I agree, what we call "God" is something that we must experience and experiment to a personal level in order to get a better idea of what it really is. 😊
“Do you want the technical answer?” Yes please. As if apologists could ever offer something that even approaches a technical response. Apologetics is not an academic discipline. It begins with the conclusion and shapes “evidence” around it. An ounce of intellectual humility would do wonders for Kirk.
I'm starting to believe that the subscribers of this channel comment before ever having watched the video and come to unjustified conclusions based on Dan's rhetoric instead of his actual points. It isn't very reassuring.
@@minifox3603 1) this was a joke if you couldn't tell 2) These points were debunked long before Dan even started his channel. No new information or argument is present in anything the content creator in the original video stated.
@@dwightdhansen See this is exactly what I mean, the sentiment that these points have long been debunked is problematic to me since that is simply not really representative of the current state of the arguments around these topics. Nothing has been debunked, Dan just gave his arguments and these like a lot of his other videos are full of fallacies and weakness, as are the arguments that come from the Christina side btw. Again the evidence does not speak for itself, it always needs to be interpreted, and that's why Dan's conclusions about the historicity of Christ aren't necessarily true, that has to be determined via an analysis of the validity of his argumentation, which in this case ignores a ton of opposing scholarly opinions.
@@minifox3603 No, really, they have been debunked. The current state of the arguments is "no change in the last 40 years", and there is not a ton of opposing scholarly opinions. So, there's that.
Well, he had me immediately turned off as soon as I read his stupid Christian Nationalist shirt. Anyone who comingles their religion with their national or ethnic identity is a heretical idiot and not worthy of serious consideration.
Dan unfortunately shows every day why this kind of misinformation is never going to be beaten. Charlie Kirk talks for a total of 30 seconds in this video. It takes 7 minutes for Dan to break down what he's saying and why it's wrong. It's the Gish Gallop. It takes so much longer to dissect and refute the speaker than it does for that person to speak, that when the speaker is trading in affirmations and emotions, you're immediately fighting an uphill battle. I'm so thankful that someone like Dan even has the energy for that, because it couldn't be me.
In a secularized society where education aims more at critical thinking than content learned by heart and multiple choice exams, Gish's gallop tends towards its disappearance.
@@JesseLeeHumphry I'm sure that society exist in some part of the US. I currently live in Geneva🇨🇭. The rate of regular religious practice is around 5 to 6%. The community where the practice is weakest is that of Muslims (4%). The highest is that of evangelists (10%). If a society promotes religious pluralism, invests in education and embraces secularism, religion increasingly becomes a cultural issue. We have French secularism but we apply it with pragmatism. The only source of the problem comes from a very small group, often religious fundamentalists. The answer is simple: everyone is in the same boat. You want to have privileges: ok no problem but you will not have any financial support from the State. A civil servant is required by law not to demonstrate affiliation with a religious, political or philosophical community. Ah yes, sex education is considered an inalienable right of the child. For an American conservative our behavior would be the pinnacle of wokism. Our conservatives are more focused on economic policy and don’t care about “the culture war.”
It's because Kirk explains nothing and Dan explains nearly everything. Doing that in 14 times as much time being as short as 7 minutes is pretty efficient.
No hate to Dan, (I really do enjoy his videos), but his reconciliation of Mormon doctrine seems to follow his argument about word definitions. Recently he argued with InspiringPhilosophy about the No-True-Scotsman fallacy. IP argued that a Christian is someone that follows a set of beliefs, (he listed basic Christian doctrine). Dan argued that a Christian is whatever one defines as Christian. I’m assuming he follows this logic to reconcile LDS theology, as a way to “preserve” his identity politics. (I’m making a large assumption and I very well could be wrong) I often agree with Dan, but I think he missed the mark when he argued that words mean whatever the person who’s using them wants them to mean.
I mean his ultimate conclusions are in line with the church’s teaching that we ultimately only know the truth of the religion through testimony of the spirit, with all our studies.
Great logic, write off people not based on their logic, but based on the person from which it is coming from, great genetic fallacy man. I wonder if this kind of rhetoric is conducive to any kind of meaningful dialogue, probably not I think...
@@minifox3603 Charlie Kirk does not have the education, experience, or weight to provide arguments countervalent to existing academic consensus. He is also, first and foremost, a political pundit. Political pundits trade in emotions, not in facts. Charlie Kirk, by and large, is not concerned with whether or not what he says is *factual*, but by whether it is *affirming*. And so individuals who find his logic to be convincing are clearly not looking any further than what he says, because as Dan so clearly demonstrates, doing so would upend their beliefs or at least upend their confidence in Charlie Kirk as an authority in this space. Charlie Kirk has no education or training relevant to *any* of the fields he is speaking on. The fact that their logic *is not coming from them* is an alarm bell in and of itself. Your logic can be *informed* by something but it should not *come from* something. That's just regurgitation and definitely deserves to be ridiculed whether you agree with the logic itself or not.
@@minifox3603For some people, they themselves have proven over and over again to be wildly wrong and not worthy of any credence. Charlie Kirk for instance.
@@minifox3603 The general principle of tackling arguments not people is quite appropriate... unless you are dealing with bad faith actors like Charlie Kirk. In that case, no meaningful dialogue can ever take place irrespective of your rhetoric, disposition or intentions. It's playing chess with a pigeon.
Dr Candida Moss already put to bed the ahistorical notions Christians have regarding so-called martyrs. See “The Myth of Persecution.” Christians are entitled to their devotional beliefs-but not their own version of history, and certainly not their own version of archeology.
Gotta love how the church has legendarized, propagated, and downright fantasized about the various ways in which their "saints" were tortured and brutalized and killed, all for jazzing up the faithful for abuse. It's a propaganda as old as the church itself.
Not all Biblical scholars would agree with the minimalists scholarship that Dan defends : as one of his minions your just renegotiating the texts from a 21st century worldview that supernatural events could never happen or that God exists those R only based on your presuppositions from an anti Christian position of Dan's Dogma over Data.
@@davidjanbaz7728 I don’t agree with Dan on many of his positions-blindly asserting someone is a minion without evidence is wrongheaded. I’m also aware not all biblical scholars agree with his views. That’s irrelevant because he, like me, wouldn’t say all scholars think alike; your statement shows you don’t understand his channel: he claims to be representing consensus opinions. That means there are other opinions, but he isn’t representing them. I’m also not representing your opinion, as I’m leaving that up to you.
@@davidjanbaz7728it's not that supernatural events can't happen. It's that the authors give us the same reason to doubt them as the authors of The Odyssey or The Illiad. Same methods used on both, because unbiased scholarship doesn't presuppose a true religion. If Christianity were true, the evidence would be better for its texts, and no presupposing miracles would be necessary: we would witness multiplication of bread and fish today. Instead, the church runs on money. The original Ponzi.
Charlie Kirk, like virtually all of Christian apologists, operates as though a big pile of weak arguments adds up to a strong one. My apologies to weak arguments everywhere.
What’s interesting he’s probably more offensive than say Cliffe Knechtle, because although they make the same arguments in defense of Christianity at least Cliffe promotes a religious identity independent of politics where Kirk just shamelessly uses Christianity to push a particular political narrative.
You would think that would be the case. He will say these things in a church and pastors do not correct him. They just keep bringing him back. I stopped going to church when Charlie Kirk became a regular thing. My ex pastor went from a good man to constantly talking about Charlie Kirk, Trump, politics and christian nationality. The message of Jesus or just being a good person was lost.
It's not special pleading and Dan missed this point too. People do indeed sacrifice themselves for things they believe are true. What doesn't happen is people dying for something they know is false. So in the case of the disciples, they would have been there to know for a fact if Jesus resurrected. They died because they said he did. That's very different than the 911 terrorists who just believe in Islam 1400 years after the actual eye witnesses.
@@brentryan2047 "What doesn't happen is people dying for something they know is false" - Incorrect. People die due to what they are perceived to believe, but rarely are asked to confirm. For example, look at Jo Smith, the founder of Mormonism. I would expect we would both agree he was a scam artist and lied about meeting angels, and yet when the mob came for him and killed him, he wasn't saved due to not believing his own lies. Recanting is usually not an option, and we have no idea if any of the martyrs would have done so if given that choice. "So in the case of the disciples, they would have been there to know for a fact if Jesus resurrected" - We have no idea what they saw or what they believed. There is doubt among scholars as to whether any of the names attributed to the gospels were really the authors, or when they were written. We have no writings from the majority of the disciples, or from Jesus. We have the gospel of Mark which our oldest manuscripts of ends at the tomb with no meeting of the risen Jesus. We have Luke, who specifies he was not an eyewitness and is repeating secondhand stories. We have Matt and John with conflicting stories, written 50-60 years later by unknown authors. From this we have no idea of what really happened or if a single word attributed to Jesus ever passed his lips. We would have the same result from made up stories, from grief hallucinations or sunk cost efforts of those trying to make sense of their Messiah dying when that wasn't the expectation. "That's very different than the 911 terrorists who just believe in Islam 1400 years after the actual eye witnesses." - That comparison is any of the Christians throughout history who are absolutely sure they are correct, to the point of being willing to die for their beliefs, verse the Muslims throughout history who are absolutely sure they are correct, to the point of being willing to die for their beliefs. Being convinced of something doesn't mean that thing is true. But of course, you don't need to look at modern Muslims verse ancient Christians, as the ancient Muslims, those who witnessed Mo's miracles firsthand were absolutely convinced as well. Islamic eyewitnesses died for their beliefs as well, this is not a modern phenomenon. Another example is the Indian Guru Sai Baba, who eyewitnesses claim could teleport, do telekinesis, was born of a virgin and spoke to many after his death. Absolutely convinced firsthand reports, and yet we would both agree that they have false beliefs and are either fooled or lying.
@@brentryan2047 The important aspect being "People do indeed sacrifice themselves for thing they BELIEVE are true", as you said. It doesn't follow that the things are ACTUALLY true. What about all the Davidian's and other sects, whose members killed themselves, because they believed their leader or Guru was telling the truth, or was some reincarnation of some God? The disciples dying for something they BELIEVED to be true does not carry any weight.
@@thegreatdestroyer6506 that wasn't the important aspect at all. I was just acknowledging that yes people die for things they believe, but didn't know for sure, are true. You keep missing the important aspect. The disciples would have known, factually, whether Jesus resurrected or not. And when people have first hand knowledge something is false... They then don't go off and die for that falsehood.
@@brentryan2047 We have no idea what the disciples saw or believed. We do not know who wrote the gospels, and the earliest manuscripts of Mark end at the tomb while Luke openly admits he wasn't an eyewitness and is reporting second hand stories. The two gospels mentioning a risen Jesus are estimated to be written 50-60 years after Jesus's death, which makes it unlikely to be the disciples writing either and the stories conflict in their details. We have no writings from the majority of the disciples or from Jesus, so it is nigh on impossible to jump to any conclusions about what they thought or claimed to see. "And when people have first hand knowledge something is false... They then don't go off and die for that falsehood" - Of course they do. People are usually given no opportunity to recant of any lies once it is time for punishment. If any of the martyrs did recant we would have no idea of that and it probably wouldn't have saved them from their fate. One example is Jo Smith, the founder of Mormonism. I would expect we would both agree that he was a scam artist and liar, but when the mob came for him and killed him, he was given no opportunity to recant and died for that lie. "That's very different than the 911 terrorists who just believe in Islam 1400 years after the actual eye witnesses." - Both modern Christians and modern Muslims are equally convinced they are correct and both willing to die for those beliefs. But there is no need to only look at modern Muslims, as the ancients ones who were eyewitness to Mo's miracles were also willing to die for what I'm sure you would agree was a lie. Or another example is the Indian Guru Sai Baba, whose followers claim to be eyewitness to him teleporting, using telekinesis and contacting them after his death. Again, I'm sure you would agree they are believing a falsehood, but their being willing to die for that falsehood does nothing to make it more likely true.
As Dr. Gad Barnea, Dr. Yonatan Adler, etc have noted, archeology doesn’t support that Judaism (as presented in the Bible) was practiced until circa 2nd century BCE. That’s when evidence of the dietary laws, holidays, and other features and practices have evidence of widespread use. The facts do not support what the biblical narrative claims. See Adler’s “The Origins of Judaism”, for example.
True. It's also true that the bible can be proven nonfactual in many ways, including on the first page alone. For example, Genesis 1:6-8 starts off the ridiculously wrong biblical cosmology where the writers envisioned our existence within a giant snowglobe within a cosmic sea of blue water. The Sumerians asked, "why is the sky blue?". Their best answer was: "because of a primeval sea of blue fresh water in the sky directly above the clouds." Once you create an explanation for the first question, you must then deal with additional questions created by the first belief claim. So then they asked, "why does the primeval sea not fall down on us?". Their best answer became, "because a glasslike SkyDome FIRMAMENT/vault is spread across the sky by the gods, and the firmament holds up the waters above and separates them from the waters below." The Israelites obtained their cosmology beliefs from the Babylonians, who got their beliefs from the Akkadians and Sumerians. Genesis 1:6-8 starts this ridiculous cosmological belief system, which proves the bible lacks legitimacy and credibility as the words and information of an all knowing being on the first page alone. If you believe the bible 100%, then you should believe: -There is a blue cosmic sea directly above the clouds which makes the sky blue. -A clear glasslike SkyDome FIRMAMENT separates the blue sea water above the clouds from the earth water below. -Windows and gates are built into the firmament to allow beings and water to come down. -The earth is flat like a disk or coin. -The earth is immovable and stationary. -Stars can fall from the firmament at any time. -The Sun orbits the earth from WITHIN the skydome firmament. 🥵 -The Sun is like a mere light lamp and can easily be stopped over a small geographical area, such as in Joshua when the Sun stood still for a day.(Joshua 10:12-14 kjv) -The stars are just little lights hung on the glasslike skydome firmament like Christmas tree ornaments. -We live in a giant snowglobe within a cosmic blue sea of water. No planets, no suns, no galaxies, and no universe, JUST WATER 🤭 Simply do a Google image search for "ancient Israelite cosmology" and compare it to Sumerian and Babylonian cosmology. You'll easily find over 200 bible verses to confirm the Israelite cosmology matched that of the others. Biblical writers did in fact believe in flat earth geocentric cosmology. The problem is they were wrong, and so is the bible. Josephus confirmed the Jewish belief in a glasslike SkyDome FIRMAMENT. He referred to it as crystalline. If Genesis is wrong, Jesus is wrong. 🖖 Biblical scholar Dan McClellan on Biblical cosmology: ruclips.net/video/p8dipV0xG4Y/видео.htmlsi=mB8r3BtLBvJ0JZqw Biblical scholar James Tabor on Biblical Cosmology: ruclips.net/video/BjXcaPI-tEE/видео.htmlsi=-l1he22iEEjaG8M3
I’m new to your channel and I’m really glad that I found you. I’m really interested in hearing your opinion on the gold plates found in Saudi Arabia discussed on Stick Of Joseph channel today. Thanks😊
The argument that always gets me is "They could go and ask people that were still living at the time!" as if we don't live in an age where everyone can watch the exact same thing be documented on camera and still disagree about "what really happened", and you think people back then would all just agree on what objectively happened?
Josh McDowell in his"Fate of the Apostles" makes the case that there isn't good evidence of them dying for the gospel, and unintentionally makes the case that if anyone would it would be Jews in that time and place.
Hi Dan! I have a question I hope you can answer. In Matthew 7:11 the Greek word πονηροὶ is translated as Evil. Is this an accurate translation and is Jesus implying that all human beings are inherently evil?
Could you remind me where to find your PhD thesis? I know you mentioned it in a video but I would like to watch all of them again.😅 Great work by the way.
Kirk is the farthest thing from a Christian and the farthest thing from an authority on Biblical scripture. He is just pandering to his evangelical base
So this comes down to I believe it's true simply because I want to believe it to be true. This is more like building your house on a foundation of wishes rather than rocks.
@@CarlosAlvarado04 I believe it therefore it's true is one of the reasons why we have tens of thousands of different religious dedominations. Kind of seems like faith is not a very good way to get to the truth of anything. Faithful seems like a good thing for the incurious to be.
Why are you messing with children? They aren't full adults and have been indoctrinated in such a way that makes it nearly impossible for them to grown into adults.
Even if we accept every single thing said by Charlie Kirk here (which we shouldn't), we still don't have a good reason to be Christian: -Lots of fictional stories don't contradict archaeology (or history more broadly) -Basically every teaching of the Bible can be found elsewhere, other than perhaps really specific things that I doubt Kirk is referring to. Lots of non-biblical "truths" can improve your life too -We have lots of biographies of people from the past with as much detail as the life of Jesus -Lots of people have become convinced they've seen a person rise from the dead
I sort of view all religious texts' as early Man's attempt to understand life, the world, the univese. There is some good ideas in the Judeo-Christian Bible but also much nonsense. Just like Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, etc.
So, where is the „love“ button? You’re awesome, Dan! Taking classes from Professor William J. Hamblin with all of his apologetic crap was kind of a waste 🤪 I wish I had had a much more nuanced and realistic alternative like you available.
"If it was written by men it must be true because men are reliable." "If it was written by women then it must be true because it would be too embarrassing not to be true." I swear Denis Villeneuve and Terry Jones must have been reading Christian apologetics when they were making Dune 2 and Life of Brian. Also if women were not to be believed at the time, then how the heck did the story spread among the men? Did they too think that if it was too embarrassing not to be true?
Hi Dan, love watching your videos. Do you find that your study of the bible conflicts with your Christian views ? I was raised with Christian parents and still have a faith but agree that large parts of the bible are contradictory and a lot was written with the authors individual agenda. I would be interested to hear your opinion on this, I believe we all have our own perspective
I can't speak for Dan, but for me personally, no. I don't believe the Bible is infallible or univocal or historically accurate or written by God. It's not a depiction of real historical events. The Bible contradicts itself because it was written by different people across thousands of years. It contains fables and myths and wisdom carefully constructed to instill certain values and morals in people. I don't believe that there was really an Adam or a Moses or a Noah. I don't even believe in a resurrection. But I still consider myself a Christian. I consider myself a Christian because I believe that following the teachings of Jesus will save humanity from self destruction. The rest of the Bible helps us to understand where our faith tradition came from and what values were important to those who came before us. It is man's attempt to explain encounters with the Divine. I see most of the Old Testament as "origin stories", designed to pass on a sense of calling and purpose to future generations. These are our ancestors superheroes, fables, and fairytales. I think the Bible is valuable and useful, but it isn't "God's word" in the way that popular conservative Christianity insists.
I am no longer a Christian, but when I was a Catholic I found no conflict in understanding that there were "surface" contradictions and biases from the human authors that did not manage to obscure what I believed to be the "deeper" message divinely inspired. I was not a bible literalist, though, and I was not around other bible literalists.
He's agnostic and does not present only data, but data interpretation, which he picks and chooses what serves best his intended public. It lacks several points which would be presented if it was really a neutral presentation. If the subject is interesting to you, please research more on good books instead of Just listening to the one hyper critical side Dan usually gives.
@@ricl5266 Dr McClellan is a quite public and active member of the LDS church. Next time please do not make ignoring you so very easy, I like a challenge.
Do you ever notice that nobody ever asks if any other books are categorically "true" or "false?" Nobody ever claims that Henry VIII, or Pride and Prejudice, or Homer's Illiad is "True." Nobody ever tries to prove the infallibility of Webster's Dictionary, or a Physics 101 textbook, or Plato's Republic, etc. I wonder why...
I think asking if it's "true" is a more complicated question than most realize. "True" has multiple meanings. Many Christians don't believe the Bible is historically true (ie, they admit the stuff never happened) but they still believe it's true scripture, or that it teaches true principles, or that it is "true" like a compass is true (in that it points the reader to God). To ask if the Bible is "true" is the wrong question, because which definition of true are we using?
@@MsFitz134 I agree that many Christians will be ok that some of the bible falls short of being true. However I'm sure if they claim to be Christians. they will believe that God exists, that Jesus rose from the dead and is the son of god etc, ie, that the claims of the gospels are true.
Sidebar: One of AiG's favorite "tricks". Everything in the Book of Genesis is a "historical" account. Except when we say it isn't; like the location of the Garden not being in the middle east and the Tigris River (as written), or Cain married one of his "sisters", even though in Genesis 4:16 it explicitly states otherwise.
One interesting "new" argument about the resurrection its all the "appearances" of Jesus to a lot of non-Christian persons. Have anyone heard this argument lately?
Not being a Christian, I’ve never had much interest in reading the Bible, but, damn, Dan really makes me want to. He just makes the complexity so compelling.
Parts of it are worth reading, if for no other reason than the influence on art and literature from the medieval period on down. I'd recommend using something like the SBL Study BIble though. Just reading it is kind of a slog and all the footnotes etc. help contextualize a lot of the stuff you'll come across. For my money though, the history surrounding the Bible is way more interesting than the thing itself.
The history and development of the bible(s) is more interesting than the bibles itself. Just like the history of Xtianity and its development is more interesting than Xtianity.
My favourite parts are the Books of Kings, and to a lesser extent their sequels, the Chronicles. Reads like another classic Bronze Age epic a la The Iliad: wars, betrayals, family drama, adultery, divine interference wreaking havoc with human lives. Both compelling drama and a reminder the Abrahamic religions are born from the same cultural and historical stew of all ancient West Asian/East Mediterranean religions.
Even with David we can only really have any confidence that somebody called David was the head of a dynasty, but that doesn't reveal anything about his life and adventures.
It seems to me that ALL of ancient history is a creative theological and/or political narrative, which makes it hard to call it history as we understand the term. Historiography applied to ancient times is difficult at best. Ancient history is also unavoidably less than certain for all sorts of reasons, so apologists posturing their certainty therein is equally laughable.
Agree. I saw a lecture on ancient historians. There were a lot of disclaimers on the term “historian” applied for people who wrote about historical facts in the past. Rigorous scientific criteria for the study of history are a modern introduction.
Yeah, but what's the message? You did a great job breaking down these kids trying to articulate how they understand this, which you're absolutely correct.But, you never said what or how this translates into a cohesive message in your opinion as to what this passage means. What are people who read this supposed to take away from Kings 23-24?
A quick note regarding the women being the first witnesses of Jesus’ supposed resurrection - women were the ones traditionally that would go and take care of the body to embalm and clean it. Therefore, it wouldn’t be that much of a debatable point that they visited the burial place. After the women saw the empty tomb, they went to the men; it was then after this incident, the men verified the tomb was empty. The Esoterica channel makes this point of contention - which is why I never took this point seriously in trying to solidify the account of Jesus.
Alex: "It seems natural for me to say of the worst possible misery that: 'I prefer it not to be the case'" Sam: "Doesn't that sound psychotic to say that?" Alex: [blinks] Worth the 1:24:00 watch time so far to see that! 😂🤣
Can I ask why Dan never says what this contradicting evidence is and just uses interpretation that seems off to make his point? I hate it when they don’t provide a direct counter argument
The Yasukuni Shrine in Japan is dedicated to over 2.4 million people who gave their lives in the service of their divine emperor. Each of them can be researched to confirm they lived. That is much better evidence than characters who we cannot prove lived.
The entire fossil record showing the linear development of the human species directly refutes the bible This can also be said about the fossil record of every animal. Can also be said about the entire geologic record showing multiple strata of the earth.
Well, that was the opinion of gnostics, but they were quickly snuffed out by the proto orthodox Christian’s who absolutely did place emphasis on the resurrection literally having happened.
Charlie Kirk's argument that Christianity is real because disciples were willing to die for it would indicate the Moslem suicide bombers proves that Mohammed really was a prophet and Islam is the true faith, and the Quran an accurate account of God's will for humanity. I am willing to bet he didn't think of that ....
Kirk states that those who saw Jesus' resurrection sacrificing themselves is proof. By this token, would sacrifice by those who did NOT see anything be more or less valid?
@@therealsmalk We have seen people sacrifice themselves for crazy cults, Jonestown most notably, but Heaven's Gate and Rael, does that prove that those faiths are true?
This runs hand in hand with the uninformed regarding the Rapture to come in placing false hopes in something man made that Dan has addressed in his videos. People actually getting ready to leave the earth for something that's just not so.
The "martyrs wouldn't have died for a lie" argument is incredibly stupid and infuriating. One of the worst in the apologists' catalogue of awfully bad arguments. And that is a very big, very dumb catalogue.
I mean,its btonze age people we are talking about! If people search meaning in religion nowadays then imagine back then? They would most certainly rather die then admit that their perfect,super charismatic and miraculous leader is not the son of god
@@edivaldobarbosa3709 Bronze age was over a thousand years before Jesus. 300 years before Jesus was Aristotle... You know, one of the fathers of philosophy and someone that inspired our US constitution. These people aren't as dumb as your comment.
@@brentryan2047The reasons outlined by Dan in this video are a good start. I might be misunderstanting it, sure, so feel free to explain why it isn't so dumb; this isn't the first time I've encountered it, though.
@@brentryan2047 thanks for pointing out my historical missrepresentation,but i think the point still stands, we can see all through history that a charismatic leader with an ideologic that presents itself as the greater good can make the oppressed do anything to feel validated,besides,even if they deconverted i doubt the authorities would stop persecuting them for having helped traitors in the past (jesus and the disciples) so they would still face punishment, albeit less brutal
@@minifox3603what does this have to do with Christianity? Are you for real? The bible subjugates women in multiple ways, like for example women being forced to marry their rapist and constantly putting them under men in society. It's got everything to do with women.
Yes and no. While this is true for many religions, the beliefs of Pantheists are based on scientific and empirical data, and the beliefs of many modern Pagans are based on history and the sciences. We have faith that the space debris circumnavigating the globes magnetic field won't crash down to earth, but it absolutely could and most likely will some day.
Listening to Kirk is a reminder that one should seek the knowledge and opinions of people educated in the facts supported by evidence. Listening to Kirk it's clear that he does not.
The bible totally makes sense. The bible does NOT conflict with itself. Certain scriptures have added details vs some not as detailed example Matthew 4:8-11 but Luke 4:6 says That Satan was given all the Kingdoms (Governments) and there Glory...Its not a contradiction but added details
There are many assertions in here like such and such has been disproven, but there's no specific examples given. While I've read the history books and I personally agree with Dan, this video isn't likely to be convincing to those who disagree with Dan.
This whole 'died for their beliefs' thing looks weaker even than that. There are no records/stories of disciples being given the choice to recant in exchange for their lives. The few that have records of them actually being killed is as scapegoats, see Nero. Tragic, but not particularly special.
The plot may be true, but the story is not. Oral stories told around the Hebrew campfires that reflect Egyptian, Assyrian, and Persian stories, they have heard either in captivity or while trading with those areas become codified as their own and committed to paper. A new version of God arises with Jesus and upon his death, taking the old system and then adapting it to newly baptized areas. God's old covenant with the Jews becomes a new covenant with the world. Circumcision falls aside for baptism as a rite of passage. Old household gods of Rome become saints with which to focus devotion. The Sabbath gets moved from Friday to Sunday. Germanic and Celtic symbols get incorporated into the system. Jewish laws forbidding idolatry is replaced with a Roman focusing of devotion through statues of Jesus, Mary, and the saints. Greek philosophical outlooks into the afterlife become adjusted to the new system. Eventually what had been the Torah plus a gospel here and there, get united into one Book which has different chapters in the Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, and Coptic religions. There is no one voice in the Book because there are billions hearing different things. Even if God wrote it Himself, it is still man that reads it and that is where the problems begin.
The bible doesn't say anywhere that god wrote it. Judaism firmly holds that the Torah was written by Moses (even though it's obviously not true). Not sure where you are going with this? American Evangelicanism? American Evangelicals now believe that Trump is the second coming and that he wrote the bible while sitting on a golden stool (which he does every time he takes a crap at home.). ;-)
I get what you’re saying about people self- sacrificing for something bigger than themself. The thing is, aren’t these usually folks who base their belief off of someone else’s account? I mean, throughout most of Christendom, the self-sacrifices folks made occurred because they believed a story that was told to them; a story that gave them such hope that they would not deny their belief in that story even if it meant death. When it comes to Jesus’ followers, though, they weren’t told a story. They were supposedly witnesses of the story. So if what they claimed wasn’t true than they must have all been delusional. Why else would they die? Who dies over a lie they made up themselves, particularly when they could deny everything and live? I mean, the account of Peter being crucified spread eagle upside down because he would not deny a lie does seem implausible to me. “Doubting Thomas” traveling all the way to India only to be speared to death also seems implausible if it was a lie. In a case like that, why go all the way to India? He went to a completely different culture, different language, knowing nobody and having sacrificed all his resources. I know Paul and several others did their missionary journeys. But this was within a larger region that was all under Rome and bore a number of similarities. But the area now known as Chennai (formerly Madras) was not like that. Fellows like Mark (who went to Alexandria) are different because he never knew Jesus, only Peter and Paul. I don’t know. I’m just having a hard hard time wrapping my head around that. That being said, I completely agree with everything else. And I can’t stand Charlie Kirk and his brand of Christianity.
I’ll try to answer you later as I actually have a job. But I do have a question for each of you. What I’m wondering is,” why did you feel compelled to comment on my comment?” You both make this general claim about “tradition“ but don’t go onto back it up with any of your own evidence. It would be more helpful to me if you did because then it is something I could look at and consider. When you don’t do that, it just looks like you’re picking at somebody for the sake of picking at them. I know there are people in these comments don’t like Dan or what he teaches and they just want to go at him from their own limited pool of knowledge. I am not one of those people. I am truly trying to learn and add to my own studies and education. So my question to him is very sincere. I truly am trying to put myself in the place of someone who fabricated a story and then had the choice as to whether to die or not due to that story. I mean, I can talk about the first century accounts that we have, but if you’re just going to give me a general, “well how do we know that he’s real?“, Then it’s not super helpful to me to take all the time to write it out. Unless you actually have something to Hang one’s hat on, it just seems as though you’re here to pick at somebody who doesn’t immediately agree with everything. The thing is, I’m not disagreeing with what Dan is saying. I just have a question. If all you’re going to do is pick at me for asking the question, I don’t know that I want to continuetrying to discuss something. PS - I am dictating this so please excuse all the errors. I’ll go back and correct them later when I have two hands to do it with.
People from every religion on earth have died for their beliefs. If you believe every other religion is incorrect, and you accept that people can die for incorrect beliefs then that has to extend to christianity as well.
oh please please please please please make some kind of debate happen! I would totally pay for a PPV just to see Dan take Charlie down in a 1v1 debate! I can't stand Charlie Kirk and unfortunately I know he would never agree to a debate unless it was completely slanted his way.
isnt it that every religion has people that are 100& sure they saw and talked to the gods of their religion? Also every religion has people who die for their gods.
Can someone who is more familiar with Dan than myself clear something up for me. Dan either claims to be or is said to be Mormon. However, he seems to disagree with most ideologies that Mormons or Christianity as a whole overwhelmingly believe to be true. To listen to him, one would think that he had disassociated with religion understanding that most of it is man made ideology.
Go tell a mountain to get into the sea, and you'll discover that... duh yah that's impossible even though Jesus said all needed was faith the size of a mustard seed, and nothing would be impossible... I guess he didn't mean what he said, because I can think of about 100 impossible things right off the top of my head, number one thing that is impossible... the Bible being the words of any God.
I lean "centre right" politically. However, people on the right like Charlie Kirk really grind my gears. If you have to point to religion, twist the truth of that religion, and the history behind it as a way of defending your political stance, then you haven't thought your opinions through properly. While I disagree with many (not all) things that the modern left advocates for, at least they aren't pushing opinions that have been put through the filter of a religion, and then use that same religion in an entirely misrepresented way as justification and "proof" of their stance. I respect the left a lot for that.
I'd probably be center right still, if not for the religious right. They have one goal, and that's to use the power of the state to enforce their religious boundaries on everyone. I don't see how a society like that doesn't fall into deep, irrecoverable decline.
@@VulcanLogic I wholeheartedly agree. People can believe in whatever religion or deity they like. However, their religious beliefs should stay far away from any government policy, or enforcement.
" It Must Be True Because Other People Believe It "
That is how it works on " Family Feud "
But not in reality
I agree, what we call "God" is something that we must experience and experiment to a personal level in order to get a better idea of what it really is. 😊
“Do you want the technical answer?” Yes please. As if apologists could ever offer something that even approaches a technical response. Apologetics is not an academic discipline. It begins with the conclusion and shapes “evidence” around it. An ounce of intellectual humility would do wonders for Kirk.
Not for his bank account 😔
Haven't watched the video yet but the Magic 8 ball says, "Outlook not so good"
After video: Hey, whatta ya know!!
I'm starting to believe that the subscribers of this channel comment before ever having watched the video and come to unjustified conclusions based on Dan's rhetoric instead of his actual points. It isn't very reassuring.
@@minifox3603 1) this was a joke if you couldn't tell
2) These points were debunked long before Dan even started his channel. No new information or argument is present in anything the content creator in the original video stated.
@@dwightdhansen See this is exactly what I mean, the sentiment that these points have long been debunked is problematic to me since that is simply not really representative of the current state of the arguments around these topics. Nothing has been debunked, Dan just gave his arguments and these like a lot of his other videos are full of fallacies and weakness, as are the arguments that come from the Christina side btw. Again the evidence does not speak for itself, it always needs to be interpreted, and that's why Dan's conclusions about the historicity of Christ aren't necessarily true, that has to be determined via an analysis of the validity of his argumentation, which in this case ignores a ton of opposing scholarly opinions.
@@minifox3603 No, really, they have been debunked. The current state of the arguments is "no change in the last 40 years", and there is not a ton of opposing scholarly opinions. So, there's that.
Thank you so much for addressing false information. Data over Dogma
Charlie Kirk being laughably wrong? Color me not surprised!
Definitely appreciate you addressing these kinds of figures, Dan.
Well, he had me immediately turned off as soon as I read his stupid Christian Nationalist shirt. Anyone who comingles their religion with their national or ethnic identity is a heretical idiot and not worthy of serious consideration.
Dan unfortunately shows every day why this kind of misinformation is never going to be beaten. Charlie Kirk talks for a total of 30 seconds in this video. It takes 7 minutes for Dan to break down what he's saying and why it's wrong. It's the Gish Gallop.
It takes so much longer to dissect and refute the speaker than it does for that person to speak, that when the speaker is trading in affirmations and emotions, you're immediately fighting an uphill battle. I'm so thankful that someone like Dan even has the energy for that, because it couldn't be me.
In a secularized society where education aims more at critical thinking than content learned by heart and multiple choice exams, Gish's gallop tends towards its disappearance.
@@karldehaut Let me know when we start approaching that society, I'd love to be a part of it.
@@JesseLeeHumphry I'm sure that society exist in some part of the US. I currently live in Geneva🇨🇭. The rate of regular religious practice is around 5 to 6%. The community where the practice is weakest is that of Muslims (4%). The highest is that of evangelists (10%). If a society promotes religious pluralism, invests in education and embraces secularism, religion increasingly becomes a cultural issue. We have French secularism but we apply it with pragmatism. The only source of the problem comes from a very small group, often religious fundamentalists. The answer is simple: everyone is in the same boat. You want to have privileges: ok no problem but you will not have any financial support from the State. A civil servant is required by law not to demonstrate affiliation with a religious, political or philosophical community. Ah yes, sex education is considered an inalienable right of the child. For an American conservative our behavior would be the pinnacle of wokism. Our conservatives are more focused on economic policy and don’t care about “the culture war.”
You beat his entire scholarship in 2 min? And Ur not eve a scholar Ur self!!? Nope, I'm just a lowly lowly fisherman (jk), call me kick ass!!
It's because Kirk explains nothing and Dan explains nearly everything. Doing that in 14 times as much time being as short as 7 minutes is pretty efficient.
So glad to have found Dan and Data over Dogma This is priceless.. Also Robert M Price
The Motte and Bailey, a classic apologist maneuver.
“Laughably” perfect. 😂 (probably should provide him with a few more synonyms of that word 😊)
Wow! You completely. deconstructed that dizzy dude. Amazing. Please explain how you reconcile your position with LDS doctrine.
Dan will never, ever do such a thing.
No hate to Dan, (I really do enjoy his videos), but his reconciliation of Mormon doctrine seems to follow his argument about word definitions. Recently he argued with InspiringPhilosophy about the No-True-Scotsman fallacy. IP argued that a Christian is someone that follows a set of beliefs, (he listed basic Christian doctrine). Dan argued that a Christian is whatever one defines as Christian. I’m assuming he follows this logic to reconcile LDS theology, as a way to “preserve” his identity politics. (I’m making a large assumption and I very well could be wrong)
I often agree with Dan, but I think he missed the mark when he argued that words mean whatever the person who’s using them wants them to mean.
I assumed he considers him self a Mormon and Christian but doesn't take the stories literally...
I mean his ultimate conclusions are in line with the church’s teaching that we ultimately only know the truth of the religion through testimony of the spirit, with all our studies.
Anyone who mentions Charlie Kirk as any kind of authority on anything, I just immediately write them off as a moron. Never been wrong yet!
Great logic, write off people not based on their logic, but based on the person from which it is coming from, great genetic fallacy man. I wonder if this kind of rhetoric is conducive to any kind of meaningful dialogue, probably not I think...
Nah, anything Charlie Kirk says can be written off. I've yet to see that man say anything that could be considered truth@@minifox3603
@@minifox3603 Charlie Kirk does not have the education, experience, or weight to provide arguments countervalent to existing academic consensus. He is also, first and foremost, a political pundit. Political pundits trade in emotions, not in facts. Charlie Kirk, by and large, is not concerned with whether or not what he says is *factual*, but by whether it is *affirming*.
And so individuals who find his logic to be convincing are clearly not looking any further than what he says, because as Dan so clearly demonstrates, doing so would upend their beliefs or at least upend their confidence in Charlie Kirk as an authority in this space. Charlie Kirk has no education or training relevant to *any* of the fields he is speaking on.
The fact that their logic *is not coming from them* is an alarm bell in and of itself. Your logic can be *informed* by something but it should not *come from* something. That's just regurgitation and definitely deserves to be ridiculed whether you agree with the logic itself or not.
@@minifox3603For some people, they themselves have proven over and over again to be wildly wrong and not worthy of any credence. Charlie Kirk for instance.
@@minifox3603 The general principle of tackling arguments not people is quite appropriate... unless you are dealing with bad faith actors like Charlie Kirk. In that case, no meaningful dialogue can ever take place irrespective of your rhetoric, disposition or intentions. It's playing chess with a pigeon.
Dr Candida Moss already put to bed the ahistorical notions Christians have regarding so-called martyrs. See “The Myth of Persecution.” Christians are entitled to their devotional beliefs-but not their own version of history, and certainly not their own version of archeology.
Gotta love how the church has legendarized, propagated, and downright fantasized about the various ways in which their "saints" were tortured and brutalized and killed, all for jazzing up the faithful for abuse.
It's a propaganda as old as the church itself.
Not all Biblical scholars would agree with the minimalists scholarship that Dan defends : as one of his minions your just renegotiating the texts from a 21st century worldview that supernatural events could never happen or that God exists those R only based on your presuppositions from an anti Christian position of Dan's Dogma over Data.
@@davidjanbaz7728 I don’t agree with Dan on many of his positions-blindly asserting someone is a minion without evidence is wrongheaded. I’m also aware not all biblical scholars agree with his views. That’s irrelevant because he, like me, wouldn’t say all scholars think alike; your statement shows you don’t understand his channel: he claims to be representing consensus opinions. That means there are other opinions, but he isn’t representing them. I’m also not representing your opinion, as I’m leaving that up to you.
@@hardwork8395This guy is a known troll here, I don’t recommend engaging further
@@davidjanbaz7728it's not that supernatural events can't happen. It's that the authors give us the same reason to doubt them as the authors of The Odyssey or The Illiad. Same methods used on both, because unbiased scholarship doesn't presuppose a true religion.
If Christianity were true, the evidence would be better for its texts, and no presupposing miracles would be necessary: we would witness multiplication of bread and fish today. Instead, the church runs on money. The original Ponzi.
Charlie Kirk, like virtually all of Christian apologists, operates as though a big pile of weak arguments adds up to a strong one. My apologies to weak arguments everywhere.
I think I would find Charlie Kirk even more offensive if I were a Christian.
I'm a Christian and I can't imagine anyone finding him more offensive than I do. The same maybe.
What’s interesting he’s probably more offensive than say Cliffe Knechtle, because although they make the same arguments in defense of Christianity at least Cliffe promotes a religious identity independent of politics where Kirk just shamelessly uses Christianity to push a particular political narrative.
You would think that would be the case. He will say these things in a church and pastors do not correct him. They just keep bringing him back. I stopped going to church when Charlie Kirk became a regular thing. My ex pastor went from a good man to constantly talking about Charlie Kirk, Trump, politics and christian nationality. The message of Jesus or just being a good person was lost.
"They wouldn't die for a lie!"... "Oh, so you think Islam is true because they are willing to die for their beliefs?"
"No, because special pleading!"
It's not special pleading and Dan missed this point too. People do indeed sacrifice themselves for things they believe are true. What doesn't happen is people dying for something they know is false. So in the case of the disciples, they would have been there to know for a fact if Jesus resurrected. They died because they said he did.
That's very different than the 911 terrorists who just believe in Islam 1400 years after the actual eye witnesses.
@@brentryan2047 "What doesn't happen is people dying for something they know is false"
- Incorrect. People die due to what they are perceived to believe, but rarely are asked to confirm. For example, look at Jo Smith, the founder of Mormonism. I would expect we would both agree he was a scam artist and lied about meeting angels, and yet when the mob came for him and killed him, he wasn't saved due to not believing his own lies. Recanting is usually not an option, and we have no idea if any of the martyrs would have done so if given that choice.
"So in the case of the disciples, they would have been there to know for a fact if Jesus resurrected"
- We have no idea what they saw or what they believed. There is doubt among scholars as to whether any of the names attributed to the gospels were really the authors, or when they were written. We have no writings from the majority of the disciples, or from Jesus. We have the gospel of Mark which our oldest manuscripts of ends at the tomb with no meeting of the risen Jesus. We have Luke, who specifies he was not an eyewitness and is repeating secondhand stories.
We have Matt and John with conflicting stories, written 50-60 years later by unknown authors. From this we have no idea of what really happened or if a single word attributed to Jesus ever passed his lips.
We would have the same result from made up stories, from grief hallucinations or sunk cost efforts of those trying to make sense of their Messiah dying when that wasn't the expectation.
"That's very different than the 911 terrorists who just believe in Islam 1400 years after the actual eye witnesses."
- That comparison is any of the Christians throughout history who are absolutely sure they are correct, to the point of being willing to die for their beliefs, verse the Muslims throughout history who are absolutely sure they are correct, to the point of being willing to die for their beliefs.
Being convinced of something doesn't mean that thing is true.
But of course, you don't need to look at modern Muslims verse ancient Christians, as the ancient Muslims, those who witnessed Mo's miracles firsthand were absolutely convinced as well. Islamic eyewitnesses died for their beliefs as well, this is not a modern phenomenon.
Another example is the Indian Guru Sai Baba, who eyewitnesses claim could teleport, do telekinesis, was born of a virgin and spoke to many after his death. Absolutely convinced firsthand reports, and yet we would both agree that they have false beliefs and are either fooled or lying.
@@brentryan2047 The important aspect being "People do indeed sacrifice themselves for thing they BELIEVE are true", as you said. It doesn't follow that the things are ACTUALLY true. What about all the Davidian's and other sects, whose members killed themselves, because they believed their leader or Guru was telling the truth, or was some reincarnation of some God? The disciples dying for something they BELIEVED to be true does not carry any weight.
@@thegreatdestroyer6506 that wasn't the important aspect at all. I was just acknowledging that yes people die for things they believe, but didn't know for sure, are true.
You keep missing the important aspect. The disciples would have known, factually, whether Jesus resurrected or not. And when people have first hand knowledge something is false... They then don't go off and die for that falsehood.
@@brentryan2047 We have no idea what the disciples saw or believed. We do not know who wrote the gospels, and the earliest manuscripts of Mark end at the tomb while Luke openly admits he wasn't an eyewitness and is reporting second hand stories. The two gospels mentioning a risen Jesus are estimated to be written 50-60 years after Jesus's death, which makes it unlikely to be the disciples writing either and the stories conflict in their details. We have no writings from the majority of the disciples or from Jesus, so it is nigh on impossible to jump to any conclusions about what they thought or claimed to see.
"And when people have first hand knowledge something is false... They then don't go off and die for that falsehood"
- Of course they do. People are usually given no opportunity to recant of any lies once it is time for punishment. If any of the martyrs did recant we would have no idea of that and it probably wouldn't have saved them from their fate.
One example is Jo Smith, the founder of Mormonism. I would expect we would both agree that he was a scam artist and liar, but when the mob came for him and killed him, he was given no opportunity to recant and died for that lie.
"That's very different than the 911 terrorists who just believe in Islam 1400 years after the actual eye witnesses."
- Both modern Christians and modern Muslims are equally convinced they are correct and both willing to die for those beliefs. But there is no need to only look at modern Muslims, as the ancients ones who were eyewitness to Mo's miracles were also willing to die for what I'm sure you would agree was a lie.
Or another example is the Indian Guru Sai Baba, whose followers claim to be eyewitness to him teleporting, using telekinesis and contacting them after his death. Again, I'm sure you would agree they are believing a falsehood, but their being willing to die for that falsehood does nothing to make it more likely true.
"He's performing conviction." Perfect!
As Dr. Gad Barnea, Dr. Yonatan Adler, etc have noted, archeology doesn’t support that Judaism (as presented in the Bible) was practiced until circa 2nd century BCE. That’s when evidence of the dietary laws, holidays, and other features and practices have evidence of widespread use. The facts do not support what the biblical narrative claims. See Adler’s “The Origins of Judaism”, for example.
Seconded, that's a good book.
True. It's also true that the bible can be proven nonfactual in many ways, including on the first page alone.
For example, Genesis 1:6-8 starts off the ridiculously wrong biblical cosmology where the writers envisioned our existence within a giant snowglobe within a cosmic sea of blue water.
The Sumerians asked, "why is the sky blue?". Their best answer was: "because of a primeval sea of blue fresh water in the sky directly above the clouds."
Once you create an explanation for the first question, you must then deal with additional questions created by the first belief claim.
So then they asked, "why does the primeval sea not fall down on us?".
Their best answer became, "because a glasslike SkyDome FIRMAMENT/vault is spread across the sky by the gods, and the firmament holds up the waters above and separates them from the waters below."
The Israelites obtained their cosmology beliefs from the Babylonians, who got their beliefs from the Akkadians and Sumerians.
Genesis 1:6-8 starts this ridiculous cosmological belief system, which proves the bible lacks legitimacy and credibility as the words and information of an all knowing being on the first page alone.
If you believe the bible 100%, then you should believe:
-There is a blue cosmic sea directly above the clouds which makes the sky blue.
-A clear glasslike SkyDome FIRMAMENT separates the blue sea water above the clouds from the earth water below.
-Windows and gates are built into the firmament to allow beings and water to come down.
-The earth is flat like a disk or coin.
-The earth is immovable and stationary.
-Stars can fall from the firmament at any time.
-The Sun orbits the earth from WITHIN the skydome firmament. 🥵
-The Sun is like a mere light lamp and can easily be stopped over a small geographical area, such as in Joshua when the Sun stood still for a day.(Joshua 10:12-14 kjv)
-The stars are just little lights hung on the glasslike skydome firmament like Christmas tree ornaments.
-We live in a giant snowglobe within a cosmic blue sea of water. No planets, no suns, no galaxies, and no universe, JUST WATER 🤭
Simply do a Google image search for "ancient Israelite cosmology" and compare it to Sumerian and Babylonian cosmology. You'll easily find over 200 bible verses to confirm the Israelite cosmology matched that of the others.
Biblical writers did in fact believe in flat earth geocentric cosmology. The problem is they were wrong, and so is the bible. Josephus confirmed the Jewish belief in a glasslike SkyDome FIRMAMENT. He referred to it as crystalline.
If Genesis is wrong, Jesus is wrong. 🖖
Biblical scholar Dan McClellan on Biblical cosmology:
ruclips.net/video/p8dipV0xG4Y/видео.htmlsi=mB8r3BtLBvJ0JZqw
Biblical scholar James Tabor on Biblical Cosmology:
ruclips.net/video/BjXcaPI-tEE/видео.htmlsi=-l1he22iEEjaG8M3
Sitting in the pile. I'll get to it eventually.
@@audieabel1261thank u for this
@@audieabel1261 Well said.
Dan, I really enjoy your work and contributions to this world of biblical studies. I personally think this is your best response video yet 👍🏻
I’m new to your channel and I’m really glad that I found you. I’m really interested in hearing your opinion on the gold plates found in Saudi Arabia discussed on Stick Of Joseph channel today. Thanks😊
The argument that always gets me is "They could go and ask people that were still living at the time!" as if we don't live in an age where everyone can watch the exact same thing be documented on camera and still disagree about "what really happened", and you think people back then would all just agree on what objectively happened?
Hi Dan, if David is the first historical person the bible, where does that leave closely tied but preceding figures like Saul and Samuel?
Josh McDowell in his"Fate of the Apostles" makes the case that there isn't good evidence of them dying for the gospel, and unintentionally makes the case that if anyone would it would be Jews in that time and place.
Hi Dan! I have a question I hope you can answer. In Matthew 7:11 the Greek word πονηροὶ is translated as Evil. Is this an accurate translation and is Jesus implying that all human beings are inherently evil?
Digging homeboys Vital Remains tee
A charlie kirk article came up in the fark politics tab today and i dropped this video in the thread.
Could you remind me where to find your PhD thesis? I know you mentioned it in a video but I would like to watch all of them again.😅 Great work by the way.
Geez Dr Dan, I luv you man!
Who cares what Kirk has to say about anything?
Unfortunately, lots of people.
Kirk is the farthest thing from a Christian and the farthest thing from an authority on Biblical scripture. He is just pandering to his evangelical base
A whole bunch of voters care what he says. So punching holes in it is _*ahem_ doing the lord's work.
Doesn't Charlie Kirk saying the Bible is true prove it's false?
I do
So this comes down to I believe it's true simply because I want to believe it to be true.
This is more like building your house on a foundation of wishes rather than rocks.
And that is the inherent meaning of faith.
@@CarlosAlvarado04 I believe it therefore it's true is one of the reasons why we have tens of thousands of different religious dedominations.
Kind of seems like faith is not a very good way to get to the truth of anything.
Faithful seems like a good thing for the incurious to be.
When a jehovah witness asked me how these things were predicted I told him (after the fact ) they stood shocked and had no answer.
Why are you messing with children? They aren't full adults and have been indoctrinated in such a way that makes it nearly impossible for them to grown into adults.
Love the Kirk imitation..😂😂😂😂😂.
Even if we accept every single thing said by Charlie Kirk here (which we shouldn't), we still don't have a good reason to be Christian:
-Lots of fictional stories don't contradict archaeology (or history more broadly)
-Basically every teaching of the Bible can be found elsewhere, other than perhaps really specific things that I doubt Kirk is referring to. Lots of non-biblical "truths" can improve your life too
-We have lots of biographies of people from the past with as much detail as the life of Jesus
-Lots of people have become convinced they've seen a person rise from the dead
Great work Dan!!!
If Charlie thinks that way, he can just play a round of Bible Roulette.
I sort of view all religious texts' as early Man's attempt to understand life, the world, the univese. There is some good ideas in the Judeo-Christian Bible but also much nonsense. Just like Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Judaism, etc.
Regarding Kirk’s archaeology claim: Global flood? Doesn’t archaeology disprove this quite easily? As well as geology?
Not to mention the fact that most of the stories of martyrdom are legendary, with 0 substantiation.
So, where is the „love“ button?
You’re awesome, Dan!
Taking classes from Professor William J. Hamblin with all of his apologetic crap was kind of a waste 🤪 I wish I had had a much more nuanced and realistic alternative like you available.
Charlietan Kirk. 😅
Whenever someone says 'The Bible is real' I'm always like "No shit Sherlock. I have one in my bookshelf."
RE Martyrs death proving historicity: Michael Servetus
"If it was written by men it must be true because men are reliable."
"If it was written by women then it must be true because it would be too embarrassing not to be true."
I swear Denis Villeneuve and Terry Jones must have been reading Christian apologetics when they were making Dune 2 and Life of Brian.
Also if women were not to be believed at the time, then how the heck did the story spread among the men? Did they too think that if it was too embarrassing not to be true?
Bravo!
Hi Dan, love watching your videos. Do you find that your study of the bible conflicts with your Christian views ? I was raised with Christian parents and still have a faith but agree that large parts of the bible are contradictory and a lot was written with the authors individual agenda.
I would be interested to hear your opinion on this, I believe we all have our own perspective
I can't speak for Dan, but for me personally, no. I don't believe the Bible is infallible or univocal or historically accurate or written by God. It's not a depiction of real historical events. The Bible contradicts itself because it was written by different people across thousands of years. It contains fables and myths and wisdom carefully constructed to instill certain values and morals in people. I don't believe that there was really an Adam or a Moses or a Noah. I don't even believe in a resurrection. But I still consider myself a Christian.
I consider myself a Christian because I believe that following the teachings of Jesus will save humanity from self destruction. The rest of the Bible helps us to understand where our faith tradition came from and what values were important to those who came before us. It is man's attempt to explain encounters with the Divine. I see most of the Old Testament as "origin stories", designed to pass on a sense of calling and purpose to future generations. These are our ancestors superheroes, fables, and fairytales. I think the Bible is valuable and useful, but it isn't "God's word" in the way that popular conservative Christianity insists.
I am no longer a Christian, but when I was a Catholic I found no conflict in understanding that there were "surface" contradictions and biases from the human authors that did not manage to obscure what I believed to be the "deeper" message divinely inspired. I was not a bible literalist, though, and I was not around other bible literalists.
He's agnostic and does not present only data, but data interpretation, which he picks and chooses what serves best his intended public. It lacks several points which would be presented if it was really a neutral presentation. If the subject is interesting to you, please research more on good books instead of Just listening to the one hyper critical side Dan usually gives.
@@ricl5266 Dr McClellan is a quite public and active member of the LDS church. Next time please do not make ignoring you so very easy, I like a challenge.
So what is your personal stance on the resurrection are you stating it did happen or it did not
Of course it happened. Just like Harry Potter defeated Voldemort. That happened, too. In a book. ;-)
This is heart breaking on so many levels it's difficult to think people believe this so called dogma
Do you ever notice that nobody ever asks if any other books are categorically "true" or "false?" Nobody ever claims that Henry VIII, or Pride and Prejudice, or Homer's Illiad is "True."
Nobody ever tries to prove the infallibility of Webster's Dictionary, or a Physics 101 textbook, or Plato's Republic, etc.
I wonder why...
Henry VIII isn't going to burn you forever if you don't believe he exists.
@@downshift4503 Neither is God, if he isn't real.
@@chameleonx9253 I agree.... but christians think he is real while having no good reason to.
I think asking if it's "true" is a more complicated question than most realize. "True" has multiple meanings. Many Christians don't believe the Bible is historically true (ie, they admit the stuff never happened) but they still believe it's true scripture, or that it teaches true principles, or that it is "true" like a compass is true (in that it points the reader to God).
To ask if the Bible is "true" is the wrong question, because which definition of true are we using?
@@MsFitz134 I agree that many Christians will be ok that some of the bible falls short of being true. However I'm sure if they claim to be Christians. they will believe that God exists, that Jesus rose from the dead and is the son of god etc, ie, that the claims of the gospels are true.
Sidebar: One of AiG's favorite "tricks". Everything in the Book of Genesis is a "historical" account. Except when we say it isn't; like the location of the Garden not being in the middle east and the Tigris River (as written), or Cain married one of his "sisters", even though in Genesis 4:16 it explicitly states otherwise.
Your videos are so clear.
One interesting "new" argument about the resurrection its all the "appearances" of Jesus to a lot of non-Christian persons. Have anyone heard this argument lately?
You've made it big Dan, the trolls are out in full force. Maybe you'll start getting orcs too.
Where the hell were you when I was 12, Dan? Lol
N.T. Wright.
Not being a Christian, I’ve never had much interest in reading the Bible, but, damn, Dan really makes me want to. He just makes the complexity so compelling.
Parts of it are worth reading, if for no other reason than the influence on art and literature from the medieval period on down. I'd recommend using something like the SBL Study BIble though. Just reading it is kind of a slog and all the footnotes etc. help contextualize a lot of the stuff you'll come across.
For my money though, the history surrounding the Bible is way more interesting than the thing itself.
The history and development of the bible(s) is more interesting than the bibles itself. Just like the history of Xtianity and its development is more interesting than Xtianity.
My favourite parts are the Books of Kings, and to a lesser extent their sequels, the Chronicles. Reads like another classic Bronze Age epic a la The Iliad: wars, betrayals, family drama, adultery, divine interference wreaking havoc with human lives. Both compelling drama and a reminder the Abrahamic religions are born from the same cultural and historical stew of all ancient West Asian/East Mediterranean religions.
It can be.. but it can also get really really boring... 😂
Funny how the truth is so much more interesting than the untruth
What are the fundamental internal issues within the gospels?
Who are the guys in the dark glasses?
What struck me in that video was that he had what appeared to be his goons (like a crime lord) standing around him.
Never know when auntie fuh super soldiers might strike
@@WS-dd8ow Yeah, what a horrible thing to be against fascism.
@@dmnemaine If it wasn't obvious, I was making a joke
@@WS-dd8ow It was obvious. :)
Even with David we can only really have any confidence that somebody called David was the head of a dynasty, but that doesn't reveal anything about his life and adventures.
Charlie kirk makes ben shapiro look smart.
Translation: "Everyone who disagrees with me is stoopid."
It seems to me that ALL of ancient history is a creative theological and/or political narrative, which makes it hard to call it history as we understand the term. Historiography applied to ancient times is difficult at best. Ancient history is also unavoidably less than certain for all sorts of reasons, so apologists posturing their certainty therein is equally laughable.
Agree. I saw a lecture on ancient historians. There were a lot of disclaimers on the term “historian” applied for people who wrote about historical facts in the past. Rigorous scientific criteria for the study of history are a modern introduction.
Charlie Kirk. The actual "ignorant" brother of Forrest Gump.
Yeah, but what's the message? You did a great job breaking down these kids trying to articulate how they understand this, which you're absolutely correct.But, you never said what or how this translates into a cohesive message in your opinion as to what this passage means. What are people who read this supposed to take away from Kings 23-24?
Kirk is not a christian. He does quite the opposite than what Christianity supposedly is about.
5:07 Dunno Chuck, there were only 12 disciples but there were 19 hijackers.
A quick note regarding the women being the first witnesses of Jesus’ supposed resurrection - women were the ones traditionally that would go and take care of the body to embalm and clean it. Therefore, it wouldn’t be that much of a debatable point that they visited the burial place. After the women saw the empty tomb, they went to the men; it was then after this incident, the men verified the tomb was empty. The Esoterica channel makes this point of contention - which is why I never took this point seriously in trying to solidify the account of Jesus.
I think that Charlie Kirk's middle name actually is Laughable False, yes, Charlie Laughably False Kirk, sounds correct.
Alex: "It seems natural for me to say of the worst possible misery that: 'I prefer it not to be the case'"
Sam: "Doesn't that sound psychotic to say that?"
Alex: [blinks]
Worth the 1:24:00 watch time so far to see that! 😂🤣
Can I ask why Dan never says what this contradicting evidence is and just uses interpretation that seems off to make his point? I hate it when they don’t provide a direct counter argument
if he would the videos will ne too long for youtube.
Charlie Kirk 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
The Yasukuni Shrine in Japan is dedicated to over 2.4 million people who gave their lives in the service of their divine emperor. Each of them can be researched to confirm they lived. That is much better evidence than characters who we cannot prove lived.
The entire fossil record showing the linear development of the human species directly refutes the bible
This can also be said about the fossil record of every animal.
Can also be said about the entire geologic record showing multiple strata of the earth.
Yeah as soon as I saw Kirk I knew this was a nope for me.
Dan, can you please make a video of the contradictions or the irreconcilable difference between the 4 Gospels
Agree!
According to Christians of the Near East, the "resurrection" was spiritual, not physical. In the West, we take things too literal and miss the point.
Well, that was the opinion of gnostics, but they were quickly snuffed out by the proto orthodox Christian’s who absolutely did place emphasis on the resurrection literally having happened.
Charlie Kirk's argument that Christianity is real because disciples were willing to die for it would indicate the Moslem suicide bombers proves that Mohammed really was a prophet and Islam is the true faith, and the Quran an accurate account of God's will for humanity. I am willing to bet he didn't think of that ....
and homeopathy must be real because believers die for it.
Kirk states that those who saw Jesus' resurrection sacrificing themselves is proof. By this token, would sacrifice by those who did NOT see anything be more or less valid?
@@therealsmalk We have seen people sacrifice themselves for crazy cults, Jonestown most notably, but Heaven's Gate and Rael, does that prove that those faiths are true?
This runs hand in hand with the uninformed regarding the Rapture to come in placing false hopes in something man made that Dan has addressed in his videos.
People actually getting ready to leave the earth for something that's just not so.
Wait wait wait... But wasn't the initial question "Is the Bible real?" 😂
Yes sir, its real. I have it right here in my hands.
Charlie Kirk knows that if you just say things well and with confidence, tons of people will believe you
How many people died for Mohammad on 9/11?
Does Dan believe Jesus was resurrected?
Does it matter what he believes? ;-)
The "martyrs wouldn't have died for a lie" argument is incredibly stupid and infuriating. One of the worst in the apologists' catalogue of awfully bad arguments. And that is a very big, very dumb catalogue.
I mean,its btonze age people we are talking about! If people search meaning in religion nowadays then imagine back then? They would most certainly rather die then admit that their perfect,super charismatic and miraculous leader is not the son of god
Why is it so dumb to you? I think you may be misunderstanding it
@@edivaldobarbosa3709 Bronze age was over a thousand years before Jesus. 300 years before Jesus was Aristotle... You know, one of the fathers of philosophy and someone that inspired our US constitution. These people aren't as dumb as your comment.
@@brentryan2047The reasons outlined by Dan in this video are a good start. I might be misunderstanting it, sure, so feel free to explain why it isn't so dumb; this isn't the first time I've encountered it, though.
@@brentryan2047 thanks for pointing out my historical missrepresentation,but i think the point still stands, we can see all through history that a charismatic leader with an ideologic that presents itself as the greater good can make the oppressed do anything to feel validated,besides,even if they deconverted i doubt the authorities would stop persecuting them for having helped traitors in the past (jesus and the disciples) so they would still face punishment, albeit less brutal
So Charlie knows women were treated like cattle back then. Sad, very sad.
Huh?? What is your point? And how does this have to do with Christianity.
@@minifox3603what does this have to do with Christianity? Are you for real? The bible subjugates women in multiple ways, like for example women being forced to marry their rapist and constantly putting them under men in society.
It's got everything to do with women.
@@minifox3603 does it contradict the pride of charlie kirk's 'all modern civilisation is based on good judeo-christian beliefs'.
Kirk is a pimple on a giant orange behind.
Did not really seem like a fair fight. Intelligence, data and knowledge vs. broad general claims left poor Charlie in shreds. Keep the good work Dan!
That’s the thing with faith. You have to believe it occurred by mere supposition. As much as any other religious belief. That’s what it is.
Yes and no. While this is true for many religions, the beliefs of Pantheists are based on scientific and empirical data, and the beliefs of many modern Pagans are based on history and the sciences. We have faith that the space debris circumnavigating the globes magnetic field won't crash down to earth, but it absolutely could and most likely will some day.
BOOM
So, what's your point? That Charlie Kirk is wrong? That's pretty unremarkable.
Listening to Kirk is a reminder that one should seek the knowledge and opinions of people educated in the facts supported by evidence.
Listening to Kirk it's clear that he does not.
The bible totally makes sense. The bible does NOT conflict with itself. Certain scriptures have added details vs some not as detailed example Matthew 4:8-11 but Luke 4:6 says That Satan was given all the Kingdoms (Governments) and there Glory...Its not a contradiction but added details
World War 2 happened therefore Hogan's Heroes is historical fact.
There are many assertions in here like such and such has been disproven, but there's no specific examples given. While I've read the history books and I personally agree with Dan, this video isn't likely to be convincing to those who disagree with Dan.
This whole 'died for their beliefs' thing looks weaker even than that. There are no records/stories of disciples being given the choice to recant in exchange for their lives. The few that have records of them actually being killed is as scapegoats, see Nero. Tragic, but not particularly special.
The plot may be true, but the story is not. Oral stories told around the Hebrew campfires that reflect Egyptian, Assyrian, and Persian stories, they have heard either in captivity or while trading with those areas become codified as their own and committed to paper. A new version of God arises with Jesus and upon his death, taking the old system and then adapting it to newly baptized areas. God's old covenant with the Jews becomes a new covenant with the world. Circumcision falls aside for baptism as a rite of passage. Old household gods of Rome become saints with which to focus devotion. The Sabbath gets moved from Friday to Sunday. Germanic and Celtic symbols get incorporated into the system. Jewish laws forbidding idolatry is replaced with a Roman focusing of devotion through statues of Jesus, Mary, and the saints. Greek philosophical outlooks into the afterlife become adjusted to the new system. Eventually what had been the Torah plus a gospel here and there, get united into one Book which has different chapters in the Orthodox, Catholic, Protestant, and Coptic religions. There is no one voice in the Book because there are billions hearing different things. Even if God wrote it Himself, it is still man that reads it and that is where the problems begin.
The bible doesn't say anywhere that god wrote it. Judaism firmly holds that the Torah was written by Moses (even though it's obviously not true). Not sure where you are going with this? American Evangelicanism? American Evangelicals now believe that Trump is the second coming and that he wrote the bible while sitting on a golden stool (which he does every time he takes a crap at home.). ;-)
I get what you’re saying about people self- sacrificing for something bigger than themself. The thing is, aren’t these usually folks who base their belief off of someone else’s account?
I mean, throughout most of Christendom, the self-sacrifices folks made occurred because they believed a story that was told to them; a story that gave them such hope that they would not deny their belief in that story even if it meant death.
When it comes to Jesus’ followers, though, they weren’t told a story. They were supposedly witnesses of the story. So if what they claimed wasn’t true than they must have all been delusional. Why else would they die? Who dies over a lie they made up themselves, particularly when they could deny everything and live?
I mean, the account of Peter being crucified spread eagle upside down because he would not deny a lie does seem implausible to me. “Doubting Thomas” traveling all the way to India only to be speared to death also seems implausible if it was a lie. In a case like that, why go all the way to India? He went to a completely different culture, different language, knowing nobody and having sacrificed all his resources. I know Paul and several others did their missionary journeys. But this was within a larger region that was all under Rome and bore a number of similarities. But the area now known as Chennai (formerly Madras) was not like that.
Fellows like Mark (who went to Alexandria) are different because he never knew Jesus, only Peter and Paul.
I don’t know. I’m just having a hard hard time wrapping my head around that.
That being said, I completely agree with everything else. And I can’t stand Charlie Kirk and his brand of Christianity.
How do you know any of these accounts actually happened? How do you know that they were eyewitnesses?
It's more like some of what you say there is claimed by tradition. We don't have good reason to believe it.
I’ll try to answer you later as I actually have a job.
But I do have a question for each of you. What I’m wondering is,” why did you feel compelled to comment on my comment?”
You both make this general claim about “tradition“ but don’t go onto back it up with any of your own evidence. It would be more helpful to me if you did because then it is something I could look at and consider. When you don’t do that, it just looks like you’re picking at somebody for the sake of picking at them.
I know there are people in these comments don’t like Dan or what he teaches and they just want to go at him from their own limited pool of knowledge. I am not one of those people. I am truly trying to learn and add to my own studies and education.
So my question to him is very sincere. I truly am trying to put myself in the place of someone who fabricated a story and then had the choice as to whether to die or not due to that story.
I mean, I can talk about the first century accounts that we have, but if you’re just going to give me a general, “well how do we know that he’s real?“, Then it’s not super helpful to me to take all the time to write it out. Unless you actually have something to Hang one’s hat on, it just seems as though you’re here to pick at somebody who doesn’t immediately agree with everything. The thing is, I’m not disagreeing with what Dan is saying. I just have a question. If all you’re going to do is pick at me for asking the question, I don’t know that I want to continuetrying to discuss something.
PS - I am dictating this so please excuse all the errors. I’ll go back and correct them later when I have two hands to do it with.
People from every religion on earth have died for their beliefs. If you believe every other religion is incorrect, and you accept that people can die for incorrect beliefs then that has to extend to christianity as well.
@@toritori5835 I have a job too, speaking about picking. I was asking a question too. I do not find the evidence you are speaking of compelling.
oh please please please please please make some kind of debate happen! I would totally pay for a PPV just to see Dan take Charlie down in a 1v1 debate! I can't stand Charlie Kirk and unfortunately I know he would never agree to a debate unless it was completely slanted his way.
isnt it that every religion has people that are 100& sure they saw and talked to the gods of their religion?
Also every religion has people who die for their gods.
Can someone who is more familiar with Dan than myself clear something up for me. Dan either claims to be or is said to be Mormon. However, he seems to disagree with most ideologies that Mormons or Christianity as a whole overwhelmingly believe to be true. To listen to him, one would think that he had disassociated with religion understanding that most of it is man made ideology.
That's a bad angle for Kirk.
Go tell a mountain to get into the sea, and you'll discover that... duh yah that's impossible even though Jesus said all needed was faith the size of a mustard seed, and nothing would be impossible... I guess he didn't mean what he said, because I can think of about 100 impossible things right off the top of my head, number one thing that is impossible... the Bible being the words of any God.
I lean "centre right" politically. However, people on the right like Charlie Kirk really grind my gears. If you have to point to religion, twist the truth of that religion, and the history behind it as a way of defending your political stance, then you haven't thought your opinions through properly. While I disagree with many (not all) things that the modern left advocates for, at least they aren't pushing opinions that have been put through the filter of a religion, and then use that same religion in an entirely misrepresented way as justification and "proof" of their stance. I respect the left a lot for that.
I'd probably be center right still, if not for the religious right. They have one goal, and that's to use the power of the state to enforce their religious boundaries on everyone. I don't see how a society like that doesn't fall into deep, irrecoverable decline.
@@VulcanLogic I wholeheartedly agree. People can believe in whatever religion or deity they like. However, their religious beliefs should stay far away from any government policy, or enforcement.