Bible Critic Who Called Out Wes Huff Rogan Interview Explains Apology and Mormon Faith
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 7 фев 2025
- Bible Critic Who Called Out Wes Huff Explains Apology, Mormon Faith and Doubles Down
🎁: Get a Free 7-Day Trial on Patreon! / kingsdream
🙏: Check Out the Bless God Shop: blessgod.shop
🆓: Free PDF of the Bless God Prayer Journal: blessgodpdf.shop
📰: Bless God Newsletter: www.mastermyha...
🔓: FREE Freedom Habits (Course w/My Therapist): www.mastermyha...
📲: SMS Text from Ruslan (Don't Send Links Please) 714-710-1017
This video contains links to products and platforms that we've created because we truly believe they can help you in your journey. By choosing to purchase through these links, you're not only investing in something beneficial for yourself, but you're also partnering with us in our mission to create content that blesses and inspires others. Your support directly helps us continue to provide valuable content. Thank you!
Fair Use Disclaimer:
This video may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available for purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, or research. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.
Bio: Ruslan KD is a Christian RUclipsr of Armenian descent who was a refugee from Baku, Azerbaijan, before moving to the United States as a child. He started his RUclips channel in the mid-2010s, which has since grown into a popular platform for discussing faith, lifestyle, and music. Known for his insightful commentary on Christian living, culture, and personal development, Ruslan has built a community of followers who value his thoughtful approach to contemporary issues. In addition to his RUclips presence, Ruslan is a speaker, author, and advocate for godly ambition, often addressing topics related to leadership, mental health, and the integration of faith in everyday life.
Our mission is to encourage, empower, and inspire people to live a life that Blesses God, in accordance with His word. As the Psalmist proclaims, "Bless God in the great congregation, the Lord, O you who are of Israel's fountain" (Psalm 68:26 ESV), and "Every day will I bless Thee; and I will praise Thy name forever and ever" (Psalm 145:2 KJV). Just as Simeon, after encountering Jesus, "took him up in his arms and blessed God" (Luke 2:28 ESV), we seek to lead others in a life of stewardship, relevant engagement, and practical living that honors and blesses the Lord.
Bless God Summit Tickets Here: www.itickets.com/events/479802
Learn about The Bless God Summit Here: www.blessgodsummit.com
@@BlessGodStudios come to the East Coast!
Come here first 🤣
@@BlessGodStudios an official invite! 🤔 let me see what I can do.
@@BlessGodStudios lol I had never imagined his degree of sloptent from prot grifters,…thanks bro
He said: "I give the benefit of the doubt to less powerful group". In an argument between God and devil, he would probably side with the devil.
Ruslan, I am more and more impressed with how well you listen to people and can clarify and restate their position and give great pushback and still come across not combative. Keep doin what your doin brother. Oh and if he agrees, you gotta get him to have a convo with Wes.
I love how Carson can outright lie about the Bible and aliens and no one challenged him for years. Wes miss speaks one time and he is immediately taken to task.
Exactly! It’s ridiculous.
Its because the bible has so much good evidence and so much backing. Nobody really took Carson seriously.
People have been dunking on Billy Carson for years, and Wes Huff's repeatedly said Isaiah was 100% word for word the same multiple times in that interview so it was not a slip of the tongue
He didn’t misspeak. He repeated it a few times. I actually appreciate the fact that they called him out on it.
@@tomasrocha6139When does Wesley say 100%?
Dan: no one was shocked
Ruslan: how about excited?
Dan: it was one of the greatest archeological finds in all of history. But no one was shocked.
Ok. Got it lol
He is saying no one was shocked how much they lined up-- it was expected. The discovery itself was shocking
u didnt listen
@@WalkerFrankeArtscholars perception of the Bible vs what is put out on the Bible to the public are two different things. Rogan literally questioned the legitimacy of the whole “telephone” thing is a clear example.
@ from what culture pushed on me, 90%+ accuracy given everything is very impressive. You believed it would be higher? I find that hard to believe
@@WalkerFrankeArtwhich would mean scripture is so categorically inerrant, everyone expected to find a “revolutionary” amount of accuracies that affect/affirm how we “view the textural transmission of the Bible”…
You think that’s consistently what Dans argument is for?
Either way, he’s inconsistent.
Time-stamp
30:38 - Underrated moment here concerning the Trinity and 2 Kings 3.
Dan McClellan put it succinctly, “All interpretation requires contextualization with things beyond the text.”
I love how Ruslan converses with people that he doesn't agree with. Its one of the reasons why I look up to him.
@@myersnoah5 that’s at least respectable. The same cannot be said about Wes
Dam Ruslan your audience toxic bro. Everyone trashing him cause he a Mormon. It’s just a weird attitude coming from a Christian community.
I’ve left the Mormon church cause I think it’s false, but what I see from the audience here doesn’t seem Christlike to be real with you. It seems more pharisaical and tribal
They’re frightened because they don’t know what to do with Dan’s scholarship, so they can dismiss him by just calling him Mormon.
@@TheLazyMysticClips it’s because a lot of Christians are taught at home or by their pastor to look down upon Latterday Saints.
Wow a Mormon knows more than us about our own faith we have no idea how to handle this 🤣🤣🤣
@@CarvinHGoldstone I was of your faith before converting to Mormonism. I’m familiar with both sides. But this is the arrogance I’m talking about
@@TheLazyMysticClips trust watching Dan as a Mormon schooling the Christians is pretty entertaining. They always scoff at Mormons and now they eating from his hand.
ok... was not expecting this to be so cordial and productive. It was very refreshing. Thanks guys
Ruslan was showing his Christian charity and maturity, heaven knows i would have been less charitable and thats potentially good or bad. But Gods will is always done, so praise the Lord for this interaction
Thank you for keeping the dialogue alive in this. Wes’s point that few seem to get is that biblical scholarship is complex and not just a bunch of robed hermits making up stories. The more discussion that we have on this, the more that we honor the centuries of scribal and scholar work to preserve and understand Gods word.
Also Rus I have to say this! You were incredibly respectful and I didn’t see you mock or make fun of Dan at all. And it makes it easier to watch you as an atheist.
Happy 2025!
Really impressed with Ruslan's composure and constitution.
Why does Dan never defend his Mormonism? If he can critique Christian scholars with such confidence how does he give his own religion a pass? I am sure him and Dr. James White could have a good discussion about Mormonism 🤷🏽
he gets into his criticism of mormonism here. maybe we'll add timestamps.
From what I’ve seen of his content he probably identifies more primarily as a progressive than a Mormon. So he is probably less interested in defending Mormonism. Kind of how progressive evangelicals tend not to be as involved with apologetics.
Because he can't even he knows Mormonism doesn't follow l accepted biblical Doctrine. Joseph Smith rewrote the Bible denying the trinity and making Jesus into a created being
BUM BUM BUM BUM
@@bryanwalters9574 If he has any sense and standards, he should stop identifying as a mormon.
Learning that Dan is Mormon is blowing my mind. I always assumed he was atheist because I’ve ONLY heard him speak against the Bible and Christianity and trying to prove stuff like YHWH being a pagan storm god and crap like that.
To be fair, he is a liberal. And you know how liberals deal with "identifying"
Lol the fact that anyone thinks Dan's is "AGAINST" the Bible just speaks of our own ignorance of his actual position and content.
@@melodygn If he was more straightforward with his beliefs that might help a bit 😆
All I wanna know is if he believes whether or not the Resurrection actually happened.
@@melodygnhe literally tries to claim that the God of the Bible is a pagan storm god. That’s factually anti-Bible because if it was true, it disproves the entire Bible. Therefore, he’s anti his own religion which means he’s either a hypocrite, dishonest in one space, or needs to change faiths.
The notion that YHWH was appropriated from a storm deity is a pretty well excepted idea in critical biblical scholarship.
It’s important to hold people accountable for their own beliefs. I’ve noticed that many critics of the Bible are quick to criticize but rarely share what they believe in. It feels like a one-sided conversation. However, when you challenge them to explain or defend their own beliefs, their criticisms often lose the weight they initially seemed to have.
While that’s a good point, your belief should Stand up to scrutiny from anyone regardless of their own beliefs or shortcomings.
@@T1000_2 That’s a fair point-our beliefs should be able to stand up to scrutiny. However, I’ve noticed that many people criticize or question with an agenda rather than an open mind. Often, they’re not truly seeking answers but looking for reasons to dismiss what you’re saying.
I’m always willing to explain why I believe Jesus is God or why I’m a Christian, but the problem arises when the conversation turns into bashing my beliefs without offering a constructive or better point of view. It’s not real dialogue if someone only questions without being willing to answer questions themselves. True dialogue requires both sides to engage with honesty and mutual respect.
@@T1000_2 Both of these can exist at the same time. It is important that believers be able to defend their faiths, indeed the Bible teaches this: 1 Peter 3:15: “But sanctify Christ as Lord in your hearts, always being ready to make a defense to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence." - and at the same time, ones faith must also stand against scrutiny...very much one in the same, for Christians anyway.
That’s true , I ask a gentle man yesterday after he said he doesn’t believe in God , what do you believe in the Big Bang theory and he also said no. That he only believe in the present
One thing is to speak about the actual data and another completely it's your own beliefs, when one can't hold to the actual data we resort to personal beliefs in order to discredit "the opponent "
As someone who personally is a non-fundamentalist theist, who interacts with the social phenomenon of religion in ways that are meaningful to me; it's hilarious how people here seem to think Dan is some kind of fundamentalist Mormon.
Salute to Dan. Respectful disagreement and accountability is underrated, especially in the social climate we are currently in
Pray for Dan.
Dan is much more likable in conversation like this, than he is in his TikTok videos.
Because its harder to be smug when you can be called out immediately.
After 5 seconds of hearing Dan talk I thought the exact same thing.
Because on TikTok he's appealing to his atheist followers
@@calebaronhalt3242 not if you listen to his argument. His argument is. No no it's 92.5% not 95%, and his other argument is no no the scholars were appreciative not shocked. He's a goober
Give Danna a chance, I did and, thank God, my faith has been strengthened since then....
He wants to point out flaws in other people's beliefs but he doesn't even have the courage to speak of his own beliefs? How convenient...
He just did a video today about it 🤫
@@BassBouncers I was referring to this video when he participates in conversations...
@@regeneratus-l2w how is that relevant? The comment was that he does not think critically about his own beliefs which I debunked because if you go to his page, he just did one today.
Move on kiddie
What has his own beliefs has to do with being accurate when speaking about the info/data? Nothing... It's the classic "I don't like what you are saying so I'll poke at your personal beliefs in order to discredit you" come on people...we should be better than that
@@melodygn it's a valid question when it comes to studying religion. Everyone has bias, no matter how much they try to suppress it. For example, Dan's a big lib that believes the Trump SA accusations despite the lack of evidence yet here he is giving his takes on the Bible.
I love how you can learn from someone you disagree with, and bring us together!
Russ i gotta say, You’d be an incredible moderator for any type of apologetic or “christian RUclipsr” debate, brother! One thing I appreciate about your content is that you’re articulate when needed but also yourself unapologetically and for that I appreciate you my guy!
What is weird about this interview is he spends a lot of time grilling Dan about his personal faith beliefs and goes in hard as to whether his personal faith bias is getting in the way of his scholarly research, but why wouldn’t the same criticism be made of Wes or any other biblical scholar that considers himself a Christian believer?
I would say the reason is that Wes, and many Christian apologists, readily admit that they have a bias based upon their personal faith. However, Dan does not admit any bias even though many of his claims seem to line up with the doctrine of LDS faith.
@@JABlevinswhat claims line up? He already said the data does not support any of the book of Mormon’s supernatural claims. And the data shows that the Book of Mormon is a document composed in the 19th century. So, what are you talking about?
yet he specifically says in this video that he does not believe in the historical accuracy of the Book of Mormon? He seems to take the same critical eye to the Book of Mormon as he does to the old and New Testament. Where do you get that he’s applying his faith biases? I do not get that impression at all.
@@TheTabahnatorhe still holds to Mormon doctrines even though he never specified on which he believes in the most believable answer is Dan Dosent want his doctrines challenged also he can’t be a Mormon without believing in the teachings of Joseph smith
@@katiekruse4512he only makes videos on the Bible never on the Book of Mormon he only has like 3 videos on the topic but I struggle to believe how he can be a Mormon and not believe in the teachings of Joseph smith
13:40- so far what I’m hearing is that there’s a major difference between “ecstatic, excited, celebratory“ and “shocked. Are we really expected to be so rigid in our thinking that the difference between those ought to be meaningful? So meaningful that it’s worth only focusing on that and not focusing on the difference between 92% accurate and “Word for Word” (implied 100%)? This is quibbling over words and indicates to me some ulterior motive other than factual accuracy.
Er, no. It's the source of that elation. The source was not that it was so perfectly transcribed, but that we found a virtually complete manuscript that was 1000 years older than we had before.
Do you really not see the distinction there?
Everyone says dan never talks about his mormonism, and he doesn’t mention it very much, but i found dan from the mormon stories podcast so lol.
Wes made minor mistakes....Dan sorry but the book of Mormon holds no water compared to the Bible. So explain how someone who is following that and put that book before the Bible can critique Wes when that book is not significant doctrine?
It’s not minor mistakes for example Wes said codex sianaticus is close to the Greek text we use today when that couldn’t be further than the truth
@@BassBouncersyou going hard for this Dan and his Mormonism on everyones comments.😂😂
@@TheGangstaNunOnTheRun I’m combating misinformation about biblical studies online
Did you listen to what he said about LDS doctrine at 39:00?
When did Dan use the Book of Mormon as his source?
He was talking about the trinity.
What you said like saying religious scholars of any type can't be trusted because of bias.
Dan was completely wrecked about the Isaiah scroll and it was impossible to defend himself after. Someone in the comments completely laid out the DATA (not dogma, right, Dan?) and it showed Wes was still basically correct.
@@Sammo212 what post was the comment on ?
That post was a Tour De Force
@@Ondaloose1 ill need to look it up again it was either a reply on YT or IG
Sounded like they agreed Wes claim that made Rogan go wow was incorrect
@ which is not correct
Wait… he’s Mormon?!!! 😂 That explains it. I want my last 30 minutes back.
Mormonism ironically has more evidence for it than any other denomination.
@@BassBouncersI’m honestly curious. What exactly do you mean by that?
@@BassBouncersin what world are native americans egyptians🤣😂🫵 and how did a white caravan crusin man read ancient egyptian tablets that dont even exist😂💀
@ evidence? Can you point to any evidence that Christ came to the Americas?
@@WowTingz I said we have more evidence and we do have more evidence. We have eight eyewitness affidavits, signed by the people who saw this, and even the people who left the religion still confirmed that they saw what they saw again these are signed document documents of eye witnesses this is 10 times more evidence for anything any other denomination has to offer.
We just need Inspiring Philosophy to join here.
This was a good conversation! Nice to hear the back and forth and hearing Dan’s scholarly perspective.
Dan is MUCH more tolerable in an actual conversation. He seems much more reasonable
Indeed , I recommend everyone to go check his videos, you don't have to agree with him in order to learn some things about the book we consider Sacred. 😊
Yes he intentionally does that to make more views
@MichaelOwusu-c1s what? 😅
Great interview! I liked the direction you took with your questions, Ruslan. And really enjoyed Dan's off-the-cuff thoughts.
Right? Props to Ruslan to be open to interview one of the most "hated" Biblic scholars on social media 😅
I subscribed once to that guy for about 10 minutes.
Like I commented during the live, @maklelan should show this side of himself more and thanks for doing this.
Totally agree
If you listen to his podcast “Data Over Dogma” you would know he is chill, calm and even funny all the time.
@KarlNova totally
I personally don’t agree with @maklelan on much of what he says but he is consistent, fair, and doing his best to be so. I would have liked to have seen his responses here in full as it seems that this has been edited to omit parts of his speech and at times Ruslan is cutting him off in order to ask more questions. All in all, Dan has been cutting people up nice but he isn’t perfect, no man is, and he is leading all of us to be challenged in our beliefs.
a very mature and commendable take, well done
Ruslan's blinking rate exposing topics that rile him up, understandably (e.g. 27:45) lol. Thanks for having these discussions! Please do a follow up of some of the claims made during the last ten minutes or so.
Definition of the word IDENTICAL: having such close resemblance as to be essentially the same
He said at the 15:40 mark, around that, if Wes had said the DSS and MT were "99% the same" that he "would've moved on" and wouldn't have cared" - I have to say, based on this interview so far, I'm astonished by what this guy has said. At this point, he just might as well say "I made a big deal about nothing and we could be talking about things so much more important than getting upset over someone saying two manuscripts approximately 1,000 years apart are identical when we all agree it's easily over the 90-percentile range."
This is exemplary of arguing over semantics in the most silly way if I'm being bluntly honest and I mean no disrespect to this man by saying that, but this is just silliness.
WINNER WINNER CHICKEN DINNER! KFC is my treat.
Did you afford the same “apologetics” to Billy Carson when he said “Word for Word”?
@@jeremymaarman2949 wasn’t Billy Carson quoting known forgeries?
@@Grumble_17 and other “books in bible” are legitimate because?
@@jeremymaarman2949 Many reasons. Which would you like? Outside correlations that attribute to the validity of text? How about the fact that the Holy Bible is the best preserved ancient text that has been translated into various languages over 2,000 years and still maintained its core without much deviation. Such as the 1Q-Isaiah A scroll mentioned. There is a channel called InspiringPhilosophy that goes much deeper into this. Go check out the channel. He is better at articulating the facts and far more knowledgeable than I.
Who cares what a believer in the Book of Mormon and the prophethood of Joseph Smith thinks about the Bible?
Because he knows more than Wes
@@BassBouncers Err... Doubt it.
God cares and the Bible says so
@@BassBouncers does he know that Joseph Smith added in an entire verse into the bible claiming to be the Messiah. In the Joseph Smith translation of the bible?
@@tytrib which god? The true uncreated God or a false created one?
Love this, Dans one of my
Favorite scholars
Cannot believe these two collabed but I'm all for it!
He's only trying to get more famous. That's all he cares about. He only apologized because he knew it would help him. Same reason everybody on RUclips wants to talk about wes huff because they think it will get them more views.
He’s been famous more famous than this channel and Wes huff before he became famous 🤫
To be fair Wes Huff only wants to get more famous too.
@@BassBouncersyes he had more followers than wes. Wes was just lured into the debate because Billy thought he was easy pickings. Probably heard of IP, Trent, and Gavin but couldn't go near them because he knew they would've torn him apart
It's all a study in the transmission of writings through time and appreciating that though we may not have gotten it 100% correct, we still got the message.
An apologist shares information that supports his theological outlook.
A scholar shares ALL RELEVANT INFORMATION.
Apologists lie by omission, and Wes is a perfect example.
That's not how it is bro. The whole beef is polarised. Apologists believe according to the text aligning with biblical consistency. Skeptics just want to find other alternative explanations. That's the whole beef
Wrong, son. This isn’t even about skepticism.
Wes Huff was textbook lying-by-omission to Rogan. That’s not scholarship - that’s apologetics, and it’s crap.
@@cookiescraftscatswrong Dan tried to debunk Wes and he lied in his counter argument 92% is word for word and some scholars differ from view to view but they all agree we have the most accurate book of Isaiah
@cookiescraftscats don't take the skeptical gospel so easily. Biblical scholarship is one thing which causes scholars to go both sides of the equation. What he's saying is that according to him it's 100 percent. Mcclellan's mentor claimed it was 99 percent accurate. So yh it's definitely above 90 percent
@@MichaelOwusu-c1s “Skeptical gospel”? 😂
You’re not even trying.
Amazing conversation!
Bottom line: do we have an accurate translation of Scripture today that reflects the copies of the existing manuscripts? Yes, it seems so. Are the variances meaningful? No, it doesn't seem so.
If there was one think that would forever break my heart and I couldn't live without, it would there is no god and no Jesus. I can't live without Jesus. I am sinner but I also know I need to be loved, your heart truly tells you
13 minutes in and so far just a super weak apology buried between “but I’m still right and everyone else is still wrong because I say so”. This is the same dude that blocked Inspiring Philosophy after getting called out on his inability to read a book page number.
He's always running from debates
I hear the argument of the trinity a lot (in particular when hearing debates with Mormons) but I never hear people bring this verse up. “For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one.”
I John 5:7 NKJV
Why is this verse never brought up?
@@jonahrubadue5061 because this verse was not in the original Greek. Look at the textual criticism of it and you’ll see that the earliest Greek translation of this verse in this form is 1516.
It was added after.
Dan has an agenda to undermine the Bible, Conservative Christian doctrine and Apologists. His mantra of "Data over Dogma" is a false proposition. Its always "interpretative bias > data > dogma". We need to test the spirit behind this. And Dan's own Book of Morman states: "Neither will the Lord God suffer that the Gentiles shall forever remain in that awful state of blindness, which thou beholdest they are in, because of the plain and most precious parts of the gospel of the Lamb which have been kept back by that abominable church, whose formation thou hast seen." 1 Nephi 13:32 😮😊
Not to use the Tom Holland hammer but giving the benefit of the doubt to the less powerful is a very Christian, Jesus-derived principal
I thought the hammer was Chris Hemsworth’s. 🤷♂️
I'm sorry but the way Dan talks about Wes, it seems like he has a little jealousy popping through and I feel he is boasting, maybe because he feels he got one over on Wes, which makes him smarter. That's the way I took it. Instead of getting to the point and just explaining, what was misquoted by Wes, he makes it look like a huge mistake, (didn't Wes correct what he said?). This makes me feel sad that Dan needs to show that Wes did something WRONG and needs to say it over and over, like when ppl say, "you are beating a dead horse". I don't think he needed to go to that extreme. 🙏🙏🙏
It’s crazy how people have a lot of head knowledge, but are still lost and without Jesus.
Great interview! Inerrancy is topic on its own.
Wes should have said 95 or 99 percent. Fair enough!
But here, defining whether or not scholars were " shocked" or moderately pleased, or highly amused, all while acknowledging the importance of the discovery...is silly. No doubt many were at least " excited" to see the similarity of the texts. Or is " excited" too strong?
Wes was trying to refute the telephone game idea, and the scrolls do exactly that.
Words have meaning. He’s a textual critic. These scholars are also textual critics. Shocked has a particular meaning. Excited has a particular meaning. I think we’ve gone laissez faire in our understanding of the particularities of language and tend to conflate words and meaning.
Before this video , I didn't really like dan mccellan that much but he surprised me , he's actually alright and seems like a decent individual
He's giving "car saleman". With the whole "I'm so honest that it hurts my business, BUT I don't talk about my business sooooooo..."😂
😂
Wes is great. I will rather listen to Wes over this guy any day.
PRESSS THIS MAN PLS
Chill brother 😁
My first exposure to Dan. I appreciated the cordial nature of the conversation. Can I just say that a still practicing Mormon that says the data doesn't support the Book of Mormon being ancient, the anti early church polygamy stuff, and seemingly advocating more abortion tolerant views or personal orientations is wild. Not in line with how i percieve the mainstream views of the faith would be,and not what i was expecting! I am newer to this channel, and I love how the content usually helps me in my walk with God. :-)
You should try to moderate a Dan vs Wes debate
Dan runs from debates
Naaahhhh they have completely different specialties.
Debates are meaningless except to reinforce whatever ideas you’re already rooting for. The debaters can’t go in depth at all, or usually even provide necessary sources because it’s all ad hoc. The actually useful discussions happen in their peer-reviewed research
There's no need for debating each other I think, BTW it's a kind of "apples" and "oranges" really, so I doubt it would be useful or edifying but I might be wrong
@@christiang4497exactly, thank you for pointing that out
This was fire and hilarious . All the keyboard and video bravado and tough guy stuff dissipated when it was face to face. Data over Dogma. Facts over traditions
I love this well educated heretic. 😊
Reminds me of Mimi Hijab
Ruslan…well done x 10. My goodness… 👌🏻
To those in this comment section who are brushing Dan off because he Mormon, most of the positions Dan advocates for are common views in critical biblical scholarship. He tries to separate his personal faith from his scholarship and does a pretty good job at doing so. Dan frequently argues for positions that would undermine his personal faith. I would challenge anyone saying that he's just letting his Mormon dogmas influence his scholarship to actually read critical biblical scholarship from authors who went to Yale, Oxford, or any other major university...
Dan is afraid to even say what his dogmas are it’s crazy how he’s a critical academic scholar the same field as Bart ermhan unlike Dan ermhan has debates..
Im LDS myself and just found out this dude is Mormon cause his rhetoric is honestly boderline atheist/agnostic
I enjoyed the conversation. Just a comment about interviewing style: It comes across the Ruslan is disinterested in listening when Ruslan asks his questions the way he does. For instance beginning his questions with “So you would say…” and end them with “Am I Right?” It is something Ruslan could work on to make his interviews more welcoming and hospitable especially with someone he clearly has disagreement with. But I still enjoy the courage it takes to publicly discuss disagreements. I enjoyed it.
Full disagree with his opinion at 28 min. Doctrine is absolutely dependent on the Text. They are based on the text. That is a straw man saying that people just have their opinion and use the Bible to confirm. He is simply saying that you even if he debunked the Bible as completely false, the Doctrines would survive. That is completely false.
Not really, at least in catholicism, the church father's defined the doctrine, and protestants follow it, especially trinitarian.
Proof is when scripture doesn't fit the doctrine church father's get brought up as their proof. By church fathers, I mean deciples of the original apostles, John and Peter.
@Swordoftruth289 the Trinity comes from the TWO POWERS in HEAVEN israelite theology of the 2nd temple period.
Jesus taught this theology to his Apostles and why Paul taught what Jesus taught as he was trained by a 2nd temple Pharasee.
Jesus in his Pre-incarnation is the Visible YHWH of the Hebrew Bible.
And 1 TIMOTHY 6: 15.16 is true and NOT a contradiction because the Invisible YHWH the Father wasn't seen in the Hebrew Bible.
All the Council of Niceae did was use Greek philosophical language to describe the TWO Powers in Heaven israelite theology.
The Binary YHWH + Spirit of YHWH = the Trinity in the Hebrew Bible.
Ruslan did a great job in this video.
Dan, be careful, Ruslan used to Rap. And he thinks he's cool. You Dan, like me are a nerd and a geek. Don't let his hip-hop style fool you. He is just a man. If you get lost just make an obscure comic book analogy, you'll confuse him.
hahaha
😂😂😂
Hey Ruslan, You earned a new sub. Respect 🫡 may God continue to bless you and give you wisdom.
Scholars not being shocked at the accuracy to me speaks more to the accepted accuracy of the MT than it does to it being not a big deal so much.
I’m not even a theologian and Mormonism is the easiest to dismantle. 😂😂
If the manuscripts (especially NT) were word-for-word identical...
Scholars be like, "YOU SEE! All the manuscripts are word for word the same. That means there was a controlling body and they changed the narrative to fit their dogma. So we cannot say what the original message was."
Ducktales Dan.
Diet Dr Pepper? 💀💀💀💀
Holding to the "majority of scholars" view WHILE holding to "the lesser group" is WILD! My head hurts.
That’s because you don’t understand. What he’s presenting is the scholarship and not his own personal opinion. Whenever he delves into his own opinion is something that he’s worked on
He put emphasis on "all else being equal" before saying he sides with the lesser group, stop haphazardly looking for contradictions
LOL, You lost me when he admitted to being an active Mormon in the LDS church. Bye.
@@dralgarza haha, me too. He said some crazy stuff like God failed at something, the Trinity isn’t in the Bible and I was like what kind of Christian… oh he’s Mormon 🤦♂️
@@found.ernest That is what I was thinking, too.
Giving the benefit of the doubt to the less powerful group is an absurd heuristic.
He said "all other things being equal". This is an important omission from your comment
Quit giving him the time of day.
Hey Ruslan could you put time stamps in this vid? God bless you!
Wes gets clicks. His 'critics' know this
For all you saying Dan is biased towards Mormonism, just know many faithful Mormons and Mormon apologists, don’t like him at all. Because a lot of what he says undercuts and discredits Mormonism itself
Dan can’t be Mormon he has to believe in all the Mormon doctrines to be considered one
@@aceswizzo8665 I think that’s fair to say
@aceswizzo8665 No, you don't lol. He hasn't been disfellowshipped and has membership in the church.
Beyond this though, religion is a sociological phenomenon and one can choose to engage with it in ways that are meaningful to them. It's that simple.
Dan I'm here, if you need a call a friend tag me in. I have no credentials but I have a lot of spunk and I'm Catholic.
Great discussion. I find it interesting that you in particular seem to be the first one he’s done this with and not a Bible Scholar who could provide more pushback (no slight to you cause you did great man!).
Also, when he says “scholars”, I really wasn’t clear. I usually hear people say “all scholarship” when they’re really referring to “critical” scholarship and they completely ignore segments of scholarship because of their faith beliefs. They definitely discredit PhD theologians a lot. So I’m just wondering what“consensus” and “all scholars” really means.
Great convo tho. Have more with atheists or people of other faiths! We shouldn’t be afraid of objections, and I’m glad you aren’t! Bravo! 👏🏾
He does discussions with Bible scholars all the time
@@khaleelkelly My bad I shoulda been clear. I know he’s on with Kipp and the Diablo Critics and even has others on his podcast, but I’m talking about opposing Bible scholars. Evangelical ones. Who has he talked to online? I am genuinely interested.
@ Ah yeah! I don’t recall any specifically evangelical scholars, it seems he’s open to it so I would definitely want to see that happen! I nerd out over these biblical discussions. I’m very excited for the future of all of this scholarship
Now do the book of mormon 😂
The book of Mormon is trippy cause there is archeological evidence that the events inside happened on the coast of Florida and on the entire half of the US, it supposedly explains the loops of native American warfare depending on whether or not they believed in Jesus Christ, but it doesn't make sense the story how it came to being..
But the church of Jesus Christ has nothing to do with the book of Mormon. The Book of Mormon even has stories of the righteous groups being the anti temple demographic but in reality itself they ignore it by creating self exalting rituals in the temple that you cannot receive unless you pay money. It's completely paradoxical to the teachings that are in the book of Mormon which in this case makes the events in the book of Mormon surprisingly seem to be true.
Woah never thought I'd see Mr. McClellan in someone's video!(interviewed) :o
Wow I can’t believe this Mormon got up here saying the scripture don’t talk about the trinity 😂. The lord our god is one! The word is with god and was god! Don’t lie to the holy spirt cause you’ll lie to god! ❤🩸✝️
Mormon Doctrine from their corrupted Bible
It doesn’t
@@BassBouncers it's actually kind of the entire thesis of the Bible lol
Where did it say Trinity?
That's you saying it says the trinity is there.
But philosophically, it still makes no sense with messianic prophecy.
He said you can't prove the trinity without dogma, and you just did it, lol.
@@sk818factory5 sure.
Where is the word “trinity”?
And why did it take them 325 years after Jesus died to make it official?
Thanks
95.2% vs 96.7% accuracy... Is that how ya'll wanna really live?! "... charge them before God not to quarrel about words ..." 2 Timothy 14
Well. 1.5 percent of 91.56 Million is a whopping 1,373,400…. So if the earth moved 1.5 percent closer to the sun, we’d be toast.
@@zyn-sr7nt 🤣When was the last time you talked 100% accurately for 3+ hours? There's a reason for "figure of speech" & "approximation". Dude understands that his theology is fugazi so he becomes a Religious Karen. What happens when you scrutinize his believes?
@@hectorestrada9877 You sound a lot like the Pharisees and Sadducees in the way they opposed Jesus during His time on earth.
@@zyn-sr7nt 🤣A Pharisee saying "dude/fugazi" and calling speech policing hypocrites (What the Pharisees did) "Karens".
Not going to waste my time on watching this.
Your loss brother 😁 I used to think just like you, and then I started watching Dan's videos and I have learned a lot about the book I consider Sacred and my faith has been sincerely strengthened 😁
wow, whether you believe in the christian bible or not, Billy and Wes' "debate" produced this positive effect on scholars and researchers space. Now, people are keen to fact check everyone, and when people misquote/mispeak, they own up to it. Thanks Wes and Billy.
Dan said that since those slaves were exclusively made of foreigners, this explicitly means that this was chattel slavery. So, according to Dan, when Christians understand these verses not to be talking about chattel slavery, we are imposing our beliefs on the text in order to understand it; however his understanding is the actually meaning of the text, even though the Bible never describes chattel slavery. According to him "foreigner" means "chattel." No, Dan has an agenda. I believe, the only reason he has conceded to some of his beliefs being false is because they are outrightly false and so now he wants to pretend that he is objective.
No. What part of America is most religious right now? Where is the Bible Belt? The South. Those southerners were just as if not more religious than the northerners. They used the Bible to defend slavery. Just read the verses that Dan mentions. You’re commenting without having read the text. Ruslan appears to have done the same thing.
@TheTabahnator what an arrogant thing to say. I read the Bible many times. You have never read it.
"According to him foreigner means chattel."
Lol. No. According to him owning another human being as property for life means chattel slavery.
@@amaizenblue44 You obviously neither understood Dan's argument nor how I refuted him. Start by stating Dan's argument. Try again
@@MyNameMeansGiftFromGod then how do you respond to Leviticus 25:44-46.
“44 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. 45 You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. 46 You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly.”
My apologies for sounding arrogant. Dan mentioned these verses which are quite clear and explicit.
So the Bible DOES speak against homosexuality.
Dan: Ok but Slavery
Finally we have a 4K video of Dan finally admiting the Bible does speak against Homosexuality.
@27:00 Dan is so on the money here!! Doctrine is not dependent on the text but the people. Chef’s 💋 on that ☝️ !
Dan is right but it’s funny he dosent says wat Mormon doctrines he holds to but he criticizes Protestant or catholic doctrines..
@ I mean I would say it depends on Dan’s goals that’s what I would need to know.
My main goal and hope is that one’s epistemology is not dependant on what their pastor says. I want people to think about their beliefs divorced from coercion, pressure, shunning, and being afraid of the pastor screaming at you because you aren’t convinced.
@@aceswizzo8665he also critiques LDS doctrine and the Book of Mormon, FYI
Just for anyone interested nobody he names believes in the Trinity from what I can find. (Discussion starts around the @44:00 mark).
James McGrath - Does not believe in trinity (or Jesus divinity it seems), virtually non-Christian
Michael Peppard - Seems to claim to be Catholic but rejects the trinity and the claim Son of God as a claim of divinity (says it is a political statement).
Paula Fredriksen - Raised Catholic converted to Judaism
David Burnett - Could not find much on but does not to seem to claim any religion what so ever. Just teaches the literature (could easily be wrong).
So to clarify Wes is bad for saying word for word when it is really somewhere from 92-99% accurate... but saying people believe in the trinity but acknowledge there in no textual evidence for it when none of them actually do is good... I don't think this guy is being intentional either to be clear but sheesh take the thorn out of your own eye.
I believe Dan took umbrage with “word for word” and “shocked.” But he didn’t say Wes was bad, just that what he said was false. It’s not “word for word” and scholars were not “shocked.”
Regarding the trinity, there were several competing viewpoints in early Christianity. People read the same gospels that we have and came to wildly different conclusions about the relationship between Jesus, God, and the Holy Spirit. If the trinity were so embedded in the Biblical,how is this possible? It wasn’t until 325 Ad that the trinity was formally established at the council of niceae. And, that was in large part to combat Arianism (the view that Jesus was created by God and distinct from God), which thereafter was deemed a heresy. Some freedom of religion, right. What if Arianism won? Would we be arguing about the text again but using verses to support separateness.
The million Dollars question is why Dan who, according to him is a "scholar" of the Bible he NEVER debates anyone? I'm pretty sure there's plenty of folks out there who are very willing to trade intelectual blows publicly with him
He claims to be a critical academic scholar but Bart ermhan is in the same field and he had a few debates
He’s mentioned many times that often public “debates” are theater and not typically done in good faith as much as they are to score points with people who already agree.
I like debates but I understand that they can be pointless when your interlocutors aren’t open to adjusting their views when presented with new evidence.
@@iamdanielmonroe Yea that's a cop out more than anything else. Debates have been a great form of intelectual engagement since ancient times. If Socrates engaged in debates, Dan is not above it. He might have some lame excuses, but we all know why he doesn't debate. He'd be utterly demolish with easy.
Dan is a legit scholar. He has a PhD from the University of Exeter
Debating is a different skill than research and study. Wes isn't a debater either. Besides, debates don't decide truth.
So we’re okay with Dan saying context matters followed by him assigning an incorrect context this giving an incorrect interpretation… and then saying the scripture has no meaning aside from that which the reader assigns it? In other words, if we can’t undermine scripture one way, we’ll do it another…
why did Dan block Inspiring Philosophy?
34:22 (timestamp is off, sorry, not scrolling back)
No, meaning of writings is not subject our interpretation. If someone writes a book, they know the true meaning. You can’t just decide that your meaning is true. Can we say that we can’t know with 100% certainty what the meaning of an old writing was? Sure. But to say that its meaning IS whatever we decide is asinine
Authorial intent is a real thing.
Dan needs to update his slogan to Ideology > Data > Dogma because his worldview is driven by critical theory and power dynamics ideologies. His claim of being "data driven" falls apart the moment he admits that when evidence is 50/50, he will automatically side with the "least powerful". This mean's he's not objective but ideologically biased. For those who dont know, Dan has an agenda to discredit Christianity because he sees it as an oppressive institution. This is common in academia since many academic institutions have been heavily influenced by Marxist thought and critical theory in the last decades. In this interview, he openly stated that he automatically gives the benefit of the doubt to the least powerful group while wearing a "Data > Dogma" sweater. Thats a dogmatic principle. Does he or his followers not see the irony here? If he were truly committed to "data over dogma" he would remain neutral when the evidence is inconclusive rather than letting ideology determine his conclusions. When your standard of truth is based on power structures rather than actual data, you’re not following the evidence, you’re following an ideology. That said, hats off to Ruslan for a great interview. You did an excellent job asking probing questions that allowed us to see Dan’s reasoning more clearly. I hope more Christians pay attention.
Bro even 75% word for word (more like 90% cause he literally circled the word AND as a difference) might aswell be WORD for WORD! Even 50% the same wording would have been astonishing. It’s literally 80+%
Dan is a joke why bother what he think..
This is the white Billy Carson lol
Eh, he is at least educated in the field he claims to be and has his name in scholarly journals.
@BlessGodStudios - I think its better to agree with him about the subject that the Trinity is explicitly called out in the Bible. (I agree we interpret the Bible to imply the existence of the trinity.)
I ended this same conversation with my father-in-law a Mormon. By just simply teaching him that Judaism has always believed in one God. And using scripture in Deuteronomy I told him any prophet whom teaches lets go worship other God was to not be trusted. He did not like this argument, because it was impossible for him to refute. It hasn't changed his heart, pray a seed has been planted though for me.
Based upon all the evidence I’ve reviewed, the biblical text started polytheistic moved to henotheistic and then monotheistic. For instance, when the Israelites exited Egypt, God performed many miracles of which the Egyptians could initially match, if there were no gods, who was performing these acts on the Egyptians behalf?