Video není dostupné.
Omlouváme se.
Is the Inspiration Doctrine a Harmful Distortion?
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 08. 2024
- In this video, I respond to Dan McClellan's arguments on the inspiration of Scripture. I contend that the traditional understanding of 2 Timothy 3.16 as supporting the doctrine of inspiration is flawed. I engage with his points, asserting the apostolic authority of biblical writings and challenging the idea that these texts lack divine inspiration. Join me for a thoughtful exploration of the nuances surrounding biblical inspiration and the authority of Scripture.
00:00 Paul wrote the Pastorals
00:55 What Jesus thought was Scripture
04:02 The NT writers knew they were writing Scripture
08:18 God-breathed or refreshing?
10:41 The early church on Scripture
13:44 Dan's faulty conclusions
16:38 Is belief in inspiration harmful?
19:12 Conclusion
Helpful resources used or recommended: Michael J. Kruger and Andreas J. Köstenberger’s, The Heresy of Orthodoxy amzn.to/46bCPYw
Kruger, The Question of Canon, amzn.to/3QD0E60
Webb, Slaves, Women & Homosexuals amzn.to/46qo4Bz
Trimm, The Destruction of the Canaanites: God, Genocide, and Biblical Interpretation amzn.to/49vkBEo
Richards and O'Brien, Paul Behaving Badly: Was the Apostle a Racist, Chauvinist Jerk? amzn.to/46bCJQE
Blog post/script: isjesusalive.com/is-inspirati...
Are you a Christian struggling with doubts? Get 1-on-1 counseling at talkaboutdoubts.com
Help support me: / isjesusalive or paypal.me/isjesusalive for a one-time gift
Amazon wish list: www.amazon.com/hz/wishlist/ls...
Join this channel to get access to perks:
/ @testifyapologetics
Visit my blog: isjesusalive.com
What do you get when you cross a post-modernist with a Mafia boss?
Someone who makes you an offer you can't understand!
Dan annoys me to no end. He makes huge claims with no evidence and just says “the consensus is”
Are you talking about the guy who made the video or Dan?
I should have specified, Dan is who I was referring to@@DanteRedgrave-6492
@@DanteRedgrave-6492Who is your question directed to? The OP or Tinkeringbear? I cannot tell from the context 🤷♂️
@@truthbebold4009 @voiceofthefathertv
@@voiceofthefathertv thank you and yeah he’s annoying
Dr. Heiser summed up how inspiration works pretty well. Fundamentalists and their atheist counterparts have this X files view of inspiration in mind as implanted dictation
My personal take is that the “Word of God” is the sum of the truth about God and the gospel. It isn’t reducible to a collection of writings even, because if it were all the misunderstandings of Scripture would by implication be God’s fault.
@keatsiannightingale9256 If Jesus is who he said he was, he's the Word of God -- the Logos
@@paradisecityX0only that Jesus didn't say that but John said it. I do believe it's indeed the case. Jesus is the word of God and at the same time tells us the word of God. The ultimate revelation of scripture to the whole world.
I like what Karl Barth said, "Jesus is the word of God and the Bible is the word of God insofar it tells us about Jesus." (quoted from memory). The old testament itself is not in its entirety word of God since it also contains various types of historical writing, etc, which needs not necessarily be inspired since people just wrote down what they experienced. But when he dwelled among them, inspiration wasn't really necessary. They directly experienced Him. Just as people experienced Jesus and wrote down or memorized what he said and did. So inspired certainly doesn't mean that it's divine dictation in each and every case otherwise it makes no sense to try and argue for apostolic authorship of the new testament and sources going back to eyewitness accounts. Inspiration could just dictate to a writer whatever God wants, no matter how far removed in time and space and I'm pretty certain that's not what people mean when we say the Bible is inspired. The spirit can give them insights into things of a divine nature. That's why some make the claim that you must be holy to be a theologian. I'm certain Paul was inspired when writing his letters as was John when writing revelation. Not so sure about the gospels themselves. Why would they even need to be inspired when Jesus walked among the disciples?
@@paradisecityX0Exactly. And “All truth is God’s truth” as Augustine wrote so long ago. While I essentially believe the statements of the Scripture are all true in their original context, should it be definitively demonstrated that one or two NT epistles were actually forged, my faith in the Logos, Christ (in Whom all truth past, present and future is ensured), would not waver.
@@keatsiannightingale2025 Then there's the Book of Nature which can't be forged
The hermeneutical view he holds to is the same one my highschool literature teacher held to which was famous in the turn of the millennium. That readers, not authors, are responsible for what a text means. I responded by writing an essay about how Dantes Inferno was about how Dante was hungry and needed some food. Best A I ever got back from a teacher as she shook her head in seemingly upset she had to give me an A.
Well, the thing is it is true. I would not go as far as Dan or your teacher but it is true that reader are not solely passive actors that merely extract meaning from a source or text. We are actively interpreting the texts.
Like the "Death of the Author" thing?
@@blugaledoh2669Yeah. Though I also, personally, wouldn't go as far as to feel that the reader's experience or interpretation is the most, or only, meaningful one with never the author's even in theoretical circumstances, like others I've heard say... Since, it's not as if these items grow from the ground; in this situation, there's a human creating it with likely intent of expressing their interpretation/experience as well as, a human consuming it with likely intent of gaining an interpretation(or expressing one) or experience. So I'd usually think the Intents of both parties should be considered for the full picture of information, in order to then make decisions upon the work. If it IS possible to consider more than one interpretation of course
But maybe I'm overly empathetic or something lol
@@blugaledoh2669By the way, I'd assume the extreme "only" view is the one that you and the Poster mentioned you disagreed with, I hope my comment didn't come off as thinking You supported it. I just had blurted out my opinion too, I'm sorry...
@@unripetheberrby6283 yeah, the extreme view of the teacher is going too far
Timothy, a man who knew Paul recieves a letter from him decades after his death and doesn't go "wait, this doesn't seem right"? Are you kidding me. That is his first argument?
0:34
Gotta be honest. That's a pretty silly argument now that I think about it...
I imagine he assumes the letter isn't really for Timothy(Not a position I agree with btw)
Not the argument.@@darkwolf7740
@@esdrasreis3481I’m conflicted on that question at the moment. It’s not something that could ultimately shake my faith in Christ, but it does have major implications for the efficacy of the canonization process of the NT writings.
Erik, this video is absolutely top notch. I learned so much from it. This is why you can't stop doing these response videos. You and IP have made yourselves indispensable and a blessing to all who watch your content.
Excellent response. I'll be praying that you experience and continue to experience God's peace as you make and post these videos. Because I know how spiritually disrupting it can sometimes be. Keep up the great work!
Oh....Dan
1. He's an LDS Church member from mormonism
2. He fully supports the LGBTQ2+I (etc)
3.Critical scholars have a pushed narrative to "deconstruct" the bible.
Genetic fallacy
You are correct. Dan is making a scholarly attempt to deconstruct the bible so it has no value in modern society. Atheists love him.
@@Greyz174 Not need for it when his arguments have been refuted... Try better next time
@@TheBibleCode still a genetic fallacy
@@Greyz174 there’s a point where someone repeats so many tired out refuted or non sensical arguments that you have to cut them off for sanity dude
Dan is more atheist than anything. I had a pushback against one of his videos. He responded with a sarcastic emotional comment, of which was easily rebutted and I never heard from him again. “Scholars” like this need to be called out for their extremely bias stances. Yet he claims to be of the Mormon church, still isn’t true Christianity, yet he is completely left leaning, well within the isle of atheism.
Dan's a Mormon for emotional reasons and nothing more. He concedes the Book of Mormon is ahistorical. He cleverly makes some very astute and historically correct points, then typically trips over a scriptural mistake made by his personal bias; then veers well off the path of responsible scholarship.
John Wenham’s “Christ and the Bible” is another great resource in this topic. Good job Eric!
Gah, I just about ordered that one yesterday and opted for a different book. I'll have to get it on my next round with Amazon.
@@TestifyApologetics put it on your wishlist, I’ll order it.
Wow. I don't want to impose and wasn't trying to hint. But I won't stop you if you want to, thanks! It's on my wishlist, which is in the description. Thanks!!!!
@@TestifyApologetics I know you where not fishing, my privilege
Very reassuring video! Thanks for disarming Dan's argument. Well done!
Does truth need reassurance or to be disarmed?
@@questioneveryclaim11592Timothyverse 4" They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths." Yes people like Dan will not want people to believe in sound doctrine but only his version instead.
@@questioneveryclaim1159 did he?
Dude, Dans videos were a huge hit on my faith about 6 months ago. Praise god I kept seeking truth and my faith has grown even stronger! You have been helping me so much. May the Lord continue to lead you in knowledge and understanding to share to others!
Dan the Mormon's "scholarship" is not only Woke but bonkers
He’s a Mormon?? That makes soooooo much sense. I was wondering if I was the only one who thought he seemed like a total manifest heretic.
@@littlefishbigmountain I've seen no evidence that he's actually a believing Mormon. He refuses to discuss his theological beliefs publicly. And a good chunk of what he says contradicts Mormon church positions
@@brenthardaway3704
Oh, okay. I’ll take it with a grain of salt. Whatever the case, he still seems like a manifest heretic to me.
@@littlefishbigmountain Oh yeah, he's just another liberal unbelieving scholar.I didn't mean to imply that he's in any way Christian.
@@brenthardaway3704 Nominally he is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, but I think he has merely made his Church a target for his post-modernist destructive ideas. The facts of his scholarly knowledge tend to be pretty good, but he flat out ignores competing hypotheses and pretends there is consensus, when I've seen nothing but argument on several subjects he talks about authoritatively. He sort of lost all intellectual credibility with me once he went and did an interview with John Dehlin and made several factual errors and essentially insulted a huge majority of people in his own faith. He has made his intentions pretty clear over the time that he wants the Church he belongs to, to "mature", i.e. strip away all supernatural or theistic elements. He wants a secular social club of atheistic humanists. I honestly think Robert M. Price has more moral tenacity than Dan.
First video i saw by you was posted 2 years ago and im so glad you still post. Please continue in your work. Know that you are helping save souls and fighting for the kingdom of God!
To add to the sampling of the NT, 2 Peter calls Pauls writing scripture and Hebrews consistently quote the OT by saying "As God/He/the Spirit said:"
Does McClellan take the same death-of-the-author approach to his own statements that he does to interpreting scripture? Because it wouldn't be too difficult to find several examples of him saying things that are extremely problematic on that interpretation.
Thank you for doing a video about this guy. Not everything he does is bad but he discredits scripture and everyone believes him because he has a trusting demeanor without digging into the facts. He is also LDS (Mormon) if you didn't know.
Thank you for this video. Dan's videos have been popping up a lot for me, and he has a lot of compelling videos defending the text in support of Christians, but I've noticed more and more videos that can easily cause doubt in sincere Christians. But this just shows Dan's true intentions. This just proves that accepting the word of god is about the heart of the man, not his education. He just proved he hasn't actually met any born again Christians, this brings the idea of "wolf in sheep's clothing" to a whole new level.
McClellan is a Mormon, and his postmodern arguments are very fitting for someone who is trying to be both a faithful Latter Day Saint and a rational person. I would concede to him that there is an element of meaning-assignment whenever someone encounters the text of the Bible, and I would even call your reference to allegorical interpretive strategies as a perfect illustration of his point.
However, he overstates the case: Scripture reading is not entirely a matter of reader response, and the texts do have inherent meanings (both as individual writings and as part of the greater canon) alongside the meanings that are created when we encounter it today. And none of this precludes the idea that they are divinely-inspired literary works.
We can debate the drawbacks of affirming inerrancy or insisting on a historical-grammatical hermeneutic, but Karl Barth and the Neo-Orthodox school have already offered us a reasonable way of understanding inspiration outside of those strict frameworks. Something occurs in our encounter with the Holy Bible that goes beyond us assigning our own meaning to it.
glad you mentioned this guy. i hope you can respond to his claim that the bible is not univocal. which requires a very jittery reading of the bible.
Dan, make up your mind.... first you assert that there is no objective meaning, but all meaning is constructed by the reader subjectively, and then you assert that the objective meaning of the bible includes harmful ideologies.... Well according to your own standards those are merely interpretations and not the intent of the author, so it cannot be said that the Bible contains these ideologies.
Although I appreciate Dan sometimes, as someone in academia I can say that he’s arrogant and does not present an accurate description of how scholarship works. I especially dislike the way he says “overwhelming consensus” as if that’s how academic research worked? In my decade of research I had never heard anyone say this until he included it in his videos. I wish he were more humble, because he otherwise is a great educator. I am happy I found your channel by researching the question of the dating of the gospels (your Quora answer was excellent!)
This man is such a piece of work and is leading so many astray on so much misinformation.
What misinformation? You have a consider that Dr. Mclellan takes a scholarly approach. People are free to believe what they want regarding scripture. Dan has two masters and a PhD on the subject and is very well versed in the Bible. This isn’t an appeal to authority, it is an appeal to his expert knowledge and the the general consensus of scholars.
@@MarcoH72 I too take a scholarly approach and have my degree in theology as well. However, I know many people with equal education who find Dan's misinformation egregious. A scholarly approach would mean one must have some amount of intellectual honesty. Dan doesn't and his bias bleeds through.
So, how do you have a distortion of something that has no inherent meaning?
Yikes...... This was very poor theology from Dan.
these videos are so important Erik! I learned that the OT canon was indeed fixed at the time of Jesus because of Josphus' testimony.
2:12 There are 46 books in the Old Testament.
3:48 Ecclesiasticus is not apocryphal.
Another passage is where Peter clearly states Paul’s epistles are scripture, God Breathed.
2 Peter 3:14-16
Holman Christian Standard Bible
14 Therefore, dear friends, while you wait for these things, make every effort to be found at peace with Him without spot or blemish. 15 Also, regard the patience of our Lord as an opportunity for salvation, just as our dear brother Paul has written to you according to the wisdom given to him. 16 He speaks about these things in all his letters in which there are some matters that are hard to understand. The untaught and unstable twist them to their own destruction, as they also do with the rest of the Scriptures.
@@tomasrocha6139 Most non conservative Biblical scholars. Neutral and Conservative Biblical scholars accept it as canon. It is accepted into canon in early lists and church fathers accept it. Jerome, Athanasius, Gregory of Nazianus, and Augustine, all acknowledged the canonical status of 2 Peter. Not only that but the vocabulary can be easily explained if Peter used two different scribes. The grammar of 2 Peter is some of the worst in the New Testament possibly due to the fact that Peter himself wrote the epistle. The reference you made to 2nd century Gnosticism is spurious because there is early proto gnostic teachings in the 1st century. Your reference to 2 Peter 3:2 is also spurious. It is not uncommon for Greco-Roman authors to refer to themselves in the third person. Since this was written after the Pauline epistles why would not Peters readers be familiar with them? To say that there was not enough time for the audience to know of Pauline epistles is somewhat perplexing. All in all you are spouting a liberal view that is only a few hundred years old and ignoring 1000s of years of testimony from church fathers, scholars and even non liberal New Testament scholars like F. F. Bruce, Daniel Wallace and other of the like.
@@tomasrocha6139 I agree that most New Testament scholars may have that opinion. But that is like taking a vote. If there are more of one party than the other one side wins. You yourself said Dan Wallace thinks it is authentic. I defer to the scholarship of the church fathers and to those who have the best arguments not a nose count. Your arguments seem a priori. You have an objective and are convinced despite the evidence. I have studied this issue and thou I am far from a biblical scholar, but I am somewhat versed in the arguments. I remember the same spurious claims back in the early 1980s when we were translating 1 and 2 Peter and asked our professors why the differences in vocab and grammar. We were taught to be open minded and follow the scholarship that argued the facts the best. I am open to parts of the New Testament being non canonical, the adultery periscope for example. But I still defer to the early church attestation and the New Testament scholarship of reasoned and not heavily biased atheist and agnostic scholars. I know nothing each of us say will convince the other. I hold a high view of scripture. One might call me fundamentalist. I prefer conservative believer in the inerrancy of the autographs. But since we cannot know the autographs we must trust in those who are scholars to discern the original. Even Bart Erhman concedes what we have now does not affect a single tenet of the core Christian Faith. Nothing in 2 Peter contradicts the other books of the New Testament. The author states he is Peter. Other psedo books of the time period that make such claims are contradicted early on. Don’t bring up Origen, I know of his questions about the epistle. My point is there is another book claiming New Testament authority as scripture. Even without 2 Peter there is still ample evidence. You seem to argue that the whole of New Testament attestation of it being scripture relies on 2 Peter. I am saying it is another, if only circumstantial, piece of evidence.
The author of 1 Timothy certainly meant "god-breathed" as inspired. If he intended it to simply mean life giving, that word "Zoopeitai" was well in use during Paul's time and during the writing of 1 Timothy.
@03:26: "While certain groups might have held different opinions, Josephus's viewpoint probably aligned with mainstream Palestinian Judaism in the first century."
No. For a long time now scholars have recognised that Josephus's list is programmatic-it's no accident that he arrived at 22-witings-and, more importantly, his view reflects ONE idea from among many in early Judaism. The Saducees, the Essenes, and the Samaritans all had different ideas about what constituted "scripture," and even what it was. This is especially true prior to the destruction of Herod's Temple, and any thought about "mainstream Palestinian Judaism" needs to be very carefully nuanced, or strongly qualified.
@10:05: "It seems to me, though, that the distinction being made here is a distinction without much of a difference. The intended meaning of 2 Timothy 3:16-whether it's 'God breathed' or 'life-giving'-is of lesser importance. What truly matters is the recognition of the teaching of the Apostles as inspired and infallible."
I think you are completely missing the force of Dan's point here, and the last sentence sounds very circular: The teachings of the Apostles are inspired and infallible because they were recognised as insprired and infallible. (Where does "infallible" even enter this discussion, in the first place?)
The writer of 2 Timothy is NOT making an argument for Apostolic authority any more than he is about the origins of scripture. The entire point concerns the function of the texts, and there is no indication here about their precise identification. In fact, the subject here, πᾶσα γραφὴ, is singular, and could otherwise be translated as "every scripture." If anything, this is a statement of inclusion, not exclusivity. Any attempts to apply limits to the text beyond what is specified-"useful for teaching, reproof, correction and training"-are NOT drawn from the text.
...oh, and one more thing @18:15, there is definitely slavery in Eden: "And YHWH God took the man and set him in the Garden of Eden to be its slave and its guard" (לְעָבְדָהּ וּלְשָׁמְרָהּ).
(1) "For a long time now, scholars have recognised that Josephus's list is programmatic. It's no accident that he arrived at 22 writings."
There is a severe lack of evidence that the number 22 has any particular symbolic purpose. This number also tends to differ in different sources, along with variations of the list.
"Josephus' view reflects 1 idea from among many in early Judaism. The Saducees, Eddeces, and Samaritans all had different ideas about what was considered scripture. This is especially true prior to the destruction of Herod's Temple in 70 AD. Any thought about mainstream Palestinian Judaism needs to be carefully nuanced or strongly qualified."
Josephus was a Jewish historian, after all, so it would make more sense for him to appeal to the mainstream view. His perspective isn't necessarily going to emcompass all of the diverse views within Judaism, is it? There wasn't a lot of documentation at the time about those smaller sects of Judaism, so it's likely that those views were not recorded because they were not considered trustworthy or reliable. Do you really think that a historian like Josephus is going to record untrustworthy information?
You also seem to be overgeneralising a bit here. Not every aspect of Palestinian Judaism has to be qualified. Even though there were some variations, most Jews at a time shared core beliefs and practices such as a focus on the Torah and temple rituals.
After 70 AD and the destruction of the temple, Judaism began to have a unifying effect. Jewish beliefs and practices were slowly becoming consolidated due to a heavier focus on the Torah. Though there were still sects that strayed from the mainstream, the number of them significantly decreased over time after 70 AD.
(2) "The last sentence sounds very circular. The teachings of the Apostles are inspired and infallible because they were recognised as inspired and infallible."
While the Apostles were considered authoritative by their status, the early Church also placed a lot of importance on the apostles' interactions with Jesus; their witness to his teachings and miracles, as well as their function in laying down the foundations of the Church (through Peter).
Not all Christian communities agreed with each other. As you stated yourself, some groups questioned and rejected specific apostolic teachings, with some communities holding the teachings of the Apostles higher than others. Simply put, the belief in apostolic inspiration was more nuanced than you're making out.
(3) "The writer of 2 Timothy is NOT making an argument for Apostolic authority any more than he is about the origins of scripture. The entire point concerns the function of the texts, and there is no indication here about their precise identification. In fact, the subject here, пãσa уρaîǹ, is singular and could otherwise be translated as "every scripture." If anything, this is a statement of inclusion, not exclusivity."
False. The author, whether Paul or otherwise, is emphasising both the divine inspiration and authority of scripture, implying that scripture has an authoritative status. The focus is not solely placed on the texts function but also on its origin and authority.
The Greek used in the passage, πᾶσα γραφὴ ("every/all scripture") only implies inclusivity in the sense of scriptures that were considered authoritative within the early Church. That's why it is called 'scripture' after all, because the Church accepted it as authoritative and trustworthy.
"Any attempts to apply limits to the text beyond what is specified "useful for teaching, reproof, correction, and training" are NOT drawn from the text."
2 Timothy is trying to establish the authority and divine inspiration of accepted scripture, so your claim is just overlooking the author's intent without proper justification.
(4) There is definitely slavery in Eden: "And YHWH God took the man and set him in the Garden of Eden to be its slave and its guard"
The Hebrew word used in Genesis 2:15 is עָבַד (avad) which doesn't mean slave in terms of forced labour of ownership, but rather, concepts of work and cultivation.
In context, it speaks of Adam's role as the gardener, caring for and tending to the garden. Any concept of slavery implies that Adam and Eve were owned and exploited by God against their will in the garden, which is not a concept present anywhere in the narrative or original Hebrew.
@@darkwolf7740Or in any Midrash we know of-speaking to the point of Adam and Eve being alleged slaves in Eden.
@@darkwolf7740 “Josephus was a Jewish historian, after all, so it would make more sense for him to appeal to the mainstream view. His perspective isn't necessarily going to emcompass all of the diverse views within Judaism, is it? There wasn't a lot of documentation at the time about those smaller sects of Judaism, so it's likely that those views were not recorded because they were not considered trustworthy or reliable. Do you really think that a historian like Josephus is going to record untrustworthy information?”
That’s some intense speculation.
Also, with respect to your point (4) in particular, you're remarkably confident in telling someone with a relevant PhD that they're wrong about something within their area of study.
@@ElectricalpenguinJust because someone has a degree/PhD that doesn't make them infallible.
@@darkwolf7740 it doesn't, but in this instance I am correct. When it takes an accusative-as it does here-the verb עבד is very commonly translated and understood as "enslaved to" as in i.e. Exod 21:6; Deut 15:12, 18; Jer 34:14. (I don't particularly care what the rabbis have to say about texts within their original contexts, because they did not care about such things.) The fact of the matter is that the theme of enslavement is common among ANE creation myths. It should be unsurprising to see it repeated here as it clearly is.
Well done. If scriptures detractors didn't have false premises, they'd have no premises at all.
He goes so far with the postmodernist “text has no meaning” narrative that he denies the possibility of communication entirely.
Actually, sounds don’t have meaning on their own. The listener assigns meanings in agreement with other people and so I think Dan here is actually advocating for genocide or something. It’s not really clear. 🤷🏼♂️
Is he a skeptical scholar or just a skeptic of some sort?
He's a morman though he is very liberal.
@@23045678 progressive Mormon and has a liberal education in a Religious studies program: he's just following their biased redaction scholarship he was taught by his professors.
@@23045678I honestly can’t take Mormon and liberal scholarship seriously.
@@23045678he is. MORMON????????
@@clayton4349I guess it depends for me. The OG critical scholars of the late 19th and early 20th centuries (most of whom were affirming and professing Christians) were at least both honest in their assessments and respectful of the Biblical texts. The new “critical” scholars don’t even hide their disdain for the Scriptures.
Absolutely, Dan is a political activist first and scholar second. He often assails the bible, then rambles on into incoherent postmodernist philosophy. He greatly errors with his translation of "theopneustos" as "life giving". If the author of Timothy wanted to just say all scripture is "life giving", he could have easily used the terms "Zoopoiountos", Zoopoioun, or Zoopoie (it gives life). Since Paul uses the term "life giving" in other letters, Dan has to completely divorce Pauline authorship or influence from 1 Timothy by denouncing the author as a liar.
What does Dan mean when he says that texts have no inherent meaning? (Don’t you know sarcasm when you hear it?)
Thank you so much for this Video. I just started to read the Gospel and I Watched dan Videos for more details and facts about the bible. He really challenged my faith. So i prayed to the Lord, that i am confused and i asked for help. Minutes later I found your Channel. Thank you 🙏✝️
Can you make a video about the Duterocanonical books? As a Catholic, I would love to hear your take
1:46 You are aware that Josephus sided with the guys who rejected Jesus, right?
My contention about LXX related books is, we Christians took the Temple Canon (Ezra + an extension under Maccabee era), the Jews and also Protestants took the Pharisaic canon (taken over from Ezra).
Dan is pleading to emotion not rationale So if the bible says not to kill or sleep with another mans wife we should ignore these meaning in texts aswell.Or Jesus parable about the samaritan we can disregard as meaningless.John8.31 and 32" lf you hold to my teachings,you really are my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.'
Yeah he’s definitely showing off his activist side rather than his scholarly side. He saying that the doctor of inspiration is bad because it leads to all these negative things like homophobia, genocide, misogyny and etc. and that’s why it’s dangerous. Because it’s an interpretation that leads to things that I don’t like, so he’s essentially rejecting it on the grounds that it leads to harmful ideologies he doesn’t like rather than being reflective of what the Bible actually teaches.
Please discuss how Dan likes to throw around Things like the Bible, it's not a single voice. Then he would turn around and then site Judges-Genesis and say that they both agree that Sodom and Gomorrah, what's about Gay people.
What l got out of Sodom and Gomorrah was the fact the bible exposed male rape as a reality even in those ancient times.
That Dan is a liar.
🙏
Hey @TestifyApologetics, love your videos, they’re such an encouragement. I have one question though, do you think that the Numbers 31 passage you mentioned was a concession to the Israelite’s hardness of heart? I’ve struggled much with this passage as well and that sounds like a fine explanation, but I just want to clarify if that’s what you meant. Thanks for all you do brotha!
Good question. For me, any good hypothesis has anomalous data that we might not know how to resolve. There are different ways that Christians have tried to soften these passages, and I do think it's probably a concession. That said, it's still an ugly passage, there's just no sugarcoating it for me. So while I don't know how to resolve it, I don't feel as much tension with it as others might because I've just "seen" the evidence *for* Christianity that it's hard to "unsee" it, and a nasty passage like this isn't going to sink the faith by itself. At most it might make me question inerrancy.
God commands Moses to avenge the people of Israel on Midian, Moses goes overboard due to his anger. This was also clan warfare, which was especially violent, where the children of the fallen would eventually go and avenge their fathers. It was bad, but the severity of it was not gods intention.
@@TestifyApologetics Those are excellent points, I feel the same way. Thanks for sharing and for all you do!
@@endygonewild2899yeah there is a paper dealing with that passage from a scholar suggests Numbers 31 is having a theme of questions Moses’ authority after the rock incident.
As a protestant I believe it to be more accurate that pedophilia is a sin than it would be for being gay to be a sin. From what I recall the current pope acknowledges this interpretation (despite the difference between Catholic and protestant, it's clear that the other interpretation is more questionable and makes less sense), and even if being gay was a sin then there's still no reason within the bible to treat people any differently for it
This dude stirs up such trouble. An actual bastard
Notice Josephus says 3,000 years from Adam to the death of Moses. This means Josephus' Genesis texts followed something like that of the LXX.
Based on my calculations, I'd say about 2768 years, so it's not too far off.
@@darkwolf7740 Not accurate in reality but just for the sake of dating
@@paradisecityX0Yes. I reject the idea of literal ages and such, but those are the numbers I got lol
@@darkwolf7740 "I reject the idea of literal ages"
The fact is that the Bible teaches that God created everything in 6 literal 24 hour days and took rest on 1 literal 24 hour day and commands us to remember that in Exodus 20: 8-11. If that doesn't convince you that the Bible commands us to remember the fact that God created everything in 6 literal 24 hour days and took rest on 1 literal 24 hour day, I don't know what will.
Also Jesus Christ and all the early church fathers believed that the Earth was created by God in 6 literal 24 hour days and that he took rest in 1 literal 24 hour day.
For instance, Julius Sextus Africanus going back to 240 AD an early church father and biblical historian used the chronologies to date the age of the Earth and he dated the creation of the Earth 5501 BC.
If Deep time is real, then you can kiss your Christian faith goodbye. This is coming from a Christian.
@@sabhishek9289What is “deep time”?
I got a question, isn't there times where Paul say something along the lines "that I say, not the Lord" or vice-versa? It feels kind of a odd thing to say if Paul believe he's writing scripture
Alternatively, these particular moments in his writings are unique and contextually exclusive to specific portions of the the text, not the entirety of his works. It seems rather odd for him to qualify a few very specific teachings of his as not from God, unless the vast majority of his writings was inspired by God.
@@bena5965 Precisely. Paul's moments of him saying "I, not the Lord" actually support the inspired view, not weaken it.
I think it's just Paul making sure people don't think the next thing he says is something he heard from Jesus directly, or something Jesus said to others, but the thing Paul was about to say was a teaching from Paul himself.
- Also, in other places I think it says something like Paul was anointed by God to be a teacher, so Paul's opinion would still in a way be inspired, even without it directly coming from the mouth of Christ Jesus.
@@regpharvey
That isn't true, since Paul sometimes says _"not_ I, but the Lord" (see 1 Cor. 7:10). By your reasoning, this would support the view that Paul's writings were not inspired.
The reason Paul says "I say, not the Lord" in 1 Cor. 7:12 is to distinguish this command from the previous command (in 7:10), not from the entire rest of his writings.
@@regpharvey
By that reasoning, Paul's moments of saying _"not_ I, but the Lord" (e.g. 1 Cor. 7:12) support the view that Paul's writings were not inspired. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Terrific video! I agree wholeheartedly with you on inspiration, univocality, and canonicity. BUT I need to point out that Dr. McClellan's statement about the text as consisting entirely of symbols whose meanings must be negotiated is not "post-modern mumbo-jumbo." McClellan approaches the Bible as a linguist, and the quote regarding the nature of the Biblical text lifted from his video is formally correct. However, that doesn't mean McClellan's argument is sound, nor does it mean he is explaining his argument in an accessible manner. I am a linguist, too, but I would not choose to be so exactingly correct in my technical language that non-linguists could not understand what I am trying to say. I enjoy McClellan's videos but I find him a bit off-putting. I wouldn't say arrogant, but perhaps not entirely inviting in his manner. In the end, after listening to hours of his videos, I really could not tell you what his objective is. If he rejects inspiration and canonicity, what exactly is the relevance of the Biblical text? And if there is no relevance, what is his point?? PM 2024
If 2 Timothy means life-giving instead of God-breathed, it means there's nowhere in the Bible that makes a claim that the scriptures are infallible. The argument is that God is perfect, so anything breathed out directly by him is also perfect. But life-giving does not mean coming straight out of the mouth of God. So yes, it is a pivotal distinction.
This is only slight better than the Muslim's "Jesus never died" argument against the Bible.
Nehemiah is in Artaxerxes' 20th year not 13th, correction minute 3.
It's amazing how they can speak soo confidently whilst speaking nonsense.
Commenting for the algorithm. God bless you, Erik.
The algorithm is anonymous 👀
@@darkwolf7740 Among us theme plays.
+1
@Testify. Just wanted to give you props for addressing people like Dan, who claims to be a "Bible scholar" but makes asinine statements about the Bible. Keep up the good work.
“Hath God said?” -The Serpent
13:30 - This is my general feeling as well, concerning 2 Timothy 3:16. I kinda got that feeling from Dan when he repeated his definition as if to assure us that there’s an actual difference.
He has a point about the interpretation of scripture. Every heretic since Marcion quoted scriptures supporting their beliefs.
*Are you ready for this Sunday Night?* When Heavyweight Champ Dan McLellan defends his title, in the Inspiration SUPER SLAM!!!
Most modern critical scholars argue that 2 Timothy, as well as the other two so-called "pastoral letters" (1 Timothy and Titus),
were not written by Paul but by an anonymous author, sometime between 90 and 140 AD.
Most scholars, both those arguing for and against its authenticity, are of the opinion that 2 Timothy belongs to a pseudepigraphic genre known as the testamentary genre or farewell discourse.
Now that's the consensus if you have an issue write an article on the subject and overturn the majority of scholars, it's been done before, so until then those who take academia seriously are going to stand with the majority.
Now we all know there was no Canon until the 4th century CE, and even then the matter of what books are devine wasn't settled. Josephus an agent for the Roman authority was long gone and has no stance on the matter whatsoever.
Even when it comes to the canon of the Bible, you have to ask the question which canon? The Catholic canon has a total of 73 books in their Bible, because they include 7 of what is commonly known as apocrypha in a section they call deutero-canon.
The Eastern Orthodox Church has 80 books in their Bibles which includes all 14 of the apocrypha books, and the early Protestant Bibles had this canon as well until the 19th century.
Then the Ethiopian Orthodox Church has those 14 apocrypha books plus a couple extras such as 1 Enoch and Jubilees, and since they were isolated from the larger Christian world they had no pressure from other churches to conform to a specific canon. This meant their canonization process would have been different from the western churches and Eastern Orthodox.
There were of course other communities with different canons that didn't survive, because their theology was considered heretical. And because of that they couldn't survive in the climate of the Orthodox Christian world.
@@thedude9941 I agree 100%
well done for taking on Desperate Dan
Has Dan McClellan ever responded to you, Erik? Curious.
He did on the Timothy video, but in regards to the video itself, he basically said I was outside the scholarly consensus.
@@TestifyApologeticsA damning blow for sure lol
@@TestifyApologeticsMy god
@@TestifyApologetics He's using appeal to authority
Thank you so much! This should be thought in church ❤❤❤❤
Dans final arguement:
“There is no god, and I hate him”
hey, I saw this article made by a website called biblical non-orthodox called “ 25 historic call fax that the apostles rejected Paul as an anti-Christ apostle” Please make a video or live stream, addressing the arguments please
Hi, I can help, where can I contact you?
Plus Origen was violently rejected by the later early church. So if he had invented it this would have been rejected along with his other unique teachings.
16:37 to 17:38 TRUE! Except the Bible does not promote genocide, sexism, etc. We have interpret that into our own understanding instead of following the understanding of God. And Testify, you have a pretty good response just to let You know I'm not trying to bash you.
Great job!
16:15 I totally agree that the correct reading of Colossians is the Catholic one, and that Lutheran and Marxist versions are wrong, if differring.
3:33 Josephus' viewpoint aligned with Pharisaism, and not with Christianity (or probably the Temple).
Dan is definitely the metaphorical bird in the first parable of Matthew 13.
Was anyone else unaware that Dan is a Mormon? I did not know that until today
I think my issue if your gonna say there is apostolic authority and the authors of the NT knew it at the time. I than wouldn't expect to have missing letters from Paul like 0 Corinthians and a letter to the Laodiceans if what he is relaying to us to be from God. Is it possible that God wanted that omitted? Sure but I don't think that's likely.
And I was hoping to see you do a deep dive on slavery. I can't make those same excuses you made at the end of this video. I couldn't live with myself to make such excuses maybe one day God can help me with that but for now its easier to say those parts came from a man.
I’ve given up caring about the self-righteous slander about the Bible from non-believers. 1) They don’t have a sufficient meta-ethic to disavow the Bible on an objective moral basis in truth and 2) I don’t let the cultural and philosophical assumptions of our day and age make me a mere creature of my times as is the case with most atheists and theists alike.
@@keatsiannightingale2025 K than hopefully your God hasn't given up on me like you have. I am trying my best to be respectful and not slander. If I have done something that has offended you it was never my intent. But if you can't recognize that if something seems off to me I have to reject out of principle Idk how you made the decision to choose Christianity than at that point. Cause you can't disprove all the other religions they had to have seemed off to you like how Christianity is to me.
@@omnikevlar2338God never gives up on people. I didn’t mean to offend you at all. If I expressed impatience, it was at people I’ve interacted with lately and not you. I apologize in that case. I wasn’t attacking you and didn’t mean to come across that way.
The truth is that the vast majority of people don’t thoughtfully approach theology, Christian or otherwise. I make it an effort to look into other religions besides my own and understand what their central tenants are and what reason people give for holding to them. That being said, it is simply not true that a Christian rejects Islam for the exact same reasons a Hindu or Jewish person might, especially from the point of view of theology. Harris was absolutely wrong in his Letter to a Christian Nation in that regard.
Appealing merely to uncomfortable passages and personal moral discomfort simply cannot prove a religion actually false. My comment about atheist slander of the Bible (homophobic, misogynistic, genocidal, etc.) is more about a lack of self-awareness many non-believers have about their own philosophy. There’s no point accusing religious people of hypocrisy and arrogance for claiming to know the truth when secular morals are backed with the same exact confidence. Also, the old saying “If you were born in Iran, you’d probably be a Muslim” is starting to apply more and more to atheists and secular progressives decade by passing decade in the West. And it is apparent that cognitive dissonance is a curse that all people can succumb to.
@@keatsiannightingale2025 K I hope so and no worries at all.
So yes I can agree most people don't take theology seriously I think one of those reasons is I have yet to find a way to verify theology. So in how you could falsify if I am a successful mechanic do you have any way to do that with theology? And in terms of other religions I still don't see what you mean cause all these religions do is rely on hearsay or witness accounts and no way to verify those claims. Can you disprove that Muhammad got a message from archangel Gabriel?
Yes that is a fair point it doesn't disprove it. Would you think there are emotional reasons to reject God? So lets say you get to heaven and God says you and everyone who wasn't mentally it are allowed in my Kingdom. Would it bother you that God isn't allowing people in who have no control of their circumstance?
@@omnikevlar2338
1) The Bible appears to condone 'slavery.' That's just a fact, and there is no refuting this. Yet this isn't a problem. The Bible isn't a single unified voice, so don't try to treat it like one. The Israelites understanding of God is becoming more nuance and evolving as time progresses. It appears that Yahweh might have been a polytheistic deity who became Israelites god to the Monotheistic God of philosophy. Even the NT claims the Israelites didn't know who God is in John. Just look how much history has changed because of Christianity. There's a lot of good.
2) Christ was talking about the Kingdom of Heaven. You can't seperate the two, and it's not a literal place because how can he had brought it down?
3) Don't worry about theology or orthodoxy. Simply worry about how to live. Time will tell what you believe, and most likely it is wrong. After all, in Christianity, Christ gave 2 commandments: Love God and Love your neighbor. Simply focus on that to the best of your ability. It isn't the beliefs that save you; it isn't the works. It's God who's creating the ability to Love in us so focus on that. That is where morality is. Morality is rooted in the person, and what they need in order for Love to be accomplished.
Greetings and God Bless you brotha!!
CE? when is that
Thank you
We? *Laughs in Oriental Orthodox*
Dan is just late to the party, he should have been born 1900 years ago if he wanted to challenge Pauline authorship of the Timothies. Polycarp of Smyrna disagrees with him, there may have been challenges but they were unsuccessful. If Dan wants to insist on saying Paul isn’t the author of X then he puts himself at odds with the church of his own accord.
A Mormon who argues like an ECLA pastor.
lol
Old word salad McClellan. AKA Old appeal to current popularity McClellan. What I call him.
The thing is, channels like this one, IP, meme, capturing Christianity, etc. don’t have to be correct. They just have to be reassuring to people’s already held beliefs. That’s one thing I appreciate about Dan, Erman, etc. they are not starting with the assumption “my beliefs are true.” I don’t think this video addresses or debunks Dans claims on this nor the scholarship as a whole. Just my opinion.
Dan and Erhman are likewise making their arguements and interpretations from pre conceived beliefs
Even so, there's nothing wrong with this reinforcement that you say
you're not saying how it fails to address or debunk anything, you're just doing armchair psychology and pretending that your favorite scholars have some kind of Spock-like objectivity, as if their conclusions are not at all immune to bias as well. Your entire argument is "apologists are Christians, therefore sketchy"
"don't have to be correct"
You can say the exact same thing about Bart, Dan and other scholars. They sound very reassuring to people's already held beliefs who are atheists.
Also nobody in the Christian realm started with the assumption that their beliefs are true. None of the Christian apologists do that when making a case for the reliability of the new testament. However, I don't think the same can be said about atheists and skeptics. They start with the assumption that the Bible is false instead of being neutral.
They have a bias and they get money from deception. There is nothing new under the sun.
Good joke about Ehrman not starting with any assumption. No, he's simply lying and the assumption is to make money from it 😂. There are so many videos about Ehrman and his sources that at this point it can be considered pure ignorance to think he's unbiased.
Also, the whole idea of "people just have their believes already" completely ignores people like myself for instance who didn't grow up Christian and came to faith later in life. I was a hardcore atheist all through my childhood, teenage years, up to my mid twenties. Started reading the Bible out of pure interest and one thing led to another. Later I studied theology after coming to Christ. So I know all the sources people like Ehrman base their work on. Just read David Friedrich Strauß, "Das Leben Jesu" and on the first 100 pages you'll find about 90 percent of the arguments Ehrman uses over and over. The rest is taken from a few other German scholars from between 100 to 200 years ago. To claim he came to his conclusions without any bias is completely ridiculous and only shows that you don't know much about the history of the historical critical method or the German higher criticism. Then after he lost his faith he carved out this niche of "Christian scholar turned atheist" and built a business model on it, becoming the poster boy "atheist theologian" and constantly features on all the anti-apologist channels. I can see how that corrupts a person to be constantly worshipped as such an important figure. But honestly - nobody who has read even the slimmest introduction to higher criticism or a 101 of biblical criticism thinks that he came up with his ideas on his own or after studying the Bible.
“Post-modern Mumbo-jumbo”…indeed
Nice
At this point, Dan is just a hack.
Uhhh how are sandles in the dessert life-giving?
have you ever walked on hot sand with your bare feet? it's not fun.
Your response is that's just some postmodern mumbo jumbo Isn't really a response, it's just saying oh postmodern bad which I don't think is because I don't think it's postmodernism is to define what's true, we take meaning of things because we create those meanings like a movie or a TV show. If that's postmodernism that's fine, but you have can't say it's mumbo jumbo if it's true. That and I don't think we just create meeting from the Bible, the Word of God aka the Bible gives meaning to us.
Well I mean he is trying to go point by point so it’s pretty brief. And he does explain a little bit why this framework is just flawed. It sounds like a type of reader response criticism, which is in fact a postmodernist concept. And I doubt that McClellan would imply the standard when it comes to his own work for instance. And it’s clearly not with the biblical writers believed either.
And it’s just a nonsensical concept, and incredibly arbitrary the meaning of the text is the meaning about the original author prescribes to it you cannot just pick up a book and assign whatever meaning you want to it, The book has meaning a sign to it by its original author.
See mindshift brandon..