybe a lot not in common as well. Idk. Hicks was born into a Baptist family but very early on opted out. Kinison was technically ordained but left it all after like 24. I grew up a baptist and would suggest the lack of free and critical thinking is a speed bump many could not get over. I would probably make more of a connection between growing up in those cultures as opposed to being a clergy in those cultures. Most decent comedians are able to laugh at themselves and fundamentalist Christians have no shortages of bizarre experiences. This doesn’t relate to any of this, the exact opposite, but one of my favorites is probably Ricky Gervais. His Netflix specials are funny.
I think it was Bart Erhman that suggested when looking at The Bible, start with the four gospels. Take 4 sheets of paper, one for each gospel, and write down a list of all the significant details and events for the death/resurection and birth of Jesus and then compare them. Its a good exercise
@@durrangodsgrief6503the purpose of the exercise mentioned above is to show that the events themselves do not always agree. Chronologically or in terms of content.
The Old Testament also references a bunch of other books stating that there is more information about certain events or certain characters. In some places they expect the reader to either be familiar with or to have easy access to those books and almost all of those mentioned are lost or possibly absorbed into the main canon with no credit given. Jesus' idea of people becoming angels is also taken from the book of Enoch. The fact that people think the 66 books is the complete canon with nothing removed (looking at, *you* ,KJV onlys) is yet more evidence that people DO NOT read their Bibles further than what people tell them too.
@@bskec2177 I think this still serves the point. The bible has time on its side. Look at scientology, another example of a book written decades ago having such weight in the world. We live in the present, technically, where tales of fiction drive actions in fact, influence our behaviours to the point we can consider them true all along.
It's your final point that strikes me. Sacrifices made for one's values and/or beliefs is not out of the ordinary and it doesn't take much effort to research and confirm this. Yet, many Christians will go on as thought it is completely novel and unique to Christianity. It is this half-hearted/lazy/possibly deceptive mindset being promoted by religious leadership that played a huge role in my personal move away form religion.
@@cedward5718 Just because you die for the lie doesn't mean it's not a lie. Millions died for Hitler's lies they thought were true. Ashli Babbitt died for a lie that she thought was the truth.
With so many preachers and apologists repeating the same lies and nonsense over and over, is it any wonder that Christians believe their words to be true? Add in the fact that the majority of Christians have a tenuous grasp of the bible, at best, many have never read it all and almost none are aware of the work of biblical scholars and what we see is a prime example of faith. Choosing to believe what cannot be known, simply because they want it to be true. It is self-deception, sometimes through genuine ignorance of the facts but often through wilfull blindness.
That is absolute Bovine Excrement. You are the one ignorant of the facts. Most Christians are aware that the authorship of "the Bible" is that of human beings. Very few Christians accept the relatively recent claims of literalism and inerrancy. Most Christians are at least aware that there IS Biblical scholarship of a purely academic nature and accept the consensus that - how shall we say - some liberties have been taken. A very large segment of the Christian community is associated with one of the denominations whose order of worship conforms to a lectionary that covers the pretty much the entire Bible over a 3 year cycle.
I think that is one of the reasons Christianity is on the decline. Being told my whole life that the bible was the word of God, then reading it and finding out that it isn’t.
@@chasesutherland1168 It does seem to be an increasing phenomenon. We live in a world where almost everyone has access to more information, from varying sources, than ever before, and some people are using that facility to fact check things they have previously bellieved.
@@theoutspokenhumanist I don't think this book was ever intended to be taken this literally. I believe most Christian's have taken it way too far. They believe the words, but miss the entire "spirit" of it. All I can tell you is, up until a few days ago, I was just as unlikely a candidate as you appear to be in believing in faith. Agnostic as they come. Logically minded so much so that I am borderline autistic. Emotions and spirit simply do not compute with me. I wasn't looking for it. Actually, like you, Spent most of my time arguing against it. But, something changed one day. It's nothing I can say or do to convince you, as there was nothing nobody could say or do to convince me. Just One day, I wasn't. The next day; I was. And it's beautiful. I wish it upon everyone who might come across it. My life is forever changed.
@@MidwestFarmToys Good for you. I am sincerely happy that you have found peace. I never tell anyone they are wrong to believe, my focus is on what may be demonstrated to be factual. My only observation is that it is not necessary for something to be true for it to bring us comfort or positive emotions. It is only necessary that you believe it. I do not believe it and I do not have faith. I do not believe because I prefer to know. I do not have faith because faith is choosing to bellieve something simply because we want it to be true. As for the bible. I'm sorry to say that it does not have a 'spirit', except what you choose to read into it. I absolutely respect your right to interpret it any way you choose, for your own purposes, just as long as you do not do as others and pretend to 'know' what it is trying to say. Not only was ithe bible never intended to be taken literally, it was never even intended to be a book. It is a collection of documents written by a host of different people at different times in different places with very different ideas. Partly mythology, partly mythologised history, whilst parts of it may be loosely based upon real events, none of it is history as we understand the term and none of it is evidence or even reliable testimony to any ideas about gods. I urge you to always stick to what you can show to be true and never assert the unknowable as fact. But never allow anyone to tell you what to personally believe.
Brad Stein is a mediocre comedian who is cashing in on the evangelical right nationalist movement like a number of other celebrities who think being famous automatically makes them experts on complex social issues . One of his funniest lines is that he is open minded and accepting of everyone because he is a conservative. You gotta admit that is hilarious
I would say that a lot on the left are not great either, in terms of accepting boundaries and opposing views. I hate the left and right crap, and honestly, I do not get along with you types on any side, but as someone with eclectic views who does not accept everything because "tolerance", I think you gotta grow up. God or something like God may be real btw: now go ahead, admit that may be true, though I am Muslim so if you insult I can call you an Islamophobe. Good luck "pal"
On authorship, it's not even just accepting the Bible's words as inerrant, bit the traditional attributions that have sprung up around it but which the text makes no direct claim
I am and will be forever grateful to Dan for making these videos. Hands down, my knowledge of the Bible has increased easily (!) 10-fold since I first encountered his videos about 8 to 10 months ago!
I'm aware of the difficulties with the Bethlehem story. But consider this. At its foundation, what is the story about? It is a story about a husband dragging his wife on a trip without having the sense to make a hotel reservation. So how can that story *not* be true?
After all, Lazarus was raised, never said a word about it. The daughter of Jairus was raised, didn't say a thing about what she'd been through. And the Gospels tell us that at the time of the crucifixion all the graves in Jerusalem opened and their occupants wandered around the streets to greet people. So it seems resurrection was something of a banality at the time. -Christopher Hitchens
Dumb analogy! The book was written 800 years after the events and was never written as facts but only as an epic tale ! Totally different than the Bible: especially the New Testament.
@@davidjanbaz7728 Actually, most Evangelical Christians believe in a seven day creation (with no witnesses). They believe in a Talking Snake. They believe in Exodus and the Tumbling walls of Jericho when there's no evidence that Hebrews were literate until centuries later. So the Trojan analogy isn't that far out. Moreover, as scholarship has shown, none of the NT writers personally met Jesus...
Yeah every time a new place is uncovered fundamentalist Christians get a religious hard-on.c Finding a city does not prove a supernatural event was real as described in the bible. It is called historical fiction.
One thing that more people should be aware of with the whole "Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies" nonsense is a case where Jesus reads in the temple and references a text in the Old Testament and then adds "recovering sight to the blind" smack in the middle of it. He then acts as if he was fulfilling a prophesy right there. In the original text, there was NO mention of restoring sight to the blind. Jesus is literally adding words to the scriptures that were not there before. And God has special curses for those who do that. To add to this, someone tries to retroactively add that phrase to the Old Testament thousands of years after it was written JUST because Jesus said so. To say that the Bible hasn't been tampered with or is inerrant is laughable. And that's *before* we get into the blatant historical inaccuracies.
What about Isaiah 35:5? I am NOT religious, but is this translation from English rendered incorrectly from the Hebrew? (Looking at the translation from the Amplified Bible)
@@What_If_We_Tried He wasn't reading from Isaiah 35:5. He was reading from Isaiah 61:1-2. Isaiah 35 isn't even a prophecy that could be considered to be about Jesus first coming, it would more closely concern his second.
@@blksmagma I wasn't inferring this had anything to do with "Jesus", but I guess saying that I was "NOT religious" wasn't clear enough. Having said that, none of the prophecies in the Tanakh (aka: the Hebrew scriptures, or the Old Testament) support Jesus of Nazareth as a messiah of Israel. In fact, Isaiah 34 - 35, is part of a future prophecy about the 'salvation' of the nation of Israel from her Gentile enemies. Add to that Zechariah 14, and Isaiah 66, and it is obvious that Christianity is flat out wrong when it comes to understanding the Torah / Judaic concepts of mashiakh (messiah). Personally, I'm just an observer of religion, and glad I don't practice any of them. Nevertheless, Christians and Muslims have to ignore the plain meanings of the Hebrew texts - in context of the totality of the Tanakh - in order to state that Jesus is "the messiah" of Israel. In the case of Muslims though, I think they just say the Jews were wrong, and that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses were the first Muslims, and ignore the Hebrew bible entirely, rather than Christian apologists who have explain why they grafted the Tanakh onto the Christian New Testament, and then go thru enormous amounts of apologetic gymnastics in an attempt to prove their claims about Jesus of Nazareth being the messiah.
@@What_If_We_Tried I apologize, I've seen a few people on these videos claim to not be religious, but they were definitely lying or just "spiritual". And then considering the subject of the text you gave me I made some assumptions. The translation is pretty faithful as far as I've seen. The Amplified version follows modern translations fairly well.
I think they should. This religion is being misrepresented even by it's own followers. Everyone is reading the words but not understanding the *spirit* of it.
Hey Dan! Im wondering if you can do a video on the cognitive science of religion? The whys behind religious belief? It'd be interesting to hear and to contextualize this for us lay- people. Thanks so much!
"cognitive science" Because people are gullible and easy to fool. Part of it is due to the evolution of mankind over millions of years. Human leadership (kings - chiefs and so on) coupled with religious believe make controlling them easier. We are gullible to b/s.
Hi. Im wondering how you reconcile your beliefs in the Mormon church whilst having the knowledge you have gained in your qualifications and holding the views you now hold?
Wow! That is shocking, I didn't know this about Dan. I have left that religion and I am 6th gen. I understand it as a lifestyle choice but as for truth, it is seriously lacking. I'm a bit disappointed.
I believe that the Old Testament is a compilation that was written by many authors and editors. But this does not mean that I cannot also believethat the Bible is "literal" and "inerrant" (although I hate those terms because even evangelicals believe neither.) It is no more of a stretch to say that God inspired the Bible working through a committee just as much as a single man. The Old Testament itself contains many declarations that it is tertiary history working from multiple sources. It's not trying to hide this or pretend to be anything else. It is modern day fundamentalists who have made this claim, not the Bible itself or the centuries of scholars who studied it.
Matthew was transparently making stuff up so that “prophecies” would be “fulfilled”. He said as much. That he used the Greek OT also betrays the lack of Devine inspiration. There is no way an omniscient god would reveal inaccurate information to him.
Matthew was a tax collector in a Roman city and would have interacted and been influenced by many mixed cultures. He would probably have had to know/understand multiple languages to do that job as well.
So, RUclips now allows creators to lift an entire video, put a little comment at the beginning like, "Brian is dropping truth bombs here" and post this as his own creation? Dan at least stitches commentary and sources into a video. What did this "creator" add to Brian's sermon?
Mark wrote his book and forgot about some of the prophesies that Jesus was supposed to fulfil, such as being born in Bethlehem. Then Matthew retcons the story so that the prophesies that were not fulfilled in Mark is fulfilled in Matthew's retelling. And Christians think that because the prophesy must be true because it was made hundreds of years before the Jesus story, and the authors wouldn't be SO dishonest that they would look up the prophesies so that they can write it into their story?🙄
The "If You Say It Forcefully and With Conviction" schtick of people like Brad Stein is a big part of why so many get sucked into believing these lies ("He's dropping bombs!"). I'll take the calm, rational, explanatory erudition of Dan over these hucksters all day, every day.
This is the exact same thing that happened with the people who followed the Old Testament. People started going nuts over every single word in a strict and literal sense... and started completely missing the *spirit* of the words. Essentially becoming the exact thing the faith goes against
Hundreds of authors, editors, and redactors - and don't forget all the translators! A lot of English-speaking Christians seem to believe that the Bible was written in English...
I've heard conjecture of Jesus being born in "Bethlehem of Zebulon" (which is just a few miles away from Nazareth), as opposed to the Judaean Bethlehem.
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y I am sorry you feel that way. I could tell you a personal story, but without me being able to prove what I'm saying because it's internal and spiritual, we both know you will dismiss it and we will be wasting time. On that note, "I shake the dust from my feet and leave this place."
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y so did I lol. That is why this is so great. I was something else. Am is all that matters I shall shake the dust from my feet and leave this place. Be well my friend.
I think the earliest archaeologists were treasure hunters. If Biblical archaeology overlaps with this (and plenty of people know whether it does, but I don't without doing some research) I guess they had a bulldozer throttle in one hand and a Bible in the other.
Even the Bible has no claims about most of the disciples going on to proclaim the resurrection to the world, and being martyred for it. After the first few chapters of Acts 3/4 of them just disappear from the story. Tales of them travelling the world and being martyred come from much later Bible fanfic.
@@timothywilliams8530 Thing is, we have a very good idea of when the hagiographies of the apostles start showing up, and other than a confirmation in the Epistle of Clement for Peter and Paul, the rest are literally centuries later.
@@VulcanLogic The epistle of Clement doesn’t actually say that they were killed. It says that “5:4 Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labours, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him.”, and of Paul “and having preached righteousness to the whole world, and having come to the extremity of the West, and having borne witness before rulers, he departed at length out of the world, and went to the holy place, having become the greatest example of patience.”. This is the Charles Hoole translation. The key terms are “delivered testimony “ and “born witness”. In the Greek text “μαρτυρήσας” for both. The literal meaning of “martyr” is “witness “ , but it later came to have the meaning of “killed for the religion “ for Christians. It is therefore not clear whether Clement (writing fairly early) intended the original meaning (as Hoole translates it) or the later meaning. If the original, we cannot take the epistle as a definitive statement of them being killed. Not that Clement was an eyewitness anyway.
There is the idea that something is more important because its the biggest. First there is a logical flaw here, that somethings grander in a class of things thus makes it unique. But if we consider things not quantum in nature, then variance is a given, and even things quantum in nature must follow the uncertainty principle. So the fact that the bible has 66 or 80 books does and thus its the largest collections or the largest codex from a given period is not demonstrative of the quality. To give an example of this phenomena, if we start on a single point on earth and record rainfall, the first time it rains, it will be the largest rainfall that spot had. I we wait approximately 4 times as long, we will have on average a rainfall double in size to that first rain fall . . . . so on. Around 1979 in the place near where I lived had the highest 48 hour total of rain of 48 inches, about 20 years later a place in India broke that record, and more recently Dickenson Texas broke that record with 52" of rain. How does the saying go from Warcraft, there will always be a Lich King. There will always be a record holder for various parameters in the class. The other notion is the age of the bible, which I will contradict Dan on, there are elements in the bible that are up to 4500 years in age. For example the notion that Yahweh crafted humans from clay originally comes from a story about Nammu and Enki (who just happens to have been a god in Bethlehem at some point). The beginning of genesis 1 appears to have been lifted from text that is maybe 3200 years in age. So when Dan is referring to the bracket of 1000 years hes talking about local sources, not near-eastern sources. Or lets put this in context, the first mention of Yahweh is from the 9th century BCE, the first mention of the creation goddess Nammu is from the 26th century BCE. The use of the word Tahom and Waters beneath the earth (Noahic) in the bible is more similar to the way the early elemental sprites of Eridu would be considered relative to the Enuma Elis (Tiamat and Apsu). But the text of the bible we really want to focus on is the Song of Deborah, which many scholars want to somehow sideline not realize what a gem it is. Deborah (Bee) sat under a palmtree outside Bethel. But what we have in this text is a bit of slight of hand. Because the Palmtree reference points at Asherah, and Bethels name at the time of Deborah was Luz, which means a type of tree, the almond tree, and the almond grove is literally synonymous with Asherah. In fact luz was probably more well known for its sacred almond tree (the asherah pole as so labeled in the bible) at that time versus an alter to El, the most high. If one wants to know how this was idolized, its was repurposed for modern hebrew. Or to make the point is that the Song of Deborah was important because its sacred symbols were important, not inspite of them. And when they sang of Yahu, its highly like they were singing about a god named Yahu, not Yahweh. In modern Judaism singing the song as written would be taboo, the almond tree would be taboo, associating luz with Israelite piety would be taboo, considering that Anath of Shamgar fame was a goddess would be taboo. And thats why we should consider this as a source. And so the key issue is not really the sources, the bible has some very important sources, the key issue is how scribes over time included (marked) these sources in the body of literature. And it stands to make this point that the Tanakh was not a codex until the 10th century, prior to this its was a collection of scrolls curated in various lineages. We don't know whether there are any written fragments before 700 BCE, because other than the few scribbles of writing on pot shards and broken rocks, there is no evidence of literacy. Israel Finkelstien argues the the Omride dynasty of the Early 9th century must have had writing to field the type of army that the Assyrians described, but Israel's elites were conquered and thrown to the four winds. Moreover in the ninth century what we do have is no more that a slight local varient of phonecian, prior to that there is some material written in Early linear, which is somewhere between phonecian and protoSinaitic. In the late bronze age there are writings in both akkadian cuneiform and protosiniatic. Finkelstein thinks the protoSiniatic language formed in gaza, whereas I think it formed along the nile. Its just not certain how literate people were outside of a tiny number of people who could read and write heiroglyphs and cuneiform. But the earliest language the biblical texts are written in is close to phonecian than any other language of the period. Moreover, these early texts found in Psalms and Proverbs have bits an pieces of Ugarit mythology. And so there we have a direct textual (not needing a transliteration from another script) source, although the stories we do have are in Akkadian cuneiform so that requires a jump. So likely these biblical sources are from oral traditions. What we should take from this is there is a grey zone around the biblical origins were intertextuality existed across languages in that period, just as the Assyrian borrowed from the Babylonians to create their genesis myth, so did the Yahwist borrow from myths of Canaan and Mesopotamia. We can see this clearly in the Noahic flood myth were two local sources are borrowing from two different mesopotamian sources to create aspects of the Jewish myth. And so we see here the intertextuality is complex and in two dimensions.
Wow - never heard of this Brad Stein dude but he comes off as a combination of carnival barker and used car salesman. For years I’ve questioned many of the things he says in this preaching session. What you lay out here actually answered my questions. THANK YOU. Him..? Just another white-dude-Jesus-salesman, to whom I will give a WIDE berth.
Joshua made the Sun stop moving in the sky for 24 hours. Of course that really meant the Earth stopped rotating around it's axis and the oceans didn't somehow slosh over and wipe out everything that day.
Which branch of Christianity's Bible? Catholic? Eastern? Protestant? Each sect adds to or takes out certain portions. Mormons have the KJV along with a few other more recent holy books.
Dan, can you talk about how Leviticus 14 is not about a cure for leprosy, but just a cleansing ritual for people who have been healed (somehow) of leprosy? A lot of people bring this up to say that the Bible is inerrant, but Christians respond saying that it's not a cure but just cleansing. It seems the error in this case is to think that someone that's asymptomatic somehow and essentially providing ritualistic "proof" that they have been healed. It also seems to be a way for the temple to make money.
I don't know if this is still current scholarship, but back in my Late Antiquity seminar in undergrad, my professor told us people around the time of the early Church would refer to any kind of skin condition or blemish as "leprosy". So someone might have an allergic reaction to say, eating some fruit, and get a huge rash that they thought was "leprosy". They'd go see a future saint or _thaumaturgos_ (wonder-worker), maybe a stylite (i.e. the guys who spent years living on the top of pillars, preaching, like talking billboards for Jesus). A few days later their rash would clear up and they'd claim to have been healed of their leprosy by the saint.
@@digitaljanus I'm not a professor, but I think you may be misremembering slightly. I googled it awhile back, the term in Hebrew is tzaraath and potentially includes a variety of skin conditions but definitely not leprosy. The Greek equivalent is lepros, which also doesn't mean leprosy. I think it's most likely that leprosy is named after the Greek term. So they probably didn't refer to everything as leprosy, but had a catch-all term which leprosy was then named after. Because Biblical leprosy definitely isn't leprosy.
Correction. Its incorrect to correlate AD and CE. The Christian Era didnt really offically start until Emperor Constantine. This was hundreds of years after Jesus
There's a lot of books that we can say are not like any other books in history. Should we consider that they are from god too? There's no book like Christopher Hitchen's God is Dead book, does that mean we should consider that atheism is true??
Why is this so hard just to understand data and still understand we can find amazing meaning in the text? In my religion, I wish we could see it with both of our scripture. Not historical but has had huge influences, both for good and for evil.
Evangelicals: 66 books, remarkable agreement, inerrant, God breathed. Reality: Irreconcilable conflicts, full of errors, beliefs that are made up but justified with verses.
Hey Dan I hope you might see this. If I wanted to "worship" god what would that actually mean according to your knowledge of the original texts etc. Thank you for your content.
Judaism is what Jesus taught. In the synoptics Jesus taught to keep the commandments for eternal life. Peter and the apostles went regularly to the temple/synagogue, even three times a day. And Jesus taught to repent for forgiveness of sins (Lords prayer)
It would depend greatly on the time period and culture. Being an 8th century BC Israelite Yahweh-devotee was quite different from being a Hellenistic Jew from the time of Jesus.
@@jimjim292 I know he is thanks. I mean from the perspective of what it means to "worship". The root of the phrase etc. Something very much in Dan's wheelhouse. I didn't ask for a preacher.
@@davidrogers8321What fre2725 said. There isn't really a consistent view of God over time. If you want the "earliest" depiction of the Israelite God, you'd probably have to go back to El, head god of the Canaanites, as Israelites were Canaanites.
What happened to the twelve apostles of Jesus and were they martyred for their beliefs? The book of Acts which is considered by many to be fictional in nature tells us about James, the son of Zebedee, being killed. Judas, who it is claimed betrayed Jesus died a natural death. Peter was allegedly killed in Rome. What happened to the other nine apostles? No body really knows. Therefore, when people claim the apostles died for their belief in the resurrection of Jesus they are speculating and nothing more. They have no good evidence for their claim. But we hear that claim about the apostles being repeated over and over again. It is a lie.
It's not in the Bible but it's in subsequent literature and traditions. Which is not to say that's valid, but it's not made up anymore than anything else. It's just not a part of Scripture. You can Google it yourself if you want. They're considered martyrs and saints for a reason.
The First Epistle of Clement does state that Paul and Peter were killed. Of course, it's just attributed to Clement by tradition, as it's not signed and is considered anonymous. But as It dates from the early 2nd century at the latest, maybe you could add those two with James. The rest are all very late hagiographies with no basis in reality.
@@VulcanLogic Peter was included in the list but not Saul who is also know as Paul. Saul was not one of the twelve apostles of Jesus. He did not even know Jesus let alone be one of the twelve. He claimed he had a vision of the dead Jesus and installed himself as a speaker for Jesus which was a lie. It reminds me of Saul communicating with the spirit of Samuel an act which was really frowned upon in the Hebrew bible. Paul also claimed he was communicating with the spirit of Jesus.
Not having proof of something does not make it a lie. There is a difference. The apostles by many accounts were missionaries, traveling far and wide to spread the word. There is every chance these people parted ways and never were to be heard from again. There was no instant communication back then. Every second of peoples lives were not documented for all to see on Instagram.
If you look at the list, only the top 5 or 10 even remotely resemble a prophecy. The rest are so vague that they could almost apply to anyone. And most of those 5-10 weren't even meant to be prophecies when they were originally written, but instead were talking about a person or event at that time.
@@criticalthinker2477 Mandy: So you're astrologers, are you? Well what is he then? Wise man: Mmmm? Mandy: What star sign is he? Wise man: Well, Capricorn. Mandy: Ehh, Capricorn, eh? What are they like? Wise men: He is the son of God, our Messiah. King of the Jews. Mandy: And that's Capricorn, is it? Wise man: No, no, no. That's just him. Mandy: Ohh, I was going to say, 'Otherwise, there'd be a lot of them.' Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” (1979)
Yeah they actually can. I remember getting handed a list of them in college. Didn't even have the actual bible verses on them, just something like this: "'#23 Born of a virgin, Isaiah 7:14". Except when you actually looked them all up, they're using bad translations, or could easily be Matthewesque after the facts, none of them are explicit enough to even qualify as prophecy and all require presuppositions. They're really quite useless, but people have spent a lot of time doing flawed pattern recognition on this and they've come up with hundreds.
It’s mostly reserved for Catholic and Orthodox bibles. But some versions of the KJV still include if, if I recall correctly. There is also the NRSV and RSV. Correct me if I’m wrong.
@maklelan Hey Dan. I have a question, and I ask this as respectfully as I can. How do biblical scholars continue to be part of the church after learning these things? I remember finding out about a lot of these inconsistencies/inaccuracies in college and quickly stopped being a Christian. It seemed to me that a book that was so obviously entirely human in origin and just as if not moreso prone to human error was not something worthy of structuring my life around. Yet, and correct me if I'm wrong, the vast majority of biblical scholars are some flavor of Christian. I know you're a member of the LDS. Does your research have a significant impact on your faith? Do you separate the two?
Imperfect scripture is much more in line with the scriptural record itself, which is riddled with extremely flawed prophets and other protagonists, than a belief in biblical inerrancy. Even then, a scholar could find some social and/or spiritual meaning within a tradition asserting inerrancy, even as they disagree on that specific point.
I'm not Dan, but a fair number of biblical scholars are actually atheist or agnostic. Even as a believer, approaching the literature honestly allows a much more nuanced, and dare I say, even deeper relationship with one's faith. I would heartily recommend "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" by John Shelby Spong. Very eye opening and demonstrates how one might be able to look at the literature critically and still maintain faith. After all, the Anglican/ Episcopal church teaches that faith rests on 3 things: Scripture, Tradition and Reason.
I used to be as agnostic as they come. I'm borderline autistic and spiritual/non-logical stuff is virtually impossible for me. I'm an engineer and not dull. But, not too long ago, after constantly being angry and negative and alone and an outsider, honestly, the faith just "spoke" to me. I wept for 2-3 days which I don't do. Everything turned beautiful. I don't know what else to say about it. One day it hit me and I knew. That's all I need. Is it verifiable? No. Is it exaggerated? Probably. But your spirit is not meant to be data driven. No amount of evidence or data is going to fulfill you SPIRITUALLY. you're never going to find it looking at facts. And I think that is the point.
@@MidwestFarmToys Do you mean you had a spiritual experience that led you to Christianity or just a spiritual experience in general? I consider myself an atheist. But that doesn't mean I consider myself a non-spiritual person. I just don't tie anything supernatural to it. I think it's absolutely possible to reckon with things beyond your understanding and your place within a vast and infinitely complex reality and not fall back on magical thinking.
@@JackadooSmork the truth is this is relatively new to me. This just occurred a few days ago (2/12) so I feel a bit out of place answering your question like I know for sure. I will say I tried for a very long time to be spiritual without tying it to anything specific to satiate this lack of evidence and logic. Just believing in a non-specific higher power of the universe or this or that. Even dabbled in tarot and things. None of that ever brought me any sort of comfort or warmth or release. Never less anxious. Never less mundane. Never less confused. Everything was just the same as it always was. Whatever happened was different in every imaginable way. I wasn't actively seeking it at the time. It just arrived and It was inspired by Christianity. I was at a low point and I just decided to stop caring if everything about it was literal or factual, and just dove in and "surrendered". And that's all that it took. I honestly think that is what holds people back from whatever I experienced. Like tinkerbell... you have to BELIEVE (lol) What I do not know is if I would feel the same if it were some other religion with similar messages, or if there is something particular about this one. Like I said it just arrived. Either it was a ridiculous coincidence, or it was Christianity. When I say Christianity, I mean the *spirit* of what it's teaching. I decided to stop caring if this stuff happened or if it's parables. I think Christianity has been warped so much that even most "Christians" are missing it's true intention. They give it a bad rep. Anyway, I don't think I did much justice in explaining this, but I thank you for listening or considering it anyway.
The biblical stories that are mythical is: the beginning, the great flood, the Tower of Babel, Jesus coming back to life, etc. I’m still waiting for any Christian cultist to bring Demonstrable Evidence to the table. Instead, all they can do is lie.
I like how you say at the end that even if the Bible isn't historically accurate, there's nothing wrong with believing in it because it's a normal human thing to do, assigning special meaning to things that are important to you. Rather than just saying Christians are stupid or deluded, you just say that they're only doing what is normal and human!
Darn, you kept ruining his story.. why let those pesky facts get in the way? 😂 Great stuff as always. Isn’t there also a lack of evidence even for the claim that ‘the disciples’ were killed? How many? And less for whether they even had a chance to save themselves by recanting? Seemed an important point to me when I heard Paulogia debunking Habermas.
I agreed with you up until a few days ago when it hit me in the face so to speak. I was agnostic as they come, and am not at all emotional. Everything about me was pure logic. I was not looking for it. It just arrived in me. There are many millions of people that fully realize "it's just a book" like I did. Somehow, I now devote my life to its teaching. Can I provide you proof? No. Does it make logical sense? No. I am not sure what to tell you other than it happened to me. And I was as unlikely of a candidate as you appear to be before that.
There is no evidence of martyrdom. There is no evidence that yeshua existed outside of literature. I agree with all of your points but think that you grant too many assumptions the way that many assume univocality of the texts.
I have to disagree on your last point. Conservative evangelical apologist Sean McDowell got his PhD on the topic of early Christian martyrs, and he has 0 of the apostles dying as martyrs. If anyone has a bigger reason to be biased in favor of the martyrdom of v the apostles or had looked at it more closely, I've never heard of them. You can find a debate between McDowell and Paulogia about this. It was on Unbelievable iirc.
There was no evidence his followers gave up their lives for a magic man. Peter and Paul had 15 different deaths recorded. But it is just church tradition/mythology. John and Phillip had several deaths recorded but no earlier than the 2nd century. Bartholomew, Jude, Thomas - 10th Century! According to "church tradition'" the merciful executioners of Andrew allowed him (absurdly) to give a three day sermon prior to his execution! Ha!
There are plenty. Society at large thought they were blasphemers. It's the same reason trump has been hit with 473274 charges and nothing has stuck... only back then court was a lot more... well.. just a formality.
@@danieldelanoche2015 I am well aware of the difference. You asked for good reasons; Not evidence. Be clear with your intentions and choose your words carefully. Be well my friend.
@@GWFHegel-ms7gz I’m not! It is up to the believer to bring Demonstrable Evidence to the table! They are the ones claiming their make believe gods as real with ZERO Demonstrable Evidence, only lies!
so then why not change the original story to fit the narrative completely? If Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem but they wanted to make it - why not edit Marks Gospel and just change it?
Mark’s gospel was the first one to be written, so it was likely already circulating a bit by the time the later gospel writers decided to tell the story how they wanted to. Maybe there was a community that replaced Mark with Matthew/Luke, maybe the community that the later gospels originated from, but the other communities would already have copies of Mark and wouldn’t want to replace what they likely already viewed as scripture, so the later gospels just added on to what they already had. And the later gospels already do the work of explaining how he was born in Bethlehem but is said to be from Nazareth, so it doesn’t necessarily contradict Mark, you say what Christians still do today, that Mark just didn’t feel like including that part
Star Wars is my favorite go-to example. Lucasfilm, and now Disney, exerts complete control over all the Star Wars IP and can change whatever they want in theory, but the fanbase won't always let them. A common complaint about the most recent stories is that people keep getting stabbed with lightsabers but survive, which seems to contradict the high lethality of the weapon we came to expect from earlier material. Does Disney change the prequels? No. Instead, fans make up apologetic-like arguments about how Qui Gon Jinn was stabbed in a particularly damaging location (his spine, which doesn't make sense why that would be fatal within a few minutes but they don't care), whereas everyone else who survived was stabbed in survivable places, sometimes because their species has a second stomach or something. When a story is well entrenched it's often preferred to just make up new extracanonical information to explain the disparity than it is to go back and update the original version. We on the outside of the community think it looks ridiculous but they prefer it.
Also, they may have never clashed in the beginning. One audience had Mark, one had Matthew. It wasn't like you went to the bookstore and compared 2 books. Matthew may have been aimed at Jewish converts. John almost seems like it was written for Alexandrian Gnostics.
a movie is much harder than a book - specifically one thats 1) in the begging not many copies of which exist 2) not many people could read 3) could have been easily manipulated... @@benroberts2222
Also, the end of the world was coming to these audiences. When that didn't happen within these people's lifetimes, and the canon was being formed a few hundred years later, changing one isn't going to change all the copies out there.
If Lazarus died and came back to life before Jesus then why didn't that do all the stuff that Jesus's resurrection was supposed to do like defeating death? Probably so the story could happen.
Jesus came back to life on his own. Lazarus did so because of Jesus. So it's Jesus who holds the power of life and death. And how could one mere human pay for the sins of all of humanity unless he was himself sinless and/or God? He could only pay for his own sins.
There is one instance found in the bible that was verified only in the nineteenth century and that is the Hittites. People thought the Hittites mentioned in the Hebrew bible did not exist and concluded the authors of the bible made it up until some archaeological evidence was found in Turkey in the nineteenth century.
Has it been verified that the Hittites found in Turkey were the same Hittites referred to in the Hebrew Bible, given that the text was written pretty far from Turkey, and the Bible describes them as being in or near Canaan?
I understand how we can prove that parts of the bible were written/composed in the last 1000 years like Dan mentoned; however, how can we prove that no text was written/composed before that time? I don't see how that can be proven? Couldn't there be original authors and later authors that changed, altered, and edited the original text? How can one definitively say no text was written before that time period???
I'm just a nobody, so take my response with that in mind, but; some of these texts contain evidence that they were composed much later than than the text suggests. References to people, places and events that had not yet happened.
@@bipolarrambling242 Yes, I understand that references to events that happened much later can prove they were written much later. My point is that it's impossible to disprove there are no texts that came before. Later authors could have edited or added or rewritten. Does that make sense? I just don't see how you can possibly prove there were no previous texts???
@@dinocollins720 That makes sense. I suppose as with any subject all we can do is work with the data we do have, and whilst we shouldn't exclude the possibility of other data existing somewhere, to make any assumptions about such a thing would be pretty pointless.
There is one hilarious ‘prophecy’ that Jesus fulfilled and it is found in the book of Matthew. Matthew 21:7 They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on. Jesus was made to ride two donkeys at the same time. How? Jesus was ‘unique’ and ‘supernatural’.
I'm sorry but, where does it say he sat on them both at the same time? I have two vehicles. I laugh that someone 2000 years from now will see that and think I am lying because I can't drive them both at the same time.
@@MidwestFarmToys “They put their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on”. I think even a first grader can picture the scene where the people put their cloaks on the two donkeys in order for Jesus to sit on them both. You shouldn’t be having beef with me. You should question the mental capacity of the guy who wrote the book of Matthew whoever he or she was. The same story is recounted in the book of Luke. Luke 19: When Jesus had finished saying all this, he went on toward Jerusalem. As he was getting near Bethphage and Bethany on the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples on ahead. He told them, “Go into the next village, where you will find a young donkey that has never been ridden. Untie the donkey and bring it here. If anyone asks why you are doing this, just say, ‘The Lord needs it.’ ” They went off and found everything just as Jesus had said. While they were untying the donkey, its owners asked, “Why are you doing that?” They answered, “The Lord needs it.” Then they led the donkey to Jesus. They put some of their clothes on its back and helped Jesus get on. What do you know? There is only one donkey not two.
I'm picturing the cloaks being stretched so tightly over the two animals that Jesus is sitting on the cloaks covering the gap between them and not on either donkey individually!
It is somewhat easy I suppose to kinda sorta maybe 'prove' via data, or maybe more accurately lack thereof, of the Biblical account of Christ's death and resurrection but harder to prove via data beyond the Gospel accounts that he did. We have what we have and I don't believe it can all be so easily dimissed as full of holes and totally a myth. Whoever wrote the Gospels, as full of contradictions and probably some fiction, did it just to satisfy some personal (or persons) need to tell a fanciful story of this guy named Jesus Christ? Maybe so, I don't know. Certainly people have died for many causes in the time of those causes taking place because it is real and happening, I don't believe it would have been any different for those that were martyred after having witnessed the death and resurrection or like Paul having a vision or visit from the risen Christ (I would think it would even be of greater significance that someone like Paul went to the grave not being an eye witness but relying on a vision) - it was real to them or why else would they go through such horrific consqueneces? Was it pride and didn't want to swallow it? That doesn't make sense to me if like it was said they had normal human thinking brains othewise they would be classified as insane.
There were a lot of professing Messiahs before and during Yeshua's day. He was rather unique in responding without collective violence to imperial oppression and occupation. Moreover, those other movements did not live on. I would say it is worth noting his own brother died a martyr, as did Paul (who claimed to have had a mystical experience involving Yeshua), and most of the other close talmidim. To simply write this off as typical or what happens throughout various times and cultures misses the importance of claims regarding direct experience of a resurrected person. Maybe they hallucinated or one can explain this in other naturalistic terms. But I don't think belief in a "cause" is sufficient.
Maybe if Jesus of Nazareth had started an armed revolt against Roman occupation, and, succeeded in helping Israel to regain control of their land after expelling the occupiers, and helped to properly restore the Temple services, many Israelites might have demanded that the Sanhedrin consider anointing him as 'Mashiakh' (Messiah).
@@What_If_We_Tried Maybe. But God doesn't bow to worldly power and accolades. Jeshua rejected the prevailing expectation surrounding the messianic figure. The suffering servant is not the military warrior or commander-in-chief of legions.
@@Brutuscomedy That's your Christian, anti-Torah, and miso-Judaic opinion obviously, and you are entitled to it. And your position - if taken to its logical conclusion - is that the nation of Israel should have just accepted the Roman occupiers with love, instead of fighting back to liberate their land. * And should the people of Ukraine, just 'turn the other cheek', and love the Moscovi terrorists, and also give their cloaks to the Russian occupiers? Meanwhile, as a non-religious person, all I can do is hope that the followers of the three Abrahamic religions will not start WW3. And for Christian apologists, and Muslim Imams, Zechariah 14, and Isaiah 66; which describes the final salvation of the nation of Israel from all her Gentile enemies, and the restoration of the Temple sacrificial services, has always been problematic, and must be explained away as either metaphorical, or erroneous, or some other contrived dismissive explanation. Nevertheless, all the bibles of the three Abrahamic religions are a mixture of history; both real and imagined, a liberal amount of parables, and unverifiable dogmatic beliefs. But of those three religions, it's only the last two which cast all non-believers into an eternal inferno at the end of days, whereas the first simply states that the enemies of the Nation of Israel will be completely destroyed one day (in the future), and all the world will experience peace on earth, and all peoples - Jew and Gentile - will be able to pray at the Beith HaMikdash (the Temple) in Jerusalem.
We have no direct claims of a resurrection- we have texts written decades or later after the supposed event. And people make direct claims of bizarre and impossible events all the time, so that would be evidence of nothing.
While it’s not unheard of for someone to give their life (both live and die) for a cause, it’s rare and impressive. I find your comment that it happens all the time to be unreasonably dismissive. And while 11 of 12 apostles giving their lives for the cause of Jesus is proof of nothing, it’s disingenuous to say it’s not evidence of something. We can discuss what that something is, but this was not a random group of typical, representative Jews going about their lives. I’m a big fan, Dan, but you’ve got some biases that may fly under your radar from time to time.
Book of Mormon, there are at least SOME people and places that are confirmed to have existed in reality from the Bible. The Book of Mormon has none. It claims technology and fauna existed at a time and place where they did not. It claims cultures and language groups existed which not only has no data to support, but which all the data contradicts.
I am 1 minute in and this guy is already spitting error. Any serious study on church history reveals that the apocryphal books were often viewed as tier 2 and not equal to the Hebrew Scriptures. For example Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386) said "And, pray, read none of the apocryphal writings : for why do you, who know not those which are acknowledged among all, trouble yourself in vain about those which are disputed? Read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters." You need to get your facts right.
I'm just wondering why Dennis Leary started randomly preaching during a stand-up routine?
You are not supposed to comment on their appearance, but that was funny.
@@emptyhand777 it's more you shouldn't attack a person for their appearance. Commenting on how someone looks like someone else isn't quite the same, unless it's used in derision which I think this user with a wonderful name was not doing.
lol. This version would be a cult leader in Demolition Man.
Because he's still upset about not getting coffee flavored coffee
@@emptyhand777more specifically a comment on his likeness. And it was pretty funny.
"Brad Stein dropping absolute bombs". Well, Brad's dropping bombs, and it involves a white porcelain throne.
Let’s see it…scratch that, I see it. 🤣
Looking through the bible for 'truth' is like looking through 💩 for 🌽. There might be a bit in there, but is it worth it?
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y
🤣🤣🤣 Gross but...true...🤣🤣🤣
@@user-gk9lg5sp4yU obviously haven't read the Bible: LOL 😂
@@davidjanbaz7728 I have read way more than 99% of christians
This is the 'Why are there still monkeys?' guy. You can safely ignore everything he says.
But…why are there still monkeys? Damn it..he has me. I’ve watched too much now there is no going back 😂
There reason there are still monkeys is the same reason there are still guys with mini mutton chop 1970s style sideburns.@@DrPhilGoode
There are still monkeys because monkeys are monkeys. They aren't anything but monkeys and never will be and never were anything but monkeys. @@DrPhilGoode
At least there aren't still The Monkees.
@@aaronpolichar7936 True, but there is still one individual Monkee (Micky) left...
I’m grateful that I’ve encountered Biblical scholarship on RUclips. It has helped me deconstruct all of the dogmas that was taught to me . I personally believe that Christians who proclaim openly their truth over others are unaware that what was taught to them is either false or imposed interpretations on the Biblical texts. Also, confidence does not equal accuracy.
Do you still believe in God or no?
I sincerely hope you didn't just rely on RUclips scholars and that you took time to examine real biblical scholarship. I watched one minute of this guy and he was in blatant error.
@@Grace4rever where？
So when does Messiah return?
@@Dude_bruh look at my other comment in the comments section, he completely misunderstands how the church understood the apocryphal literature, it was not viewed as equal to scripture for all of church history. It was often viewed as valuable and useful but not equal. Those that saw it as equal to scripture like Augustine were people who did not know Hebrew and could not differentiate the difference between the apocryphal literature (written in Greek not Hebrew) and the Hebrew Scriptures (22-24 books of the Old Testament). The version of the Old Testament the early church used before it was translated to Latin was written in Greek and the apocryphal was often read next to it. The author of this video vastly over simplifies things and misrepresents the truth. Maybe he just did not know, or he is purposefully being deceptive? Whatever the case, that was his first statement and after that I would have a hard time trusting him.
I honestly thought that was dude was a stand-up comedian at first >.>
I still thought he was 🤣 one of those church comedians that open for a singing quartet. 🤣
He is. It is just that his routines are called "sermons".
Stand up comedy and preaching have a lot in common. Bill Hicks came out of a Southern Baptist background. Sam Kinison was literally a Pentecostal preacher before becoming a comic.
@@TacticusPrime maybe a lot not in common as well. Idk. Hicks was born into a Baptist family but very early on opted out. Kinison was technically ordained but left it all after like 24.
I grew up a baptist and would suggest the lack of free and critical thinking is a speed bump many could not get over. I would probably make more of a connection between growing up in those cultures as opposed to being a clergy in those cultures. Most decent comedians are able to laugh at themselves and fundamentalist Christians have no shortages of bizarre experiences.
This doesn’t relate to any of this, the exact opposite, but one of my favorites is probably Ricky Gervais. His Netflix specials are funny.
@@TacticusPrime You know who Tim Hawkins is?
I think it was Bart Erhman that suggested when looking at The Bible, start with the four gospels.
Take 4 sheets of paper, one for each gospel, and write down a list of all the significant details and events for the death/resurection and birth of Jesus and then compare them.
Its a good exercise
Your also taking into account the perspective and their context right
@@durrangodsgrief6503
Why would that be important when listing these events ?
Perhaps an example to illustrate what you are saying might be good
@@durrangodsgrief6503the purpose of the exercise mentioned above is to show that the events themselves do not always agree. Chronologically or in terms of content.
Digging one-handed is hard. No wonder they're frustrated.
And reading a book one handed is also hard to do.
I've held up magazines with one hand more than once.
I'm old 😄
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y What's a "magazine"?
The Nt even cites apokrypha by name, e.g. the book of Enoch, in the book of Jude. And there are other examples
The Old Testament also references a bunch of other books stating that there is more information about certain events or certain characters.
In some places they expect the reader to either be familiar with or to have easy access to those books and almost all of those mentioned are lost or possibly absorbed into the main canon with no credit given.
Jesus' idea of people becoming angels is also taken from the book of Enoch.
The fact that people think the 66 books is the complete canon with nothing removed (looking at, *you* ,KJV onlys) is yet more evidence that people DO NOT read their Bibles further than what people tell them too.
"There's never been a book like that in history!"
**
Which coincidentally also retcon events, try to explain previous contradictions, seek to make the story fulfil prophecies/foreshadowing.
To be fair, comic books haven't been around for a thousand years yet, so they need some time to catch up.
Mahabarata , baghvad gita or vedas would be a better example
@@bskec2177 I think this still serves the point.
The bible has time on its side.
Look at scientology, another example of a book written decades ago having such weight in the world.
We live in the present, technically, where tales of fiction drive actions in fact, influence our behaviours to the point we can consider them true all along.
The Book of Mormon spans a thousand years with dozens of authors and books. There’s one. I always try to never say never 😂
Denis Leary has really turned a corner...
It's your final point that strikes me. Sacrifices made for one's values and/or beliefs is not out of the ordinary and it doesn't take much effort to research and confirm this. Yet, many Christians will go on as thought it is completely novel and unique to Christianity. It is this half-hearted/lazy/possibly deceptive mindset being promoted by religious leadership that played a huge role in my personal move away form religion.
It brings to mind the self immolation of Bruce Wynn for climate change, in April 22.
People will die for a belief.
However, no one will die for a known lie.
Big difference.
@@cedward5718 Just because you die for the lie doesn't mean it's not a lie. Millions died for Hitler's lies they thought were true. Ashli Babbitt died for a lie that she thought was the truth.
@@cedward5718 people believe in their own lies and their followers don't know that these are lies. And we have many martyrs in many religions
The obvious answer to this is that these guys knew Jesus didn't "rise from the dead"... other than as a symbol of his message. @@cedward5718
The real atrocity here is that man's sideburns.
With so many preachers and apologists repeating the same lies and nonsense over and over, is it any wonder that Christians believe their words to be true?
Add in the fact that the majority of Christians have a tenuous grasp of the bible, at best, many have never read it all and almost none are aware of the work of biblical scholars and what we see is a prime example of faith. Choosing to believe what cannot be known, simply because they want it to be true. It is self-deception, sometimes through genuine ignorance of the facts but often through wilfull blindness.
That is absolute Bovine Excrement. You are the one ignorant of the facts. Most Christians are aware that the authorship of "the Bible" is that of human beings. Very few Christians accept the relatively recent claims of literalism and inerrancy. Most Christians are at least aware that there IS Biblical scholarship of a purely academic nature and accept the consensus that - how shall we say - some liberties have been taken. A very large segment of the Christian community is associated with one of the denominations whose order of worship conforms to a lectionary that covers the pretty much the entire Bible over a 3 year cycle.
I think that is one of the reasons Christianity is on the decline. Being told my whole life that the bible was the word of God, then reading it and finding out that it isn’t.
@@chasesutherland1168 It does seem to be an increasing phenomenon.
We live in a world where almost everyone has access to more information, from varying sources, than ever before, and some people are using that facility to fact check things they have previously bellieved.
@@theoutspokenhumanist I don't think this book was ever intended to be taken this literally. I believe most Christian's have taken it way too far. They believe the words, but miss the entire "spirit" of it.
All I can tell you is, up until a few days ago, I was just as unlikely a candidate as you appear to be in believing in faith. Agnostic as they come. Logically minded so much so that I am borderline autistic. Emotions and spirit simply do not compute with me.
I wasn't looking for it. Actually, like you, Spent most of my time arguing against it.
But, something changed one day.
It's nothing I can say or do to convince you, as there was nothing nobody could say or do to convince me.
Just One day, I wasn't. The next day; I was.
And it's beautiful. I wish it upon everyone who might come across it. My life is forever changed.
@@MidwestFarmToys Good for you. I am sincerely happy that you have found peace. I never tell anyone they are wrong to believe, my focus is on what may be demonstrated to be factual.
My only observation is that it is not necessary for something to be true for it to bring us comfort or positive emotions. It is only necessary that you believe it.
I do not believe it and I do not have faith. I do not believe because I prefer to know. I do not have faith because faith is choosing to bellieve something simply because we want it to be true.
As for the bible. I'm sorry to say that it does not have a 'spirit', except what you choose to read into it. I absolutely respect your right to interpret it any way you choose, for your own purposes, just as long as you do not do as others and pretend to 'know' what it is trying to say.
Not only was ithe bible never intended to be taken literally, it was never even intended to be a book.
It is a collection of documents written by a host of different people at different times in different places with very different ideas. Partly mythology, partly mythologised history, whilst parts of it may be loosely based upon real events, none of it is history as we understand the term and none of it is evidence or even reliable testimony to any ideas about gods.
I urge you to always stick to what you can show to be true and never assert the unknowable as fact. But never allow anyone to tell you what to personally believe.
Brad Stein is a mediocre comedian who is cashing in on the evangelical right nationalist movement like a number of other celebrities who think being famous automatically makes them experts on complex social issues . One of his funniest lines is that he is open minded and accepting of everyone because he is a conservative. You gotta admit that is hilarious
I would say that a lot on the left are not great either, in terms of accepting boundaries and opposing views. I hate the left and right crap, and honestly, I do not get along with you types on any side, but as someone with eclectic views who does not accept everything because "tolerance", I think you gotta grow up. God or something like God may be real btw: now go ahead, admit that may be true, though I am Muslim so if you insult I can call you an Islamophobe. Good luck "pal"
On authorship, it's not even just accepting the Bible's words as inerrant, bit the traditional attributions that have sprung up around it but which the text makes no direct claim
Same with all the martyrdom claims. They’re pretty much all late hagiographic traditions that no historian would take seriously.
I am and will be forever grateful to Dan for making these videos. Hands down, my knowledge of the Bible has increased easily (!) 10-fold since I first encountered his videos about 8 to 10 months ago!
Same.
Has he told you when Messiah is returning?
You need to do research in Hebrew not Gregorian.
Check out "Misquoting Jesus" with Bart Ehrman and "Digital Hammurabi" for even more great material.
I'm aware of the difficulties with the Bethlehem story. But consider this. At its foundation, what is the story about? It is a story about a husband dragging his wife on a trip without having the sense to make a hotel reservation. So how can that story *not* be true?
lol thats pretty funny
🤣🤣
6:46 “I’m gonna die and come back to life, nobody’s ever done that” but did the Bible say Lazarus died and came back to life?
After all, Lazarus was raised, never said a word about it. The daughter of Jairus was raised, didn't say a thing about what she'd been through. And the Gospels tell us that at the time of the crucifixion all the graves in Jerusalem opened and their occupants wandered around the streets to greet people. So it seems resurrection was something of a banality at the time.
-Christopher Hitchens
How about all the dead bodies that started walking around when their graves opened as jesus died? No romans seemed to notice that
@@homophilosofikus8215 is there any historical document or anyone recording such thing happening back then ?
Belief in the resurrection of the dead is a fundamental principle of Judaism. Jesus' resurrection is not unique at all.
@@Dontcallmeapusok Nope, they used empty claims back then. That`s why there`s so much of it
A calm voice of reasoning is so reassuring, and enlightening.
They found Troy... So are we now believing in Zeus, Aphrodite, Achilles, and a woman with a face like a bottle of wine?
Dumb analogy!
The book was written 800 years after the events and was never written as facts but only as an epic tale !
Totally different than the Bible: especially the New Testament.
@@davidjanbaz7728 Actually, most Evangelical Christians believe in a seven day creation (with no witnesses). They believe in a Talking Snake. They believe in Exodus and the Tumbling walls of Jericho when there's no evidence that Hebrews were literate until centuries later.
So the Trojan analogy isn't that far out.
Moreover, as scholarship has shown, none of the NT writers personally met Jesus...
Yeah every time a new place is uncovered fundamentalist Christians get a religious hard-on.c
Finding a city does not prove a supernatural event was real as described in the bible. It is called historical fiction.
I do
One thing that more people should be aware of with the whole "Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies" nonsense is a case where Jesus reads in the temple and references a text in the Old Testament and then adds "recovering sight to the blind" smack in the middle of it. He then acts as if he was fulfilling a prophesy right there.
In the original text, there was NO mention of restoring sight to the blind. Jesus is literally adding words to the scriptures that were not there before. And God has special curses for those who do that.
To add to this, someone tries to retroactively add that phrase to the Old Testament thousands of years after it was written JUST because Jesus said so.
To say that the Bible hasn't been tampered with or is inerrant is laughable.
And that's *before* we get into the blatant historical inaccuracies.
What about Isaiah 35:5? I am NOT religious, but is this translation from English rendered incorrectly from the Hebrew? (Looking at the translation from the Amplified Bible)
@@What_If_We_Tried
He wasn't reading from Isaiah 35:5. He was reading from Isaiah 61:1-2.
Isaiah 35 isn't even a prophecy that could be considered to be about Jesus first coming, it would more closely concern his second.
@@blksmagma I wasn't inferring this had anything to do with "Jesus", but I guess saying that I was "NOT religious" wasn't clear enough.
Having said that, none of the prophecies in the Tanakh (aka: the Hebrew scriptures, or the Old Testament) support Jesus of Nazareth as a messiah of Israel.
In fact, Isaiah 34 - 35, is part of a future prophecy about the 'salvation' of the nation of Israel from her Gentile enemies. Add to that Zechariah 14, and Isaiah 66, and it is obvious that Christianity is flat out wrong when it comes to understanding the Torah / Judaic concepts of mashiakh (messiah).
Personally, I'm just an observer of religion, and glad I don't practice any of them. Nevertheless, Christians and Muslims have to ignore the plain meanings of the Hebrew texts - in context of the totality of the Tanakh - in order to state that Jesus is "the messiah" of Israel.
In the case of Muslims though, I think they just say the Jews were wrong, and that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Moses were the first Muslims, and ignore the Hebrew bible entirely, rather than Christian apologists who have explain why they grafted the Tanakh onto the Christian New Testament, and then go thru enormous amounts of apologetic gymnastics in an attempt to prove their claims about Jesus of Nazareth being the messiah.
@@What_If_We_Tried
I apologize, I've seen a few people on these videos claim to not be religious, but they were definitely lying or just "spiritual". And then considering the subject of the text you gave me I made some assumptions.
The translation is pretty faithful as far as I've seen. The Amplified version follows modern translations fairly well.
Perhaps they should outlaw the practice of ritual cannibalism via communion while they're at it.
I think they should. This religion is being misrepresented even by it's own followers. Everyone is reading the words but not understanding the *spirit* of it.
Hey Dan! Im wondering if you can do a video on the cognitive science of religion? The whys behind religious belief? It'd be interesting to hear and to contextualize this for us lay- people. Thanks so much!
"cognitive science"
Because people are gullible and easy to fool. Part of it is due to the evolution of mankind over millions of years.
Human leadership (kings - chiefs and so on) coupled with religious believe make controlling them easier. We are gullible to b/s.
@@CuffsmasterThat's certainly a part of it, but it would be rather reductionist to state that is all that is going on.
Hi. Im wondering how you reconcile your beliefs in the Mormon church whilst having the knowledge you have gained in your qualifications and holding the views you now hold?
Wow! That is shocking, I didn't know this about Dan. I have left that religion and I am 6th gen. I understand it as a lifestyle choice but as for truth, it is seriously lacking. I'm a bit disappointed.
I believe that the Old Testament is a compilation that was written by many authors and editors. But this does not mean that I cannot also believethat the Bible is "literal" and "inerrant" (although I hate those terms because even evangelicals believe neither.) It is no more of a stretch to say that God inspired the Bible working through a committee just as much as a single man.
The Old Testament itself contains many declarations that it is tertiary history working from multiple sources. It's not trying to hide this or pretend to be anything else. It is modern day fundamentalists who have made this claim, not the Bible itself or the centuries of scholars who studied it.
Matthew was transparently making stuff up so that “prophecies” would be “fulfilled”. He said as much. That he used the Greek OT also betrays the lack of Devine inspiration. There is no way an omniscient god would reveal inaccurate information to him.
Matthew was a tax collector in a Roman city and would have interacted and been influenced by many mixed cultures. He would probably have had to know/understand multiple languages to do that job as well.
Okay, I read that as "Responding to claims about the Biden's reliability" and I was ready for it!
So, RUclips now allows creators to lift an entire video, put a little comment at the beginning like, "Brian is dropping truth bombs here" and post this as his own creation?
Dan at least stitches commentary and sources into a video. What did this "creator" add to Brian's sermon?
Head nods! Gotta have that social proof. 🙃
@@fre2725 dont forget he pointed at the end.
Lisa…dropping atomic truth bombs. Enjoy…C ya 🏃🏼💨
It's like selling items that are just drop shipped from Alibaba.
Nothing. That wasn't fair use, and he could be sued. Dan is fair use because there is significant and relevant commentary.
Very enlightening, Man, that dude is very annoying.
Mark wrote his book and forgot about some of the prophesies that Jesus was supposed to fulfil, such as being born in Bethlehem. Then Matthew retcons the story so that the prophesies that were not fulfilled in Mark is fulfilled in Matthew's retelling.
And Christians think that because the prophesy must be true because it was made hundreds of years before the Jesus story, and the authors wouldn't be SO dishonest that they would look up the prophesies so that they can write it into their story?🙄
Yet they were so dishonest as to have it in every book huh weird that
@@durrangodsgrief6503 Have what in every book? Like the different accounts of Jesus's last words on the cross?
Another great job Dan
Who needs evidence when you have martyrdom?
Just found your channel a few weeks ago and am curious as to what religion, if any, do you follow?
If studying the Bible in detail makes you a skeptic, I can't imagine how anyone who does so could follow any religion at all!
He's a Mormon. Seriously.
It is interesting that they bring up prophecies, because what happened with the prophecy that Jesus would return before his disciples died?
Clearly their severed heads are being held in suspended animation on the seraphim's starship! 😁
In no way shape or form is someone putting their head in the bottom corner of someone ELSE'S video considered to be a "content creator"
The "If You Say It Forcefully and With Conviction" schtick of people like Brad Stein is a big part of why so many get sucked into believing these lies ("He's dropping bombs!"). I'll take the calm, rational, explanatory erudition of Dan over these hucksters all day, every day.
This is the exact same thing that happened with the people who followed the Old Testament. People started going nuts over every single word in a strict and literal sense... and started completely missing the *spirit* of the words. Essentially becoming the exact thing the faith goes against
Hundreds of authors, editors, and redactors - and don't forget all the translators! A lot of English-speaking Christians seem to believe that the Bible was written in English...
So basically the Bible is an evolving work in progress. That being said maybe the world should stop killing each other until it is perfected.
But it might never be properly perfected. How would we get all our killing done if we had to wait?
Just read a scroll labeled ELBIB YLOH. It will undo all of creation and everyone will die! 😂
Thank you.
It cracks me up that this guy's "comedy" act involves just saying things that bear no resemblance to jokes
I've seen more holes in the buybull than 50 000 lbs of Swiss cheese!
And, what? What comes next for you? Why are you here?
I've heard conjecture of Jesus being born in "Bethlehem of Zebulon" (which is just a few miles away from Nazareth), as opposed to the Judaean Bethlehem.
Trust Data. Don't trust Lore.
-Dr. Noonien Soong
Data is never ever going to teach you anything about how to live a moral life.
@@MidwestFarmToys And neither will religion
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y I am sorry you feel that way. I could tell you a personal story, but without me being able to prove what I'm saying because it's internal and spiritual, we both know you will dismiss it and we will be wasting time. On that note, "I shake the dust from my feet and leave this place."
@@MidwestFarmToys I'm glad it helps you. Btw I very much doubt 'spirituality' is a thing.
@@user-gk9lg5sp4y so did I lol. That is why this is so great.
I was something else.
Am is all that matters
I shall shake the dust from my feet and leave this place. Be well my friend.
I think the earliest archaeologists were treasure hunters. If Biblical archaeology overlaps with this (and plenty of people know whether it does, but I don't without doing some research) I guess they had a bulldozer throttle in one hand and a Bible in the other.
Even the Bible has no claims about most of the disciples going on to proclaim the resurrection to the world, and being martyred for it. After the first few chapters of Acts 3/4 of them just disappear from the story.
Tales of them travelling the world and being martyred come from much later Bible fanfic.
Well, to be fair we would not expect their writings to record their deaths as…. They wouldn’t have been able to write them.
@@timothywilliams8530 Thing is, we have a very good idea of when the hagiographies of the apostles start showing up, and other than a confirmation in the Epistle of Clement for Peter and Paul, the rest are literally centuries later.
@@VulcanLogic The epistle of Clement doesn’t actually say that they were killed. It says that “5:4 Peter, through unjust envy, endured not one or two but many labours, and at last, having delivered his testimony, departed unto the place of glory due to him.”, and of Paul “and having preached righteousness to the whole world, and having come to the extremity of the West, and having borne witness before rulers, he departed at length out of the world, and went to the holy place, having become the greatest example of patience.”.
This is the Charles Hoole translation. The key terms are “delivered testimony “ and “born witness”. In the Greek text “μαρτυρήσας” for both. The literal meaning of “martyr” is “witness “ , but it later came to have the meaning of “killed for the religion “ for Christians. It is therefore not clear whether Clement (writing fairly early) intended the original meaning (as Hoole translates it) or the later meaning. If the original, we cannot take the epistle as a definitive statement of them being killed.
Not that Clement was an eyewitness anyway.
There is the idea that something is more important because its the biggest.
First there is a logical flaw here, that somethings grander in a class of things thus makes it unique. But if we consider things not quantum in nature, then variance is a given, and even things quantum in nature must follow the uncertainty principle.
So the fact that the bible has 66 or 80 books does and thus its the largest collections or the largest codex from a given period is not demonstrative of the quality.
To give an example of this phenomena, if we start on a single point on earth and record rainfall, the first time it rains, it will be the largest rainfall that spot had. I we wait approximately 4 times as long, we will have on average a rainfall double in size to that first rain fall . . . . so on. Around 1979 in the place near where I lived had the highest 48 hour total of rain of 48 inches, about 20 years later a place in India broke that record, and more recently Dickenson Texas broke that record with 52" of rain. How does the saying go from Warcraft, there will always be a Lich King. There will always be a record holder for various parameters in the class.
The other notion is the age of the bible, which I will contradict Dan on, there are elements in the bible that are up to 4500 years in age. For example the notion that Yahweh crafted humans from clay originally comes from a story about Nammu and Enki (who just happens to have been a god in Bethlehem at some point). The beginning of genesis 1 appears to have been lifted from text that is maybe 3200 years in age. So when Dan is referring to the bracket of 1000 years hes talking about local sources, not near-eastern sources.
Or lets put this in context, the first mention of Yahweh is from the 9th century BCE, the first mention of the creation goddess Nammu is from the 26th century BCE. The use of the word Tahom and Waters beneath the earth (Noahic) in the bible is more similar to the way the early elemental sprites of Eridu would be considered relative to the Enuma Elis (Tiamat and Apsu).
But the text of the bible we really want to focus on is the Song of Deborah, which many scholars want to somehow sideline not realize what a gem it is. Deborah (Bee) sat under a palmtree outside Bethel. But what we have in this text is a bit of slight of hand. Because the Palmtree reference points at Asherah, and Bethels name at the time of Deborah was Luz, which means a type of tree, the almond tree, and the almond grove is literally synonymous with Asherah. In fact luz was probably more well known for its sacred almond tree (the asherah pole as so labeled in the bible) at that time versus an alter to El, the most high. If one wants to know how this was idolized, its was repurposed for modern hebrew. Or to make the point is that the Song of Deborah was important because its sacred symbols were important, not inspite of them. And when they sang of Yahu, its highly like they were singing about a god named Yahu, not Yahweh. In modern Judaism singing the song as written would be taboo, the almond tree would be taboo, associating luz with Israelite piety would be taboo, considering that Anath of Shamgar fame was a goddess would be taboo. And thats why we should consider this as a source.
And so the key issue is not really the sources, the bible has some very important sources, the key issue is how scribes over time included (marked) these sources in the body of literature.
And it stands to make this point that the Tanakh was not a codex until the 10th century, prior to this its was a collection of scrolls curated in various lineages. We don't know whether there are any written fragments before 700 BCE, because other than the few scribbles of writing on pot shards and broken rocks, there is no evidence of literacy. Israel Finkelstien argues the the Omride dynasty of the Early 9th century must have had writing to field the type of army that the Assyrians described, but Israel's elites were conquered and thrown to the four winds. Moreover in the ninth century what we do have is no more that a slight local varient of phonecian, prior to that there is some material written in Early linear, which is somewhere between phonecian and protoSinaitic. In the late bronze age there are writings in both akkadian cuneiform and protosiniatic. Finkelstein thinks the protoSiniatic language formed in gaza, whereas I think it formed along the nile. Its just not certain how literate people were outside of a tiny number of people who could read and write heiroglyphs and cuneiform.
But the earliest language the biblical texts are written in is close to phonecian than any other language of the period. Moreover, these early texts found in Psalms and Proverbs have bits an pieces of Ugarit mythology. And so there we have a direct textual (not needing a transliteration from another script) source, although the stories we do have are in Akkadian cuneiform so that requires a jump. So likely these biblical sources are from oral traditions.
What we should take from this is there is a grey zone around the biblical origins were intertextuality existed across languages in that period, just as the Assyrian borrowed from the Babylonians to create their genesis myth, so did the Yahwist borrow from myths of Canaan and Mesopotamia. We can see this clearly in the Noahic flood myth were two local sources are borrowing from two different mesopotamian sources to create aspects of the Jewish myth. And so we see here the intertextuality is complex and in two dimensions.
Wow - never heard of this Brad Stein dude but he comes off as a combination of carnival barker and used car salesman. For years I’ve questioned many of the things he says in this preaching session. What you lay out here actually answered my questions. THANK YOU.
Him..? Just another white-dude-Jesus-salesman, to whom I will give a WIDE berth.
All of these Bible nuts read from exactly the same script. Not one with an original thought.
It’s the Christian cult way……. Continually lie for their gods and Jesus…….
Mohammed is said to have split the moon in two and put it back together.
Well, the moon is in one piece so that is evidence.
Praise Allah!
Huh?
Joshua made the Sun stop moving in the sky for 24 hours. Of course that really meant the Earth stopped rotating around it's axis and the oceans didn't somehow slosh over and wipe out everything that day.
Which branch of Christianity's Bible? Catholic? Eastern? Protestant?
Each sect adds to or takes out certain portions. Mormons have the KJV along with a few other more recent holy books.
Dan, can you talk about how Leviticus 14 is not about a cure for leprosy, but just a cleansing ritual for people who have been healed (somehow) of leprosy?
A lot of people bring this up to say that the Bible is inerrant, but Christians respond saying that it's not a cure but just cleansing.
It seems the error in this case is to think that someone that's asymptomatic somehow and essentially providing ritualistic "proof" that they have been healed. It also seems to be a way for the temple to make money.
I don't know if this is still current scholarship, but back in my Late Antiquity seminar in undergrad, my professor told us people around the time of the early Church would refer to any kind of skin condition or blemish as "leprosy". So someone might have an allergic reaction to say, eating some fruit, and get a huge rash that they thought was "leprosy". They'd go see a future saint or _thaumaturgos_ (wonder-worker), maybe a stylite (i.e. the guys who spent years living on the top of pillars, preaching, like talking billboards for Jesus). A few days later their rash would clear up and they'd claim to have been healed of their leprosy by the saint.
@@digitaljanus I'm not a professor, but I think you may be misremembering slightly. I googled it awhile back, the term in Hebrew is tzaraath and potentially includes a variety of skin conditions but definitely not leprosy. The Greek equivalent is lepros, which also doesn't mean leprosy.
I think it's most likely that leprosy is named after the Greek term.
So they probably didn't refer to everything as leprosy, but had a catch-all term which leprosy was then named after. Because Biblical leprosy definitely isn't leprosy.
Correction. Its incorrect to correlate AD and CE. The Christian Era didnt really offically start until Emperor Constantine. This was hundreds of years after Jesus
There's a lot of books that we can say are not like any other books in history. Should we consider that they are from god too? There's no book like Christopher Hitchen's God is Dead book, does that mean we should consider that atheism is true??
Why is this so hard just to understand data and still understand we can find amazing meaning in the text? In my religion, I wish we could see it with both of our scripture. Not historical but has had huge influences, both for good and for evil.
Dennis Leary called - he wants his haircut back
Back before Dennis Leary decided not to work clean on stage.
Can someone please show these data that you talked about?
Evangelicals: 66 books, remarkable agreement, inerrant, God breathed. Reality: Irreconcilable conflicts, full of errors, beliefs that are made up but justified with verses.
Hey Dan I hope you might see this. If I wanted to "worship" god what would that actually mean according to your knowledge of the original texts etc. Thank you for your content.
He's a bible scholar not a preacher.
Judaism is what Jesus taught. In the synoptics Jesus taught to keep the commandments for eternal life. Peter and the apostles went regularly to the temple/synagogue, even three times a day. And Jesus taught to repent for forgiveness of sins (Lords prayer)
It would depend greatly on the time period and culture. Being an 8th century BC Israelite Yahweh-devotee was quite different from being a Hellenistic Jew from the time of Jesus.
@@jimjim292 I know he is thanks. I mean from the perspective of what it means to "worship". The root of the phrase etc. Something very much in Dan's wheelhouse. I didn't ask for a preacher.
@@davidrogers8321What fre2725 said. There isn't really a consistent view of God over time. If you want the "earliest" depiction of the Israelite God, you'd probably have to go back to El, head god of the Canaanites, as Israelites were Canaanites.
What happened to the twelve apostles of Jesus and were they martyred for their beliefs? The book of Acts which is considered by many to be fictional in nature tells us about James, the son of Zebedee, being killed. Judas, who it is claimed betrayed Jesus died a natural death. Peter was allegedly killed in Rome. What happened to the other nine apostles? No body really knows. Therefore, when people claim the apostles died for their belief in the resurrection of Jesus they are speculating and nothing more. They have no good evidence for their claim. But we hear that claim about the apostles being repeated over and over again. It is a lie.
It's not in the Bible but it's in subsequent literature and traditions.
Which is not to say that's valid, but it's not made up anymore than anything else. It's just not a part of Scripture.
You can Google it yourself if you want. They're considered martyrs and saints for a reason.
@@squiddwizzard8850 All legends.
The First Epistle of Clement does state that Paul and Peter were killed. Of course, it's just attributed to Clement by tradition, as it's not signed and is considered anonymous. But as It dates from the early 2nd century at the latest, maybe you could add those two with James. The rest are all very late hagiographies with no basis in reality.
@@VulcanLogic Peter was included in the list but not Saul who is also know as Paul. Saul was not one of the twelve apostles of Jesus. He did not even know Jesus let alone be one of the twelve. He claimed he had a vision of the dead Jesus and installed himself as a speaker for Jesus which was a lie. It reminds me of Saul communicating with the spirit of Samuel an act which was really frowned upon in the Hebrew bible. Paul also claimed he was communicating with the spirit of Jesus.
Not having proof of something does not make it a lie. There is a difference.
The apostles by many accounts were missionaries, traveling far and wide to spread the word. There is every chance these people parted ways and never were to be heard from again. There was no instant communication back then. Every second of peoples lives were not documented for all to see on Instagram.
I didn’t know that Denis Leary is a preacher.
The Eastern Orthodox do not have an Old Testament canon, but they use the Septuagint traditionally.
The speaker sounds like feel good music for Christians
Can they name the “over 300 prophesies in the Bible”?
If you look at the list, only the top 5 or 10 even remotely resemble a prophecy. The rest are so vague that they could almost apply to anyone. And most of those 5-10 weren't even meant to be prophecies when they were originally written, but instead were talking about a person or event at that time.
@@criticalthinker2477
Mandy:
So you're astrologers, are you? Well what is he then?
Wise man:
Mmmm?
Mandy:
What star sign is he?
Wise man:
Well, Capricorn.
Mandy:
Ehh, Capricorn, eh? What are they like?
Wise men:
He is the son of God, our Messiah. King of the Jews.
Mandy:
And that's Capricorn, is it?
Wise man:
No, no, no. That's just him.
Mandy:
Ohh, I was going to say, 'Otherwise, there'd be a lot of them.'
Monty Python’s “Life of Brian” (1979)
Yeah they actually can. I remember getting handed a list of them in college. Didn't even have the actual bible verses on them, just something like this: "'#23 Born of a virgin, Isaiah 7:14". Except when you actually looked them all up, they're using bad translations, or could easily be Matthewesque after the facts, none of them are explicit enough to even qualify as prophecy and all require presuppositions. They're really quite useless, but people have spent a lot of time doing flawed pattern recognition on this and they've come up with hundreds.
Which Bible translation contains the apocrypha?
It’s mostly reserved for Catholic and Orthodox bibles. But some versions of the KJV still include if, if I recall correctly. There is also the NRSV and RSV. Correct me if I’m wrong.
@@solidstorm6129 I think the original 1611 KJV had the Apocrypha; if I remember correctly, and you can still get it from Oxford Press.
@@What_If_We_Tried yes it did. The original KJV had it. And I think that’s how I got my copy of the apocrypha as well.
@maklelan Hey Dan. I have a question, and I ask this as respectfully as I can. How do biblical scholars continue to be part of the church after learning these things? I remember finding out about a lot of these inconsistencies/inaccuracies in college and quickly stopped being a Christian. It seemed to me that a book that was so obviously entirely human in origin and just as if not moreso prone to human error was not something worthy of structuring my life around. Yet, and correct me if I'm wrong, the vast majority of biblical scholars are some flavor of Christian. I know you're a member of the LDS. Does your research have a significant impact on your faith? Do you separate the two?
Imperfect scripture is much more in line with the scriptural record itself, which is riddled with extremely flawed prophets and other protagonists, than a belief in biblical inerrancy.
Even then, a scholar could find some social and/or spiritual meaning within a tradition asserting inerrancy, even as they disagree on that specific point.
I'm not Dan, but a fair number of biblical scholars are actually atheist or agnostic. Even as a believer, approaching the literature honestly allows a much more nuanced, and dare I say, even deeper relationship with one's faith.
I would heartily recommend "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism" by John Shelby Spong. Very eye opening and demonstrates how one might be able to look at the literature critically and still maintain faith. After all, the Anglican/ Episcopal church teaches that faith rests on 3 things: Scripture, Tradition and Reason.
I used to be as agnostic as they come. I'm borderline autistic and spiritual/non-logical stuff is virtually impossible for me. I'm an engineer and not dull.
But, not too long ago, after constantly being angry and negative and alone and an outsider, honestly, the faith just "spoke" to me. I wept for 2-3 days which I don't do. Everything turned beautiful. I don't know what else to say about it. One day it hit me and I knew. That's all I need.
Is it verifiable? No. Is it exaggerated? Probably. But your spirit is not meant to be data driven. No amount of evidence or data is going to fulfill you SPIRITUALLY. you're never going to find it looking at facts. And I think that is the point.
@@MidwestFarmToys Do you mean you had a spiritual experience that led you to Christianity or just a spiritual experience in general? I consider myself an atheist. But that doesn't mean I consider myself a non-spiritual person. I just don't tie anything supernatural to it. I think it's absolutely possible to reckon with things beyond your understanding and your place within a vast and infinitely complex reality and not fall back on magical thinking.
@@JackadooSmork the truth is this is relatively new to me. This just occurred a few days ago (2/12) so I feel a bit out of place answering your question like I know for sure.
I will say I tried for a very long time to be spiritual without tying it to anything specific to satiate this lack of evidence and logic. Just believing in a non-specific higher power of the universe or this or that. Even dabbled in tarot and things. None of that ever brought me any sort of comfort or warmth or release. Never less anxious. Never less mundane. Never less confused. Everything was just the same as it always was.
Whatever happened was different in every imaginable way.
I wasn't actively seeking it at the time. It just arrived and It was inspired by Christianity. I was at a low point and I just decided to stop caring if everything about it was literal or factual, and just dove in and "surrendered". And that's all that it took. I honestly think that is what holds people back from whatever I experienced. Like tinkerbell... you have to BELIEVE (lol)
What I do not know is if I would feel the same if it were some other religion with similar messages, or if there is something particular about this one. Like I said it just arrived. Either it was a ridiculous coincidence, or it was Christianity.
When I say Christianity, I mean the *spirit* of what it's teaching. I decided to stop caring if this stuff happened or if it's parables. I think Christianity has been warped so much that even most "Christians" are missing it's true intention. They give it a bad rep.
Anyway, I don't think I did much justice in explaining this, but I thank you for listening or considering it anyway.
could you give some examples of biblical archeology that was proved and some that are disproved
The biblical stories that are mythical is: the beginning, the great flood, the Tower of Babel, Jesus coming back to life, etc.
I’m still waiting for any Christian cultist to bring Demonstrable Evidence to the table. Instead, all they can do is lie.
Archeologists can’t find any evidence to support the Biblical Exodus
For the algorithms
So refreshing to hear someone actually trained like a scholar AND who's impressively and agreeably articulate.
I like how you say at the end that even if the Bible isn't historically accurate, there's nothing wrong with believing in it because it's a normal human thing to do, assigning special meaning to things that are important to you. Rather than just saying Christians are stupid or deluded, you just say that they're only doing what is normal and human!
0:12 The Bible's 73 books.
Darn, you kept ruining his story.. why let those pesky facts get in the way? 😂
Great stuff as always. Isn’t there also a lack of evidence even for the claim that ‘the disciples’ were killed? How many? And less for whether they even had a chance to save themselves by recanting? Seemed an important point to me when I heard Paulogia debunking Habermas.
" a book said a thing" - bear in mind Isreal's archeology has found NOTHING to prove the bible.
I agreed with you up until a few days ago when it hit me in the face so to speak. I was agnostic as they come, and am not at all emotional. Everything about me was pure logic. I was not looking for it. It just arrived in me.
There are many millions of people that fully realize "it's just a book" like I did. Somehow, I now devote my life to its teaching.
Can I provide you proof? No.
Does it make logical sense? No.
I am not sure what to tell you other than it happened to me. And I was as unlikely of a candidate as you appear to be before that.
There is no evidence of martyrdom. There is no evidence that yeshua existed outside of literature. I agree with all of your points but think that you grant too many assumptions the way that many assume univocality of the texts.
There is no evidence for 99.9% of what has ever happened. It is called faith for a very good reason.
Bart Erhman is bashing his skull into a Wal right now
I have to disagree on your last point. Conservative evangelical apologist Sean McDowell got his PhD on the topic of early Christian martyrs, and he has 0 of the apostles dying as martyrs. If anyone has a bigger reason to be biased in favor of the martyrdom of v the apostles or had looked at it more closely, I've never heard of them. You can find a debate between McDowell and Paulogia about this. It was on Unbelievable iirc.
There was no evidence his followers gave up their lives for a magic man. Peter and Paul had 15 different deaths recorded. But it is just church tradition/mythology. John and Phillip had several deaths recorded but no earlier than the 2nd century. Bartholomew, Jude, Thomas - 10th Century! According to "church tradition'" the merciful executioners of Andrew allowed him (absurdly) to give a three day sermon prior to his execution! Ha!
Frankly there aren't any good reasons to think that the apostles were martyred.
There are plenty. Society at large thought they were blasphemers. It's the same reason trump has been hit with 473274 charges and nothing has stuck... only back then court was a lot more... well.. just a formality.
@@MidwestFarmToys that's speculation, not evidence. Maybe learn the difference?
@@danieldelanoche2015 I am well aware of the difference. You asked for good reasons; Not evidence. Be clear with your intentions and choose your words carefully. Be well my friend.
@@MidwestFarmToysand with what proof do you have? Or just claims?
Did someone tell Quinten Tarantino that this guy stole his look?
What is the point of this?
The narrator has made some claims. I would be interested in his sources?
I’ve been waiting for any Christian cultist to bring Demonstrable Evidence to the table………
@@Ex_christianStop shifting the burden of proof.
@@GWFHegel-ms7gz I’m not! It is up to the believer to bring Demonstrable Evidence to the table! They are the ones claiming their make believe gods as real with ZERO Demonstrable Evidence, only lies!
@@GWFHegel-ms7gz that is what the Christian cult does by not bringing Demonstrable Evidence to the table. All they can do is lie!
@@GWFHegel-ms7gz that’s what the Christian cult does!
I read the New Testament in the Greek original many years ago and my opinion has not changed. It's full of shit.
What do you think of "Nazarene" not necessarily meaning "from Nazareth". It's clear that Matthew and Luke thought it did, but does Mark indicate that?
Love the thumbnail for this one
😅 Not his best shot. Very human.
I think youre on to something. Wasnt taught THIS in Sunday school.......
How dare you. Tell the truth
Is this guy a pastor or comedian, kinda giving stand up vibes
so then why not change the original story to fit the narrative completely? If Jesus wasn't born in Bethlehem but they wanted to make it - why not edit Marks Gospel and just change it?
Mark’s gospel was the first one to be written, so it was likely already circulating a bit by the time the later gospel writers decided to tell the story how they wanted to. Maybe there was a community that replaced Mark with Matthew/Luke, maybe the community that the later gospels originated from, but the other communities would already have copies of Mark and wouldn’t want to replace what they likely already viewed as scripture, so the later gospels just added on to what they already had. And the later gospels already do the work of explaining how he was born in Bethlehem but is said to be from Nazareth, so it doesn’t necessarily contradict Mark, you say what Christians still do today, that Mark just didn’t feel like including that part
Star Wars is my favorite go-to example.
Lucasfilm, and now Disney, exerts complete control over all the Star Wars IP and can change whatever they want in theory, but the fanbase won't always let them. A common complaint about the most recent stories is that people keep getting stabbed with lightsabers but survive, which seems to contradict the high lethality of the weapon we came to expect from earlier material.
Does Disney change the prequels? No. Instead, fans make up apologetic-like arguments about how Qui Gon Jinn was stabbed in a particularly damaging location (his spine, which doesn't make sense why that would be fatal within a few minutes but they don't care), whereas everyone else who survived was stabbed in survivable places, sometimes because their species has a second stomach or something.
When a story is well entrenched it's often preferred to just make up new extracanonical information to explain the disparity than it is to go back and update the original version. We on the outside of the community think it looks ridiculous but they prefer it.
Also, they may have never clashed in the beginning. One audience had Mark, one had Matthew. It wasn't like you went to the bookstore and compared 2 books.
Matthew may have been aimed at Jewish converts. John almost seems like it was written for Alexandrian Gnostics.
a movie is much harder than a book - specifically one thats 1) in the begging not many copies of which exist 2) not many people could read 3) could have been easily manipulated... @@benroberts2222
Also, the end of the world was coming to these audiences. When that didn't happen within these people's lifetimes, and the canon was being formed a few hundred years later, changing one isn't going to change all the copies out there.
Isn’t your choices of authorship a dogma?
If Lazarus died and came back to life before Jesus then why didn't that do all the stuff that Jesus's resurrection was supposed to do like defeating death? Probably so the story could happen.
Jesus came back to life on his own. Lazarus did so because of Jesus. So it's Jesus who holds the power of life and death. And how could one mere human pay for the sins of all of humanity unless he was himself sinless and/or God? He could only pay for his own sins.
Because God is magic. @EdKolis
There is one instance found in the bible that was verified only in the nineteenth century and that is the Hittites. People thought the Hittites mentioned in the Hebrew bible did not exist and concluded the authors of the bible made it up until some archaeological evidence was found in Turkey in the nineteenth century.
Has it been verified that the Hittites found in Turkey were the same Hittites referred to in the Hebrew Bible, given that the text was written pretty far from Turkey, and the Bible describes them as being in or near Canaan?
@@aaronpolichar7936 the Romans ended up pretty far from Rome as well
@@MidwestFarmToys Yes, but we have a lot more evidence about the Romans, which is how we know that.
What were they looking for in archaeology which never existed? It's a very, very broad claim you make.
I understand how we can prove that parts of the bible were written/composed in the last 1000 years like Dan mentoned; however, how can we prove that no text was written/composed before that time? I don't see how that can be proven?
Couldn't there be original authors and later authors that changed, altered, and edited the original text? How can one definitively say no text was written before that time period???
I'm just a nobody, so take my response with that in mind, but; some of these texts contain evidence that they were composed much later than than the text suggests. References to people, places and events that had not yet happened.
Not the last 1000 years. Within about 1000 years between the earliest and the latest, except for some fragments
@@bipolarrambling242 Yes, I understand that references to events that happened much later can prove they were written much later. My point is that it's impossible to disprove there are no texts that came before. Later authors could have edited or added or rewritten. Does that make sense? I just don't see how you can possibly prove there were no previous texts???
@@dinocollins720 That makes sense. I suppose as with any subject all we can do is work with the data we do have, and whilst we shouldn't exclude the possibility of other data existing somewhere, to make any assumptions about such a thing would be pretty pointless.
@@bipolarrambling242 yeah good point
Data. 😂
There is one hilarious ‘prophecy’ that Jesus fulfilled and it is found in the book of Matthew.
Matthew 21:7 They brought the donkey and the colt and placed their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on.
Jesus was made to ride two donkeys at the same time. How? Jesus was ‘unique’ and ‘supernatural’.
I'm sorry but, where does it say he sat on them both at the same time? I have two vehicles. I laugh that someone 2000 years from now will see that and think I am lying because I can't drive them both at the same time.
@@MidwestFarmToys “They put their cloaks on them for Jesus to sit on”. I think even a first grader can picture the scene where the people put their cloaks on the two donkeys in order for Jesus to sit on them both. You shouldn’t be having beef with me. You should question the mental capacity of the guy who wrote the book of Matthew whoever he or she was.
The same story is recounted in the book of Luke.
Luke 19: When Jesus had finished saying all this, he went on toward Jerusalem. As he was getting near Bethphage and Bethany on the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples on ahead. He told them, “Go into the next village, where you will find a young donkey that has never been ridden. Untie the donkey and bring it here. If anyone asks why you are doing this, just say, ‘The Lord needs it.’ ”
They went off and found everything just as Jesus had said. While they were untying the donkey, its owners asked, “Why are you doing that?” They answered, “The Lord needs it.”
Then they led the donkey to Jesus. They put some of their clothes on its back and helped Jesus get on.
What do you know? There is only one donkey not two.
I'm picturing the cloaks being stretched so tightly over the two animals that Jesus is sitting on the cloaks covering the gap between them and not on either donkey individually!
It is somewhat easy I suppose to kinda sorta maybe 'prove' via data, or maybe more accurately lack thereof, of the Biblical account of Christ's death and resurrection but harder to prove via data beyond the Gospel accounts that he did. We have what we have and I don't believe it can all be so easily dimissed as full of holes and totally a myth. Whoever wrote the Gospels, as full of contradictions and probably some fiction, did it just to satisfy some personal (or persons) need to tell a fanciful story of this guy named Jesus Christ? Maybe so, I don't know. Certainly people have died for many causes in the time of those causes taking place because it is real and happening, I don't believe it would have been any different for those that were martyred after having witnessed the death and resurrection or like Paul having a vision or visit from the risen Christ (I would think it would even be of greater significance that someone like Paul went to the grave not being an eye witness but relying on a vision) - it was real to them or why else would they go through such horrific consqueneces? Was it pride and didn't want to swallow it? That doesn't make sense to me if like it was said they had normal human thinking brains othewise they would be classified as insane.
I have to ask, respectfully, are you this credulous when it comes to examining the claims of other religions, or is it just for Christianity?
There were a lot of professing Messiahs before and during Yeshua's day. He was rather unique in responding without collective violence to imperial oppression and occupation. Moreover, those other movements did not live on. I would say it is worth noting his own brother died a martyr, as did Paul (who claimed to have had a mystical experience involving Yeshua), and most of the other close talmidim. To simply write this off as typical or what happens throughout various times and cultures misses the importance of claims regarding direct experience of a resurrected person. Maybe they hallucinated or one can explain this in other naturalistic terms. But I don't think belief in a "cause" is sufficient.
Maybe if Jesus of Nazareth had started an armed revolt against Roman occupation, and, succeeded in helping Israel to regain control of their land after expelling the occupiers, and helped to properly restore the Temple services, many Israelites might have demanded that the Sanhedrin consider anointing him as 'Mashiakh' (Messiah).
@@What_If_We_Tried Maybe. But God doesn't bow to worldly power and accolades. Jeshua rejected the prevailing expectation surrounding the messianic figure. The suffering servant is not the military warrior or commander-in-chief of legions.
@@Brutuscomedy That's your Christian, anti-Torah, and miso-Judaic opinion obviously, and you are entitled to it.
And your position - if taken to its logical conclusion - is that the nation of Israel should have just accepted the Roman occupiers with love, instead of fighting back to liberate their land.
* And should the people of Ukraine, just 'turn the other cheek', and love the Moscovi terrorists, and also give their cloaks to the Russian occupiers?
Meanwhile, as a non-religious person, all I can do is hope that the followers of the three Abrahamic religions will not start WW3.
And for Christian apologists, and Muslim Imams, Zechariah 14, and Isaiah 66; which describes the final salvation of the nation of Israel from all her Gentile enemies, and the restoration of the Temple sacrificial services, has always been problematic, and must be explained away as either metaphorical, or erroneous, or some other contrived dismissive explanation.
Nevertheless, all the bibles of the three Abrahamic religions are a mixture of history; both real and imagined, a liberal amount of parables, and unverifiable dogmatic beliefs.
But of those three religions, it's only the last two which cast all non-believers into an eternal inferno at the end of days, whereas the first simply states that the enemies of the Nation of Israel will be completely destroyed one day (in the future), and all the world will experience peace on earth, and all peoples - Jew and Gentile - will be able to pray at the Beith HaMikdash (the Temple) in Jerusalem.
We have no direct claims of a resurrection- we have texts written decades or later after the supposed event. And people make direct claims of bizarre and impossible events all the time, so that would be evidence of nothing.
While it’s not unheard of for someone to give their life (both live and die) for a cause, it’s rare and impressive. I find your comment that it happens all the time to be unreasonably dismissive. And while 11 of 12 apostles giving their lives for the cause of Jesus is proof of nothing, it’s disingenuous to say it’s not evidence of something. We can discuss what that something is, but this was not a random group of typical, representative Jews going about their lives.
I’m a big fan, Dan, but you’ve got some biases that may fly under your radar from time to time.
A Jew who serves false gods is considered like a gentile in all regards.
What’s more historically inaccurate , the Bible or the Book of Mormon ?
yes
@@jimjim292😂
Book of Mormon, there are at least SOME people and places that are confirmed to have existed in reality from the Bible. The Book of Mormon has none. It claims technology and fauna existed at a time and place where they did not. It claims cultures and language groups existed which not only has no data to support, but which all the data contradicts.
Book of Mormon, easily.
I am 1 minute in and this guy is already spitting error. Any serious study on church history reveals that the apocryphal books were often viewed as tier 2 and not equal to the Hebrew Scriptures. For example Cyril of Jerusalem (315-386) said "And, pray, read none of the apocryphal writings : for why do you, who know not those which are acknowledged among all, trouble yourself in vain about those which are disputed? Read the Divine Scriptures, the twenty-two books of the Old Testament, these that have been translated by the Seventy-two Interpreters." You need to get your facts right.
Wasn't that before the Catholic bishops approved a specific Biblical canon?
what I see are two extremists: the preacher and the scholar...
And how are either “extremists”?
No, careful parsing of evidence to come to conclusions does not make a scholar an extremist. Do words mean anything to you?