[[_CommonPlace Book MOC]] >[!SUMMARY] Table of Contents >- [[Dan McClellan#Top of page|Top of page]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Dan Debunks Jordan Petersen on several claims|Dan Debunks Jordan Petersen on several claims]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#A second level |A second level ]] >        - [[Dan McClellan#And a third level|And a third level]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Josh Hawley debunked by McClellan|Josh Hawley debunked by McClellan]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#The Syro-Palestinian Bureaucracy Framework|The Syro-Palestinian Bureaucracy Framework]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#The Patriarchal Household Framework|The Patriarchal Household Framework]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Sources cited|Sources cited]] >        - [[Dan McClellan#Psalm 82: God takes his place in the divine council.|Psalm 82: God takes his place in the divine council.]] >        - [[Dan McClellan#Psalm 97: 7, Deuteronomy 32:43 and Dead Sea Scrolls fragment _4Qdeuteronomy_q|Psalm 97: 7, Deuteronomy 32:43 and Dead Sea Scrolls fragment _4Qdeuteronomy_q]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Hawley's claims about the relationship of man to God.|Hawley's claims about the relationship of man to God.]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Jesus Both God and Not-God|Jesus Both God and Not-God]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Born Again versus Born from Above|Born Again versus Born from Above]] >- [[Dan McClellan#The woman taken in adultery|The woman taken in adultery]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#another video on this topic|another video on this topic]] >- [[Dan McClellan#The Prophetic Critique|The Prophetic Critique]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#another take|another take]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#yet another take.|yet another take.]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Shroud of Turin|Shroud of Turin]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Daily Mail sensationalism about X-ray Dating|Daily Mail sensationalism about X-ray Dating]] >- [[Dan McClellan#God's Father|God's Father]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Does the Bible Guarantee a Fetus Equal Protection Under the Law|Does the Bible Guarantee a Fetus Equal Protection Under the Law]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Another take|Another take]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#answering the question "does the Bible think abortion is murder?"|answering the question "does the Bible think abortion is murder?"]] >        - [[Dan McClellan#Psalm 104:29|Psalm 104:29]] >        - [[Dan McClellan#Ecclesiastes 3:19|Ecclesiastes 3:19]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#yet another video on Weather the Bible says life begins at conception.|yet another video on Weather the Bible says life begins at conception.]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#yet another on the status of the fetus|yet another on the status of the fetus]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#another video on the question of whether the Bible prohibits abortion.|another video on the question of whether the Bible prohibits abortion.]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Does Isaiah 53 refer to Jesus|Does Isaiah 53 refer to Jesus]] >- [[Dan McClellan#jehu and ahasia: yet another contradiction|jehu and ahasia: yet another contradiction]] >- [[Dan McClellan#on the slaughter of the innocents|on the slaughter of the innocents]] >- [[Dan McClellan#on the weakness of the NIV translation|on the weakness of the NIV translation]] >- [[Dan McClellan#on Homosexuality and White Christian Nationalist hogwash|on Homosexuality and White Christian Nationalist hogwash]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#just Homosexuality|just Homosexuality]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13|Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#on passages from Romans that a creator claims condemns homosexuality and those who can affirm, condone or tolerate it|on passages from Romans that a creator claims condemns homosexuality and those who can affirm, condone or tolerate it]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Bible passages that discuss the land rejecting the people because of their wickedness, of the land 'spitting them out'|Bible passages that discuss the land rejecting the people because of their wickedness, of the land 'spitting them out']] >        - [[Dan McClellan#ChatGPT said:|ChatGPT said:]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#another video dealing with the general topic of using various texts to justify modern Sexual ethics|another video dealing with the general topic of using various texts to justify modern Sexual ethics]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Another _long_ video on these passages|Another _long_ video on these passages]] >- [[Dan McClellan#the Johannine comma|the Johannine comma]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Isaiah 7:14|Isaiah 7:14]] >- [[Dan McClellan#God regrets some of his a actions|God regrets some of his a actions]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#God Regrets|God Regrets]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#God Changes his mind|God Changes his mind]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#God Lies|God Lies]] >- [[Dan McClellan#God Anointing David|God Anointing David]] >- [[Dan McClellan#God is non-binary|God is non-binary]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Jesus is a Failed Prophet|Jesus is a Failed Prophet]] >- [[Dan McClellan#About women and their clothing|About women and their clothing]] >- [[Dan McClellan#On Paul's writing about the authority of women.|On Paul's writing about the authority of women.]] >- [[Dan McClellan#on the claim that all scripture is inspired by God|on the claim that all scripture is inspired by God]] >- [[Dan McClellan#The Bible claims it is the 'word of God'|The Bible claims it is the 'word of God']] >- [[Dan McClellan#on the doctrine of the virgin birth|on the doctrine of the virgin birth]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Almah and 'young woman' in Isaiah|Almah and 'young woman' in Isaiah]] >- [[Dan McClellan#A perfect example of dogma overwhelming reason|A perfect example of dogma overwhelming reason]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Comments on anti-biblical trends in modern Christianity|Comments on anti-biblical trends in modern Christianity]] >    - [[Dan McClellan# Inerrancy| Inerrancy]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Univocality|Univocality]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Sufficiency|Sufficiency]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Inspiration|Inspiration]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Another vid on this|Another vid on this]] >- [[Dan McClellan#how many creation accounts are in the Bible|how many creation accounts are in the Bible]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Does a 'day' mean a 24 hour period |Does a 'day' mean a 24 hour period ]] >- [[Dan McClellan#The question of women submitting to men.|The question of women submitting to men.]] >- [[Dan McClellan#On genocide in the Old Testament|On genocide in the Old Testament]] >- [[Dan McClellan#On Junia in Romans 16:7|On Junia in Romans 16:7]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#more on the question of Paul's writings about women in the church.|more on the question of Paul's writings about women in the church.]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Prophecies regarding Jesus in the Old Testament|Prophecies regarding Jesus in the Old Testament]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Specific passages|Specific passages]] >        - [[Dan McClellan#Daniel 8|Daniel 8]] >        - [[Dan McClellan#Daniel 9|Daniel 9]] >        - [[Dan McClellan#Isaiah 7: 14: |Isaiah 7: 14: ]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Daniel's failed prophecies|Daniel's failed prophecies]] >        - [[Dan McClellan#Specific passages.|Specific passages.]] >            - [[Dan McClellan#Daniel 2|Daniel 2]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Does the Bible Prophesy Jesus|Does the Bible Prophesy Jesus]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Mathematical Proof that Jesus is the Messiah|Mathematical Proof that Jesus is the Messiah]] >- [[Dan McClellan#John 1:1 'and rather word was God'|John 1:1 'and rather word was God']] >- [[Dan McClellan#McClellan got kicked out of college|McClellan got kicked out of college]] >- [[Dan McClellan#on how the poor and debtors should be treated|on how the poor and debtors should be treated]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Watch this video and fix text|Watch this video and fix text]] >- [[Dan McClellan#The Talmud and human sexuality|The Talmud and human sexuality]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Did God create evil?|Did God create evil?]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Dan's advisor |Dan's advisor ]] >- [[Dan McClellan#The Verse About the 'Eye of the Needle'|The Verse About the 'Eye of the Needle']] >- [[Dan McClellan#Dan McClellen on Christian apologetics.|Dan McClellen on Christian apologetics.]] >- [[Dan McClellan#The Bible is not a moral guidebook|The Bible is not a moral guidebook]] >- [[Dan McClellan#claims on transmission accuracy of the Bible and on its historicity.|claims on transmission accuracy of the Bible and on its historicity.]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#dating of the first manuscripts for the New Testament|dating of the first manuscripts for the New Testament]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Transmission accuracy|Transmission accuracy]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#more on the claim that we have extensive source text|more on the claim that we have extensive source text]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Satan isn't in the Hebrew Bible|Satan isn't in the Hebrew Bible]] >- [[Dan McClellan#YWHW is a later addition to the Israelite Pantheon|YWHW is a later addition to the Israelite Pantheon]] >- [[Dan McClellan#The effects of sociology on the translation of the Bible|The effects of sociology on the translation of the Bible]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Genesis 3:16 |Genesis 3:16 ]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Ephesians 5:21-22|Ephesians 5:21-22]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#1 Timothy 5:14|1 Timothy 5:14]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#1 Corinthians 14:33-35|1 Corinthians 14:33-35]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Romans 16:1|Romans 16:1]] >- [[Dan McClellan#problems with the king James Bible|problems with the king James Bible]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#The newer translations remove things.|The newer translations remove things.]] >- [[Dan McClellan#The first two chapters of the gospel of Luke are additions|The first two chapters of the gospel of Luke are additions]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#another video on this topic.|another video on this topic.]] >- [[Dan McClellan#an extended discussion of a creator calling Dan a liar|an extended discussion of a creator calling Dan a liar]] >- [[Dan McClellan#issac was actually sacrificed by Abraham in earliest Judaic traditions|issac was actually sacrificed by Abraham in earliest Judaic traditions]] >- [[Dan McClellan#on Onanism|on Onanism]] >- [[Dan McClellan#on the question of contradictions in the Bible and is it always possible to create a narrative where they don't exist.|on the question of contradictions in the Bible and is it always possible to create a narrative where they don't exist.]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#On the contradictory accounts of Judas' death(https://www.facebook.com/danmcclellann/videos/661499053140843/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e)|On the contradictory accounts of Judas' death(https://www.facebook.com/danmcclellann/videos/661499053140843/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e)]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Gematria and secret codes in the Bible|Gematria and secret codes in the Bible]] >- [[Dan McClellan#on Univocality |on Univocality ]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Another video on this topic|Another video on this topic]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Rendering elohim as 'judges'|Rendering elohim as 'judges']] >- [[Dan McClellan#A disagreement with a particular biblical apologist about the nature of prophecy which has gone on for quite some time and gotten fairly heated|A disagreement with a particular biblical apologist about the nature of prophecy which has gone on for quite some time and gotten fairly heated]] >- [[Dan McClellan#What are the Nephilim|What are the Nephilim]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Genesis 6|Genesis 6]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Numbers|Numbers]] >- [[Dan McClellan#YHWH was not the original god of Israel|YHWH was not the original god of Israel]] >- [[Dan McClellan#The Loci of cognition and emotion in the Old Testament|The Loci of cognition and emotion in the Old Testament]] >- [[Dan McClellan#on the story of Hamm finding Noah naked|on the story of Hamm finding Noah naked]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Amateur 2025-01-242025-01-24Exegete|Amateur 2025-01-242025-01-24Exegete]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Does the bible |Does the bible ]] >- [[Dan McClellan#McClellan refutes JD Vance on the Interpretation of the Ordo Amoris |McClellan refutes JD Vance on the Interpretation of the Ordo Amoris ]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Are American Christians committed to a religion of 'whiteness?'|Are American Christians committed to a religion of 'whiteness?']] >- [[Dan McClellan#Christian Nationalists condemned by Biblical Prophets|Christian Nationalists condemned by Biblical Prophets]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Is the Trinity in the Bible|Is the Trinity in the Bible]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#another video on this topic|another video on this topic]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#and a third, the Bible never mentions the Trinity|and a third, the Bible never mentions the Trinity]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Yet another video on monotheism involving Deuteronomy, this time Deuteronomy 6:4|Yet another video on monotheism involving Deuteronomy, this time Deuteronomy 6:4]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Did Jesus talk about abortion?|Did Jesus talk about abortion?]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Rebuttals of the man-boy Charlie Kirk|Rebuttals of the man-boy Charlie Kirk]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Yes Charlie Kirk, Jesus was a refugee. |Yes Charlie Kirk, Jesus was a refugee. ]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#No, Charlie Kirk, a plea for mercy is not 'wokeness'|No, Charlie Kirk, a plea for mercy is not 'wokeness']] >- [[Dan McClellan#Kirk defends the truth of the bible with 4 points.|Kirk defends the truth of the bible with 4 points.]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Claims no archeology has ever contradicted the bible.|Claims no archeology has ever contradicted the bible.]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#The morality of the Bible|The morality of the Bible]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Claims that the historical account of Jesus' life, works and resurrection is robust and uncontradicted.|Claims that the historical account of Jesus' life, works and resurrection is robust and uncontradicted.]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#And then that Jesus rose from the dead.|And then that Jesus rose from the dead.]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#And if you're going to fake a story, you wouldn't use female witnesses in the ancient world.|And if you're going to fake a story, you wouldn't use female witnesses in the ancient world.]] >- [[Dan McClellan#yet another attempt to whitewash slavery in the Bible, attended by Charlie Kirk.|yet another attempt to whitewash slavery in the Bible, attended by Charlie Kirk.]] >- [[Dan McClellan#The Song of Songs is actually erotic poetry.|The Song of Songs is actually erotic poetry.]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Internal data that the rellationship isn't sanctioned|Internal data that the rellationship isn't sanctioned]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Contradictions in the bible|Contradictions in the bible]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#How many angels were at Jesus' tomb|How many angels were at Jesus' tomb]] >        - [[Dan McClellan#Dan's response|Dan's response]] >- [[Dan McClellan#The references to God in the declaration of independence are not to the Christian God but to a Deist God. |The references to God in the declaration of independence are not to the Christian God but to a Deist God. ]] >- [[Dan McClellan#If you believe the Bible does not support slavery, then can't believe the Bible does not condemn homosexuality.|If you believe the Bible does not support slavery, then can't believe the Bible does not condemn homosexuality.]] >- [[Dan McClellan#A mistranslation in the KJV that's still influences Christians|A mistranslation in the KJV that's still influences Christians]] >- [[Dan McClellan#**Gods** cause Abraham to wander|**Gods** cause Abraham to wander]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Dan responds to the Trump about the need for religion|Dan responds to the Trump about the need for religion]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Does the social justice of today differ from the social justice of the bible.|Does the social justice of today differ from the social justice of the bible.]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Did Jephtha Sacrifice His Daughter|Did Jephtha Sacrifice His Daughter]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Dan's rebuttal of Christian Nationalists|Dan's rebuttal of Christian Nationalists]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Haven't seen Part 1|Haven't seen Part 1]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Part 1: |Part 1: ]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#The Scofield Bible|The Scofield Bible]] >        - [[Dan McClellan#False claims|False claims]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Can Athiests be interested in the Bible|Can Athiests be interested in the Bible]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Did Jesus say "blessed are the poor" or "blessed are the poor in spirit"|Did Jesus say "blessed are the poor" or "blessed are the poor in spirit"]] >- [[Dan McClellan#The NIV is a bad translation|The NIV is a bad translation]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#The first 2 creation accounts in Genesis.|The first 2 creation accounts in Genesis.]] >- [[Dan McClellan#the early Bible understood that God had a consort|the early Bible understood that God had a consort]] >- [[Dan McClellan#A Discussion of slavery in the Bible. |A Discussion of slavery in the Bible. ]] >- [[Dan McClellan#The authority of the Christian Message shifts from an oral tradition to a textural tradition|The authority of the Christian Message shifts from an oral tradition to a textural tradition]] >- [[Dan McClellan#On the argument that there are more extent manuscripts of the Bible then of major works of the classical era|On the argument that there are more extent manuscripts of the Bible then of major works of the classical era]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Joshua 10:12-13 The Sun Stood Still|Joshua 10:12-13 The Sun Stood Still]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Biblical Characters that Appear in Archeological Finds. |Biblical Characters that Appear in Archeological Finds. ]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Messianism |Messianism ]] >- [[Dan McClellan#The ESV is not a good translation of the Bible.|The ESV is not a good translation of the Bible.]] >- [[Dan McClellan#The earliest version of Mark does not have the resurrected Jesus|The earliest version of Mark does not have the resurrected Jesus]] >- [[Dan McClellan#on the concept of _sola scripture_|on the concept of _sola scripture_]] >- [[Dan McClellan#What is the 'divine counsel?'|What is the 'divine counsel?']] >- [[Dan McClellan#the biblical 'Day'|the biblical 'Day']] >- [[Dan McClellan#Bart Ehrman/Post-Millenialism/This Generation prophecy|Bart Ehrman/Post-Millenialism/This Generation prophecy]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Why is the scholarly consensus that the pastoral epistles (Titus and 1st and 2nd Timothy) were not written by Paul?|Why is the scholarly consensus that the pastoral epistles (Titus and 1st and 2nd Timothy) were not written by Paul?]] >- [[Dan McClellan#on Blasphemy|on Blasphemy]] >- [[Dan McClellan#the concept of the rapture doesn't occur in the Bible|the concept of the rapture doesn't occur in the Bible]] >- [[Dan McClellan#The timing of the resurrection|The timing of the resurrection]] >- [[Dan McClellan#On the Documentary film _1946_|On the Documentary film _1946_]] >- [[Dan McClellan#On the concept of _Dual Process Cognition_|On the concept of _Dual Process Cognition_]] >- [[Dan McClellan#contemporary of the King James Bible ridiculed the unnatural nature of its English|contemporary of the King James Bible ridiculed the unnatural nature of its English]] >- [[Dan McClellan#places in the Bible where Jesus says he is one with God|places in the Bible where Jesus says he is one with God]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Free Will in Angels|Free Will in Angels]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Isaiah 45:7|Isaiah 45:7]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Josephus and Jesus|Josephus and Jesus]] >- [[Dan McClellan#on an Egyptian Steele that supposedly mentions Israel and Yahweh|on an Egyptian Steele that supposedly mentions Israel and Yahweh]] >- [[Dan McClellan#On the claim that there are two _frameworks_ of laws in the Hebrew Bible: civil/ceremonial and moral.|On the claim that there are two _frameworks_ of laws in the Hebrew Bible: civil/ceremonial and moral.]] >- [[Dan McClellan#on the morality of sex before marriage|on the morality of sex before marriage]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Spare the rod and spoil the child|Spare the rod and spoil the child]] >- [[Dan McClellan#on the concept of being 'Born again'|on the concept of being 'Born again']] >- [[Dan McClellan#clarification on 5 claims about homosexuality in the Bible|clarification on 5 claims about homosexuality in the Bible]] >- [[Dan McClellan#A discussion of the forming of the canon of the Bible|A discussion of the forming of the canon of the Bible]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#The Hebrew bible|The Hebrew bible]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#The New Testament.|The New Testament.]] >- [[Dan McClellan#on polytheism in the Bible.|on polytheism in the Bible.]] >- [[Dan McClellan#On Matthew 18:11, Jesus came to save?|On Matthew 18:11, Jesus came to save?]] >- [[Dan McClellan#A protestant attempts to explain how the Catholics changed the 10 commandments|A protestant attempts to explain how the Catholics changed the 10 commandments]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Exodus 20|Exodus 20]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Exodus 34: 11-28|Exodus 34: 11-28]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Deuteronomy 5: 1-21|Deuteronomy 5: 1-21]] >- [[Dan McClellan#God losing in battle to another nation|God losing in battle to another nation]] >- [[Dan McClellan#A more detailed look at 2 Timothy 3:16|A more detailed look at 2 Timothy 3:16]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#The Pastoral Epistles|The Pastoral Epistles]] >- [[Dan McClellan#where does John 7:38 come from. |where does John 7:38 come from. ]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Why the book of Daniel is wrong, historically|Why the book of Daniel is wrong, historically]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Dan responds to Mark Driscoll's claims about white males who don't have children|Dan responds to Mark Driscoll's claims about white males who don't have children]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Responding to a stitch about Jordon Maxwell|Responding to a stitch about Jordon Maxwell]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Genesis 1:1 ( #Genesis1-1): In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth|Genesis 1:1 ( #Genesis1-1): In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth]] >- [[Dan McClellan#A discussion of the relationship of the Pharisees and Suddecees That takes place on the Joe Rogan show. |A discussion of the relationship of the Pharisees and Suddecees That takes place on the Joe Rogan show. ]] >- [[Dan McClellan#On the references to Asherah|On the references to Asherah]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Has the bible been changed over time?|Has the bible been changed over time?]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#The 25,000 manuscript argument|The 25,000 manuscript argument]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#The Plato's republic argument|The Plato's republic argument]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#So why is the Bible under attack.|So why is the Bible under attack.]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Jesus says in his words will never pass away|Jesus says in his words will never pass away]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#The Bible has stood the test of time.|The Bible has stood the test of time.]] >- [[Dan McClellan#The Pentagrameton|The Pentagrameton]] >- [[Dan McClellan#On the question of how you know the Bible has changed if you don't have the originals.|On the question of how you know the Bible has changed if you don't have the originals.]] >- [[Dan McClellan#The Book of Enoch|The Book of Enoch]] >- [[Dan McClellan#can one say they take their morality from the Bible?|can one say they take their morality from the Bible?]] >- [[Dan McClellan#A Christian apologist attempts to explain the sun setting in Joshua|A Christian apologist attempts to explain the sun setting in Joshua]] >- [[Dan McClellan#The history of #YHWH |The history of #YHWH ]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Did the Bible outlaw slavery|Did the Bible outlaw slavery]] >    - [[Dan McClellan#Other videos on this subject from Dan|Other videos on this subject from Dan]] >- [[Dan McClellan# The Christian world view of the text of the Bible is a social construct created centuries after the composition of the texts of the New Testament | The Christian world view of the text of the Bible is a social construct created centuries after the composition of the texts of the New Testament ]] >- [[Dan McClellan#on the passage in Matthew that talks about Jesus coming with a sword|on the passage in Matthew that talks about Jesus coming with a sword]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Dan Takes on Ben Shapiro|Dan Takes on Ben Shapiro]] > - [[Dan McClellan#The Entire Book of Deuteronomy is a Political Book|The Entire Book of Deuteronomy is a Political Book]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Engaging Gavin Ortund on Monotheism in the Bible|Engaging Gavin Ortund on Monotheism in the Bible]] >- [[Dan McClellan#does one "C" the face of God Or does one "appear" to God|does one "C" the face of God Or does one "appear" to God]] >- [[Dan McClellan#and apologist attempts to argue that the Bible does not diminish women.|and apologist attempts to argue that the Bible does not diminish women.]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Textural Variants are for Cowards|Textural Variants are for Cowards]] >- [[Dan McClellan#On the divine council.|On the divine council.]] >- [[Dan McClellan#all of the gospels were written anonymously|all of the gospels were written anonymously]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Tags|Tags]] >- [[Dan McClellan#Footnotes|Footnotes]] # Top of page Convenience link, in order to get back to the top # Dan Debunks Jordan Petersen on several claims I've put this on its own page because I want to tackle other Petersen claims, not bible related. See [[Jordan Peterson]] ## A second level Just testing how many levels I can go down ### And a third level This is a third level # Josh Hawley debunked by McClellan [[Josh Hawley]] pushing pretty standard jingoistic White Christian Nationalism, as is his wont. In Hawley's presentation, Christianity is _better_ because we have **one** god, and not some _pantheon_ ruled by something like a 'chief executive god'. As will become clear, like so many other Christian Nationalists, [[Hawley]] simply ignores (or, perhaps more likely, is completely ignorant of) any evidence that discomforts his argument. Hawley says > We don't have a myth where there is one god in charge and all the other gods are servants to him McClellan replies that there are many instances in the Hebrew Bible where it's clear what exists is precisely the sort of _pantheon_ which [[Josh Hawley|Hawley]] says Christianity doesn't have. Specific passages McClellan cites are... Adopting the title _Elyon_ (the most high), from the northern Semitic pantheon 'as a reference to the deity who has soverignty over the other gods.' In _Deuteronomy 32:8_ we have > Elyon (the most high) dividin up the nations according to the number of the b'nei elohim (the children of god) How this hierarchy is fashioned depended on who was doing the conceptualization and when it occurred. There are basically 2 different frameworks ## The Syro-Palestinian Bureaucracy Framework See _Amongh the Host of Heaven_ Lowell K. Handy ## The Patriarchal Household Framework See _The Origins of Biblical Monotheism_ Mark S. Smith ## Sources cited ### Psalm 82: God takes his place in the divine council. > 1 God takes his stand in the divine assembly;  among the divine[[a](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2082&version=ISV#fen-ISV-15236a "See footnote a")] beings[[b](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2082&version=ISV#fen-ISV-15236b "See footnote b")] he renders judgment: 2 “How long will you judge partially  by showing favor on the wicked?[[c](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2082&version=ISV#fen-ISV-15237c "See footnote c")] Interlude 3 “Defend the poor and the fatherless.   Vindicate the afflicted and the poor. 4 Rescue the poor and the needy,   delivering them from the power of the wicked. 5 They neither know nor understand;  they walk about in the dark while all the foundations of the earth are shaken. 6 “Indeed I said, ‘You are gods, and all of you are sons of the Most High. 7 However, as all human beings do, you will die, and like other rulers, you will fall.’ 8 Arise, God, to judge the earth, for all nations belong to you.[^6] That is, god, in the council of the gods, deposes them and makes them mortal and then takes over as the god for all nations. Previously, each of the gods had their own, and YHWH was the god of the Israelites. ### Psalm 97: 7, Deuteronomy 32:43 and Dead Sea Scrolls fragment _4Qdeuteronomy_q Which says "worship him all ye gods"[^7] This reading was also in the Septuagint[^8] and preserved in the NRSVCE. McClellan refers to the _original version_ of the Deuteronomy quote, but the ISV version doesn't say what McClellan says. However, the NRSVCE does make reference to 'all ye gods' In summation, McClellan says Hawley's claim that there's not a hierarchy of gods whom YHWH has sovereignty over is '**profoundly misinformed**' ## Hawley's claims about the relationship of man to God. Hawley then goes on to claim that, in the mythos of pantheism, the "hierarchy of the gods 'replicates itself' in the hierarchy of the humans. that humans use the mythic heirarchical arrangements of the gods to enforce a hierarchical structure in human society. McClellan says it's the other way around: humans _project_ their social relationships onto the gods, which he discusses in his book _YHWH's_ Divine Images_ Further, [[Josh Hawley|Hawley]] claims that the _one God_ never treats humans as slaves. This is entirely false, according to McClellan. McClellan says that God's 'followers' are repeatedly referred to as _avadim_ (Hebrew) and _douli_ (Greek), which mean 'slave'. Paul repeatedly emphasizes that the followers of Jesus are _slaves to Christ_. God repeatedly tells Israel that they are to follow God's commands, on the pain of death if they disobey, and the relationship of God to Israel as one of _sovereign_ to _vassal_ using language from what he says are 'neo-Assyrian' _vassal treaties_. [[#Top of page]] # Jesus Both God and Not-God https://fb.watch/w8dAsq7P0Z/? Discussing how the early Christians came up with philosophically Informed reasoning to explain how Jesus could be God and not God at the same 2024-12-31time. McLean's point is that the Hebrew Bible already does this with the "angel of the Lord" who is both God and not God Hagar in Genesis 16, Abraham in Genesis 22 , Moses In Exodus 3, Gideon injustice Judges six, Manoah in judges 13 where they keep going back-and-forth between referring to some entity as God or Yahweh, or the angel Of God. His claim is that originally the stories had them interacting directly with God but that at some point that became theologically unpalatable during the exile and so some editor came in and added the word 'Malach', Which means "messenger" Who is somehow both God and not McLean claims that the explanation of this occurs in Exodus 23, Where God tells the Israelites that he is sending an angel to be with him and to watch over them during the travels, but that they should not "anger him" because 'he will not forgive your sins", because "my name is in him" Those verses are Word for Word the same as in Joshua 24. [[#Top of page]] # Born Again versus Born from Above https://fb.watch/w5AzM4D-Le/? John 3:3 Did Jesus tell Nicodemus that he had to be "born again" or he had to be "born from above"? The Greek verb 'anothen' is ambiguous, it can mean Either, and apparently the author is playing with that ambiguity. Nicodemus asks how someone can go back into his mother's womb, so he's using the "born again" interpretation but Jesus corrects him and seems to be using the second meaning. He asks Nicodemus "if you can't understand earthly things how can you understand Heavenly things." [[#Top of page]] # The woman taken in adultery https://fb.watch/w0pYX8BeNq/ The story the woman 'taken in adultery' (the 'Let he who is without sin' story), is widely believed by Bible scholars to be a forgery. John 7:53 - 8:11. With the exception of 7:53, which doesn't seem to have anything to do with the story ("They went each to their own house") the rest is in John 8. [Quoting the ESV ](https://www.bibleref.com/biblepassage/?search=John_7:53-8:11&version=ESV) > 1 but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. 2 Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. 3 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. 5 Now in the Law, Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?" 6 This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. 7 And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." 8 And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground 9 But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him 10 Jesus stood up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" 11 She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more." > > This entire story is absent from the earliest manuscripts, and in others it is in a different section of John and it even appears in Luke. And the style and vocabulary are distinct from the rest of the gospel of John. There are scholars that argue it s consistent and could be part of the oral tradition, but McClelland's point is that, however those debates turn out, it's clear that this passage is a later interpolation and does not come from the author of the Gospel of John, and it was not added to John until **centuries after** its compositionl. ## another video on this topic https://fb.watch/ybtCAmLk_T/ [[#Top of page]]] # The Prophetic Critique https://www.facebook.com/reel/548584861297116?fs=e&mibextid=0NULKw&fs=e&s=TIeQ9V The observation that the prophets who say things like "your incest is an abomination to me", or "I do not delight in the blood of balls" are actually making a socioeconomic argument against hypocrites who have made their money off of the back of the poor and then turn around in a show of self importance and self righteousness attempt to portray themselves as religiously pure in ostentatious shows of their piety. ## another take https://www.facebook.com/reel/898022282541639?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e Another take. When the prophet inveigh against Temple sacrifices they are not saying (as protestants would argue) that works are not important and that faith alone justifies, they are saying that if you do Temple sacrifices without paying attention to the "weightier questions of the law" then the acts of the sacrifices become like sin. ## yet another take. https://www.facebook.com/reel/1820375755193788?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e In this one, Dan calls this one of the most fascinating pieces of rhetoric in the Hebrew Bible. He says that it's not because the profits are becoming protestants, he says in order to understand that you have to situate it in its proper socioeconomic context. A lot of this literature occurs in the eighth century BCE when Judah and Israel was the most prosperous and was benefiting the most from international trade. So, there was a lot of money running around. And a lot of people were paying a lot to have sacrifices as a substitute for living the core of the Message. Just like modern day evangelicals in the United States and elsewhere. Showing their religiosity rather than actually livingthe truth. [[#Top of page]] # Shroud of Turin #ShroudOfTurn #ShroudOfTurn/Blood https://www.facebook.com/reel/1630127684520589?fs=e&mibextid=0NULKw&fs=e&s=TIeQ9V Blood ## Daily Mail sensationalism about X-ray Dating Two papers supposedly dating the shroud to 2000 years ago using an x-ray methodology art questioned by Dan as well as the previous paper by the same authors that was retracted because of methodological problems. The point being, these guys go above and beyond the data in order to justify their conclusions and one of them said that he had a personal revelation while standing in front of the shroud that it was authentic. There are no expert responses to these papers except of course for the one that was retracted, but the consensus is that the shroud is a mid 14th century forgery, and it only shows up in the literature starting at that time. And a 1989 study radiocarbon dated the shroud to the mid 14th century. https://www.shroud.com/nature.htm?utm_source=chatgpt.com > The results of radiocarbon measurements at Arizona, Oxford and Zurich yield a calibrated calendar age range with at least 95% confidence for the linen of the Shroud of Turin of AD 1260 - 1390 (rounded down/up to nearest 10 yr).  These results therefore provide conclusive evidence that the linen of the Shroud of Turin is mediaeval. https://www.facebook.com/reel/1246314109712009?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e [[#Top of page]] # God's Father Dueteronomy 32: 8-9 KJV 8 When the Most High divided their inheritance to the nations, When He separated the sons of Adam, He set the boundaries of the peoples According to the number of the children of Israel. 9 For the Lord’s portion _is_ His people; Jacob _is_ the place of His inheritance. But ancient manuscripts and also a fragment from the Dead Sea scrolls suggest that the proper translation is the following Elyon (the most high) 8 'Divided up the nations according to the Children of God' (bene Elohim) 9 and YWHW's portion was his people. Jacob was his share of the inheritance. That makes YHWH a 2nd tier deity. https://www.facebook.com/reel/903544848408310?fs=e&mibextid=0NULKw&fs=e&s=TIeQ9V [[#Top of page]] # Does the Bible Guarantee a Fetus Equal Protection Under the Law [Dan McClellan address this, and criticisms from Dr. Calum Miller](https://youtu.be/FhpxVs4mKVw?si=WOYyxt1MGWCBjeUF) Discusses [Exodus 21:22-25](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021&version=NASB1995) > 22 If men struggle with each other and strike a woman with child so that she gives birth prematurely, yet there is no injury, he shall surely be fined as the woman’s husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges _decide_. 23 But if there is _any further_ injury, then you shall appoint _as a penalty_ life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.[^10] The 'gives birth prematurely' is rendered in a footnote as 'Or _an untimely birth occurs_; lit _her children come out_' So. There are two cases. In both cases, two men are fighting and the woman, an innocent bystander is inadvertently involved with two possible results 1. The wife is injured, the baby is lost. Result: fine 2. The wife dies. Result: death In this passage what is discussed is the punishment for someone who, in a fight with the husband, either causes the miscarriage Of the fetus, or the death of the wife In the former, the punishment is a fine, in the latter the punishment is death McClellan argues that this means the fetus was considered more "property" than a human being. In the rest of the video, he addresses some criticisms against him by one Callum Miller, A medical doctor from the UK, claimed that McClellan's argument was "dishonest" in the latter part of this video McClellan responds to that claim. The most austere rendering of Miller's argument is... 1. the fact that there is a disparity between punishments doesn't necessarily mean that the authors viewed the fetus as less than human, i.e. more _property_ than _fully-formed human_. 2. the disparity could be explained by the 'unintentional' nature of the injury 3. the interpretation of the event as a 'miscarriage', versus a 'pre-term birth' is incorrect. Miller argued in a paper he published (see the video for the title) that the Bible does not make a case for abortion, and then criticized McClellan on the conflation that McClellan is somehow arguing that the Bible, in some way, condones or justifies or allows for abortion. At the outset of his response McClelland corrects that misunderstanding. He has never claimed that the Bible does this, he has only ever claimed that the understanding of the fetus in this, the only passage in the Bible that discusses it, conceives of the fetus more as _property_ than _fully human_. Therefore, McLean is only going to address the parts of Miller's paper that discussed the interpretation of Exodus 21. The Synopsis of Miller's arguments - The fact that there is a disparity of outcome does not imply that the precipitating act (in this case, the death of the child) are dissimilar, citing differences in punishments regarding the death of a human being (e.g. Murder versus Manslaughter or Negligent Homicide) McClellan agrees, but argues (persuasively to my mind) that the two cases here (the death of the fetus, but the continued life of the mother versus the death of the mother causing the death of the fetus), are **different in kind**. This is why the two punishments are so dissimilar. Miller's argument missing the point here. Second, the fact that early Christian and modern jurists have a different interpretation is irrelevant to the Biblical Exegesis. - Miller then argues that in the first case (death of the fetus, but the mother lives), the death is **unintentional**. This response is **incoherent**, as *any injury* to mother or child is *unintentional* as the premise of the verse is that the mother was injured or killed in a fight between two men, neither of whom wanted to injure the mother. - Miller argues that it is a misinterpretation of the verse to render the verb _yasta_ as 'miscarriage'. That verb is almost always used to describe _live birth_, with the occasional interpretation of _still birth_. The better interpretation, therefore, is to interpret that passage as _premature birth_ of the fetus followed by no injury of the mother (case 1), or _premature birth_ of the fetus followed by the death of the mother (case 2). McClellan discusses this in the context of another verb, _shakal_ that occurs later in Exodus which everyone understand to mean 'miscarriage' (there is this ambiguous passage from McClellan: 'which was known to the author or authors since it was used two chapters later to mean miscarry'. I'm guessing that the use of the plural means the authors here are those who wrote Exodus.) McClellan argues that the later passage is not part of the _Covenant Code_, where the former is, and scholars have long argued that the author(s) of the _Covenant Code_ had 'a rather idiosyncratic use of legislative language' and so Miller's argument isn't legitimate exegesis. - Returning to the verb _yasta_, it can be used to refer to live births and **still birth miscarriages**. The usage here isn't really a mystery because it's borrowing from the **Code of Hamurabi**, which talks about the same two outcomes. In fact there are many instances of such borrowing in the _Covenant Code_, in some instances the laws appear in the same order as in the Hamurabic code. And there are other instances in west Asian law of the same hypothetical with the same results, and in all of those, case 1 is interpreted as a **miscarriage** [^1] There is **never** a law discussing the situation in which a man hits a woman and causes here to give a **pre-term birth** or causes here to **miscarry**. (i.e. ) - McClellan admits that the _Covenant Code_ could be altering this law in the direction given by Miller, but Miller has to actually **make that argument**, and he doesn't. - Miller then goes on to argue that the word for 'children' is _yeled_ a perfectly normal word for _children **not** embryo or unformed substance, as in _Golem_. (are we discussing a different passage here?). McClellan says 'her children come out' (plural), no connotation of miscarriage **in the absence of other indicators**. But here there are other indicators (that's the premise of the whole passage, after all), and in this case McClellan says that there is wide-spread agreement that this refers to _miscarriage_. He cites various lexicons, one of which uses, as a reference to justify the interpretation of the word as 'miscarriage', this very passage. In sum, there is not a good case that the meaning here is 'pre-term birth' Basically, Miller is engaging in shoddy apologetics to push his right-wing agenda. > This is just a poor apologetic argument that is cherry-picking things that it's going to address and is counting on the naive and the confirmation bias of the readership so that people will feel compelled to accept these laughable arguments that would not fly in a critical context and the fit for this video has been what up party people ## Another take The guy McClellan is responding to is basically making the argument that one science teaches that life begins at conception and to the Bible says it's illegal to and immoral to take an innocent life. Dan goes through the part of exodus that discusses the case of the woman injured or possibly killed when two men are fighting as he did in the previous Video. This is pretty much the same material except that at the end there's some good books that discuss this topic. https://fb.watch/vJTyQSlT6W/?mibextid=0NULKw&fs=e&s=TIeQ9V The end gives some good books to read on the subject of abortion in the Bible. ## answering the question "does the Bible think abortion is murder?" https://www.facebook.com/reel/2038006896642851?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e The content creator claims that you can't conclude that life begins at first breath because Genesis 27 doesn't say that explicitly it merely says that God breathe dthe life into Adam. Dan replies that that's fallacious reasoning because it's basically stacking the deck and prohibiting us from drawing natural conclusions about the world views of biblical authors unless they say it in the language we are using today. But that's not how biblical exegesis works. Dan says that when you look at the Bible In totality, at least up to the Grieco-Roman period, Breath is constitutive of life. This is seen in the account of God creating Adam, but also in the account of the "breath of life" being sniffed out during the flood, And death being a function of the "removal of breath" ### Psalm 104:29 ### Ecclesiastes 3:19 Also there are two words in Hebrew that are frequently translated as "life" both of which basically mean "breath" 'ruah' and 'nefesh' People point to Leviticus 17 which prohibits the eating of blood, and say "know the life is in the blood" but the word for life there is 'nefesh' With the influx of Grieco philosophy into Judaism there started to be debates about when life or "personhood" began. Three main schools - Stoic: life begins at birth - Aristotelian's: when the fetus is fully formed, so at the quickening - epicureans and Pythagoreans : at conception The content provider then goes on to argue that Exodus 21:22, the story of the woman being injured and losing a child, what is commonly translated as a miscarriages in fact premature birth. As stated above, Dan Says that this is incorrect. ## yet another video on Weather the Bible says life begins at conception. ## yet another on the status of the fetus https://www.facebook.com/reel/983955093630816?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e 2025-02-04 https://fb.watch/wWMfoS0o2J/? ## another video on the question of whether the Bible prohibits abortion. https://www.facebook.com/danmcclellann/videos/508721258549445/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e Referring to a tweet that said God hates abortion, McClellan Says that disposition cannot be justified on textual grounds without radical renegotiation of several texts namely that - Jeremiah 1:5 - Psalms 137 - Luke 1 As indications that the authors assigned full personhood to a fetus. Exodus 1:21 through 25 enters into this conversation and then he discusses the effects of Greek philosophy on early Christian thought, particularly the question of "ensoulment" He then goes through the various philosophical positions, Pythagoreans and Epicureans believe that insoulment occurs at conception, Aristotelians at the quickening,\[ and still believe that it happens at birth.\] (edit: don't know what this means, written in haste and lost the thought, apparently) [[#Top of page]] # Does Isaiah 53 refer to Jesus https://www.facebook.com/danmcclellann/videos/1137082658303526/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e A creator claims that Isaiah 53 cannot be read in Jewish synagogues because it refers to Jesus McClellan addresses this assertion. First he says that it's utterly false that there is any prohibition, it's just something that evangelical Christians say to justify their belief about the content of Isaiah 53. Specifically, there are readings that he calls the Hafterah readings from Isaiah that Skip Isaiah 53, but not because there's any embarrassment regarding its significance vis-à-vis Jesus, but because the passages that are used which Sandwich Isaiah 53 I have to do with consoling Israel over the loss of the temple whereas Isaiah 53 does not. Dan's Claim is that the authors of the New Testament told the story of Jesus so as to make it resonate with Isaiah 53. The reality is that Isaiah 53 is describing the suffering of Israel and personifying it in order to make a rhetorical point. [[#Top of page]] # jehu and ahasia: yet another contradiction https://www.facebook.com/danmcclellann/videos/1337808077642154/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e [[#Top of page]] # on the slaughter of the innocents https://www.facebook.com/reel/618782947166074?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e [[#Top of page]] # on the weakness of the NIV translation https://www.facebook.com/danmcclellann/videos/878854814182084/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e I can't go into the particulars of this video but it is very interesting and I must go back and listen to it carefully! [[#Top of page]] # on Homosexuality and White Christian Nationalist hogwash https://www.facebook.com/reel/8510702812346810?fs=e&s=TIeQ9V&fs=e&mibextid=0NULKw&fs=e&s=TIeQ9V ## just Homosexuality [What does the Bible say about homosexuality: a discussion with Dan McClellan](https://youtu.be/94QhX1p8lMU?si=WErN1yKWJ8uxEBcH) First, Dan comments that the concept of 'homosexuality,' meaning _attraction to a member of your own sex_, was unknown in the ancient world. and the word (and, really, the concept of same-sex attraction) dates from the mid-19th century. So anyone who puts that interpretation on the few biblical passages that address same-sex activity is grossly misinterpreting the bible. The places from the Old Testament used in discussions about the morality of homosexuality are **invariably** about **actions**, and not **emotional attaction**. Having said that. It is true that [[Dan McClellan#Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13|Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13]] condemn a 'man lying with a man as they would a woman' as an _abomination_. In the first verse, it is simply stated, in the second a punishment is discussed: they must both be put to death. McClelland argues (forcefully, I think), that this condemnation isn't so much about the **sexual** nature of the act (and it certainly isn't about any sort of 'life style'), but about the fact that it transgresses against the gender roles of the participants and hierarchical ordering of society . For the person acting the role of the woman, they are _giving up_ their _power_ as a man to become subordinate, as would a woman. For the man acting taking the active _insertive_ role, they are complicit in reducing the other man to a passive role, which is a violation of the mores of the time. Evidence is adduced for these claims by the multiple restrictions on what a man may do, and with whom, sexually that occur in and around these verses, particularly Leviticus 20:13. These at ethe things a man may be executed for, before we get to the verse about sleeping with a man...[^2] > 9 “‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. Because they have cursed their father or mother, their blood will be on their own head. > 10 “‘If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife—with the wife of his neighbor—both the adulterer and the adulteress are to be put to death. > 11 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his father’s wife, he has dishonored his father. Both the man and the woman are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. > 12 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law, both of them are to be put to death. What they have done is a perversion; their blood will be on their own heads. > 13 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. > 14 “‘If a man marries both a woman and her mother, it is wicked. Both he and they must be burned in the fire, so that no wickedness will be among you. > 15 “‘If a man has sexual relations with an animal, he is to be put to death, and you must kill the animal. > 16 “‘If a woman approaches an animal to have sexual relations with it, kill both the woman and the animal. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads. > 17 “‘If a man marries his sister, the daughter of either his father or his mother, and they have sexual relations, it is a disgrace. They are to be publicly removed from their people. He has dishonored his sister and will be held responsible. > 18 “‘If a man has sexual relations with a woman during her monthly period, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them are to be cut off from their people. > 19 “‘Do not have sexual relations with the sister of either your mother or your father, for that would dishonor a close relative; both of you would be held responsible. > 20 “‘If a man has sexual relations with his aunt, he has dishonored his uncle. They will be held responsible; they will die childless. > 21 “‘If a man marries his brother’s wife, it is an act of impurity; he has dishonored his brother. They will be childless. From the context, it's clear that these restrictions aren't just about controlling homosexual urges, but have more to do with the structuring of what they believe is a well-ordered society. It's also clear, by examination of other cultures in that region of the same epoch that these are fairly universal restrictions, so the writers of the Bible were borrowing, or at least part of, a narrative that was well established at that time and place. But narratives change. A main consideration, when looking at the passages, and those in the New Testament (i.e. Paul 1 Corinthians) -- and trying to _paste_ our ideas of what _homosexuality_ is onto the bible -- is that they had **no concept** of what we think of as _sexual identification_ or _sexual orientation_, so you can't just label passages from the bible as being _about homosexuality_, because they didn't even have the conceptual framework to consider such things. For them, it was solely about the act itself, and how it related to the hierarchical structuring of the society. But that was true not just for this topic, but for how they thought about women and even children. Look at the passages about a woman losing her child because of a fight between two men, for example. See [[Dan McClellan# Does the Bible Guarantee a Fetus Equal Protection Under the Law]] There's also Genesis 19, which is about Sodom and Gomorrah, but that's really about the law of hospitality, and not so much about sexuality particularly when you consider that lot offered his own Daughters to the men. In the case of Genesis 19 the offense is that the men of the city wish to sexually assault the angels, not that they are homosexual but that they wish to actually demean them sexually assaulting them. Dan tells a story about a soldier who heard of stories where, if someone committed some sort of crime, the members of the village of the victims family would go to the village of the perpetrator and sexually assault him. Not because they were sexually attracted to him but because they wished to punish him by assaulting him. This is what the story of Sodom and Gomorrah is about, not homosexuality. And in the New Testament the only references to what many people take to be homosexuality is in first Corinthians chapter 9. > Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[[a](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians%206&version=NIV#fen-NIV-28477a "See footnote a")] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God. The footnote reads > The words _men who have sex with men_ translate two Greek words that refer to the passive and active participants in homosexual acts. Malaki and arsenketae Romans 1 Describing the depravity of the pagan world where, because they don't look into the world and see the way nature actually is, God gives them over to shameful lust. Dan's response to that is that nature shows that homosexuality is quite common. So Paul's view of what is "natural" is flawed and false. > For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. > 21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles. > 24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen. > > 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. > 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy. 32 Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them. All. Translations from the New International Version. Wikipedia article on homosexuality and animal species https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexual_behavior_in_animals And here is another McClellan video on this topic. https://www.facebook.com/reel/399670912927227?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e [[#Top of page]] # Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13 https://youtu.be/Djtpl-MzN_k?si=eaavJDjKZ0BPSu7K https://biblehub.com/kjv/leviticus/18.htm All quotes from the KJV > Leviticus 18:22: 'Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it _is_ abomination' Notice that it doesn't actually prescribe a punishment. and later, in Leviticus 20:13 > 'If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood _shall be_ upon them.' McClelland says that the prohibition is more about maintaining the proper hierarchical ordering of society. The man is the agent, the active person in a sexual act, so the man acting _as the woman_, is violating the role of manhood, while the insertive actor is letting him do that. Leviticus 20 has many such prohibitions, so to just focus on the one is missing the point. This violates the 'cosmic order' of society. There are several passages elsewhere that discuss the 'land spitting' the people out because of their wickedness. McClellan argues that this is what all these prohibitions are about. For example, > 20:15: 'And if a man lie with a beast, he shall surely be put to death: and ye shall slay the beast.' Why does the beast have to be killed? If it were **only** about the act of sex, surely the beast is blameless! Unless the point is that, somehow, that sexual congress **pollutes** the land, and in order to **purify** both the man _and_ the beast must be put to death. Evidence for this is in Leviticus 18: 24-28, Leviticus 20:22-23, Jeremiah 3: 2-3 and Isaiah 24:4-6 [ChatGPT Session](https://chatgpt.com/share/67551a45-d570-8003-9dc9-ae916fc2263b) ## on passages from Romans that a creator claims condemns homosexuality and those who can affirm, condone or tolerate it https://fb.watch/ymxzX7i1E_/? The creator claims that Romans 1 says that if you engage in homosexual act, or you tolerate them, you are going to hell. Dan replies that this is false. There are three words for hell in Greek and none of them are used in any of the Pauline writings. What he does say (1 Corinthians 5:2) is >  5 you are to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. >   [some ancient manuscripts omit the word "Jesus"] Curiously enough, here the sin is a man living with his father's wife. But I think Dan's point here is that this is what it is to be done with sinners. The second consideration is that the Bible never refers to itself as "the word of God", that is a post biblical innovation. The word of God is only ever used when referring to what Jesus himself says, or what someone or something (i.e. an angel) says when they are acting in God's. The scripture itself is never referred to as "the word of God". So the concept of the Scriptures as "the word of God" is entirely post-biblical. ## Bible passages that discuss the land rejecting the people because of their wickedness, of the land 'spitting them out' ### ChatGPT said: ChatGPT The Bible contains passages that describe the land rejecting its inhabitants due to their wickedness, often using imagery of the land "spitting out" or "vomiting" its people. Here are a few key references: 1. **Leviticus 18:24–28** > _"Do not make yourselves unclean by any of these things, for by all these the nations I am driving out before you have become unclean, and the land became unclean, so that I punished its iniquity, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. But you shall keep my statutes and my rules and do none of these abominations, either the native or the stranger who sojourns among you (for the people of the land, who were before you, did all of these abominations, so that the land became unclean), lest the land vomit you out when you make it unclean, as it vomited out the nation that was before you."_ - This passage warns Israel not to commit the sins of the previous inhabitants of Canaan, as the land "vomited" them out. 2. **Leviticus 20:22–23** > _"You shall therefore keep all my statutes and all my rules and do them, that the land where I am bringing you to live may not vomit you out. And you shall not walk in the customs of the nation that I am driving out before you, for they did all these things, and therefore I detested them."_ 3. **Jeremiah 3:2-3** > _"Lift up your eyes to the bare heights and see! Where have you not been ravished? By the waysides you have sat awaiting lovers like an Arab in the wilderness. You have polluted the land with your vile whoredom. Therefore the showers have been withheld, and the spring rain has not come; yet you have the forehead of a whore; you refuse to be ashamed."_ - While not directly describing the land "spitting out" its inhabitants, this passage conveys the idea of the land being affected by human sin. 4. **Isaiah 24:4–6** > _"The earth mourns and withers; the world languishes and withers; the highest people of the earth languish. The earth lies defiled under its inhabitants; for they have transgressed the laws, violated the statutes, broken the everlasting covenant. Therefore a curse devours the earth, and its inhabitants suffer for their guilt; therefore the inhabitants of the earth are scorched, and few men are left."_ - This describes the earth responding to human sin with desolation and judgment. These passages illustrate the biblical theme that the land itself can become defiled by human wickedness and respond with consequences, serving as a metaphor for divine judgment. ## another video dealing with the general topic of using various texts to justify modern Sexual ethics https://www.facebook.com/reel/1709514269779834?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e This one deals with multiple prohibitions against same-sex intercourse but it also touches upon the Bible's endorsement of polygamy and slavery. The basic point is that if you want to try to read these passages in the context of Current sexual Morras or concepts of General morality, you have to do violence to the text because Most of the passages used do not have the meaning today that they had the meaning then. [[#Top of page]] # Another _long_ video on these passages https://youtu.be/FbAwQDi-9Wg?si=cjc2mJpNx5EXASr_ [[#Top of page]] # the Johannine comma An interpretation in the first epistle of John which appeared in manuscripts in the 13th century CE. But there is a reference to this passage in a fourth century manuscript [[Desiderius Eramus]] Did not include the longer version in his translation of the Bible the [[Textus Receptus]]. He said he wouldn't include it until a legitimate Greek manuscript was produced that had that text and, lo and behold, one was produced and so he included it in his third edition, which was the addition used by the king James Bible. #FakeBiblePassages https://fb.watch/vLGzlDalR6/?mibextid=0NULKw&fs=e&s=TIeQ9V Also https://www.facebook.com/reel/944283924265510?fs=e&fs=e [[#Top of page]] # Isaiah 7:14 Dan McClellan describing why it is a mistranslation of Isaiah 7:14 to say "a virgin will conceive" The word used just means young woman. And the conceiving is in the future, so there's no reason why we should consider it a virgin birth. https://fb.watch/vPSRXgXT25/?mibextid=0NULKw&fs=e&s=TIeQ9V [[#Top of page]] # God regrets some of his a actions Genesis 6:6 says God regrets making humans the way he did. https://fb.watch/vPTp9_6iJV/?mibextid=0NULKw&fs=e&s=TIeQ9V https://fb.watch/vPTjwoGxtN/?mibextid=0NULKw&fs=e&s=TIeQ9V https://fb.watch/vPSRXgXT25/?mibextid=0NULKw&fs=e&s=TIeQ9V https://youtu.be/hDHEDiZd2xo?si=9fxF771Cxa63vrvj [Numbers 23:19](https://www.bibleref.com/Numbers/23/Numbers-23-19.html) > “God _is_ not a man, that He should lie, Nor a son of man, that He should repent. Has He said, and will He not do? Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good? [1st Samuel 15:29](https://www.bibleref.com/1-Samuel/15/1-Samuel-15-29.html) > And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent. For He _is_ not a man, that He should relent.” ## God Regrets But, [1 Samuel 15:11] (https://www.bibleref.com/1-Samuel/15/1-Samuel-15-11.html) > “I greatly regret that I have set up Saul _as_king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not performed My commandments.” And it grieved Samuel, and he cried out to the Lord all night. The verb there (NAHAM) can only mean 'I regret' (according to McClelland) ## God Changes his mind In Jonah God tells Jonah to tell Nianeveh that he [Jonah 1:2](https://www.bibleref.com/Jonah/1/Jonah-1-2.html) > Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry out against it; for their wickedness has come up before Me.” In [Jonah 3:1-5](https://www.bibleref.com/Jonah/3/Jonah-chapter-3.html) < 1 Then the word of the Lord came to Jonah the second time, saying, 2 "Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and call out against it the message that I tell you." 3 So Jonah arose and went to Nineveh, according to the word of the Lord. Now Nineveh was an exceedingly great city, three days ' journey in breadth. 4 Jonah began to go into the city, going a day 's journey. And he called out, "Yet forty days, and Nineveh shall be overthrown!"  5 And the people of Nineveh believed God. They called for a fast and put on sackcloth, from the greatest of them to the least of them. McClelland says this is an **unconditional prophecy** meaning that God has decided that **Nineveh will be destroyed**. However, they repent, ,and then God relents [Jonah 3: 6-10] > 6 The word reached the king of Nineveh, and he arose from his throne, removed his robe, covered himself with sackcloth, and sat in ashes. 7 And he issued a proclamation and published through Nineveh, "By the decree of the king and his nobles: Let neither man nor beast, herd nor flock, taste anything. Let them not feed or drink water, 8 but let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, and let them call out mightily to God. Let everyone turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands. 9 Who knows? God may turn and relent and turn from his fierce anger, so that we may not perish."  > 10 When God saw what they did, how they turned from their evil way, God relented of the disaster that he had said he would do to them, and he did not do it. More on this issue: https://www.facebook.com/reel/879232260381511?fs=e&fs=e ## God Lies In [1 Kings 22L 9-28]](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Kings%2022&version=NIV) where Micaiah relates his vision of God sending a 'lying spirit' to deceive Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead by poisoning the tongues of his 'prophets', all of whom are counseling him to attack. > 19 Micaiah continued, “Therefore hear the word of the Lord: I saw the Lord sitting on his throne with all the multitudes of heaven standing around him on his right and on his left. 20 And the Lordsaid, ‘Who will entice Ahab into attacking Ramoth Gilead and going to his death there?’ > “One suggested this, and another that. 21 Finally, a spirit came forward, stood before the Lord and said, ‘I will entice him.’ > 22 “‘By what means?’ the Lord asked. > “‘I will go out and be a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all his prophets,’ he said. “> ‘You will succeed in enticing him,’ said the Lord. ‘Go and do it.’ > 23 “So now the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The Lord has decreed disaster for you.” [[#Top of page]] # God Anointing David So some have tried to draw a parallel between God anointing David as ruler of Israel and Trump gaining the White House because of what it says about David later in the Bible. McClellan replies that there are four things wrong with this argument. 1.. that that is completely false, God annoints David before he becomes a lecherous adulterous Person and chastises him when he does become so. David was "of gods heart" [[1 Samuel 16:7]] when Samuel anoints him as the leader of Israel, but then afterwards David is chastised for his lustful thinking and his sinful ways, see [[2 Samuel 12:7-13]] 2. David and God are represented in a literary way, not a historical way. This was composed David was dead. 3. Some of us can remember when Republicans would appeal to the Bible to condemn an adulterous man in the White House. 4. And finally this is just an attempt to protect the speakers self worth and self image, governed by identity politics. https://www.facebook.com/reel/882800237308137?fs=e&mibextid=0NULKw&fs=e&s=TIeQ9V Another video on the same topic. https://www.facebook.com/reel/1940448966433357?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e [[#Top of page]] # God is non-binary https://fb.watch/w2wOzVAEND/?mibextid=CTbP7E https://www.facebook.com/reel/3005574946256478?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e Francesca Stavrakapoulis: _God: An Anatomy_ # Jesus is a Failed Prophet #Olivet https://fb.watch/w2Yh_yeRnH/? [[#Top of page]] # About women and their clothing Dan McClelland Says that the Bible never tells women to cover up in order to prevent men from "stumbling", but rather to avoid any ostentatious displays of wealth. https://www.facebook.com/reel/2909332925898648?fs=e&mibextid=0NULKw&fs=e&s=TIeQ9V [[#Top of page]] # On Paul's writing about the authority of women. A TikTok video mentions 1 Timothy 2:11 > 11 A woman[[a](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202:11-12&version=NIV#fen-NIV-29728a "See footnote a")] should learn in quietness and full submission. 12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man;[[b](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202:11-12&version=NIV#fen-NIV-29729b "See footnote b")] she must be quiet. [^3] McClelland points out that 1 Timothy wasn't written by Paul, it contradicts other parts of Paul's teachings, and in the authentic writings of Paul he praises women in leadership positions in the church, referring to deaconesses and mentions them by name, praising Junia as a female apostle. Additionally, he says that when women profesey in church, they should have their heads covered. He then goes on to address the (false) notion of univocality in the Bible in general, and the New Testament in particular, discussing the fact that everyone has to _negotiate_ with the text, but those who want to maintain the _unvocality_ must do so more _furtively_ and _manipulatively_. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?comment_id=605159011945303&v=1064061608253474&notif_id=1733423524070967&notif_t=comment_mention&ref=notif There is another video where McClellan Addresses the comments made by another content provider who first argues from The same passage 1 Timothy about women staying silent and makes the same points about that. After first pointing out that this epistle is a known forgery, he tackles the claim that women should remain silent by pointing to the genuine Pauline epistles that speak approvingly of women prophesying in church. He then addresses the claim that women will be saved through "child bearing". His argument is that this directly contradicts passages from the genuine Pauline Epistles were Paul says that people should stay within their same circumstances that obtained when they were called because Paul believes that the second coming is imminent and therefore there was no time to make new children. This content provider then goes on to discuss the legality and morality of abortion https://www.facebook.com/reel/587164930400912?fs=e&mibextid=0NULKw&fs=e&s=TIeQ9V [[#Top of page]] # on the claim that all scripture is inspired by God https://www.facebook.com/reel/879576444203256?fs=e&mibextid=0NULKw&fs=e&s=TIeQ9V [[#Top of page]] # The Bible claims it is the 'word of God' A section of which deals with the claim made in the previous section https://www.facebook.com/reel/2295617677482720?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e [[#Top of page]] # on the doctrine of the virgin birth McLean claims that it developed decades after the death of Jesus and mostly on the basis of a bad translation of the Hebrew Bible. The earliest writings we have, the gospel of Mark and the writings of Paul, say nothing about the Virgin birth. The gospel of Mark starts with Jesus's ministry, and Paul is only interested in the resurrected of Jesus. It's only decades later that people start asking questions about the origin of Jesus and that's where we see the development of the traditions we now have of Jesus's origin. Matthew and Luke have references to the virgin birth. While there are some pagan stories that seem to mirror this McLean says that isn't close enough to provide a link. He points to Isaiah 7:14 as the source for the claim of a virgin birth, but then points out that the translation in the Septuagint Is faulty. McClellan says thus is *not* A prophecy but a "sign". Isaiah 7:14 says "A young woman *Has* conceived and will bring Forth" It's not a prophecy, I guess, because of the verb 'has': past tense. McLean believes that this Refers to King Hezekiah. When it was later translated into greek for the Septuagint, The fact that there was a claim that King has Hezekiah would be born is no longer relevant and to turn it into something relevant for the time, they converted the passage into a prophecy, the woman into a virgin (thereby making it miraculous) and the person being brought forth as Jesus. https://www.facebook.com/reel/1086854106352799?fs=e&mibextid=0NULKw&fs=e&s=TIeQ9V https://www.facebook.com/reel/1086854106352799?fs=e&mibextid=0NULKw&fs=e&s=TIeQ9V ## Almah and 'young woman' in Isaiah https://www.facebook.com/reel/1084900746972592?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e [[#Top of page]] # A perfect example of dogma overwhelming reason https://www.facebook.com/reel/932609308375591?fs=e&fs=e&s=TIeQ9V The gentleman in the stitch claims that Dan McClellan anrgues against the univocality of the Bible because he's a Mormon and Mormon doctrine Holds that the Bible is not "univocal". But that claim is utterly false, the LDS nowadays asserts the Univocality of the Bible, Particularly when the translation being used is Joseph Smith's. Furthermore he claims that the LDS does not assert that Jesus is the Jehovah of the Old Testament, when it is LDS doctrine that he is,whereas Dan in his scholarship has asserted the opposite. It is clear that this person's reason is so overwhelmed By his dogma about the Bible that he is forced to radically misrepresent both LDS doctrine and Dan Dan McClellan's Statement statements about his research and scholarship [[#Top of page]] # Comments on anti-biblical trends in modern Christianity McClellan reflects on trends he sees in modern Christianity which he calls 'anti-biblical' because they are a rewriting of the narrative to fit a socio-political agenda. He specifically points out these ideas as examples ## Inerrancy ## Univocality A discussion of Univocality and the hoops it makes apologists jump through. https://fb.watch/x41Qw39-9A/? ## Sufficiency ## Inspiration Many people point to 2 Timothy 3:16[^4] the problems here are... 1. Wasn't written by Paul. The overwhelming scholarship says that _1 Timothy_,_2 Timothy_ and _Titus_ were written decades after Paul's death by someone who wanted them to be taken as seriously as the genuine Pauline Epistles. 2. It just refers to _the scriptures_. In this time, that was a loose connection of documents (the 'bible' hadn't been assembled yet as a unified corpus) which included several books which are no longer accepted into the canon (e.g. Enoch). So if **all scripture** is given by inspiration, then how could **any** book of _the scriptures_ contemporaneous with the date of the authorship of _2 Timothy_ be considered non-canonical later? 3. The texts of the _New Testament_ were not considered **scripture**. That designation came later. In this time period, a reference to _the scripture_ was a reference to the **Jewish Scripture**, as it was understood at that time. 4. But, **the biggest problem** is the word that is translated as _inspired_[^5] because it is used in other circumstances to mean nothing more than 'life affirming' A book by John C. Poirier argues this in his book _The Invention of the Inspired Text_ argues that the translation of theopneustos as 'inspired' is a development of the 3 century CE, particularly in the writings of [[Origen]], and that at the time of the composition of _2 Timothy_ it meant 'God breathed', i.e. something more like 'life giving' and this is why we see it in reference to things like springs of water and ointments and even sandals in the desert. To summarize, these ideas are not ideas the biblical authors came up with, they are not authorized or legitimized by them or the biblical text. https://www.facebook.com/reel/1572266613430639?fs=e&fs=e&s=TIeQ9V ## Another vid on this https://www.facebook.com/danmcclellann/videos/616195934585890/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e [[#Top of page]] # how many creation accounts are in the Bible https://www.facebook.com/reel/881621224134766?fs=e&fs=e&s=TIeQ9V Answer: three. And the first one which appears is the most recent. The account which discusses a transcendent God who creates everything in the world. ## Does a 'day' mean a 24 hour period https://www.facebook.com/reel/1284972386106824 In the creation accounts, the word 'yom' means 'day'. Of course, most apologists require that this be understood figuratively. This creator cites... Genesis 2:4 where he claims the entirety of the creation timeframe is one 'day' and Genesis 1:11-12 where he claims that God telling the earth to 'sprout forth vegetation and trees' require more than a literal day. I find that strange since God is omnipotent. And I don't see how he can make these claims. Genesis 2:4 reads...[^16] > 2 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all their multitude. 2 And on the seventh day God finished the work that he had done, and he rested on the seventh day from all the work that he had done. 3 So God blessed the seventh day and hallowed it, because on it God rested from all the work that he had done in creation. > 4 These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created. Anyway, Dan says that it's so much hogwash, since the text makes clear that 1 24 hour period is meant. He says this because ... 1. There's no **evidence** that the word 'yom' is to be take _metaphorically_. There is , of course, a need for apologist that it be taken metaphorically because taken literally it's ridiculous. 2. When God creates day and night it says "god called the light Day, and the darkness Night. And there was evening and morning, the first day". This clearly says that we are to distinguish a 'day' as the passing of dark, into light and then into dark, which marks the boundary of one day from another. And in verses 14-16 we see the sun and moon are created as markers of this transition. Same sort of thing happens with the seasons, there are markers that indicate the transitioning from one state to another. 'days', 'seasons', 'years' are being used literally too. 3. [[#Top of page]] # The question of women submitting to men. https://www.facebook.com/reel/626786970012713?fs=e&fs=e&s=TIeQ9V [[#Top of page]] # On genocide in the Old Testament Numbers 5:11-2 https://youtu.be/neFzQ3Pfdbg?si=frO5Y6OpHJHB3PC0 [[#Top of page]] # On Junia in Romans 16:7 https://www.facebook.com/reel/1110141767335732 In this video, McClellan is discussing how we _negotiate_ with the bible to sustain and justify our preconceived notions of how the world is structured. For example... McClellan claims that the scholarly consensus is that Paul is identifying a woman named Junia as a prominent apostle. [ESV translation](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2016&version=ESV) > 3 Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, 4 who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks but all the churches of the Gentiles give thanks as well. 5 Greet also the church in their house. Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the first convert[[b](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2016&version=ESV#fen-ESV-28326b "See footnote b")] to Christ in Asia. 6 Greet Mary, who has worked hard for you. 7 Greet Andronicus and Junia,[[c](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2016&version=ESV#fen-ESV-28328c "See footnote c")] my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles,[[d](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2016&version=ESV#fen-ESV-28328d "See footnote d")] and they were in Christ before me. 8 Greet Ampliatus, my beloved in the Lord.9 Greet Urbanus, our fellow worker in Christ, and my beloved Stachys. 10 Greet Apelles, who is approved in Christ. Greet those who belong to the family of Aristobulus. 11 Greet my kinsman Herodion. Greet those in the Lord who belong to the family of Narcissus.12 Greet those workers in the Lord, Tryphaena and Tryphosa. Greet the beloved Persis, who has worked hard in the Lord. 13 Greet Rufus, chosen in the Lord; also his mother, who has been a mother to me as well. 14 Greet Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and the brothers[[e](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2016&version=ESV#fen-ESV-28335e "See footnote e")] who are with them. 15 Greet Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas, and all the saints who are with them. 16 Greet one another with a holy kiss. All the churches of Christ greet you. If that makes a person _uncomfortable_, or is makes you feel uneasy, it's most likely that your _subconcious_ identifies more with a _male dominated_ world view, your **social identity**, and, therefore, finds the concept of a woman being prominent among the early Christians as unlikely. And, therefore, you seek out ways to make that _data_ go away. https://fb.watch/xg-3s8m9RE/ Another video on the topic of Junia, particularly rebutting evangelical claims that it isn't a woman's name. ## more on the question of Paul's writings about women in the church. https://youtu.be/6P4FNWL_EgM?si=d-giar8iLvkkAYeX [[#Top of page]] # Prophecies regarding Jesus in the Old Testament #Jesus/Prophecies #DoesTheBibleProphesyJesus https://fb.watch/wpr3yaPmGl/ A creator claims there are over 300 prophecies in the Old Testament that Jesus has to fulfill. McClellan responds that the passages used to prophesy Jesus' birth and life were not understood as such in the Old Testament, and that **interpretation** is the result of early Christian writers **re-interpreting** passages to give credence to their claims about Jesus' divinity. For the content creator Dan is responding to the requirements are that 3. It be a **prophecy** and 4. That it be one **Jesus fulfilled**. ## Specific passages ### Daniel 8 Not a **prophecy**. It's been interpreted multiple ways at different times. It claims to be set during the reign of King Belshazzar (d. ~539 BCE), most scholars believe it's about Antiochus IV Epiphanes[^9] in the 2nd century BCE and about his persecution of the Jews which led to the revolt of the Maccabees in 164 BCE. ### Daniel 9 Again, subject to multiple interpretations. ### Isaiah 7: 14: Not a **prophecy**, the verb is in the past tense ## Daniel's failed prophecies https://youtu.be/z67_B5-UT6g?si=LMzHGvXRm1SwmKfX The apocryphal writings of Daniel were composed in early BCE 160 in the hopes they would be fulfilled by the middle of the 160s BCE. When they weren't, they had to be _renegotiated_ (aka, _reinterpreted_) ### Specific passages. #### Daniel 2 The statue _Nebuchadnazzar II_ (circa 605-562 BCE) sees in his dream ## Does the Bible Prophesy Jesus https://youtu.be/lnjMSsnaPsg?si=RfptBv7hWVJkv_Tw ## Mathematical Proof that Jesus is the Messiah https://www.facebook.com/watch?v=1089114139618214 [[#Top of page]] # John 1:1 'and rather word was God' Mistranslation! That does not mean that the "word" was "God". A better translation would be "and the word was divine" https://fb.watch/wxgNcJmWtC/? [[#Top of page]] # McClellan got kicked out of college https://fb.watch/wBw0-XkEnQ/?mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e [[#Top of page]] # on how the poor and debtors should be treated ## Watch this video and fix text https://fb.watch/wDPT0N94vo/? McLean is basically [[]]on a passage in Deuteronomy that says that she'll be forgiven after seven years and you shouldn't charge interest and pointing out the places where that doesn't occur in the New Testament, and then goes on and discuss this place where such sentiments are actually expressed, like the story of the camel passing through the eye of the needle (apparently The claim that The phrase "eye of the needle" refers to a gate is false), Or where Jesus says to various rich people that they should give away their riches To the poor, or where The New Testament says you shouldn't charge interest, and how the society of the early Christians was basically a communistic Society. As he says in the last sentence, he's not suggesting that our moral should be guided by the Bible, but if you (meaning the audience) don't like student debt forgiveness, then certainly your morals are not guided by the Bible, they're guided by identity politics. [[#Top of page]] # The Talmud and human sexuality The Talmud has some interesting things to say about human sexuality, particularly how they conceptualize gender: Genesis one verses 26 and 27 like claiming that the first human was actually both male and female. And then in Genesis two when the second creation myth is discussed the woman is 'taken out of "the man, that is the dual gender identity is split into two single binary identities. And while that may seem to be pretty binary, the Talmud goes onto discuss six additional gender identities. 5. An androgynous identity, someone who has both male and female 6. The "tumtum', Someone who has neither identity 7. The 'aylonit hamah': someone assigned female at birth but who does not develop expected secondary sexual characters, because of some sort of natural cause. A later part of the video says that they Later develop male characteristics. 8. The 'aylonit adam', Who, like the previous one is assigned female at birth but does not develop secondary sexual characteristics, but this time because of some sort of human intervention, later developing male characteristics. 9. The 'saris hamah' Who, like number three is assigned male at birth but does not develop secondary sexual characteristics because of some sort of natural cause. A later part of the video says that these people later develop female characteristics. 10. The "samis adam', assigned male at birth but does not develop Secondary sexual characteristics because of some sort of human intervention, Later developing female characteristics. McClellan says that these are discussed over 100 times in the Talmud. Further reading: https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/the-eight-genders-in-the-talmud/ _Intersex, theology in the Bible_ troubling bodies in Church, Text, and Theology. And the rights and duties of the different categories are a mix of the rights and duties Assigned to men and women, depending on the. https://fb.watch/wHRm0Fvzs1/? [#Top of page]] # Did God create evil? https://www.facebook.com/reel/1636391860490862?fs=e&fs=e [#Top of page]] # Dan's advisor https://youtu.be/luJhJvFzpew?si=5RN2NyqyBUYliqqz [#Top of page]] # The Verse About the 'Eye of the Needle' Dan claims that the assertion that the passage refers to a particular small door in a gate called the "eye of the needle" is manufactured. There's no evidence that these sorts of gates were being used in Jerusalem in Jesus's lifetime. https://www.facebook.com/reel/28083822031231543?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e Also https://www.facebook.com/reel/579097194875877?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e [#Top of page]] # Dan McClellen on Christian apologetics. Dan has had several videos tangling with one particular apologist by the name of Pastor Kyle Bailey (The content creator), Who mentions a man named Professor Habermas. This is the first one: https://fb.watch/wSCzrLr9By/? In this video Dan discusses a rhetorical technique in which the word "apology" (Which Dan defines as "defending the historicity of a miracle") is generalized in such a way as to make Dan an apologist of LDS religious doctrine By claiming that apology is any defense whatsoever Dan responds that he has never done That, no one has ever been able to point to any instances of him doing that, and it is an illicit generalization (To mean the defense of the historical accuracy of any particular item) when the conversation is about a technical term ("Christian apologetics") To try to generalize it to mean any sort of defense whatsoever which, as I've pointed out and Dan points out he hasn't done anyway. Dan Poses the following scenario: 'if I ran into you on the street and I said single "I'm studying apologetics" you wouldn't ask me "what am I defending". You would know exactly what I I mean when I say that.' Besides the fallacies Bayley is using 11. Cherry picking 12. Definition of fallacy, also I believe called the etymological fallacy And the second https://fb.watch/wSCzrLr9By/? This one is a bit more subtle, and again it's from the same creator. Here Bayley is discussing a particular confluence of text which Dan has claimed our contradictory and Bayley claims are not. The two texts are 13. Second Chronicles 22 14. Second kings 9 Dan claims that these two passages contradict each other. Bayley claims that that's not true and Applies an interpretive methodology Dan fines deceptive and disingenuous. In particular, Dan complains that Bayley is characterizing his objection. Dan described the Interpretation being presented as being "implausible" but Bayley response that Dan was really saying that the interpretation was "Impossible". Upon that equivocation Bailey's argument rests and remove that equivocation and Bailey's argument fails. The knob of the issue is the first sentence in the clip: "to claim an **explicit** contradiction ... would require you to prove that there are no possible harmonizations, and in this case there are." By "harmonization's" he means interpretations of the text which will allow for his interpretation to win out. Dan's criticisms are… 15. They "arrogate" to themselves the authority to tell any other person the meaning of the words being used, even denying the other person the right to define their own terms. Dan doesn't say this, but it's a version of the **etymological fallacy** 16. The implicit assumption Of **Univocality** 17. Number two is used by the apologists to fashion a narrative that is not supported by the data and actually require requires ignoring the data. As Dan says This assumption of Uni vocality imposes on the text more authority than the text itself. He discusses this in particular but I won't go into it here.2025-01-022025-01-02 [#Top of page]] # The Bible is not a moral guidebook https://www.facebook.com/reel/3865700803703893?fs=e&fs=e --also-- https://fb.watch/wTXlEpi8E-/? Dan gives three reasons why he believes the Bible cannot constitute a "objective basis" for morality 18. First there is no such thing as "the Bible". There are "Bibles" and they say different things but there is no one single "the Bible". There are many different versions and many different texts and many different variances so we have to decide which of those texts and variants We choose as our "basis for morality" and the only way we do that is by achieving some consensus. So our basis is in reality just an agreement among various people on what's going to constitute a basis therefore it is not "objective" 19. Then there is the issue of translation. The majority of the apologies to make this argument are doing so from texts appearing in translation and translation is riddled with subjectivity. Therefore, many of the morally freighted passages in the Bible are translated in multiple and sometimes contradictory ways. In which translation you choose will have strong effect on the moral lessons that you glean from the text. 20. But even once you've agreed on which texts you're going to use and which translation you're going to use there can still be disagreements on moral questions even When the justification is biblical. For example, in the 19th century you could have people supporting slavery and others of slavery and both using the Bible to justify their argument arguments. Same Bible, same translation, different moral arguments. So, his claim is that the Consistency you see among people arguing about morality has more to do with social identity than it does with the ability to base their morality on something like the Bible. And people who argue at the Bible is a moral foundation are2025-01-03 just arguing in a circle. [#Top of page]] # claims on transmission accuracy of the Bible and on its historicity. https://fb.watch/wTYrbVWoGg/? #BiblicalHistoricity Dan reviews a video in which a guy makes two claims: first that we have manuscripts back to about 60 years after Christ death and, secondly, that there's a 98.6% Transmission accuracy And the only differences were in punctuation, spelling of divine names and abbreviations. ## dating of the first manuscripts for the New Testament Dan says the first one we have is from the dead Sea scrolls about 100 years after Christ's death, and after that there is a black hole for some century or two before the manuscripts which we're starting to be assembled for the New Testament. Therefore, inside that black hole anything could've happened to the text and we wouldn't know a thing about it. ## Transmission accuracy #BiblicalTransmissionAccuracy https://fb.watch/wWzfxqEd0B/? In order to know whether we had transmission accuracy we'd have to have an original text, which we don't. In the black hole mentioned above, anything could've happened to the texts and we wouldn't know a thing about it. All we know about is the accuracy once texts start being assembled which happens in the second and third century CE, and we don't have a complete New Testament until the fourth century CE, at the earliest. But even in that time. The 98.6% is a fabrication, although it might be based on another number that was a guesstimate by one scholar who said that if you compared Erasmus' Translation with a modern reconstruction of the text you would have a .5% difference in meaning, but that's still a difference in meaning on every page in the Bible. Oh, and the claims about punctuation spelling of names and such are all wrong. First off we didn't use punctuation in the earliest manuscripts nor did they capitalize things and both the spelling of divine names and even normal names as well as the use of abbreviations and their variance was quite well spread in addition to other differences. ## more on the claim that we have extensive source text - 5800 texts dating back to the 2nd century CE. **NO**. The majority of the manuscripts we have are from after the 10th century. - They all agree. **NO**. All these have many variations. And these can be significant Then there is the issue that there is a one to two century gap between the events and the first manuscript witnesses and we no **absolutely nothing** about the variations during that period. [#Top of page]] # Satan isn't in the Hebrew Bible Satan is a construct they came along later, long after the Hebrew Bible had been composed, in the common era. The noun **satan** just Means adversary or accuser. In the book of Job, you have a new development **hasatan**, the satan , which Dan says is not a name but Moore a title identifying a role in the "divine council" of the Israelite pantheon. In Greco Roman Judaism the noun Satan turns into a class name, there is reference to a group of people that are the "Satan's" It isn't until the New Testament that you start having a creature named "Satan" who is malevolent and in fact malevolence personified. Then, after the New Testament, they take the developed idea of Satan and work backwards through the Bible identifying each of these Proto Satan's with the personified malevolence that was only created after the creation of the New Testament. # YWHW is a later addition to the Israelite Pantheon https://www.facebook.com/reel/1325333951975863?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e https://www.facebook.com/reel/570607345865625?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e [#Top of page]] # The effects of sociology on the translation of the Bible https://fb.watch/wV28j5VBB0/? Dan is discussing in this video how translations can be used to enforce social norms. In particular he's talking about the ESV translation of the Bible and an article given in the next link discussing how that translation serves to subjugate women. Dan's examples ## Genesis 3:16 ESV > Your desire shall be contrary to your husband,   but he shall rule over you.” With a footnote saying that the "contrary to" could also be rendered as "Toward". RSV > yet your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you.” Dan says that this is just simple manipulation of the text. ## Ephesians 5:21-22 The ESV splits the verse up and away and adds a heading just before verse 22 while the RSV keeps both together and Implies that the relationship is mutual submission while the ESV strongly implies that the wife is submitting to the husband. ESV > 20 giving thanks always and for everything to God the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, 21 submitting to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, submit to your own husbands, as to the Lord RSV > 21 Be subject to one another out of reverence for Christ. 22 Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. ## 1 Timothy 5:14 ESV > 14 So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, manage their households, and give the adversary no occasion for slander. RSV > 14 So I would have younger widows marry, bear children, rule their households, and give the enemy no occasion to revile us. The issue is the use of the word rule versus the use of the word manage. Dan says the verb clearly means rule so downgrading it to merely management is misleading. ## 1 Corinthians 14:33-35 Many scholars believe that these verses are a later addition to Corinthians. Similar to first Timothy they may not have been written by Paul. > (As in all the churches of the saints, 34 women should be silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be subordinate, as the law also says. 35 If there is anything they desire to know, let them ask their husbands at home. For it is shameful for a woman to speak in church The reason for believing it's an interpretation is because the subject matter is different both before and after and there are several places on either side where either women are mentioned along with men as taking part in the service or they are not specifically prohibited as they are in this passage. ## Romans 16:1 This is the Phoebe quote mentioned above. The particular example is from a whole line epistle that mentions the deaconess Phoebe. In the ESV the word deaconess has changed to servant, with the correct rendering given as a footnote. A 'deaconess' is not a **servant** ESV > [**1**](http://biblehub.com/romans/16-1.htm)I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a servant[a](https://biblehub.com/esv/romans/16.htm#footnotes "Or deaconess") of the church at Cenchreae, [**2**](http://biblehub.com/romans/16-2.htm)that you may welcome her in the Lord in a way worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever she may need from you, for she has been a patron of many and of myself as well. RSV > 16 I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deaconess of the church at Cen′chre-ae, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/334708047_The_Bible_as_a_Product_of_Cultural_Power_The_Case_of_Gender_Ideology_in_the_English_Standard_Version [#Top of page]] # problems with the king James Bible https://www.facebook.com/reel/422236344285706?fs=e&fs=e People argue on the right wing side of things that we should be only using the king James version rather than the newer translations. Some of the claims are... ## The newer translations remove things. The content creator in the video linked above complained about a passage in Matthew from the sermon on the mount where Jesus says that he who is "angry at his brother will be in danger of judgment", whereas the king James version says he who is "angry at his brother without cause" and complains about the removal of the "without cause." This is Matthew 5:22 Dan demonstrates that the phrase "without cause" was a later Interpolation, appearing as a marginal note in the _Codex Sianaticus_. The earliest Sources do not have the phrase "without a cause" So the guy is getting upset about the restoration of the original text. So Dan asks: "why?" And the reason is, it can flicks with his Dogma. [#Top of page]] # The first two chapters of the gospel of Luke are additions https://www.facebook.com/reel/1084406496585660?fs=e&fs=e Reason 21. The Greek of chapters one and two is quite different from the Greek of the rest of the gospel. 22. Luke 3 begins the way you would expect a gospel to begin 23. And after the baptism of Jesus Luke goes on to say "let's talk about where Jesus came from", but that's precisely what is in chapters one and two, so why are they recapping it in This later chapter? 24. The rest of Luke doesn't discuss the miraculous events which take place in chapters one and two. Scholars seem to think that the ladder addition came about as a result of a reaction to Marcion, A prominent Christian in the early church in the 2nd century CE, who seems to have denied that Jesus was a real human (a dociest), And this may have caused people to want to firm up the story of Jesus's earthly verse as well as the miracles associated with them. Marcioni's cannon Was nothing more than the gospel of Luke and the epistles of Paul. ## another video on this topic. https://fb.watch/wWLXmx0HQ1/? [#Top of page]] # an extended discussion of a creator calling Dan a liar https://fb.watch/wVxz0rwHQK/? In this video Dan responds to a creator who calls Dan a liar for how he discusses a passage in Matthew that describes Jesus writing on two animals, a colt and a donkey, into Jerusalem. Apparently this passage was meant to be a fulfillment of a prophecy in Zachariah nine. The criticism is that Dan is not Reading the pronouns and prepositions correctly and he is also not understanding the oppositional combination of the various elements of the story. Dan responds graciously by saying that the creator is correct in pointing out a mistake he made (he referred to a pronoun as a preposition) but then goes onto convincingly argue that the creator has gotten the story wrong and in particular the same story appearing in Luke shows that he's gotten it wrong. As a sidenote, the story and Luke shows Jesus asking for one creature, a cult, while in Matthew asking for two. Those are contradictory claims. At the end, Dan rebuke the creator for not engaging in good faith and gives an example of another instance of him not engaging in good faith to dialogue: #maklelen1776 [#Top of page]] # issac was actually sacrificed by Abraham in earliest Judaic traditions https://www.facebook.com/reel/1655534445060942?fs=e&fs=e [#Top of page]] # on Onanism https://www.facebook.com/reel/814047653961641?fs=e&fs=e See Deuteronomy 5:5 through 10 Slow slowly getting ready to go Also https://www.facebook.com/reel/2764524820602825?fs=e&fs=e [#Top of page]] # on the question of contradictions in the Bible and is it always possible to create a narrative where they don't exist. Haven't done much work on this section yet, basically I'm using it to how's Videos dealing with claims that contradictions can be rationalized away https://www.facebook.com/reel/1106992413946718?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e ## [On the contradictory accounts of Judas' death](https://www.facebook.com/danmcclellann/videos/661499053140843/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e) #Judas #FieldOfBlood #30PiecesOfSilver One account talks about Judas hanging himself and another account mentions of Potters-field. The creator wants to try to jam them together in such a way that Judith's body, after hanging for several days and decomposing falls from the potter's field. Dan says that it doesn't count for all of the discrepancies. In Matthew's account, Judas goes back to the priests and throws the money at them and then goes and hangs himself. The priests have to decide what to do with the money and decide to buy the potters field because the money they were using was "blood money" paid for Jesus's blood and thus the field they bought came to be known as the "field of blood" However, according to #Acts, Judas acquired that field with his money and then after that he fell headfirst or headlong and burst open and his blood flowed out and that is the reason why the field is called the "field of blood" So the creator's explanation ignores What happened to the money, the origin of the field, and the origin of its name. Also, The explanation doesn't work because The account in Acts Says that Judas fell "head first" or "head long" and That's not how bodies fall from being hanged. Is it possible? Yes. Is it plausible? Not really. Is it supported by anything in the text? Not at all. So, as Dan says we're back to the apologetic ploy of proposing in an argument and then arguing that because it is not impossible it must be true. But that requires at least the task acceptance of a presupposition and therefore constitutes an instance of begging the question. [#Top of page]] # Gematria and secret codes in the Bible #TheGodCode #Gematria #BibleCodes https://fb.watch/x3ypo2KkhI/? [#Top of page]] # on Univocality #univocality #BeggingTheQyestion #PetitioPrincipii https://fb.watch/x41Qw39-9A/? Instances where there is a contradiction between gospel accounts which apologist attempt to paper over. ## Another video on this topic https://www.facebook.com/reel/1301282011214440 [#Top of page] # Rendering elohim as 'judges' https://www.facebook.com/reel/555429130987874?fs=e&fs=e Dan says that this is always wrong and gives a specific example from the NET. In Exodus 21:6 there is a discussion about what to do if a slave doesn't wish to leave after six years and the NET says that he should be brought "before the judges". The word use there is Elohim. In the footnote they give as a reason arguments made in two different papers (see the last two sentences of the footnote) and Dan says that this is a complete miss reading of those papers and that in fact they argue exactly the opposite, that the proper translation is "gods" It could mean that they're discussing the little figurines that were thought of as gods, something along the lines of the "family gods" that you see in Roman households. Dan says that This may be a reference to "penates" Or "teraphim", Or little figurines That were household gods. [#Top of page] # A disagreement with a particular biblical apologist about the nature of prophecy which has gone on for quite some time and gotten fairly heated https://www.facebook.com/reel/475509485397509?fs=e&fs=e This is back to the prophecies in Jonah and whether they are conditional or absolute. There's some discussion of this further up the page [[#Top of page]] # What are the Nephilim https://www.facebook.com/reel/1130107565336643?fs=e&fs=e According to Dan, they are a Complete and total literary invention. ## Genesis 6 - They are either the product of the procreative act taking place between the children of God and the children of humanity. - they are creatures that were already on earth when the children of God and the children of humanity engaged in these procreative acts. ## Numbers Apparently they survived the flood. In the Septuagint The word is sometimes translated as giants. [[#Top of page]] # YHWH was not the original god of Israel https://www.facebook.com/reel/1234342074449230?fs=e&fs=e Originally the patron God of Israel was the aged and patriarchal El thus the name 'Isra-el' (El contends) #Mernepta Stele discusses the group "Israel "andthe God "el' In 1208 or 1210 BCE. No references to Yahweh before 300 years after that. So, either the patron Dede shifted from El to Yahweh, or (this is the scholarly consensus) El and Yahweh were conflated. Another vid on this topic? https://fb.watch/yGsOKwS64p/ [[#Top of page]] # The Loci of cognition and emotion in the Old Testament https://fb.watch/xg-mDFezbz/ A question is put to Dan about a verse from Jeremiah that discusses the deceitfulness of the heart; she said she's been through lots of grief and has been finding herself more inclined to trust her 'heart' and her 'body' (i.e. 'gut') to find the solutions to her quandries. He identifies that verse as Jeremiah 17:9, which the NRSVUE renders as > The Heart is devious above all else > It is perverse. Who can understand it. The whole section is... 5 This is what the Lord says: “Cursed is the one who trusts in man,     who draws strength from mere flesh     and whose heart turns away from the Lord. 6 That person will be like a bush in the wastelands;     they will not see prosperity when it comes. They will dwell in the parched places of the desert,     in a salt land where no one lives. 7 “But blessed is the one who trusts in the Lord,     whose confidence is in him. 8 They will be like a tree planted by the water     that sends out its roots by the stream. It does not fear when heat comes;     its leaves are always green. It has no worries in a year of drought     and never fails to bear fruit.” 9 The heart is deceitful above all things     and beyond cure.     Who can understand it? 10 “I the Lord search the heart     and examine the mind, to reward each person according to their conduct,     according to what their deeds deserve.” Dan says there are two things to keep in mind about this passage. 25. In the ancient world, the 'heart' was the locus of cognition while the 'guts' were the locus of emotion. Whenever a translation renders 'mind', it's almost always the Hebrew word for 'heart'. For example: Dan gives Jeremiah 17:10 as 'I YHWH search the heart, I test the kidneys' 26. He then goes on to divide cognition into an 'intuitive' side and a 'reflective' side. The former is mostly based on evolution and conditioning, it is *quick* and mostly out of our control. The latter is based on reason, evidence and logic, but is also based on education and, to some extent, conditioning. They can conflict. And when they do 2 things can happen 1. Decoupling: The reflective side overrule the intuitive side 2. Rationalization: the reflective side uses the information from the intuitive side to fashion a narrative which the person finds comfortable. In short: the intuitive side overrules the reflective side. Indoctrination growing up is embedded in the *intuitive* side. [#Top of page]] # on the story of Hamm finding Noah naked https://fb.watch/xiQ-t3aAUb/? [[#Top of page]] # Amateur 2025-01-242025-01-24Exegete https://amateurexegete.com/2024/08/08/bible-study-for-amateurs-66-an-amateurs-toolbox-the-sbl-study-bible/ [[#Top of page]] # Does the bible # McClellan refutes [[JD Vance]] on the Interpretation of the Ordo Amoris https://youtu.be/q3Jd0kmZ1ck?si=h05XUgXVuCPD9rAs https://youtu.be/q3Jd0kmZ1ck?si=d3LG2WTz6D7TrgBe Vance argues that it is sound biblical doctrine to love those closest to you, whether by family or community, and only then 'love' those who are less closely connected, or even strangers to you. >You love your family, then you love your neighbor, then you love your community, then you love your fellow citizens of your country and then **after that** you can focus and prioritize the rest of the world. McClellan pushes back against this by saying that this is a 'Christian' Concept in that Christian Nationalists use this as a rhetorical smokescreen for their bigotry to dismiss the obvious meaning of biblical passage and Christian Doctrine, as seen in Augustine and Aquinas. The video doesn't show Vance specifically using the two sources discussed below, but I'm pretty sure that he must, at some point, mention them. But Vance's views are both **inaccurate** and **insincere** 27. This is *not* Christian doctrine, if you're using as a basis for that claim the assertions of Agustine or Aquinas. It purports to be Agustine's _Ordo Amoris_ (Order of Love), or Aquinas' _Order of Charity_, but it is neither. McClellan says that what Vance describes is what they call the _natural order_, a natural impulse to prioritize proximity (as Vance is doing, and as is observed in what some philosophers of ethics call 'Common Sense Morality') but for both this natural inclination is supposed to be *subordinated* to the divine order. For both Augustine and Aquinas, you are supposed to love God and love your neighbor, but the latter category is universal: all people are you neighbor. This immediately refutes Vance's claims. 28. If you love those closest to you, to the harm of those 'farther away' (in the sense of being less proximate to you), than that love is 'disordered' and in violation of God's law. 29. Augustine recognizes you can't equally distribute love to everyone on the earth, but he suggests that heirarchize according to the _accident of proximity_[^11] Thus you do love the undocumented immigrant in your town less than the native born stranger, you love them the same and aid them in the same way. 30. Aquinas takes a slightly different approach, with much the same result. If you love someone close to you to the harm of someone far away, that love is *disordered* 31. So, Vance has **misrepresented** the _Ordo Amoris_ and the _Order of Charity_ by, in fact, **inverting and undoing** the hierarchy that they established, placing the _natural order_, based on the accident of proximity and placing that **above** the conclusions of Augustine and Aquinas. 32. In fact, Vance's claims are a cynical and tendentious misreading of doctrine formulated with the sole purpose of justifying his white nationalism. Moreover, Vance is more than happy to neglect people in his own community, continually opposing programs that support the poor and vulnerable in furtherance of his white nationalist authoritarian and social dominance ideology, those people don't count and all he's really interested in is power. As McClellan points out > Vance is not suggesting we can't take care of others until we take care of our own, because Vance is not interested in 'taking care of our own.' Even Pope Francis has called out. Anne for his defense of deportations. As well as several other commentators on all things Catholic. As Daniel Gallagher writes in [The ‘Ordo Amoris’ and Half-Truths](https://www.thecatholicthing.org/2025/02/05/the-ordo-amoris-and-half-truths/) He gives two opposing essays, one agreeing with Vance and the other disagreeing. He identifies the first as being only a "Half truth". > Indeed, the “inestimable worth” of my neighbor’s son _must_ take priority when I spot him receiving a caress from a suspected kidnapper, but the “inestimable worth” of my own son demands that I attend to helping him achieve his full potential even if my neighbor’s dad is neglecting the potential of his son. > But if we stop there, we’ve only identified a “half-truth” about Christian love. That is why [Kat Armas](https://www.ncronline.org/opinion/guest-voices/jd-vance-wrong-jesus-doesnt-ask-us-rank-our-love-others) is also correct in pointing out that Christian _agape_ “is ultimately not about love confined to bloodlines or geographic boundaries. It’s about love rooted in responsibility, expanding outward.” > In other words, I may in fact be neglecting my own son’s Christian maturation if he senses that I couldn’t care less about the neighbor’s son and how his dad treats him.  Inviting the boy over to join in our basketball game may represent precisely the difference between the “pure and undefiled religion” that compels us to “care for orphans and widows in their affliction.” (James 1:27) and the merely classical sense of _ordo amoris._ And there is this take, from David Cassidy, [Augustine, Aquinas, the Veep, and the Ordo Amoris](https://www.davidpcassidy.com/blog/thomas-aquinas-and-the-ordo-amoris-a-response-to-jd-vances-interpretation) > Since there will be a lot of Latin in this post, the answer to the question above is _sic et non -_ yes and no. Yes, there is a hierarchy of loves. No, the hierarchy of loves doesn’t _eliminate_ responsibility for neighbors “far” as we care for neighbors “near.” Far from it. In fact, the ordo _informs_ it. Let’s dig in. Later In the essay, David says the following: > The Vice President appears to suggest that love for one’s own nation ought to override moral obligations to non-citizens or those in other lands, grounding this claim in a selective reading of Aquinas. However, a deeper engagement with Aquinas, Augustine, and later interpreters such as Ralph McInerny and John Paul II—especially touching on the Pastoral Constitution _Gaudium et Spes_ promulgated by Paul VI as a defining document for Catholic social teaching following Vatican II - demonstrates that such a view distorts the _Ordo Amoris_ and its ethical precepts. And Pope Francis discussed the matter in a letter to Catholic bishops. [Pope Francis, Vance Clash Over ‘Ordo Amoris’](https://www.ncregister.com/cna/pope-francis-vance-clash-over-ordo-amoris?utm_source=chatgpt.com) > [Writing to the U.S. bishops](https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2025/documents/20250210-lettera-vescovi-usa.html) on the topic of migration, the pope wrote Feb. 10 that “an authentic rule of law is verified precisely in the dignified treatment that all people deserve, especially the poorest and most marginalized,” which he said “does not impede the development of a policy that regulates orderly and legal migration.” > However, “this development cannot come about through the privilege of some and the sacrifice of others,” Pope Francis said.  > “Christian love is not a concentric expansion of interests that little by little extend to other persons and groups,” the Pope [wrote](https://www.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/letters/2025/documents/20250210-lettera-vescovi-usa.html).  “In other words: The human person is not a mere individual, relatively expansive, with some philanthropic feelings! The human person is a subject with dignity who, through the constitutive relationship with all, especially with the poorest, can gradually mature in his identity and vocation,” he continued.  “The true ordo amoris that must be promoted is that which we discover by meditating constantly on the parable of the ‘good Samaritan’ (cf. Lk 10:25-37), that is, by meditating on the love that builds a fraternity open to all, without exception.” Here is Pope Francis' response to Vance's claims. [Pope Francis, Vance Clash Over ‘Ordo Amoris’](https://www.ncregister.com/cna/pope-francis-vance-clash-over-ordo-amoris?utm_source=chatgpt.com), some of which is quoted in David Gallagher's essay above. [[#Top of page]] # Are American Christians committed to a religion of 'whiteness?' https://www.facebook.com/reel/1375168276979114 McClellan using the book _The Religion of Whiteness, How racism distorts religion_ (Michael O. Emerson, Glenn E. Bracey II) as his jumping off point. [[#Top of page]] # Christian Nationalists condemned by Biblical Prophets https://www.facebook.com/17841400975423848/videos/1824791864949771/ > Today's Chrstian Nationalists stand condemned by the prophets of the Hebrew Bible and Jesus in the New Testament. Of course, the didn't exist at the times these prophets were wrting, but there were certainly people who engaged in the same behavior as the current crop of Christian Nationalists -- ostentatious and costly displays of religious 'fervor' and _virtue signalling_ -- to advance their own interest and structure the political landscape to favor them above others, notably minorities. An example: Dan cites is the condemnation of Bishop Marianne Edgar Budde. In that homily she directly addressed Trump, asking him to 'have mercy' for the marginalized. Trump, (predictably), was outraged and demanded an apology, which Budde said she would not give.[^12] The pertinent section of the text reads... > In the name of our God, I ask you to have mercy upon the people in our country who are scared now. There are transgender children in both Republican and Democrati families who fear for their lives. > And the people who pick our crops and clean our office buildings; who labor in our poultry farms and meat-packing plants; who wash the dishes after we eat in restaurants and work the night shift in hospitals—they may not be citizens or have the proper documentation, but the vast majority of immigrants are not criminals.They pay taxes, and are good neighbors. They are faithful members of our churches, mosques and synagogues, gurdwara, and temples. > Have mercy, Mr. President, on those in our communities whose children fear that their parents will be taken away. Help those who are fleeing war zones and persecution in their own lands to find compassion and welcome here. Our God teaches us that we are to be merciful to the stranger, for we were once strangers in this land. McClellan says that the sentiments expressed are 'perfectly in line with the Prophetic Critique in the Hebrew bible, as well as in the New Testament (Jesus expresses such ideas multiple times, e.g. Matthew 9:13) > 13 Go and learn what this means, “I desire mercy, not sacrifice.” For I have come to call not the righteous but sinners.’[^13] In Hosea 6:6 > 6 For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt-offerings.[^14] And Luke 6:17-25 where Jesus reads from Isaiah > and the scroll of the prophet Isaiah was given to him. He unrolled the scroll and found the place where it was written: > 18 ‘The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. > He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives and recovery of sight to the blind, to let the oppressed go free, 19 to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favour.’ Jesus addresses the proper relation of the _preformative_ nature of ritual to the _actual_ meaning and required practice of the law. As McClellan says... >The purpose of the law is to generate mercy, righteousness and a just society. If the _performative aspects of the law_ (e.g. sacrifices) are done in furtherance of a different goal (for example, advancing in social standing or in pursuit of political power, then those performances because a **sinful**. This is the Prophetic Critique in Isaiah, Hosea, Micah, Amos, Jeremiah. It is a critique of those who prioritize the 'performative' aspects over the substance or *purpose* of the law. The Christian Nationalists have responded with invective and abuse, condemning the Bishop for having the temerity to put in apposition what the Bible says, with what Trump is actually **doing**. Mike Collins from GA says "The person giving this sermon should be added to our deportation list" Someone on XTwitter named Toddstarns says that the "National Cathedral has become a sanctuary of Satan" saying that what Bishop Budde said was her "spewing hate at Donald Trump." Just savor that for a moment: It is 'satanic' to ask for mercy. An example of pure _performative_ religiosity which is completely at odds with the substance of the religion: Trump sending police with tear gas and other chemical irritiants , concussion grenades, rubber bullets and low flying helicopters to clear out a square in front of St. John's so that Trump could have a photo-op in front of the Church (he hadn't gotten permission from the church to do this) where he held the bible backwards and upside-down. [^15] Police actually went onto the property of the church to remove clergy and church volunteers! > Police were pushing clergy and church volunteers off the patio of St. John's Church by 6:30 p.m. Police on foot and mounted police on horses began moving the crowd west along H Street, towards  by 6:35 p.m. As McClellan says: > He's doing precisely what the prophets in the Hebrew Bible and Jesus in the New Testament condemn. [[#Top of page]] # Is the Trinity in the Bible https://www.facebook.com/reel/1149189309922506?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e No. If you assume inspiration and you assume univocality and you assume inerrancy, then you can go through the Bible and pick the parts you want, and make sure to omit those you don't want, and stick to them together like Legos in order to arrive at the concept of the Trinity. But since none of those are true, the concept itself isn't in the Bible, it is a philosophical framework that arises in the second and third century CE. The creator of the video McClellan is replying to poses a counter argument. 33. Do you believe that God is Omniscient? Well do you find that word in the bible 34. Do you believe that God is Omnipresent. And then asks: why do you believe things that aren't in the bible? Dan's answer is that most of Christian Theology isn't from the bible, they are post-biblical philosophical innovations. And _Omniscience_ and _Omnipresence_ are only found in inchoate forms in the more philosophical writings in the Hebrew bible. I would add that the fact that neither these words nor even their underlying ideas are in the bible in a way which is indisputable, therefore it's not justified to believe in them if you're taking only the bible as the source for belief. ## another video on this topic https://fb.watch/yaH_6Qgm1x/? ## and a third, the Bible never mentions the Trinity https://fb.watch/or-9WiGASD/?mibextid=Gd9JSz the creater says: what about ... Matthew 28:19 (which says...) #Matthew28-19 > 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Dan responds that 'nothing in this text **requires** the philosphical framework of 3 co-equal, co-eternal and consubstantial persons comprising the single _ousea_ or essence or being of God. That conceptual package didn't even exist yet.' Basically, the creator is claiming that the *meaning* of the text is that these are three in one, but the *text itself* doesn't say that, and the history of the concept of the Trinity shows that this concept didn't come about for another 2 or 3 centuries. This genesis of the concept over the course of centures can be charted and followed. He goes on to say that they developed this concept because they were trying to solve a problemm, what Dan calls the 'Algebra Problem of the New Testament': namely that Jesus is distinguished from God, and yet is also identified with him and able to do things which only God can do. There are multiple ways to solve this problem. - Adoptionist Christologies - Animationist Christologies - Imagist Christologies - Angelmorphic Christologies - Pneumatic Christologies there are a number of ways to solve this _Algebra Problem_. So, after the New Testament is canonized, the leaders have to look back and say "this is all inspired, so it all has to mean the same thing" and they come up with the Trinity: the 3-in-one, coevel, coeternal, consubstantial framework we know today. But the authors of the Gospels didn't have that in mind when they wrote passages that would later be used to justify the Trinity. For all we know, the author of Matthew may have thought of those three as three different beings, or substances, or existents. Dan goes on to say there are other passages that are more problematic, but this isn't one. So the creator's argument is just one big _Petitio Principii_. As Dan says: "we don't need the Trinity to explain this passage". #Titus2-13 > 11 For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all,[[a](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus%202%3A10-14&version=NRSVA#fen-NRSVA-29903a "See footnote a")] 12 training us to renounce impiety and worldly passions, and in the present age to live lives that are self-controlled, upright, and godly, 13 while we wait for the blessed hope and the manifestation of the glory of our great God and Saviour,[[b](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Titus%202%3A10-14&version=NRSVA#fen-NRSVA-29905b "See footnote b")] Jesus Christ. 14 He it is who gave himself for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity and purify for himself a people of his own who are zealous for good deeds. Dan points out that the Greek could also be interpreted to be referring to Jesus appositionally as _the glory of our great God and savior_. So is Jesus the 'glory' of our Great God and Savior, or is he the Great God and Savior? So, again, the choice of the interpretation depends on already believing a dogma. But lets assume that Jesus is the _Great God and Savior_. This is just the algebra problem again, so we're back to where we were with the quote from Matthew. And Dan's point is that the answer the creator wants **was not available to the author of the text** and would not be available until centuries later. While we do have the concept of the #Trinity by the end of the 2nd century CE, it is not the Trinity as we know it. Iin particular, the concept of _consubstantiality_ (Homoousios or δμοουσιος, or being _of one substance with the Father_) was explicitly rejected by the theologians of the 1st and 2nd centuries CE and was actually declared to be _heresy_ (I asked this question of ChatGPT: it's response is [here](https://chatgpt.com/share/67dcac07-2c28-8003-83b4-0b214122b04a). Basically the concept wasn't as well developed as it would become in the 3rd and 4th centuries, and for some theologians (Justin Martyr and Irenaeus), Christ was subordinate to God. Also, the Holy Spirit was less defined, a sort of 'force' or 'power' and not so distinct as a person). These theologians didn't understand the Trinity as it was finalized in #Nicea in 325 CE. The technical issue here is how to separate the Hypostasis (i.e. the *person*) from the Ousia, the *being*, *essence* or *substance*. In the 2nd century they hadn't come up with a way of separating those two, and they were frequently used as synonnyms. But in the 3rd and 4th they did, we can disentangle to the two and then we can *multiply* the hypostasis (the beings) in the one _ousia_ and get 3 _consubstantial_ beings with the same _substance_: and the modern concept of the Trinity was born. The upshot, in this response to this creator, is that the modern day conception of the Trinity is not available to the authors of this text, so if you're understanding them to mean the modern day concept, then you're bring that interpretation to the text, and not taking it away. And that **begs the question**. Dan mostly agrees that in Titus and in #2Peter1-1 (one of the latests texts of the bible) the authors were actually identifying Jesus as God, but how that works is unclear, and it most certainly wasn't the way that involves the modern conception of the Trinity, because that conceptualization came much later. #2Corintians3-17 > 17 Now the Lord is the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is freedom. Without even seeing Dan's reply, I can guess that he's going to say that this doesn't even mention Jesus, so it can't be evidence for the Trinity. And even if we somehow bring Jesus in with this quote, it still suffers all the other objections already raised. But.. Dan says: pretty much what I just said. Although he does point out that the Trinity does not assert that Jesus *is the Spirit*, but that he, the Spirit and God are *consubstantial*. Jesus and _the Spirit_ 'are both God, but they're not each other, just as the Son is not the Father.' Dan says that this is not the way the text should be interpreted and then says it's a 'Pesher like statement on the part of Paul' ( #Pesher #Perherlike) A #Pesherlike statement (see the ChatGPT link above), in this instance, is one that has a special meaning. In the part just before this passage Paul has been interpreting a passage from Exodus and here Paul is saying that, in the Exodus passage, when reference is made to _the Lord_, what is meant is _the Spirit_ Fromthis point the creator sidetracks into Dan's claims about God having a wife. The creator says it's _the church_, in the way a wife gives her life to her spouse and Christ gave his life for our sins. Dan replies that it's the New Testament metaphor, but it doesn't explain the passages in the Hebrew bible that point to the Israelite goddess named #Asherah who in the earliest periods of Israels history was understood to be the wife or consort of the high deity #El and then, when #El and #YHWH were conflated, she become #YHWH wife/consort/partner. (It's why we have inscriptions like the one Dan shows at TS 8:31) showing #YHWH of Shomron (which is Samaria) with #Asherah. That changed around the time of #Josiah who engaged in a centralization and cosolodation of religious cults, and demonized any other deities that were worshipped at any other shrines, making the worship of #YHWH the only permissible deity, within the Jerusalem temple (where he could rake in the bucks!) which he could control. There are archeological discoveries that point to the worship of these other deities, and #Asherah in particular. And the creator complains about Dan's assertions that the Bible says there's more than one God. What about #Isaiah45-5-6 > 5 I am the Lord, and there is no other; >    besides me there is no god. >    I arm you, though you do not know me, > 6 so that they may know, from the rising of the sun >    and from the west, that there is no one besides me; >    I am the Lord, and there is no other. Dan replies that this isn't asserting that no other Gods exists, but only that, in relation to Israel, no other gods matter. We can tell this because the same statement is found in #Deuteronomy32-39 > 39 See now that I, even I, am he; >    there is no god besides me. > I kill and I make alive; >    I wound and I heal; >    and no one can deliver from my hand. But then, in #Deuteronomy32-43 we see this. > 43 Praise, O heavens, his people,   >   worship him, all you gods > For he will avenge the blood of his children, >     and take vengeance on his adversaries; > he will repay those who hate him, >     and cleanse the land for his people. There are quite a few notes, which I've removed to make the passage more readible. You can see them [here](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=deuteronomy%2032%3A43&version=NRSVA) Dan makes an unclear remark (or at least its unclear to me), that this is, somehow, an earlier version (of what?) and the note says says "Q Ms Gk: MT lacks this line". I'm guessing the 'Q Ms Gk' is one of the dead-sea scrolls and I've found [this reference to scroll 4Q44 Deuteronomy^q](http://dssenglishbible.com/deuteronomy%2032.htm) that has the verse in question. Don't know what 'MT' is. Apparently this is called the _Song of Moses_ ( #SongOfMoses) and in it the singer (Moses?) calls upon the gods to worship #YHWH. So in the line quoted by the creater from #DeuteroIsaiah doesn't mean that no other God exists, but that, for the nation of Israel, #YHWH is the only one that matters. This can also see this sort of rhetoric when the nations of the world (Babylon, Ninevah) say similar things about themselves: clearly they're not saying that no other nations exists, but that they're the only city that _matters to their people_. In his video #Maklelan2615 he discusses the scholarshipt that show that #DeuteroIsaiah is not monotheistic. The creator 'replies' that the Bible discusses other gods, but that #YHWH condemns this whenever it's brought up, to which Dan says "and condemnation of the worshipt of other gods is not the same as denying the existence of other Gods" So the creator sums up with 1. The trinity is in the bible (no, the concept didn't exist until centuries later) 2. God is married to the church (no. Prior to #Josiah there is textural and archeological data that support the existance of a wife/consort/companion that was worshipped along with #YHWH) 3. And there is only one god (not according to #DeuteroIsaiah ) [[#Top of page]] # Yet another video on monotheism involving Deuteronomy, this time Deuteronomy 6:4 https://youtu.be/7fkJLCLy4X4?si=HwdC-4ffPf_IqHl_ # Did Jesus talk about abortion? https://www.facebook.com/reel/563706013333763?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e The creator says that Jesus, being the second person of the Trinity, is responsible for all of the Bible because Jesus is God and God wrote the Bible. McClellan Address is only the claim that the creator uses the Trinity, which is an idea that only came up in the fourth century ideas the result of Constantine requiring church fathers to come up with some coherent idea about Jesus's relationship to the God head, but it also suffers from the problem of "confounding the persons" I had to look that up and this is what ChatGPT has to say about that > The idea of not “confounding the persons” of the Trinity comes from early Christian theology, particularly in response to heresies that misunderstood the relationship between the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. To “confound” the persons means to blur or mix them together in a way that erases their distinctiveness. In orthodox Trinitarian doctrine, God is one in essence (or substance) but three in persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. Each person is fully God, yet they are not interchangeable or indistinguishable. > The Creeds > The main creeds that define Trinitarian doctrine and emphasize not “confounding the persons” include: 35. The Nicene Creed (325 AD, revised in 381 AD at Constantinople) – This creed affirms that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all fully God but distinct persons. It was written to counter Arianism, which denied the full divinity of the Son. 36. The Athanasian Creed (5th–6th century AD) – This creed is especially explicit about the Trinity, stating that the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, but they are not three Gods, just one. It warns against both dividing the divine essence and confusing the persons. 37. The Apostles’ Creed (early centuries, finalized around the 8th century) – While not as detailed in Trinitarian theology as the others, it affirms belief in the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and was an early baptismal confession. > The warning against 'confounding the persons' in these creeds ensures that Christians recognize the distinct roles and relationships within the _Trinity_ 2025-02-03without collapsing them into one undifferentiated divine person. [[#Top of page]] # Rebuttals of the man-boy [[Charlie Kirk]] Multiple rebuttals of [[Charlie Kirk]]'s statements about religion in general, or Christianity in particular ## Yes [[Charlie Kirk]], Jesus was a refugee. https://www.facebook.com/reel/554558670751356?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e Charlie Kirk attempts to present the argument that Jesus was not a refugee. McLean handling debunked him by pointing out that Judea was not part of the Roman empire and they had to cross an international border to get to Egypt. The very definition of a refugee. ## No, [[Charlie Kirk]], a plea for mercy is not 'wokeness' Rebuts Kirk's attacks Bishop Budde's call for mercy as 'spewing wokeness' https://fb.watch/xzOI7v7FO5/ # Kirk defends the truth of the bible with 4 points. When asked why he believes that Christianity is true, [[Charlie Kirk|Kirk]] raises 4 points. 1. No archeology has ever contradicted the Bible 2. The moral precepts of the bible always lead to a better life 3. The truth of the historicity of Jesus' life, ministry 4. The truth of his resurrection 1. And as a subsidiary point, how the story of his resurrection comes from women. His (only slightly? misogynist) view is that no one in the ancient world would have used _women_ to tell that story. Dan deals with each in turn. https://fb.watch/yo2RNA4M2F/ ## Claims no archeology has ever contradicted the bible. Before we get to McClellan's reply, I would point out that this argument is bizarre. Basically, he's saying that it's true, because no one has ever found evidence that contradicts it! But that's not the same thing as saying it's true because we've found evidence that supports the historicity of the bible! McClellan calls this claim **laughibly false**. He claims that - In the Hebrew Bible, pretty much everything set before 1000 BCE is implausible - The first historical figure who is plausible is David, and from him on down the plausibilty increases. - The narrative of who was reigning, who was in charge of nations, states, vassals is plausible, but many of the details are not accurate. But most of the contents of the bible is written **after the fact**, sometimes centuries after. (whd: and besides, who cares about the historicity of rulers and such: that's hardly much support for the claim of divine origin and message of the Bible) - In the New Testament, the historical narrative is much shorter, and in its **broad strokes** plausible, but again there are many inaccuracies, if not actual contradictions. The gospels conflict with each other in many says. So, in summary, the **best** we can do is say "with all the data, we can convince ourselves that it's **not impossible**." Not a very stunningly convincing argument, and certainly not justification for Kirk's smugness ## The morality of the Bible Kirk then goes on to say that there is 'the wisdom' and something along the lines of 'there is no moral precept in the bible that if you apply it to your life, your life does not improve' (paraphrasing) Again, McClellan says this is **laughibly false** and depends on you arrogating to yourself the prerogative to say what the bible is and is not allowed to say, and what it's message is, so that you can glean these _precepts_. This requires _negotiating_ the multiple voices in theby bible to produce the semblance of #univocality. Or, as McClellan says, you have to _sift through the many truths of the bible and say which count, and which don't._ Most of these _truths_ will come form the Hebrew bible (but more of the moral precepts there will be rejected, in one way or another (c.f. 'moral' law, versus 'civil' or 'ceremonial' law) but even in the New Testament (where more will be kept), there are some which will be rejected because they don't accord with the social structuring dear to [[Charlie Kirk|Kirk]], for example the statement in Matthew 19, about the morality of divorce, where Jesus advises that the most devoted will (in effect), castrate themselves. > 7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?” > 8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” > 10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.” > 11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”[^19] And, of course, these days they're rejecting the [[Sermon on the Mount]] as being _to woke_. ## Claims that the historical account of Jesus' life, works and resurrection is robust and uncontradicted. Again, McClellan says it's **laughably untrue**. We only have to look at the contradictions in the four gospels to see this. The disagree in many and fundamental ways on the details of. Jesus' birth, life, death and resurrection. And not in small ways, but in fundamental ways that **cannot all be true at the same time**. Challenging Kirk to justify his claims regarding these inconsistencies, we'll see an immediate retreat into the argument that so long as he can produce an explanation, by 'ginning' up hypothetical scenarios that are not in evidence, which explains away the inconsistency, and so long as these hypotheticals **aren't impossible**, he's free to claim whatever he wants. This is **worlds away from the original claim**! Dan says, of this, that [[Charlie Kirk|Kirk]], in both versions of the claim, is **performing conviction** for people who **already agree**, so that it reinforces their conviction. and that's the point, to reinforce the belief structure of those who already believe the resurrection. ## And then that Jesus rose from the dead. His argument here is that, because so many people willingly died because they believed in the resurrection, it must be true. (whd) But, after the first 30 years or so, **none of the people who chose martyrdom** could count as witnesses of the resurrection. Dan says that he's always been amazed and perplexed by this claim because it 'betrays not just a stunning ignorance of history, but of **Christian history**, which is littered with people who (as I just said above) can not be considered _witnesses_ of the resurrections, but who willfully, sometimes even gleefully sacrificed their lives because of their beliefs in the resurrection. As Dan says, 'in the name of something larger than themselves.' Which is the fundamental issue here: 'religious credences are always rooted in _identity politics_, in commitment to a social identity, participation in, belonging in, something people consider ng _larger than themselves_.' Which frequently incentivizes them to invest money, time in their religious, national or ethnic identity. Or family, or party, or _liberty_... any manner of identifiable groups to which people cleave and consider as forming part of their identity. We can see this throughout history. so the fact that the martyrs of the 2nd, 3rd, 4th centuries, whow can't possibly be considered **witnesses** to the resurrection don't count as **evidence for its truth**. So, that Jesus' followers did something that humankind has been doing since the beginning of time is proof that this impossible thing happened is just, well **laughable**. So this claim can only really be made of Jesus' immediate disciples. But even they suffer the same fault as the hundreds of martyrs that followed, not the least being Paul, who **is not a witness to the resurrection** and whose only evidence of the divinity of Jesus, and of the truth of the resurrection is the vision he has on the road to Damascus! ## And if you're going to fake a story, you wouldn't use female witnesses in the ancient world. This is a _false dilemma fallacy_. The choice isn't between 'true' and **faked**, but 'true', 'mistaken' and 'fake'. Kirk just skips over the second choice. Dan replies that he thinks there's a plausible case to make that the origin of the resurrection started with women sharing the story, but that doesn't mean that either the resurrection happened, or someone _invented_ the story of women sharing the story of Jesus' resurrection. This is the _false dilemma_ refered to above. All that's required is that the women shared the **conviction of the truth** of the resurrection. That's doesn't require that they are **lying**, or **faking** the story. They might be legitimately convinced. Again, human history is littered with examples of this. # yet another attempt to whitewash slavery in the Bible, attended by Charlie Kirk. https://fb.watch/yzHe7GyUUY/? On an interview show with Charlie Kirk, some guy tries to whitewash slavery by saying that when we discussed slavery nowadays we think about the slavery in the south, and that was nothing like the slavery in the Bible. There is a verse displayed in the scene: #Exodus20-20-21 With the explanation that it says you can beat your slaves. Dan disagrees. At the very least the claim is vague because there is not one particular type of slavery but several and the Bible is never very clear on all the various forms of slavery that existed. But where it is clear, it show that there are two types of slavery. - chattel slavery which has the same form as the slavery in the American south, and is endorsed explicitly in #Leviticus25-44-46. It is not race based, because the concept of "race" didn't exist at the time. However, it was certainly the case that some sort of Idea approximating ethnicity existed because the Israelites understood categories like Moabites, Canaanites and so on. This is fundamentally dishonest, it is lying about what the Bible says. - indentured servitude slavery. In the latter, and only if you are male, you are released after seven years. If you are a female -- And as Dan says this happens when a father sells his daughter into slavery-- then you are not: you are a slave for life. The category of #chattelslavery is going to be ignored completely by the person being interviewed for Kirk throughout the entire interview and act as if the only sort of slavery was the #indenturedslavery. He then spins a yarn about how someone can work off his death by selling himself into indentured slavery until he works off his debts. Of course, this doesn't explain Dan's comment about a daughter being sold into slavery, and acts as if the only people who ever did this were men, which the story of Rachel directly contradicts. The interviewee: a guy named Craig, gets the main points correct, but he's "massaging the text to make it sound more benevolent than it actually was", According to Dan. For example, while the slave is working for the master, if he gets married and has children, When he has worked off his dad or after the seven years, he is released. But the wife and children remain slaves of the master. (Citation?) And as mentioned before, if a daughter is sold into slavery to pay off debts she remains a slave in perpetuity: she's not released after seven years nor after the debts are paid off. (Citation?) Dan then argues that the system as de.scribed in the Bible isn't consistent because the passages dealing with this are scattered throughout and written by different authors after the fact and are trying to recreate a system which as he says "didn't exist anyway". Therefore we can't really re-create a unified and consistent system of slavery throughout the entire Bible, and attempts to do so our primarily apologetic in nature. As is clearly the case here. If we are addressing only indentured Slavery, Then Craig has many of the elements correct but misses some of them. But we weren't addressing just "servitude", We were addressing slavery. And in that discussion Craig completely misses slavery which is absolutely endorsed in the Hebrew Bible. Craig then goes onto claim that indentured slave slavery was actually a Sort of social program, and anti-poverty program. Before I listen to Dan's response of that, I just got to observe that if the guy is working off his debts as a slave, how is that going to help him support his family? Doesn't sound like an anti-poverty program to me. Craig then goes onto to argue that the institution of indentured slavery is actually a better system than what we have in the west because as he claims, and I'm paraphrasing here, in the west the system "destroys families, destroys a person's sense of self-worth" whereas in Israel debt slavery allowed the man to "keep his family together, earn a wage, pay off his debts, and keep self-respect" Of course, Dan's response is much better than mine. He says that one's "right wing identity politics has really jumped the shark to suggest that debt slavery is a better solution to the poverty problem than adequately taxing the rich" [[#Top of page]] # The Song of Songs is actually erotic poetry. And it's about an illicit relationship. https://youtu.be/tLL261rG83E?si=Ppu4iIBKpQWFTf_E ## Internal data that the rellationship isn't sanctioned - Chapter 1 and 8: references to the woman's brothers being abusive, controlling and trying to repress her activity and her time with her beloved. - References to 'watchmen' and 'guardmen' who beat her when she is 'about the city' looking for her lover. So the relationship doesn't seem to be approved of in the household she is living, so she and her lover are not married, or betrothed. (which wouldn't approve of the sex anyway) The poem doesn't care. It praises the love that is taking place between the two characters. [[#Top of page]] # Contradictions in the bible #BiblicalContradiction https://fb.watch/xBV8p3-0qO/ A content creator (who we've seen before) argues there are no contradictions in the bible and then goes on to address 5 specific cases many people bring up. Dan, of course, disagrees. The creattor says that a contradiction is where 'one statement over here says something and then, over there, says the opposite.' He goes on to say something along the lines of the statements 'must be relating to the same time and spoken about in the same sense' Dan says that's an overly restrictive sense of contradiction and I get the feeling that Dan is taking this creator to intend the definition to mean something like the *mathematical or philosophical* definition of _contradiction_, i.e. two statements in which only one can be true at any time. While I agree that the restriction that the statements are about the 'same time' and in the 'same sense' is overly restrictive, I somewhat disagree with Dan's characterization of the definition, which he says seems to be angled towards a _mathematical_ style (a 'contradiction' is a _proposition_ and then the _negation of that proposition_), although he is looking at this from the point of view of someone alert to the rhetorical tactics of the Christian apologist. For me, the definition is impossibly vague (what is 'opposite'?), so that the creator can then fudge the meanings of passages to make the two statements that are claimed to be contradictions cease being so. He claims he's going to discuss 5 contradictions. This video covers only the first one. ## How many angels were at Jesus' tomb Matthew and Mark say "an angel appeared at the tomb to the women". Luke and John say that "two angels appeared" Is that a contradiction (spoiler alert: not to this creator) No. Because one was not 'negating' the other. Speaking as the holder of a degree of mathematics, it is a contradiction unless Matthew/Mark say something like "at least one angel". The creator claims it would only be a contradiction is Matthew/Mark says "there were not two angels that appeared at the tomb.". Again, what the creator doesn't realize is that 'there was one angel' at the tomb implies that there were not two angels. In fact, it implies that there were not any number of angles you want to name, **except** one angel. ### Dan's response The creator's account flatly contradicts what's in the text and ignores and directly contradicts details that are in the text. In [Matthew](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2028%3A1-8&version=NRSVA) (28: 1-8), the following happens. The women go to the tomb, there is an earthquake, an angel descends from the heavens, the angel rolls away the stone and sits on it, the guards fall down as if dead, he speaks to the women telling them that Jesus is not there, invites them to see the empty tomb (but it never says that they actually enter), and tells them to go and tell the disciples. There are multiple places where the references make clear there is only one angel. To claim there is another lurking about that the woman see, but no one mentions does violence to the text. [Mark](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Mark%2016%3A1-8&version=NRSVA) (16:1-8) has the women walking to the tomb, wondering how they're going to move the stone away, The stone has already been moved away. They enter, see that Jesus' body isn't there. They do see a 'Neoneskos' (a young man), sitting on the bench, on the right side, who tells them that Jesus has risen and to go tell the disciples. [Luke](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke%2024%3A1-12&version=NRSVA) (24:1-12) is much the same: they show up at the tomb, the stone has already been moved, the enter, don't see the body and **suddenly** there were 'andres deo?', two men in _dazzling clothes_, standing next to them. The women were terrified, but the two men asked them why they sought 'the dead among the living', and quote a 'prophesy' that he would rise from the dead. They're told to go tell the disciples, which they do. [John](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=john%2020&version=NLT)_ (20:1-10) The women find the stone has been rolled away, they run to tell Peter and he and the disciples go back to the tomb. Simone Peter enters and sees the wrappings but now body. Then they realize that the prophecy foretold this, and they go home. Mary Magdalene is left weeping outside the tomb and she sees two white-robed angels, sitting on the bench were Jesus' body was. they ask why she's weeping, she tells them she's crying because 'they've taken away my Lord'. Then Jesus appears to him and, after not initially recognizing him, once she does clings to him. He tells here not to, but to go tell the disciples of his resurrection. Dan's point is that the details of these four events can't all be true at the same time. To get rid of this contradiction, you 'gin up' scenarios using data not in evidence to create the 'reality' in which these events are coherent. Dan calls this a _bad faith_ effort to begin with which frequently retreats to the line of argument that it's **not impossible** that these details aren't true. That way, people who already agree with you will see the argument as valid. [[#Top of page]] # The references to God in the declaration of independence are not to the Christian God but to a Deist God. https://www.facebook.com/danmcclellann/videos/1699216034806589/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e [[#Top of page]] # If you believe the Bible does not support slavery, then can't believe the Bible does not condemn homosexuality. https://www.facebook.com/danmcclellann/videos/1079078767054688/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e According to Dan there are five passages that condemn various forms of homosexual behavior but there is way, way more discussion in the Hebrew Bible about how God prefers you to enslave other people. Therefore, if you can disregard that copious record, you can disregard the five passages. [[#Top of page]] # A mistranslation in the KJV that's still influences Christians https://www.facebook.com/danmcclellann/videos/964581252301788/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e Daniel 3:25. Nebuchadnezzar looks into the furnace After he's thrown Daniel's companions in, and he sees a fourth person. The king James says "and the form of the fourth was like the son of God". For centuries this has been interpreted as a reference to Jesus This is a miss translation. The Aramaic is 'bar elahin', Which is indefinite and explicitly plural. The more accurate translation would be "a son of gods", which is a conventional and idiomatic way of referring to a member of the class of "gods" [[#Top of page]] # **Gods** cause Abraham to wander https://www.facebook.com/reel/652662350757002?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e Genesis 20:13 is usually translated with "God caused Abraham to wander", but the word for God is actually plural so it should be translated as "gods" cause Abraham to wander [[#Top of page]] # Dan responds to the Trump about the need for religion https://youtu.be/ObePfeqlP_U?si=ZkUD7OkHSzkSddJS Dan decreis Trump's call for more 'religion' is just more White Christian Nationalism. [[#Top of page]] # Does the social justice of today differ from the social justice of the bible. https://fb.watch/xFQiblLvED/ Yes. 'Social Justice' is a social construct, it exists only within the context of social discourse, that context is a function of time, it changes over time, therefore the concept of 'social justice' in the bible is different from today's conception of 'social justice' That said, there are some similarities. [[#Top of page]] # Did Jephtha Sacrifice His Daughter Did The Israelite priest Jeptha Sacrifice his daughter as a "burnt offering" in order to fulfill a vow he made to God https://www.facebook.com/danmcclellann/videos/8882489945178086/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e McClellan says that the apologetic attempt to spin this into meaning that Jephtha Sacrifice his daughter to a life of celibacy is wrong. The vowel is explicit and there's no way to read it as meaning anything other than he literally sacrificed the daughter's life. [Judges 11:29-40](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judges%2011&version=NIV) > 29 Then the Spirit of the Lord came on Jephthah. He crossed Gilead and Manasseh, passed through Mizpah of Gilead, and from there he advanced against the Ammonites. 30 And Jephthah made a vowto the Lord: “If you give the Ammonites into my hands, 31 whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the Lord’s, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering.” > 32 Then Jephthah went over to fight the Ammonites, and the Lord gave them into his hands. 33 He devastated twenty towns from Aroer to the vicinity of Minnith, as far as Abel Keramim. Thus Israel subdued Ammon. > 34 When Jephthah returned to his home in Mizpah, who should come out to meet him but his daughter, dancing to the sound of timbrels! She was an only child. Except for her he had neither son nor daughter.35 When he saw her, he tore his clothes and cried, “Oh no, my daughter! You have brought me down and I am devastated. I have made a vow to the Lord that I cannot break.” > 36 “My father,” she replied, “you have given your word to the Lord. Do to me just as you promised, now that the Lord has avenged you of your enemies, the Ammonites. 37 But grant me this one request,” she said. “Give me two months to roam the hills and weep with my friends, because I will never marry.” > 38 “You may go,” he said. And he let her go for two months. She and her friends went into the hills and wept because she would never marry. 39 After the two months, she returned to her father, and he did to her as he had vowed. And she was a virgin. > From this comes the Israelite tradition 40 that each year the young women of Israel go out for four days to commemorate the daughter of Jephthah the Gileadite. [[#Top of page]] # Dan's rebuttal of Christian Nationalists #ChristianNationalism ## Haven't seen Part 1 ## Part 1: https://www.facebook.com/17841400975423848/videos/520684533804614/ ## The Scofield Bible https://fb.watch/yc1yesjawq/ The person being interview makes many false claims about #Scofield and [[John Nelson Darby]] about the #Rapture, as well as making a sideways anti-semitic remark about the Rothschilds Involves Tucker Calrson ### False claims - Claims that C.I.Scofield was a student of [[John Nelson Darby|Darby]], which is false, unless by 'student' you mean that he took up his 'teachings' and advanced them. - First bible that had 'study notes'. The Geneva Bible in 1560 had intrudictions and study notes. The use of marginal 'study notes' dropped out of favor because James I/6 prohibited them (he didn't like the anti-monarchic tenor in the Geneva Bible) in the KJV, which became the 'canonical' English bible after the Geneva Bible went out of print. - Claims the Scofield bible, regarding the 'rapture' has the 'inverse' of [[Darby]]'s teaching. Dan replies that the inverse of something that doesn't exist in the first place is meaningless (_my precis_) [[#Top of page]] # Can Athiests be interested in the Bible https://youtube.com/shorts/J_W9hSt5Sq8?si=wSrS1DUAR_sMIsbo [[#Top of page]] # Did Jesus say "blessed are the poor" or "blessed are the poor in spirit" https://www.facebook.com/reel/1613206109559618?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e [[#Top of page]] # The [[NIV]] is a bad translation https://fb.watch/xP9xKcdg_3/ McClellan says the NIV will **alter the text** to support its evangelical dogma, in particular to support claims of divine inspiration and _univocality_. In particular.... ## The first 2 creation accounts in Genesis. Genesis 2 and 3 represent the _pre-priestly_ accounts. Genesis 1 is the _priestly_ account, which, McClellan says, is attempting to **correct and supersede** the accounts in Genesis 2 and 3. In Genesis 1, all the animals that live on dry land are created before humanity, but in Genesis 2, Adam is created before the animals and they are only created when God sees that it is _not good_ that Adam is alone. But this doesn't work, there's no suitable companion for Adam, so God goes _back to the drawing board_ and create Eve. But, in order to *obscure* this conflict in the order of creation, the [[NIV]] alters the text. [[#Top of page]] # the early Bible understood that God had a consort https://www.facebook.com/reel/643599474839130?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e [[#Top of page]] # A Discussion of slavery in the Bible. https://www.facebook.com/danmcclellann/videos/502583725868702/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e [[#Top of page]] # The authority of the Christian Message shifts from an oral tradition to a textural tradition https://www.facebook.com/danmcclellann/videos/949477817298546/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e [[#Top of page]] # On the argument that there are more extent manuscripts of the Bible then of major works of the classical era https://www.facebook.com/maklelanvideos/videos/737272535206818/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e And, therefore, the Bible is better supported by documentary evidence than many authors we take for granted. (And so we should believe it?) A content provider Miss leads claiming that there are many, many more extent manuscripts of the Bible then there are of works of Plato, Thucydides, and so on. It means leads on two 1) It's not an apples to apples comparison, he's comparing the entire corpus of biblical literature with just one work by an ancient author if you were to compare the entire corpus of biblical writing with the entire corpus of say Play-Doh, the comparison becomes much More truthful. 2) He gets the dates wrong. The earliest manuscript for Plato is third century BCE which is earlier than any biblical manuscript. When he gets to Paul he claims there are 24,000 Pauline manuscripts, but as Dan points out that Includes translations and not just actual manuscripts. And in his dating of the manuscript he is wildly conservative and in some cases, most notably the dating of the composition of the gospels, he miss labels his Table seeming to Indicate that these manuscripts are complete when in fact most of them are fragmentary and the only ones that date to his earliest date is a tiny fragment. All in all, the entire video is just one long misrepresentation after another. Another creator advances the same argument with some more detail in the response: see [[Dan McClellan#Has the bible been changed over time?|Has the bible been changed over time?]] [[#Top of page]] # Joshua 10:12-13 The Sun Stood Still https://www.facebook.com/danmcclellann/videos/1183858653098834/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e Yes. The Bible is attempting to tell us that the son literally stood still. Any other attempt to analyze it in some metaphorical way is false. [[#Top of page]] # Biblical Characters that Appear in Archeological Finds. https://www.facebook.com/maklelanvideos/videos/1119840076437324/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e 1. The Mesha Stele mentions Omari, the King of Israel. Dates from middle of the 9th century BCE. 2. The Tel Dan Stele, who defeated Jahoram, son of, who isn't named but they think it's Ahab, And it also mentions the house of David, not King David but the house of David so most scholars believed that this is referencing a davidic dynasty. 3. The Black obelisk of Shalmaneser III, which, Dan says "dates to around the same time." But doesn't tell which of these he's talking about. This directly references the Jehu, it also has a picture of Jehu bowing before king Shalmaneser III. Apparently all three of these are from the middle to the end of the ninth century BCE. [[#Top of page]] # Messianism https://www.facebook.com/maklelanvideos/videos/613548211003576/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e [[#Top of page]] # The ESV is not a good translation of the Bible. https://www.facebook.com/maklelanvideos/videos/1122173219334327/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e [[#Top of page]] # The earliest version of Mark does not have the resurrected Jesus https://www.facebook.com/reel/533899512958080?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=eCongratulations [[#Top of page]] # on the concept of _sola scripture_ https://youtu.be/_0af0z_rxd0?si=KOC7XBsbXRT3XibV A content creator claims that the protestant notion of solar Scriptura is really present in Catholic belief as well McLellan Disagrees and says, basically, that tradition will always override the Scriptures [[#Top of page]] # What is the 'divine counsel?' https://www.facebook.com/reel/932484312407563?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e References Possibly the earliest: Deuteronomy 8 and 9 [[#Top of page]] # the biblical 'Day' https://www.facebook.com/reel/1115475866890319?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e [[#Top of page]] # Bart Ehrman/Post-Millenialism/This Generation prophecy https://www.facebook.com/maklelanvideos/videos/1090740275738643/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e A creator attacks Bart Ehrman and claims that Bart is misrepresenting the meaning of the various prophecies Jesus gave just before his crucifixion. The two prophecies are 1) That this generation will not pass away before the coming of the kingdom of God. 2) This generation will not pass away before Jesus Christ returns. Both of these prophecies were not fulfilled. The reinterpretation of these passages by Christian apologetics is to interpret the first as not referring to the coming kingdom of heaven taking over all of the Earth but rather the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem by the Romans. However the second prophecy is simply brushed under the rug as if the first reinterpretation is sufficient to cover both. [[#Top of page]] # Why is the scholarly consensus that the pastoral epistles (Titus and 1st and 2nd Timothy) were not written by Paul? https://www.facebook.com/danmcclellann/videos/940243188225177/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e Apparently the doubts about these the pistols began in the second century CE. Marcian excludes them from his canon, according to Tertulian. Go back through this and notate all of the other objections! [[#Top of page]] # on Blasphemy In the Hebrew Bible blasphemy covers not just saying things against God but also saying things against objects or balls or covenants or even other gods https://fb.watch/xYdY1hdNFD/? See Philo in _The Special Laws_ Discussing people blaming against other people's gods. (Timecode 2:51) [[#Top of page]] # the concept of the rapture doesn't occur in the Bible https://www.facebook.com/reel/1312636299766952?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e For first time there was a conceptualization of something called the rapture is in the middle to late 18th century from a man named [[Morgan Edwards]] Later, an Anglo Irish teacher named [[John Nelson Darby]] Who popularized the idea in 1827-1833. His [[Plymouth Brethren Movement]] and the [[Scofield Bible]] were instrumental in spreading this idea. The idea of_caught up_ is in the Bible. Paul is _ Caught up_ To the third heavens. The text that the creator Dan is responding to is using his first Thessalonians 4:17 Is really discussing resurrection, not the rapture. And the section that discusses people being "caught up" is more complicated, it uses a Greek verb [[apantesis]], Which means something more along the lines of going out to meet someone who's arriving from a journey and then either returning, or continuing with the person on the journey to wherever they are going. Continues to give examples of the use of this verb to mean go out and meet a Messenger and then accompanying him rather than something like the raptor. Furthermore, Dan points out that Paul's rhetorical goals are clearly that the people who have died will resurrect and the people who are alive will go with Jesus and that will be the end of the story. So it's not some precursor that occurs before the second coming, it occurs contemporaneously with the second coming. [[#Top of page]] # The timing of the resurrection https://www.facebook.com/danmcclellann/videos/9094905680534201/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e Dan responds to a creator who attempts to use multiple passages from the Bible to definitively proved that the resurrection occurred on Wednesday. Again, The creators argument depends on university and inerrancy so as to negotiate away the contradictions. Dan starts out by pointing to the "squishiness" of the timing given that Matthew says that Jesus has to fulfill the parallel with Jonah in the fish and remain dead for three days while other passages refer to him rising on the third day. So, basically we take the sign of Jonah to be literal and renegotiate everything else, or we take the other signs to be literal and say that Jonah was not meant to be a literal three day passage of time. Dan says that it is the latter approach that most biblical scholars today and most scholars through the medieval and renaissance period took. But this creator is going to attempt to make the sign of Jonah be literal and then change the date of the resurrection to accommodate. The creators argument hinges upon a fundamental misunderstanding that occasionally a plural can be used for the word Sabbath and yet it still means just a single Sabbath. He wants to argue that there has to be more than one Sabbath between the crucifixion and the resurrection. So there is a prophecy in Daniel 9 about the number of years that's going to occur between two events, which this creator uses to justify his calculations, and this falls short for several reasons not the least of which is that if you do it one way you end up with a date which has nothing whatsoever to do with Jesus and has entirely to do with the revolt of the Maccabees. Which just happens to be the time that most scholars agree Daniel was composed. So the claim is that this is an "ex eventu prophecy", That is a prophecy written after the event to make it seem as if the event had been for seen. The other problem is the question of "inter collation", which is the adjustments various calendars make to keep things aligned. We use one day every four years except for some exceptions, and various other calendars use various other methods. So if you just say something is going to happen in 400 years and you don't take into account intercalation, you could be off. In our calendar you'd be off by six months. (Assuming that there are no intervening years which dropped the leap day, which our calendar does have. ) #TimingOfTheRessurrection #DanielProphecy #exEventu [[#Top of page]] # On the Documentary film _1946_ #1Corinthians6-9 https://www.facebook.com/danmcclellann/videos/1650232489151550/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e The central thesis of this film is that the translation in the _Revised Standard Versions_ of the Greek terms #Malakio and #Arsenokoitai as #Homosexual in _1 Corinthians 6:9_ is a mistranslation is 100% correct. As seen above in other discussions of these two terms used in this passage, the belief is that #Malakio is men who take the _receptive role_ and #Arsenokoitai are those who take the _insertive_ role, that the two roles are mutually exclusive, and that there is no _versatile_ role (i.e. one that can go 'both ways'), and that it's about *power inbalance*. The other issue is that the word _homosexual_ refers to someone who identifies with a particular orientation, while this passage deals specifically with *acts*, not *orientation*. So to assign a meaning having to do with *orientation* rather than *acts* is greatly expanded the meaning to cover concepts not understood by the authors. And, to add insult to injury, the passage clearly is referring **only to men**, while *homosexual* extends to women as well. That is, rendering those terms as _homosexual_ "rope in a far larger group than could have been intended by the author of _1 Corintians 6:9" He adds a third reason: these categories were understood to be _exploitative_ and _abusive_, and therefore can not refer to contemporary concepts of homosexual behavior which are equal, loving, monogamous and long term. [[#Top of page]] # On the concept of _Dual Process Cognition_ https://www.facebook.com/reel/819039756905822?fs=e&fs=e #DualProcessCognition Dan discusses a previous video ( #Maklelan2393) where he pointed out that it is problematic to appeal to the bible to rationalize putting a serial sexual predator in the WH, saying that if you (the viewer), felt uncomfortable, that you 'had alarm bells going off in your head' when he used the phrase _serial sexual predator_, that you 'felt that intuitive pinch or started coming up with objections or arguments against what you heard me say', that was an instance of what he calls _Dual Process Cognition_. To illustrate this, he uses an illusion called _The Cornsweet Effect_[^17], also called the Craik–O’Brien–Cornsweet Effect. It's two rectangles with a blue 'sky' above and a bottom half that looks somewhat like a rugk. There's a shadow below, and the horizon runs right through where the two rectangles intersect. It appears that the upper one is dark gray and the bottom is almost white. But if you take your fingers or pieves of paper and block the intersection of the blocks, both the shadow and the highlighted portion, they suddenly appear to be the same color (which they actually are.) The effect is that your brain is 'interpreting' the image using the shadowing and the implied light source and then inferring that the colors must be different, but this is the brain implanting information that isn't in the actual image. Take away these visual cues, and the brain sees the colors as they are. This come about because of evolutionary 'processing' that's pretty much hardwired. Dan calls this your _intuitive cognition_: it's rapid, subconscious, you don't know about it and you don't control it. So, he argues that, just as we have these evolutionary pre-formatted understandings that operation on our senses to protect our physical being, so too do we have similar mechanisms at work to protect our standing within the social structures and identities that are important to us, as well as the standing of those identities. The upshot is: your identity politics **come before** you engage in any actual conscious cognition. So, the bells and flags that went up when McClellan refered to Donald Trump as a _serial sexual predator_ because your subconscious perceived a threat to your social identity, or your standing within a social identity, i.e. your **identity politics** got in the way of your conscious cognition. Which is an obstacle to reflective cognition because we'll **leverage** it in defense of the **subconscious cognition** to defend the social status, i.e. *rationalization*. So, for example, family members or friends severing relationships because someone has raised objections to putting a _serial sexual predator_ in the WH are rationalizing away the fact that that is exactly what he is. He uses the example of someone in a home where they are abused in some way, who escapes from that situation and, eventually begins to feel as if they are in a place where they won't, at any moment, be abused by their abuser. But then the U.S. elects are _serial sexual predator_ to the WH and now the *unsafe zone* has expanded to the entirety of the nation. They don't know who around them might use all the same excuses to minimize the abuse (It's your fault. Why don't you let it go? Your feelings don't matter. We can't harm the future of this person... and so on). Or, worse of all, "You body, my choice!" They don't know whether they're surrounded by people who respond to them just as their abusers or the facilitators did. So, when you dismiss them as 'putting politics ahead of relationships', that is just making a rationalization about why you shouldn't have to care about the fact that a serial sexual predator has been put in the WH, which has made the nation an 'unsafe place'. [[#Top of page]] # contemporary of the King James Bible ridiculed the unnatural nature of its English https://fb.watch/y6LFNxbdV5/? Dan's claim is that the translators of the King James Bible purposefully kept expressions more opaque than necessary, that is to say they did not translate them into natural English idioms, to make the translation be more "defensible", in the sense that they could say "look, this is what it says in Hebrew! " So that the phrase "uncovered his nakedness", which is almost a transliteration of the Hebrew, is less natural. And people of the day reviewed the Bible for that reason and said as much. It was only later that the king James Bible started to be thought of as a "great work of English literature". At the time, it was anything but. [[#Top of page]] # places in the Bible where Jesus says he is one with God - John 10:30 "I and the Father are one". The sense must be that Jesus and God are one in "substance" or "essence" because it cannot be that they are the same person, since that concept took another couple hundred years to develop in Christianity. That is, the concept that multiple persons could occupy the same substance would not arise for another couple of centuries. So if he is not saying that the person of Jesus and the person of God are the same person, in what sense is he saying I am the father or one. Dan says look at the end of the discourse at 10:38 where he talks about Looking at the works that Jesus is doing and seeing whether God is there. Also, and John 14:10 Jesus, an answer to a disciple asking Jesus to show him the father, he says "do you not see that the father is in me and that I am in the father?" Basically Jesus is saying that God dwells in him and when Jesus does work he is doing God's work because God is "in dwelling" in Jesus. Later on, in the same chapter Jesus says something along the lines that God is in me and I am in you and you are in me. Clearly, he cannot mean that the disciple, Jesus, and God are all the same person. See also John 17:11–12. See also later on and John win the Jews threatened to stone Jesus for blasphemy for saying that he is God, but he does not answer that he is God directly, but that he is "a God" or "a deity" because he has received the word of God just as Jewish scriptures say. See John 10:33-36 - [[#Top of page]] # Free Will in Angels https://fb.watch/y7kZsEv3fx/ There's a difference between Christianity on the one hand and Judaism/Islam on the other: the former says that angels have free-will, the later does not. There was debate on this issue in 1st century CE Judaism and Christianity The roots go back to Genesis 6, and the story of the _b'nei elohim_, the _sons of God_ or 2nd tier deities who descended to earth had children with the _daughters of humanity_, or more directly to the #midrashic elaboration on that tradition and the #enochic literature, the _Book of Enoch_. Within that literature, the angels rebel against God, come down to earth and teach humanity 'evil'. It's an _origin story_ for why there is evil in the world. But not everyone was comfortable with this idea, the compartmentalization of _evil_, so an alternative interpretation was that understood the _b'nei elohim_ as a reference to humans. #benei-elohim, and particularly those from the line of #Seth. So in the early CE centuries there is this debate going on, and the origin of wickedness. The #Septuagent renders #benei-elohim as 'sons of rulers', rather than 'sons of god' and a rabbinic texts that curses those who use the latter translation. And there are those in early Christianity who argue that it does God no favors to say that their creation has the ability to rebel against them. Ultimately, early Christianity settles on the first interpretation, as a resolution of the problem of the origin of evil, which means they must have had free-will. Judaism (and then Islam) went the other way. [[#Top of page]] # Isaiah 45:7 > I form the light and create the darkness: I create peace and I create evil. Yes, this is an important text and raises important questions about God's relationship to evil. However… Dan says that you have to choose Outdated translations to get the word "evil", somewhat say that it is better translated as "calamity" or "misfortune". On the other hand, it was written (most scholars) at a time when Zorasterism Was in the air and it may have been a response to the idea that they were two deities, one good and the other evil to which Judaism responds : 'No, God is responsible for all. There is only one God.' Dan himself does not think it means evil, but more misfortune or calamity. [[#Top of page]] # Josephus and Jesus https://www.facebook.com/danmcclellann/videos/574575731961047/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e Book 18: Testimonium Flaviamum - a Christian Interpolation book 20: the discussion of the execution of James, 'the Brother of Jesus who was called Christ' [[#Top of page]] # on an Egyptian Steele that supposedly mentions Israel and Yahweh https://www.facebook.com/reel/1245086180546056?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e Danny's there are 2 pieces of misinformation in this video. Dan points out that there are actually 2 columns that have this inscription. So he he's going to use information from both. The inscription says something like "Shasu of ..." The question is what occurs in that elipses One: Cartouche Mentions people from the land of Yahweh. But Dan says that the majority of Egyptologist reject this claim and instead say that it probably refers to either a people or a tribe or some such. The column was in a hall built by Ahmenhotep III. (This is important when dealing with the second piece of misinformation). The columns in this hall, When they have readable descriptions, overwhelmingly refer to place names. In the second example of this description, it occurs in a similar circumstance where the majority of design designation seem to be either place names if not names of tribes. Two: The dating is wrong. The creator claims it's 3500 years old, which would put it in the 15th century BCE, but since it came from a hall create Amenhotep III, Who ruled for ~1390 to ~1353, that is, in the early to middle 14th century BCE, so the dating is off by a century. The content creator wants it to be in the 15th century BCE because they want it to be around the time of one of the standard dating of the Israelites roaming in the desert for 40 years. [[#Top of page]] # On the claim that there are two _frameworks_ of laws in the Hebrew Bible: civil/ceremonial and moral. https://www.facebook.com/reel/1000907698566104 And that we must follow the _moral_ framework, but may ignore the _civil_ or _ceremonial_ framework. The _ceremonial_ framework came first, later Christian thinkers created a _civil_ interpretation of Old Testament scripture. This is so that Christians can do away with the Old Testament laws like the prohibition against certain foods, or the wearing of different types of cloth, or the planting of different types of plant in one field, because those are in the _civil_ framework. But the prohibition against homosexuality is in the _moral_ framework, and must be followed. Dan replies that no one who wrote the bible had any such dichotomy in mind, so it is a creation of later Christian thinkers (late 2nd, early 3rd century) to justify ignoring clear admonitions in the Old Testament. Basically, the assertion that there is this dichotomy in the Old Testament isn't in the bible, it's something created in the 2nd/3rd century CE to justify ignoring restriction in the Old Testament. [[#Top of page]] # on the morality of sex before marriage https://fb.watch/yiCKP4j8X2/? #SexBeforeMarriage #BiblicalSexuslMorality Dan discusses a creator who sites many versus he claims say that sex before marriage is immoral. Dan responds that the New Testament passages probably do refer to sex before marriage although the word used is really more about general sexual morality in all context. However, as for the verses in the Hebrew Bible, those are almost always exclusively about the morality of women having sex before marriage. Men were not prohibited in that way. So it is somewhat misleading to claim that the entirety of the Bible prohibits sex before marriage for either men or women when in reality the Hebrew Bible is Silent about sex before marriage for men. Here's another video on this topic. https://www.facebook.com/reel/633619186091716 Again, the argument is that the prohibition against wearing two different types of fabrics is called a 'civic' or 'ceremonial' law, and therefore can be ignored as having _passed away_ with the coming of the _new covenant, while the prohibition against 'homosexuality' (which is really a prohibition of **homosexual behavior in men**, no mention of women), is a _moral_ law and remains in force. This distinction was an invention of [Irenaeus](https://www.facebook.com/reel/633619186091716) and [Justin Martyr](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Martyr), brought about in debates on whether the Hebrew Bible remained relevant. In the 2nd century CE the debate was: should we keep it. In the 3rd, it was: what is the relevance of all the legislative statement in the Hebrew Bible be? Dan's point is that these distinctions were to 'draw lines around' the parts that serve their purposes and keeps the desired structuing of power intact and expresses our _values_, while separating off and making irrelevant those parts that don't. He points out that the 10 commandments were certainly things they wanted to keep, even though the first two are _ceremonial_ in nature. [[#Top of page]] # Spare the rod and spoil the child https://fb.watch/yjlL3bKojz/ Somewhat based on Proverbs 13:24. > 24 Those who spare the rod hate their children, but those who love them are diligent to discipline them. The content creator claims this is a _modern_ proverb. Dan disagrees and says it relies too heavily on the dictionary definition of *diligent[^18]* [[#Top of page]] # on the concept of being 'Born again' https://www.facebook.com/danmcclellann/videos/1163105605312733/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e In Jon 3:3 Nicodemus asks Jesus how to attain the kingdom of Heaven. The answer Jesus gives uses a word in Greek which can be translated as "again" or as "from above" Nicodemus seems to think Jesus is using former sense, but Jesus's answer seems to imply that he's using this latter sense. McClellan argues that this is evidence that Jesus never said this, because there is no ambiguity in how one would answer the question one way or another in Aramaic but only in Greek. Therefore it's a concept that requires thinking about this matter in Greek, which Jesus didn't do. # clarification on 5 claims about homosexuality in the Bible https://www.facebook.com/reel/1012050670822333?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e [[#Top of page]] # A discussion of the forming of the canon of the Bible https://fb.watch/yorSh795NE/ A video from a man named Pete, who has a channel called _The Bible for Normal People_ #TheBibleForNormalPeople The upshot is that the canon did not create the church, the church created the canon. And that came about, most likely, by seeing the importance that certain books already had in the community. Dan has no 'notes' on this video, he seems to agree with everything Pete said. ## The Hebrew bible Discusses how the form of the Old Testament was created. Interesting. ## The New Testament. [[#Top of page]] # on polytheism in the Bible. https://www.facebook.com/danmcclellann/videos/1179001573733057/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e There are multiple places that refer to multiple gods in the Bible but The texts which came later tend to integrate and develop a narrative in which YHWH Assumes more and more power and more and more control and eventually takes over as the one God. But that does not mean that those gods have cease to exist or that they never existed at all. [[#Top of page]] # On Matthew 18:11, Jesus came to save? https://fb.watch/yqCLg7zQmQ/ The content creator complains that all bibles before the 19th century have the passage > _For the Son of man came to save the lost_ But scholarship in the 19th century up to today regard this as an interpolation. Dan says that it isn't found in our earliest and most reliable Greek manuscripts. It's also absent from the earliest Christian quotations of Matthew. The scholarly consensus is that this is was taken from Luke 19:10 and added it to Matthew 18. [[#Top of page]] # A protestant attempts to explain how the Catholics changed the 10 commandments #CatholicCatechism #TenCommandments #Exodus20 #Deuteronomy5 #Exodus34 #antiCatholicMisinformation https://www.facebook.com/reel/1348228269547472?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e The content creator shows a woman asking "Why is it that the Catholic faith has a different set of the 10 commandments." Then a man (surprise, surprise) explains 1. The reason is because they changed the day (Dan say: no, they didn't) 2. if you look at the Catholic Catechism, the original 10 commandments the 2nd commandment says "don't have any idols, don't bow down to statues", they actually removed that. (Dan say: no, they didn't) 3. The shortened the fourth one and they took the 10th one, that says don't covet your neighbor's wife or his house, or anything that is your neighbors and they divided the 10th into 2 commandments, to keep the number 10, because they took out the 2nd one. Dan remarks: There are 3 claims here... 1. Taking out the 2nd commandment (false) 2. Shortening the 4th: false. The commandments are represented in the catechism exactly as in Exodus 20, unchanged. They have slightly modified them, but in no way substantially See below 3. The claim that the 10th commandment has been split in two is accurate, because Catholics understand the prohibition from coveting the neighbors wife is a distinct commandment, different in kind from the other prohibitions against coveting mere property.[^20] But this all goes back to how we number the commandments, because the text of Exodus 20, or Deuteronomy 5, don't number the commandment or even recognize or identify them as being ten in number. There are, in fact, more than 10 imperative verbs in both sets of commandments and neither say 'there are 10 things happening here.' The only place where a set of ten is explicitly identified as a set of ten is #Exodus34, commonly called the #RitualDecalogue [^21], which is an overwhelmingly different set of commandments. The '10 commandments' as we know them occur only in Exodus 20 and Deuteronomy 5, and in the latter they're represented in a slightly different way.[^22] You can see a good tabular representation of this at [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments) that shows quite a bit of variance in how the commandments are numbered. and the claim that the Catholic Church *removed* the 2nd is false. Instead what they did is combine the first and second into one commandment, and split the 10th because of the fundamental difference between coveting a person (a wife), and coveting goods (the neighbor's house, ass, whatever). And in no way are the secretive about it! From the [Catholic Catechism](https://catholictradition.org/Tradition/commandments10.htm) > The Jewish Decalogue, given on Mount Sinai, consists of these precepts: (1). The command to worship no God but the true God. (2). The prohibition against the worship of images. (3). The prohibition against taking God's name in vain. (4). The command to keep holy the Sabbath. (5). The command to honor one's parents. (6). The prohibition against murder. (7). Adultery. (8). Theft. (9). False witness. (10). Coveting other men's goods (Exod. xx. 1-17). The Catholic Church **has joined the Second Commandment, forbidding the worship of images, to the fist\[sic\], and divided the tenth into two separate commands, in order that the Christian wife may be duly respected (vide Ninth Commandment)**. The command to keep holy the Sabbath is changed into the precept to sanctify Sundays and holydays. The idea of the Jews that upon each table five laws were inscribed is probably correct, since the first five commandments of the Jewish Decalogue contained their duty towards God and His representatives, and the latter five their duty towards their neighbor. Moreover, Our Lord, when answering the rich young man, began with the precept against murder, and St. Paul classed together the last five commands of the Jewish Decalogue (which correspond to the last six of the Christian). \[Emphasis mine\] So, the claim that the catechims shows some sort of _bias_, and is different from what you find in the bible is false, and is basically anti-Catholic Misinformation These are quotes of the three passages that have 'commandments' in them. All translations are from the [[New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised|NRSVA]] [[[#Top of page]] ## Exodus 20 > 20 Then God spoke all these words: > 2 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; 3 you shall have no other gods before[[a](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020&version=NRSVA#fen-NRSVA-2055a "See footnote a")] me. > 4 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and the fourth generation of those who reject me, 6 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation[[b](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020&version=NRSVA#fen-NRSVA-2058b "See footnote b")] of those who love me and keep my commandments. > 7 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lordwill not acquit anyone who misuses his name. > 8 Remember the sabbath day, and keep it holy. 9 For six days you shall labour and do all your work. 10 But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, your son or your daughter, your male or female slave, your livestock, or the alien resident in your towns. 11 For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that is in them, but rested the seventh day; therefore the Lord blessed the sabbath day and consecrated it. > 12 Honour your father and your mother, so that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you. > 13 You shall not murder.[[c](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2020&version=NRSVA#fen-NRSVA-2065c "See footnote c")] > 14 You shall not commit adultery. > 15 You shall not steal. > 16 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbour. > 17 You shall not covet your neighbour’s house; you shall not covet your neighbour’s wife, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour. ## Exodus 34: 11-28 > 11 Observe what I command you today. See, I will drive out before you the Amorites, the Canaanites, the Hittites, the Perizzites, the Hivites, and the Jebusites. 12 Take care not to make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land to which you are going, or it will become a snare among you. 13 You shall tear down their altars, break their pillars, and cut down their sacred poles[[c](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2034&version=NRSVA#fen-NRSVA-2510c "See footnote c")] 14 (for you shall worship no other god, because the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God). 15 You shall not make a covenant with the inhabitants of the land, for when they prostitute themselves to their gods and sacrifice to their gods, someone among them will invite you, and you will eat of the sacrifice. 16 And you will take wives from among their daughters for your sons, and their daughters who prostitute themselves to their gods will make your sons also prostitute themselves to their gods. > 17 You shall not make cast idols. > 18 You shall keep the festival of unleavened bread. For seven days you shall eat unleavened bread, as I commanded you, at the time appointed in the month of Abib; for in the month of Abib you came out from Egypt. > 19 All that first opens the womb is mine, all your male[[d](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2034&version=NRSVA#fen-NRSVA-2516d "See footnote d")] livestock, the firstborn of cow and sheep. 20 The firstborn of a donkey you shall redeem with a lamb, or if you will not redeem it you shall break its neck. All the firstborn of your sons you shall redeem. > No one shall appear before me empty-handed. > 21 For six days you shall work, but on the seventh day you shall rest; even in ploughing time and in harvest time you shall rest. 22 You shall observe the festival of weeks, the first fruits of wheat harvest, and the festival of ingathering at the turn of the year. 23 Three times in the year all your males shall appear before the Lord God, the God of Israel. 24 For I will cast out nations before you, and enlarge your borders; no one shall covet your land when you go up to appear before the Lord your God three times in the year. > 25 You shall not offer the blood of my sacrifice with leaven, and the sacrifice of the festival of the passover shall not be left until the morning. > 26 The best of the first fruits of your ground you shall bring to the house of the Lord your God. > You shall not boil a kid in its mother’s milk. > 27 The Lord said to Moses: Write these words; in accordance with these words I have made a covenant with you and with Israel. 28 He was there with the Lord for forty days and forty nights; he neither ate bread nor drank water. And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.[[e](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2034&version=NRSVA#fen-NRSVA-2525e "See footnote e")] The word translated as _commandments_ here is, in the Hebrew, simply _words_, so it's the **ten words**. ## Deuteronomy 5: 1-21 > Hear, O Israel, the statutes and ordinances that I am addressing to you today; you shall learn them and observe them diligently. 2 The Lord our God made a covenant with us at Horeb. 3 Not with our ancestors did the Lord make this covenant, but with us, who are all of us here alive today. 4 The Lord spoke with you face to face at the mountain, out of the fire. 5 (At that time I was standing between the Lord and you to declare to you the words[[a](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%205&version=NRSVA#fen-NRSVA-5059a "See footnote a")] of the Lord; for you were afraid because of the fire and did not go up the mountain.) And he said: > 6 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery; 7 you shall have no other gods before[[b](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%205&version=NRSVA#fen-NRSVA-5061b "See footnote b")] me. > 8 You shall not make for yourself an idol, whether in the form of anything that is in heaven above, or that is on the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, punishing children for the iniquity of parents, to the third and fourth generation of those who reject me, 10 but showing steadfast love to the thousandth generation[[c](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%205&version=NRSVA#fen-NRSVA-5064c "See footnote c")] of those who love me and keep my commandments. > 11 You shall not make wrongful use of the name of the Lord your God, for the Lordwill not acquit anyone who misuses his name. > 12 Observe the sabbath day and keep it holy, as the Lord your God commanded you. 13 For six days you shall labour and do all your work. 14 But the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God; you shall not do any work—you, or your son or your daughter, or your male or female slave, or your ox or your donkey, or any of your livestock, or the resident alien in your towns, so that your male and female slave may rest as well as you. 15 Remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt, and the Lord your God brought you out from there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm; therefore the Lord your God commanded you to keep the sabbath day. > 16 Honour your father and your mother, as the Lord your God commanded you, so that your days may be long and that it may go well with you in the land that the Lordyour God is giving you. > 17 You shall not murder.[[d](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%205&version=NRSVA#fen-NRSVA-5071d "See footnote d")] > 18 Neither shall you commit adultery. > 19 Neither shall you steal. > 20 Neither shall you bear false witness against your neighbour. > 21 Neither shall you covet your neighbour’s wife. > Neither shall you desire your neighbour’s house, or field, or male or female slave, or ox, or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbour. [[[#Top of page]] # God losing in battle to another nation https://fb.watch/ytpMWMSm4-/ Before he gets to this story, he talks about another, in #2Kings-18-19 This tells the story of the king of #Judah #Hezekiah, and the #Assyrian King #Sennacherib. Hezekiah throws off the vassalage #Judah had to Sennacherib, which angers him, who invades and then destroys Judah and pushes them in to Jerusalem. The Hezekiah prays to #YHWH, who comes and kills the #Assyrian army of 185,000. At this point, Sennacherib leaves. Dan's question is: who won this battle? It seems clear that its a victory of Hezekiah. With this in mind, look a parallel story in #2Kings3. Here there's a new Moabite king, King #Mesha, under vassalage to #Israel. That king tries to throw off vassalage of Israel, who is angered and gets the king of Judah and #Edom to form a coalition, and mount an expedition against the Moabite king. This succeeds and they trap the Moabite king in his capital. Just as they are about to storm the capitol, the King Mesha offers his heir as a sacrifice on the city walls. And, using the *same verbs* as are used in the story of #Hezekiah and #Senecherib > 27 Then he took his firstborn son who was to succeed him, and offered him as a burnt-offering on the wall. And great wrath came upon Israel, so they withdrew from him and returned to their own land. The phrase 'great wrath' above (Dan uses 'great fury'), when used in these sorts of narratives, only ever refers to _divine fury_. So (says Dan), it was a **deity that caused Israel's retreat**. He argues that 'the plain sense of the text is that this sacrifice catalysed the Moabit patron deity' #Chemosh, who intervened in their behalf. There's no rational case to make the #YHWH became angry with #Israel and drove them out of #Moab because the king of Moab sacrificed his heir. When Israel, Judah and Edom mounted this expedition, #Elisha, prophet of Judah had a prophecy about it, saying > 18 This is only a trifle in the sight of the Lord, for he will also hand Moab over to you. 19 You shall conquer every fortified city and every choice city; every good tree you shall fell, all springs of water you shall stop up, and every good piece of land you shall ruin with stones.’  But this did not happen. This prophecy is false. Interestingly enough, initially Elisha was reluctant to make a prophecy. > 9 So the king of Israel, the king of Judah, and the king of Edom set out; and when they had made a roundabout march of seven days, there was no water for the army or for the animals that were with them. 10 Then the king of Israel said, ‘Alas! The Lord has summoned us, three kings, only to be handed over to Moab.’ 11 But Jehoshaphat said, ‘Is there no prophet of the Lord here, through whom we may inquire of the Lord?’ Then one of the servants of the king of Israel answered, ‘Elisha son of Shaphat, who used to pour water on the hands of Elijah, is here.’ 12 Jehoshaphat said, ‘The word of the Lord is with him.’ So the king of Israel and Jehoshaphat and the king of Edom went down to him. > 13 Elisha said to the king of Israel, ‘What have I to do with you? Go to your father’s prophets or to your mother’s.’ But the king of Israel said to him, ‘No; it is the Lordwho has summoned us, three kings, only to be handed over to Moab.’ 14 Elisha said, ‘As the Lord of hosts lives, whom I serve, were it not that I have regard for King Jehoshaphat of Judah, I would give you neither a look nor a glance. So, the question is: who won *this* battle? According to the ideas of such battles in ancient west asia, such battles were really between the patron deities. By that interpretation: YHWH lost this battle. [Wikipedia's article on Snnachrib](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sennacherib) [[#Top of page]] # A more detailed look at 2 Timothy 3:16 https://fb.watch/ytrT9-aphw/ Anytime Dan says that the bible is 1. Not univocal 2. Has no inherent authority 3. Has no inherent meaning He gets lots of people pointing to [2 Timothy 3:16](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Timothy%203&version=NRSVA "View Full Chapter"), which reads > 16 All scripture is inspired by God and is[^23] useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,  Dan replies that they're sort of proving his points for him. He says there are 3 ways they're doing this. 1. The first has to do with univocality. 2 Timothy 3:16 was not written by Paul. It was written by someone **pretending to be Paul** decades after his death. (is it just 3:16, or all of 2 Timothy. I think it's the latter. ) That is the academic consensus. Most scholars believe the pastoral epistles ( #PastoralEpistles) were written in the latter part of the 1st century, or early part of the 2nd century CE. the reason is that they disagree with the epistles that everyone agrees were actually written by Paul. So, you can't make the argument for univocality when there are actual contradictions, and when you do advance that claim, and then interpret the bible on the basis of that claim, you're arguing in a circle. 2. Dan's point number 2: the bible has no _inherent_ authority.[^24] The reference in this passage so _scripture_ is not a reference to the bible as *we* know it, not even a reference to the _New Testament_, because those things didn't exist at that time. The earliest text we have the refers to anything in the New Testament as _scripture_ ( #2Peter, one of the texts in the New Testament written the latest, probably in the 2nd quarter o f the 2nd century CE) wasn't written until after 2 Timothy. It references Paul's writings as _scripture_. This means that #2Timothy can't be refering to the New Testament as _scripture_, so it must be refering to the #HebrewBible as _scripture_. But it can't be refering to those scriptures as we know them, because the Jewish canon hadn't been developed until after #2Timothy had been written, in the 4th/5th/6th century CE, when the #JewishCannon was formally established. Therefore, there is no _authority_ to use _scripture_ as authoritative, and the attempt to construe #2Timothy as asserting that the whole of the Bible as _scripture_ relies on what Dan calls a 'renegotiated authority', that would not happen until well after 2 Timothy had been 'written.' (by someone other than Paul) 3. The Bible has no inherent meaning. The operative word here in 2 Timothy 3:15 is theopneustos (θεόπνευστος)[^25]. This word appears only once in the New Testament, it is called a **hapex legomenon** ( #hapexlegomenon). It is a compound formed of _Theos_ (θεός), meaning God, and _Pneō_, (πνέω), meaning to 'breath or blow'. It is commonly translated as 'God-breathed', or 'inspired by god'. Dan asks: what is this a reference to? Since this is the only use in the bible, we can't look there for the meaning. In other writers of the same time period (1st/2nd/3rd century CE), it's always being used in the sense of **life giving**. And there are other passages in the bible, particularly the Hebrew Bible, where God breaths life into things. For example: in #Genesis2-7 which is the story of God forming the dust into a man and breathing the 'breath of life' into him. The _first time_ anyone says that this act of 'breathing the breath of life' into Adam means 'inspired', is the 3rd century CE, an argument put forth by #Origen . nBut then this looks like a _renegotiation_ of the #Exodus2-7 text (perhaps so that it accords with #2Timothy3-16?), because the text has no inherent meaning. A discussion of the meaning of the Greek word #theopneustos as well as a discussion why the scholarshipt discounts the claim that the #PastoralEpistles were written by Paul, is at the [ChatGPT Link]https://chatgpt.com/share/67ddbb51-1874-8003-9067-6d28c3c5a524) ## The Pastoral Epistles - 1 Timothy - 2 Timothy - Titus The scholarly consensus is that these epistles were written after Paul's death under his name. The epistles thought to be authentic are Romans, 1 & 2 Corinthians and Galatians. The differences are because of + Vocabulary. Many words in them don't appear in those epistles thought to be authentic (e.g. 'wholesome teaching', 'sound words', 'godliness'). About 1/3rd of the vocabulary in them doesn't appear in the authentic letters and many of the words do appear in 2nd century writings. + Style. The sentence structure features long, complex sentences, which differ from the style of authentic epistles. + Theological differences: in the structure of the church (Timothy has a more developed church hierarchical church structure, which aligns more with the 2nd century churce, while Pauls appears looser and _charismatic_); of _Law and Works_ (Paul emphasizes **justification through faith**, while Timothy 3:17 emphasizes **good workds**); Christology and Escatology (Paul is expecting the imminent return of Christ while Timothy speaks of a **delayed fullfillment**, definitely a 2nd century position.) + Historical references. The organization of the church in Timothy is much closer to the thinking in the 2nd century, he uses terms from that period, he discusses 2nd century heresies ( #Hymenaeus, #Philetus), which resemble #Gnosticism; and references to persecution which suggest that Paul about to die, but seems to be using a later account, rather than a 1st hand account. + Early Church Fathers never mention Timothy as being authored by Paul until much later; the first undisputed reference is by #Irenaeus (c 180 CE) and Clement of Rome ( #ClementOfRome c. 96 CE) and #Ignatius (c. 110 CE) do not cite the #PastoralEpistles even when discussing Paul. The ChatGPT session closes with this conclusion. > While **tradition** attributes 2 Timothy to Paul, the **linguistic, theological, and historical evidence** suggests it was written **after Paul’s death**, likely by a follower trying to address issues of the late 1st or early 2nd century church. This aligns with a common practice in antiquity, where disciples wrote in the name of their teacher to preserve and adapt their teachings. [[#Top of page]] # where does John 7:38 come from. https://www.facebook.com/danmcclellann/videos/1149994933564949/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e The short answer is: no one knows. [[#Top of page]] # Why the book of Daniel is wrong, historically https://fb.watch/yx55VQSIJh/?mibextid=wwXIfr A creator comments that for years people thought the book of Danielle is wrong But he's going to prove how it isn't and McCellan replies "They still do, because it is wrong." Specifically, because Daniel talks about #Belshazzar Dan pointed out that they started discovering texts that mentioned Balshazzar In 1854, so this is not news The creator then points to a tablet that has been found that mention #Belshazzar, But then replies that this overlook the fact that Danielle always refers to him as the king while the tablet (the #NabonidusChronicle) only refers to him as the crown prince. It does say that #Nabonidus Did in trust #Belshazzar with the kingship, But that doesn't mean he was king. And one of the ways we know he wasn't king is that the #Akitu festival couldn't happen while #Nabonidus was away. The creator goes on to say... Daniel 5 says the hand of God writes something on the wall, and in Daniel 7, Beshazzar says that the person who can interpret it will be the "3rd highest in the kingdom". He doesn't say "second highest" because he was the second highest. (I really don't know where he's going with this Dan replies that the interpretation that the Aramaic means 'a third' is very speculative : The Aramaic word could mean something like an administrative district, or by Danielle's time it could have become just a generic reference to a specific official. But we do know that the book of Daniel does not show any awareness of the existence of King #Nabonidus And it refers to #Nebuchadnezzar as #Belshazzar's father. Some claim that the "Bar", which supposedly represents the father of a person, could actually mean grandfather. But that doesn't wash because Nebuchadnezzar was Even related to Belshazzar And there were many kings between Nebu Kinnear and Nabonidus. So the fact that Belshazzar is real doesn't mean that every story told about him is true [[#Top of page]] # Dan responds to [[Mark Driscoll]]'s claims about white males who don't have children https://fb.watch/yxaiCmlrGp/ #ChristianNationalism Driscoll says that a white male, late 20s/early 30s, who doesn't have children or prospects for having children is a very 'selfish, self-indulgent' person. Dan replies that this is a standard #ChrstianNationalist (or even a #WhiteChristianNational) trope, meant to shame the class described and incentivize them to change their ways. the point is to have lots of little white babies, that the White Chrstian Nationalists can then indoctrinate to the Christian Nationalist ideology. That way, the number of Christian men increases, thereby social power of Christians. But this actually rejects Paul's rhetoric that it is better to remain celibate and other New Testament authors, because in early Christianity they believed that Jesus' return was imminent, so it was better to keep oneself 'pure' Examples (all translations from the NIV) **1 Corinthians 7:7-8** > _"I wish that all of you were as I am. But each of you has your own gift from God; one has this gift, another has that. Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do."_ (NIV) **1 Corinthians 7:32-35** > _"I would like you to be free from concern. An unmarried man is concerned about the Lord’s affairs—how he can please the Lord. But a married man is concerned about the affairs of this world—how he can please his wife—and his interests are divided. ... I am saying this for your own good, not to restrict you, but that you may live in a right way in undivided devotion to the Lord."_ (NIV) **Matthew 19:10-12** > _"Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it."_ (Matthew 19:11-12, NIV) **Matthew 22:30** > "At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven." **Luke 20:34-36** > "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in the age to come and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels." **Revelation 14:3-4** > "These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they remained virgins. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. Which has been interpreted to mean those who keep themselves celibate. Dan points out that there are _pseudo-Pauline_ epistles ( #pseudoPauline ) after it had become clear that Jesus' return was not imminent which waterdown this message, but those are know (or the consensus is) that they were not written by Paul. See also the entries marked #PastoralEpistles. And,since the Bible is not univocal anyway, it's hardly surprising that there are other parts of the bible that disagree with this rhetoric. So, [[Mark Driscoll|Driscoll]]'s rhetoric shows that either he does not believe the 2nd coming is imminent, or he just rejects Paul's concerns (or, more likely in my estimation, he doesn't even know about them) But which ever horn of the dilemma (or trilemma in my case), Driscoll is 'negotiating' with the text in order to serve his identity politic interests. [[#Top of page]] # Responding to a stitch about [[Jordon Maxwell]] The creator (TikTok user Jamie H Homs; asks "What if you found out the bible is translated wrong", and then goes on to say she was watching a video of a lecture of [[Jordon Maxwell|Maxwell]] that 'blew her mind'. Dan responds that 1) he'd ask which translation and 2) Maxwell doesn't know what he's talking about. Apparently, Maxwell's lecture was to claim that the New Testament was the 'most important story ever told, but as a metaphor, not as history' Looking at some bible verses ## Genesis 1:1 ( #Genesis1-1): In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth - The Hebrew doesn't say this. Dan agrees, saying that the Bible says "When God **began** to create the heavens and the earth" (It's a complicated point, based on Hebrew grammar, but the upshot is that the verb has a sense of ongoing action, what we'd call being in the 'imperfect tense', I guess). - 'Elohim (or God), is in the plural tense(sic)' Dan responds that this is a standard usage, and should be taken as singular, something like the _royal we_, and you can see that it's not plural, because if it was the verb would be in the plural too. (Dan calls this a 'concretized abstract plural'), and it can be used as a singular reference, as it is here and over 2000 times in the Bible. - She says 'Nowhere in the bible does it say that God created man and woman'. Wrong, says Dan. #Genesis1-27 says ' #YHWH created them: male and female'. - She says 'Woman' means 'Womb Man'. Dan says No: it comes from late old English and means 'with man' where 'man', at the time referred to *any* human being (regardless of gender), so the 'wo' distinguished the referent as a female. - Genesis 1:27 ( #Genesis1-27) when _properly_ translated, says 'come let us **remake** man in our image'. Dan says no: there is no extent manuscript that reads any such thing. and that Maxwell doesn't have a clue what he's talking about. - Who is 'us' and 'our' in that verse: Dan: it's a reference to the _divine council_ - #Genesis1-2 'And the earth was without form and void' she claims should be translated as 'the earth became a waste and desolation'. Dan: that is not at all what the Hebrew says. The claims _seems_ to be that there was some catastrophic event that required God to 'fix' the Heavens and the Earth. - And now she starts yammering about extra-terrestrials (Some book: _The 12th Planet_). This is about the planet #Nibiru. Dan utterly dismisses the book and its the author, saying that he **wildly mischaracterizes his sources and doesn't know the langauge and the only people who take him at all seriously are people who don't know the languages, or the sources**. Dan then tops it by saying of Nibiru that _there is no such planet_. - She then yammers on about a 3600 year 'cycle' (the apparent period of Nibiru), saying "Isn't it strange that every 3600 years there seems to be some massive increase in knowledge and technology" (God this woman is stupid, or credulous, or both)! [[#Top of page]] # A discussion of the relationship of the Pharisees and Suddecees That takes place on the [[Joe Rogan]] show. The creator claims that the Pharisees were "lay scholars" and the Sudeeces Were the "professional scholars". Dan says this is "wildly inaccurate". They Were both "professional" in the sense that they had training in how to interpret the Scriptures, but they had different domains of action. - Pharisees: they were the masters in the various synagogues which were lesser houses of worship that could be scattered in and out side of Jerusalem. As Jesus says in (citation) they "sit in the seat of Moses And you should listen to their teachings and follow them, But do as they say." Do not do as they do Because they do not act in accordance with the law. He calls them "hypocrites" because they do not follow their own precepts. - Sudeece: This was the priests that Sacked whose domain was the temple in Jerusalem. These are the people who had cozied up to the Romans and therefore got chosen to be the high priest. The disagreement between the two sets is that the Pharisees followed all of the writings in the corpus which we now called the Bible as well as an oral tradition which apparently no longer exists within modern day Judaism. For instance, the Pharisees believed in reincarnation. However the Suda cheese rejected everything except for the #Pentateuch And certainly rejected the oral tradition such as reincarnation. The interviewee complains that the Pharisees have a "hypocritical religiosity" which Jesus criticizes for doing things like "tithing mint leaves". Dan response that that is not the nature of Jesus's criticism. His criticism is that they are tithing mint leaves and cumin and such While ignoring the weightier matters of the law, such Merc, justice and faithfulness. This is explicit in #Matthew23-23 > 23 “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. So they are neglecting the substantive elements of religion in order to project their piety by "acting out". In short, their virtue signaling ( #VirtueSignaling) It's interesting that the person (named Wes) being interviewed actually Makes this point at this particular point in the video and yet misses I know the forest for the trees In trying to advance his misplaced argument. For example, he points out a passage in Matthew where Jesus seems to be critiquing the 10 Commandments, but in fact what he's Doing, according to the presenter, is trying to get back to the true intention, the meaning of the law. This is exactly what Matthew 23 is arguing, yet this presenter misses that. Dan says that the exposition is accurate but how Wes expands the idea is not. Dan pre-discusses what Wes is going to argue by reiterating the point about the hypocrisy of the Pharisees and reemphasize the point that Jesus is telling his followers to look to the intent of the law and not to its surface requirements and in all respects not to follow the Pharisees in #VirtueSignaling. This is why Jesus twice Quotes or otherwise refers to the #PropheticCritiquein in #Hosea6-6 > '6 For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice,     the knowledge of God rather than burnt-offerings.' [[NRSV]] > 6 For I desire mercy (or faithfulness, or loyalty) and not sacrifice, And the knowledge of God more than burnt offerings. [[NKJV]] This happens twice, first in #Matthew9-12. (The actual passage is really more like #Matthew9-10-13) > 10 Now it happened, as Jesus sat at the table in the house, _that_ behold, many tax collectors and sinners came and sat down with Him and His disciples. 11 And when the Pharisees saw _it,_ they said to His disciples, “Why does your Teacher eat with tax collectors and sinners?” > 12 When Jesus heard _that,_ He said to them, “Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick. 13 But go and learn what _this_ means: ‘I desire mercy and not sacrifice.’ For I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance.” (The source and you omit the words "To repentance") The other books which discussed the #PropheticCritiqueR Isaiah Micah Hosea Amos [[#Top of page]] # On the references to Asherah https://www.facebook.com/danmcclellann/videos/3458809157585242/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e #Cleanup A creator and commentator on biblical things who is clearly of the evangelical if not white nationalist Christ fascist variety claims that there is no ' No text rule data which depicts God of the Hebrew Bible as having a wife' Dan disputes this saying that there are references biblical literature because the 'Bible '' didn't exist at the time. But there are references in the literature that will become the Bible to #Asherah and that the only references to #Asherah that occur in the texts of the Bible are in Deuternommistic literature. The Prophetic literature, which is earlier, doesn't seem to care. The creator then goes on to claim that in preexilic times some Israelite disagreed with "biblical theology". Dan disagrees with this idea claiming it anachronistic as there is no "Bible" at the time. So there can be no "biblical theology" In fact, what happened is that at a certain time around the seventh century BCE a reform movement rose up mostly during the reign of Josiah that attempted to purge various cults that were in existence at the time and focus only on the worship #YHWH , Mainly because that allowed Josiah to control religion from the temple in Jerusalem making that the only legitimate place to worship Dan posts several examples of References to Asherah And shows that most scholars believe that the editing and rewriting of the Bible during the seventh century BCE took out positive references and left only condemnatory ones because of this centralization of Celtic authority in the temple of Jerusalem under Josiah. The argument is that the references to #Asherah In the Deuteronomistic literature arise from the attempts in the times Times of #Josiah To consolidate the worship around #YHWH And so are condemnatory of any mentions of any other gods that might Have had cults of their own at the time. However, before this #Asherah Had appeared in a positive light usually paired with #YHWH. This Deuteronomistic reform movement occurred around the seventh century BCE. Is that this time that we see the worship of #Asherah Condemned by the Deuteronomistic sources. The creators claim is that the authors of the biblical text always condemned the worship of #Asherah , Thereby arguing for a more consistent approach to theology. Dan rejects saying that, after the scholarship of the last Century,having situated all of the various layers of theology in their proper context , one sees that there was no condemnation of the worship of #Ashera until after the reforms of #Josiah. During this epoch, the Deuteronomistic authors then went back and rewrote portions of the Bible to take out references to theology they didn't like. This was about the 7th Century BCE, likely under the reign of Josiah. The fact that there's few references is a reflection of that editing process, and not a reflection of the actual theology. Secondly, in the last 75 years we've Discovered inscriptions that link #YHWH and #Asherah which predate the condemnation of that worship. The most famous of which is the tablet that shows Yahweh and Asherah, and the creator says that this was most likely just a roadside shrine in which members of the northern Kingdom of Israel would worship. The Deuteronomistic literature condemns them for this worship saying that they do not worship God in the correct way but Dan replies that this condemnation is really about condemning the worship of #Baal and not #Asherah. The content creator says that we know that some people worshiped after and that they were condemned for it by the authors of the Bible but then replies that the parts this creator is relying on were written after the eighth century BCE, that is after this subscription. So while that literature making dammit, What they said in the seventh century BCE doesn't tell us what they thought was appropriate in the eighth century BCE. To claim otherwise as to Be the question. [[#Top of page]] # Has the bible been changed over time? [Has the Bible changed over time](https://fb.watch/wSppnl69In/?) (may be unrelated to this post about Peterson and it somehow just got in here.) A creator snarks about there being no evidence of the bible having changed. Dan is having none of that. This is the basically the same argument as in [[Dan McClellan#On the argument that there are more extent manuscripts of the Bible then of major works of the classical era|On the argument that there are more extent manuscripts of the Bible then of major works of the classical era]], namely that there is more _evidence_ of the bible not changing than there is in other ancient texts, like Plato's republic. ## The 25,000 manuscript argument So this person claims there are 25,000 'ancient manuscripts'. The problems with this claim are... 1. This is the total number of manuscripts for the **New Testament**, which is only about 25% of the entire Bible. 2. Only about 5,800 are Greek, which is the language of the New Testament and the overwhelming majority of those date to the 9th-14th centuries. (He shows a bar chart and it looks like about 2600 are in this category, so about 1/2. of the Greek are in this time period. However, the bar chart doesn't add up, because those between 200 and 800 only total to about 400, by my eye, unless each bar is actually centuries? Hmmmm..... have to think about that.) 3. About 10,000 are Latin translations, and the majority of those are medieval. So, the number of manuscripts that are **ancient** is no where near 25,000. Besides, the number of manuscripts doesn't have anything to do with how accurately the New Testament was transmitted. The majority of them being 800 years or more after the gospels were composed means that those are not really reliable in helping us figure out what the gospels and the epistles were like **at the time of their composition**. (my take on what Dan is saying here... Having lots of manuscripts give more date from which we might be able to draw conclusions about what the originals looked like, but their distance in time reduces their reliability. It could be there are source manuscripts that existed once, long ago, but we may not be able to access them by analyzing the extant manuscripts, because the changes that have become 'baked in' hide the originals. The fact that two manuscripts agree doesn't prove it faithfully represents the original.) Dan: 'textural critics rely on only about 200 manuscripts when it comes time to reconstruct the new testament. We can get a pretty good idea of what the new testament looks like, based on the manuscripts we have. However, that does leave a gap' (whd: because they weren't composed, i.e. put on paper, until sometime between 70-120 CE, there could have been oral versions with elements that don't appear in the extant manuscripts, and we can never recover that data) He says there are data in the manuscripts we have the indicate there was change taking place. For example, the [[Codex Sinaiticus]] ends at #Mark16-8, with the women running away from Jesus' tomb, the so-called "Longer Ending" of #Mark16-9-20 is found in later manuscripts.This includes the story of Jesus appearing the Mary Magdalene, to two disciples, his commission to the disciples and the ascension of Jesus. See [[The short and long endings in Mark]] But #Mark16-9-20 is in 99.9% of the manuscripts after the [[Codex Sinaiticus]]. Similarly, with the _Story of the Woman Taken in Adultery_ in #John7-53-8-11(the 'let he who is without sin' story) which isn't in the earliest manuscripts of John and then suddenly pops up not only in later manuscripts of John, but even in Luke. Again, it's in 99.9% of the manuscripts. See [[The Woman Taken in Adultery]] This is a nice demonstration that the mere fact that many manuscripts agree isn't proof that there wasn't alternatives that may never have been written down, and so don't appear in any manuscripts, and the fact of those 25,000 manuscripts of the New Testament aren't proof that it has been faithfully transmitted **since it was composed**. There's a 'black hole' between their composition and the first time they're written down which we can make conjectures about what's in that time period, and when we do there seems to be evidence of changes. (addition, text gain and alteration). So, once we have the 25,000 manuscripts, things seem to have settled down and been faithfully transmitted, but there's still that gap to account for. ## The Plato's republic argument Basically, the claim that there are many more manuscripts of the 'bible' (there's that conflation again) than Plato's republic, yet no one is 'doubting' that. This is *wildly* misleading if not false claims. 1) Plato's Republic is 1 book from 1 author. The _New Testament_ is 27 different compositions by who knows how many authors. And the earilest manuscripts have some significant differences. 2) There are more than 7 manuscripts of Plato's Republic. For manuscripts predating the printing press, there are between 12 and 20 manuscripts. Using the same criterion, if we look at a single manuscript of the least well preserved, there are something like 1000 manuscripts of the 3rd Letter of John, up to maybe 10,000 a very well preserved text like #Acts Still alot more, but it's not 25,000 compared to 7 . But there's a reason for that: the _New Testament_ was the dominant text in the world view of the western world, so it's hardly surprising that its texts would proliferate. 3) Plato's republic is a book of philosophy. The _New Testament_ proports to be the word of God. It's hard to figure out what 'doubting' Plato's Republic means.(whd's take) Dan has another point though: the idea that people are aren't doing textural criticism of Plato's Republic is **flatly false**, there's a lot of text critical work going on on Plato's Republic (he shows a book _Critical Notes on Plato's Politeia_) which goes through the Republic passage by passage, looking at the different manuscripts, and arguing which passages are likely to be early and which late. (whd: also the issue with the #PastoralEpistles indicate changes in who the church view its organization and some fundamental issues with theology, particularly the role of women.) Again, the number of manuscripts of the _New Testament_ is not really a good measure of how faithfully the text was transmitted, particularly for that time period between when the text was composed, and our earliest manuscripts, because once things 'settle in', it's reasonable to believe that most of the manuscripts **after** that time will mostly agree. ## So why is the Bible under attack. Here answer: "It's simple. It's because it's true" To characterize doing text criticism on the manuscripts of the bible as an 'attack' pretty much pegs you the most transparent of Christian apologists, who is simply ignoring or misrepresenting the evidence to support the conclusion you've reached **independent** of the data. (whd:) But the idea that it 'must be under attack because it's true is,.... bizarre. It's also the argument that anything which is 'under attack' is being attacked because it's true and some nefarious legion of evil doers are trying to suppress it is the rankest sort of conspiratorial thinking. (Dan) He says that an argument can be made that, in some ways, the Bible is 'under attack'. But the idea that it's true because it's under attack is a Dogma, it's a claim, but it doesn't logically follow from the fact that, in some cases, it's under attack. (whd) It's not 'under attack' just because people point out that [[The Woman Taken in Adultery]] is #pseudepigrapha, for example ## Jesus says in his words will never pass away (Dan) Not a good case to make the Matthew 24:35 preserves the verbatim account of Jesus' words. But this is also only 1 rendering of this Olivet discourse[^26]. There are 3 accounts, Matthew (mentioned by this creator), Mark 13 and Luke 21:5-36, and if the claim is that these are Jesus' actual words, then they can't all be right, since they disagree. Additionally, in Matthew 24:34 (the verse immediately before the verse she quotes) Jesus says that some of the people standing there listening him will not have died by the time Jesus returns[^27]. Which is, of course, false unless you redefine what a 'generation is'. But this is what Dan means when he says you have to _negotiate_ with the text. But that means the words are being changed and are certainly not being taken as **verbatim**. (Dan says they're being 'tergiversated', which means to be made equivocal) so that the **dogmas** people impose on the Bible can continue to have authority. ## The Bible has stood the test of time. Yet another Dogma [[#Top of page]] # The Pentagrameton #pentagrammaton. (Yod-He-Shin-Vav-He) unfortunately I'm on the iPad and it doesn't cut and paste Hebrew character as well. Check this out when you get on the desktop https://fb.watch/yCmOslw0lF/? A thoroughly tattooed creator comments that people have been asking him about a tattoo he has on his chest, which Dan identifies as the #pentagrammaton . Dan says this is an artificial construction of Jesus' name in the Renaissance esotericism which was then taken up in 19th century occultism. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible. This guy claims that this is A mathematical proof that Jesus is the Messiah. This creator then goes on to try to explain all of the elements of the various letters in the word and their symbolic meaning. He gets just about everything wrong, he identifies the language, he identifies individual characters, he associates the wrong character with the wrong element (air fire water, so on) And generally just shows that he knows nothing at all about this. It's sort of interesting to get some take on this sort of esoteridm, But it doesn't really have much to do with the interpretation of the Bible. [[#Top of page]] # On the question of how you know the Bible has changed if you don't have the originals. https://fb.watch/yCos-5hNjA/? A creator claims that the proper way to respond to someone claiming the Bible has changed is to ask "where are the originals" and then to draw an analogy on someone claiming the Mona Lisa has been changed. He says, if somebody said that your first question would be "well what did it look like originally?" Dan response if this is a naïve interpretation of how textural criticism works. (WHD: besides, you don't need to have the original to know that something has changed if you have multiple sources which differ. And if you have multiple sources which you can accurately date, then at the very least you can look at the earliest source as being the most probable example of the original) Dan says that , Right out front textural Critics, and source critics don't talk about "proof", they tend to talk about "data" and "evidence" and "probabilities and possibilities" Another problem is that it's being crafted as a binary, yes the source has been corrupted or no it hasn't. When in reality it's a matter of degree. How much of the text needs to have changed in order for us to say that the "Bible" was corrupted? 40%? 50%? 99%? Any answer that anyone gives to this question is entirely arbitrary. So when confronted with this question many of the people who make this argument will retreat to the position that none of the changes change doctrine. And this may well be true, but that's because doctrine itself isn't really based on the text it's based on a "negotiation of the text" which accept lots of variability in the text itself. (WHD: for example The doctrine of the Trinity, or of purgatory) So the creator immediately goes into the idea that we have "Over 6000 early manuscripts" of the Bible. Dan replies that we were already in problem because the number is actually more like 5800. [[#Top of page]] # The Book of Enoch https://www.facebook.com/reel/1065485398737690 Once a very influential part of the religious tradition in some Jewish and Christian communities up until about the 4th century CE. The Essenes at Qumran seemed especially respectful. In the 1st-3rd Centuries, many Christians were familiar with it and the _Epistle of Jude_ quotes from it ( #Jude14-15). The early Church councils in the 4th century left it out, but the Ethiopian Orthodox Church still considers it canonical. The book was mostly lost to the Western world until it was rediscovered in the 18th century, in Ethiopia. Dan says that it was _phenomenally influential_ to the New Testament in that the concepts of ... - Satan - Hell - Angels and other important concepts all seem to derive from #1Enoch or, as Dan describes it, the _Enochic Tradition_. As pointed out above, it was basically unknown to the western world for 1700 years and scholars are just now digging into it to find what it can tell us about early Christianity and early Judaism. _A caveat_: It's not historical. So many people on social media come on and complain (conspiratorially) that "they've been hiding the book of Enoch from us, and now we have all the answers! Aliens visited earth" For example, on the r/AskAChristian has a thread titled [Book of Enoch and Alien Encounters](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAChristian/comments/14lxrea/the_book_of_enoch_and_alien_encounters/) (See the ChatGPT link for more sources that make such claims.) [ChatGPT discussion on the influence of 1 Enoch](https://chatgpt.com/share/67e6d3a9-2720-8003-b5f8-429607e30c24) [[#Top of page]] # can one say they take their morality from the Bible? https://www.facebook.com/danmcclellann/videos/968392685438630/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e Short answer: no. Long answer: still no but it gets a bit more complicated. #Rework # A Christian apologist attempts to explain the sun setting in Joshua https://www.facebook.com/reel/577219992035617?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e This Apologist attempts to explain what is described in Joshua 10 as a solar eclipse using research by a group looking for eclipses in the right timeframe. The passage in question has God stopping for the sun **and** moon 'for about a whole day.' There are several problems. 1) language of Joshua doesn't fit what is required of an eclipse. The Hebrew clearly says that God tells the sun to 'stand' (as in stand still) in one place of the sky and the moon to 'stand' in another, which is completely antithetical to what's required in a solar eclipse. The Tiktok vid is based on a paper by a Christian apologist who misrepresents the work of some astronomers. 2) The apologist doesn't make clear that the only eclipse found by the astronomers was an _annular eclipse_ and not a full eclipse, so the reader is left with the impression it was the latter. The TikTok creator doesn't seem to even know this misrepresentation didn't occur. In a topic not covered by the TikTok creator, the apologist author tries to explain how an eclipse could be mistaken for by appealing to increasingly implausible linguistic sleights of hand, all of which Dan rejects. #Rework #ChristianApologetics [[#Top of page]] # The history of #YHWH https://www.facebook.com/danmcclellann/videos/1714050026177156/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e A pretty interesting discussion of the genesis of #YHWH in the Hebrew Bible. Dan traces what scholars believe is the evolution of the nature of the Israelite God. Most biblical scholars believe that the original Israel like God was #El, And then to a process of Conflation he was identified with #YHWH And that's Subsumed By #YHWH , Most likely because some devote of #YHWH either became king or convinced the king to choose that as his patron deity in order to consolidate his political power [[#Top of page]] # Did the Bible outlaw slavery https://fb.watch/yDFRpPpUcE/? A Christian apologist attempts to whitewash the Bible position on slave slavery in multiple ways. In this video Dan deals with those who actually argue that the Bible outlawed slavery at a certain point. The passages they used to justify this claim are typically #Exodus26-16 and #1Timothy1-10 I already know what Dan's gonna say about 1st Timothy. That is one of the #PastoralEpistles Whose authorship is in doubt and which is in discord with Those epistles that are thought to be genuinely Pauline. Both of these passages prohibit kidnapping. Dan list the following reasons why this is a bad argument 1. A presupposes that most slaves were acquired through kidnapping, which is not the case. Further it does not specifically prohibit slavery, only the slavery that would be had through Kidnapping. But the majority of slaves were not acquired through kidnapping, they were acquired through debt slavery (indentured servitude) which was a limited duration for men (not for women): or they were acquired through conquest or by sale, frequently by buying them from foreigners. In fact, Dan says that this was the primary method in which Israelites got their Chat slaves. See #Leviticus25-44-46 The text says that you can buy, cell, pass them on as inheritance, they are ** Property** Forever. Moreover, in the ancient world all states that practiced slavery had laws against kidnapping As did pro slavery states in the United States. 2. An important point to consider when comparing the slavery of the ancient world with the slavery in the United States is that in the former we have the ideologies but not really the practicalities (That is, how things were Actually done) while in the latter we Have the practicalities, but most people don't know The ideologies. 3. Looking explicitly now at #Exodus26-16 The language of that passage refers only to adult male Israelites. It says nothing about females, it says nothing about youths. We know this because this language is part of the #CovenantCode , And because that is formal legalistic language it is very particular on how it refers to various categories. Therefore, if it doesn't refer to a particular category, then that code doesn't apply. This law is doing exactly the same as the same sorts of laws you find in the same. In that area of the world, particularly the #CodeOfHammurabi, Which also prohibits the kidnapping of adult males and selling them into slavery. This is made more explicit in #Deuteronomy24-7's Adaptation of this passage, which refers to "Kidnapping one of their brothers, one of the sons of Israel". So this prohibition Is not a blanket prohibition against kidnapping any persons at all but only male adult Israelite, and so it has nothing whatsoever to do with prohibiting or restricting the slave trade per se. 4. #1Timothy1-10 Is a slightly different story. This hinges upon the meaning of a particular Greek word #Koine Greek, which was what was used to write the New Testament. The apologists take the word to mean a prohibition against Kidnapping anyone and selling them into slavery but Dan says it means something more particular. It means Engaging in illegal slavery. So as such it is not a prohibition against slavery, per se, but against a particular, illegal form of slave slavery. So the apologists are misrepresenting the meaning of the texts in order to reach a fore-ordained conclusion, That is they have to assume that the meaning of these texts can't be What they clearly mean, and must mean something more arcane or abstruse or erudite and require special pleading. But the data does not support their arguments. [This wikipedia article is also good](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bible_and_slavery) ## Other videos on this subject from Dan [1 Timothy 1:10 doesn't condemn or prohibit the slave trade](https://youtu.be/N7A-VSIt1jg) [[#Top of page]] # The Christian world view of the text of the Bible is a social construct created centuries after the composition of the texts of the New Testament https://fb.watch/yDNLjSoDCU/? #NetTestament A periodic reminder that the Christian world view, particularly here in the United States, that the Bible is #Inerrant, #Univocal, #Sufficient And, #Inspired By God is a later construction by people starting in the third and fourth century CE and Dogman created on the basis of these assumptions are being worked on even up to the present day. At the time of their composition, the authors of any of the New Testament would not have thought Using these categories. A notable example is the case of the idea that the New Testament is #Inspired. The passage generally used this in 2 Timothy 3:16, which says ""All scripture is inspired by God [_theopneustos_] and is useful for teaching", but scholars believe that word Actually means something more along the lines of "Life giving", "life affirming" or maybe something like "bringing wisdom" or even something as mundane as 'useful'. Scholars say this because used in several circumstances where the idea of inspired by God makes no sense, For example it's used to refer to springs in the desert or even to sandals, and other Greek texts of this time use these meanings, rather than the one demanded in order to meet the needs of Christian apologetics. Moreover, the text also refers to "the scriptures." At that time that expression did not refer to any of the texts of what would become the New Testament, but referred exclusively to the Hebrew Bible. So all of these various ideas were crafted by people after the composition of the texts that would make up the new testament to aid an understanding of the overall view of Christian scripture and bring what they thought was a comprehensive structure and consistent narrative to the work, both old and new testaments. the problem is, to argue in the way the apologist are arguing is one gigantic example of arguing in a circle. For example, you **must** have #univocality in order to stitch together all the parts of the bible and #inerrancy to make them consistent **beore** interrogating the text at all. Those are **presuppositions** that are required for the analysis to work. [[#Top of page]] # on the passage in Matthew that talks about Jesus coming with a sword https://www.facebook.com/maklelanvideos/videos/636416649246638/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e There are similar sentiments in #Mark13 (The earliest) and in Luke. In Mark the idea is basically that there will be inter Familial strife. It is part of the Olivet discourse about the second coming. Some of the text is a close approximation to #Micah7 Unlikely to be the words of Jesus, it rather a part of a tradition that arose during a period of perceived persecution. But It certainly has nothing to do with the idea that Christian should carry weapons. #Rework [[#Top of page]] # Dan Takes on [[Ben Shapiro]] https://fb.watch/yF0NGSCCAD/?mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e This is about the pastor of the national Cathedral talking about kindness and compassion while Trump is in the audience. Of course this cause has been Shapiro to have a conniption Shit and he describes her as a "resistance pastor spewing absolute woke nonsense", by coating elements of the Beatitudes to Trump. So, for the little weasel Ben Shapiro, the Beatitudes are "woke nonsense" Dan replies that this is not "Woke nonsense"but a repeated element of Jesus is teaching throughout the New Testament, as well as significant parts of the Old Testament. #Rework #maklelan2523 ## The Entire Book of Deuteronomy is a Political Book https://www.facebook.com/reel/1787275525148927 [[#Top of page]] # Engaging Gavin Ortund on Monotheism in the Bible https://youtu.be/LhL86fKYeAc?si=5aH2rEliuqVdM1Vl First of multiple vids in response to this gentleman. It'll be quite a long slog. # does one "C" the face of God Or does one "appear" to God https://www.facebook.com/reel/2051784021997228?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e Dan discusses Several passages in the Hebrew Bible which he claims are always mistranslated. This is not an attempt by biblical authorities to hide anything, it has to do with the intersection or collision of various conceptions of what it means to be in the presence of God. The problem is that there are passages in the Bible that say to see the face of God is deadly. In particular in Exodus, Moses asks to see the face of God and God says that Moses can't because it would kill him. But in several places in the Bible there are Commandments to bring the males before the face of God and all of the grammar involved (and it's quite complicated so I'm not going to go into it directly) seems to indicate that they are supposed to bring the person before the face of God which contradicts this other idea. So almost all translations render this as "appear" before God and that suggests that one is not going to see the face and therefore won't be killed. # and apologist attempts to argue that the Bible does not diminish women. https://fb.watch/yGk7WdNhzF/? The argument is basically that there is an equality of value and therefore women and men are equal. But they have different roles. This is a discussion of Ephesians 5. > 22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. > 25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[[b](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+5&version=NIV#fen-NIV-29331b "See footnote b")] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself. 29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[[c](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians+5&version=NIV#fen-NIV-29336c "See footnote c")] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church.33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband. Then replies that this is an equivocation, because he separates the question into a discussion about inequality of role and inequality of value but then ignores inequality of value. It is also a Misrepresentation of the Bible because there are texts which contradict him which he ignores, and the central point that God and Jesus are equal but have different roles is an artifact of later interpretation of the Bible and biblical concepts arriving at the Trinity. And, finally, that In the real worldinequality of role leads inevitably leads to inequality of value, Because if the role of a certain person isn't to be in a position of leadership then they can never argue for their Concern concerns and therefore their value is diminished by those who are in power One of the points the creator makes is that God and Jesus are equal but Dan Counters with a quote from John 14:28 in which Jesus says "The father is greater than I", and the conception that Jesus is coequal with God is the result of centuries of fierce debate to some extent involving the full weight of the Roman empire in order to force a consensuson the nature of the Trinity. So using that in an argument is anachronistic, Question begging and does not pay attention to the actual text. Dan spends a fair amount of time discussing Ephesians 5:24 and points out that there are several problems with the analogy of God as the head of the church is like man as the head of the wife. But then he goes on to say that the Bible is not completely uniform in the discussion of the relationship of the wife to the husband or, for that matter Jesus or God to the church so anyone who wishes to pull a single principal out needs to "negotiate" with the text and choose those versus which more align with The desired outcome in the rhetorical framework of their beliefs. For example one could choose Galations 3:28 which says that "within God there is neither male nor female" So, as always, this creator is choosing texts which occurred with his worldview rather than interrogating the data in the Bible and trying to understand it fully. # Textural Variants are for Cowards https://fb.watch/yGuNWW1Zfg/ A creator, responding to Dan, asserts this, based on the phrase 'God said he's going to preserve his word". Dan demolishes him by pointing out that 1) that phrase is nowhere in the Bible and 2) and just because it's in the Bible doesn't mean God said it. Both of those are presuppositions. Because if 'being in the bible' means that 'God said it', then God supports all sorts of things which this creator is going to have to figure out how to *wiggle out of*, because those elements are rejected in today's society. Thinks like - Slavery - Rape as punishment for infidelity - The killing of certain babies (the various genocides in the Old Testament) But, the biggest problem is that God never actually says that. There are references to God's word *never failing*, but that is for those things which God says 'coming true' and never 'being found false', never *failing*. But this has nothing to do with the preservation of the text of the Bible. But if the concept of never *failing*, or never being *found false*, includes the elements listed above, then clearly God's word has not been *preserved*, since we do not consider those behaviors appropriate. The creator poses a dilemma: Either god did, or he didn't (say he'd preserve his word?). Dan says there's a third option: the creator is misrepresenting what the bible says, and what it means. (Hint: it's option number 3) The creator asks: if he _preserved_ his word, was it in the manuscripts, or in the English version, like the [[KJV]] _cult people_ (his words). He says : 'I tend to believe it is in the manuscripts'. And then he concludes "Textural _variances_(sic) are for cowards that reject the Bible" (He apparently doesn't know the proper word.) (whd: if he claims there aren't variants (_variances_ in his lingo), then he's really off the rails) Dan (rightly) points out that his conclusion doesn't follow and 2) "I tend to believe" is not an argument. He also points out that, when it is demonstrated that the Bible has changed, the argument suddenly changes to "But none o those affect doctrine". This jamook is no different. But that's a dodge: doctrine changes without the text changing (cf. Slavery), and text changes without doctrine changing. Doctrine isn't inextricably tied up with the text, it's a later _negotiation_ with the text (cd. The Holy Trinity, The Immaculate Conception) Then he bizarrely points out that these variants **affect non-Christians!!!** # On the divine council. https://www.facebook.com/maklelanvideos/videos/2380602742303500/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e A creator asks why in Genesis there is a plural when God says "let **us** create man in our own Image". Dan response that The majority of biblical scholarship says this is a reference to the "divine council" He sites several other examples of the same usage. #Rework [[#Top of page]] # all of the gospels were written anonymously https://www.facebook.com/maklelanvideos/videos/529254680021522/?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e A creator claims that Dan is simply regurgitating What he calls 'Garbage tier' arguments And as he says "simultaneously throwing dishonor on all of academia" And before I even watch Dan's video I'm going to say with that implies that academia agrees with Dan. Which doesn't bode well for this creator. - None of the gospel authors name their authors - The apologist answers that there are other ways to assign authorship, like 'tags' or 'cover pages'. It also doesn't change the fact that as multiple gospels began circulating there would need to be a way to distinguish between them, and the easiest way to do that is to name the author - Dan replies: this is a standard apologetic response, to 'gin up' an argument, based entirely on supposition and facts _not in evidence_, and then use those suppositions as evidence for their claim. Sure, it could happen that way, but where is the **evidence** that it **actually did happen that way?** His point is that the creator **assumes** that the conventions of Greco-Roman biography would have been in effect, and so the authorship of the Gospels would have been known, and yet, the authorship of the gospels is not made explicit, despite the assumption of those very conventions! _In short_, the creator is **begging the questions** - The closest we get is the #John, where it says "The beloved disciple wrote these things", but the next statement is "We know his testimony his true" and the author speaking in the 1st person plural in the first chapter. - The schmuck of a creator calls this 'an immensely stupid argument' saying that 'we' can be used to refer to a single person. - Dan replies that his point was that the author refers to himself using the 3rd person singular (his), so the use of the 3rd person plural (we) must be someone else. So it appears the text better supports the argument that whoever created the final form of #TheGospelOfJohn put in that sentence declaring their belief that the testimony of the _beloved disciple_ is true, and the 'we' refers to them. _Or_, it could be that the final compiler of the gospel *was* a single person, using the _authorial we_, but that doesn't change the fact that he's not the author. _In short_, the creator missed the point. - No good case that Papius is referring to the gospels of Matthew and Mark as we know them today. - Papius doesn't have to be referring to the gospels _as we know them today_ to be correctly ascribing authorship. - This is the same rhetorical maneuver as in the first example: ginning up a hypothetical scenario unsupported by the data for no reason other than they are needed to resolve the difficulty. And then asserting that this manufactured scenario must be true. Here the scenario is that #Papius is referring to some 'first draft' that is different from one that we have today. Another instance of _Petitio Principii_. Additionally, this would mean that the gospel of Mark we have today **is not the work of Mark** but a 'literary production of later generations'! (Oh what tangled webs...) - The creator points to reference in the works of [[Clement of Alexandria]]. - Which was written in the late 2nd century CE, after the traditional authorship has already been assigned: so no help there. - Papius says that Mark was the interpreter of Peter and recorded everything Peter said, and put it together in no special order. - Creator claims that the remarks that Mark's work is not in order can reasonably be assigned to Mark not adhering to the stylistic and rhetorical expectations of the time, not merely chronological order. - Dan says you can't interpret Papius in this way, since Papius explicitly says that the work is "**not written in the order that Christ said or did these things**" so the statement is **explicitly** about chronology. So the creator is just ignoring disconfirming data. - Mark is a 'sayings Gospel' (not sure if this should be under the 'Papius says' heading) - Claims Dan is overstating the case that these are "_sayings gospels_". He then claims that this doesn't dictate anything about how they were written down by Mark. (this may not have anthing to ) - Again, another example of _begging the question_. The creator creates a hypothetical scenario that has Peter (on the side), telling Mark what happened by means of 'sayings' that ultimately ends up as the Gospel of Mark. But this is *not* in the text. The text says that Mark produced it from reports from Peter, which were not in order and who presented teachings in the forms of _sayings_. So the *text* says Mark is a _sayings gospel_ and the creator is creating a scenario to resolve the diffiiculty that Papius is referring to Mark *as we have it today*, an earlier draft of that Gospel _as we have it today_ (I confess, I'm a bit unclear what Dan's point is here) - Data supports the claim that Papius did not know the Gospels of Matthew and Mark as we have them today. He never quotes from them. - Creator responds that this is an 'argument from silence and a pretty crappy one' (man, this guy is a schmuck), considering that what we have from Papius are **fragments** - Dan responds that it's true, we only have fragments, preserved as quotes in later writers. But what we **do have** is not found in either and in some cases directly contradicts Matthew and Mark. For example: Papius shares 2 different accounts of the death of Judas. - He swells up so large that his head wouldn't pass through were a wagon would, pus and worms come out of his genitals and he dies in his own place, which remains uninhabited to this day because of the foul stench - Again, he swells up, but this time on the road and he's run over by a wagon where all of his filth spills out of his body. - Neither bear any resemblance to the account in Matthew or Mark or in Acts 1 - Papius says he *doesn't really like* the written accounts of Jesus' life, perferring the 'living voices', namely what the people Papius interviewed who "knew people who knew people, who knew people who knew Jesus" - Creator claims that this is a 'great example of how **absolutely blatantly dishonest** Dan is in representing his sources.' (oh boy! This should be good!) Papius is blatantly saying he prefers to get his information "from the elders, or the people who _directly_ heard from the elders and the *elders* are explicitly indicated to be as being the *apostles* of Christ" and "several early church writers describe Papias as being one who **heard directly from from the Apostle John.**" - Dan says that he's assuming that "John the Elder" == "John the Apostle" which he says doesn't not have good evidentiary support.[^28]. Additionally... If Matthew and Mark as mentioned by Papias are what we have today, the he is giving preference to *at best* 3rd hand stories about Jesus' life, directly over what are supposed to be 1st hand accounts given in the gospels, e.g. Judas' death. On the other hand, if that account of Judas' death was in the text that Papias attributes to Matthew, why give preference to the oral traditions rather than the text of Matthew? It seems clear that the text was different back then and Papias was referring to a different text, but a collection of saying Papias is *attributing* to Matthew. - What happened between 130 CE and180 CE when Irenaeus of Lyons names the 4 traditional gospels - The creator accuses Dan of doing what he's been doing since the beginning of his response to Dan, saying he just 'makes up a story that has no evidence whatsoever. It's literally Dan's personal *wet-dream* theory of gospel composition that has no support in reality. (man, this guy really is an asshole. I'm hoping for a good slapdown at the end.) - Dan respond: Obviously this (i.e. Dan's) theory is a *theory* (just like the creators *theory* is) that Papias had some rough draft of the gospels of Matthew and Mark, as opposed to this creator's theory that they circulated with colophons[^29] or other wasy of attributing the gospels to the apostles. The difference, Dan if following the data (which doesn't support the creator's claims), where the creator is manufacturing stories and then asserting their truth in order to make up for the fact that the data doesn't support his claims. As I've said a few times already, he's engaging in *dogma* driven reasoning and therefore, ultimately, _begging the question_. Both Dan and the creator are using **abductive reasoning**[^30], but Dan is adhering to the data, while the creator is actually trying to create data to justify a premise the data doesn't support. [[#Top of page]] # what does "you shall have no other gods before me" actually mean https://www.facebook.com/reel/1376306996708038?fs=e&mibextid=wwXIfr&fs=e Like everything else in the Bible, this statement will have been a reinterpreted multiple times over the course of history. The Hebrew has a spatial element (literally it means 'before my face'). The modern day consensus suggests that the meaning is really something along the lines of 'there shall be no other gods in the holy of holys in the temple' [[#Top of page]] # Tags #BiblicalExegesis #Papias #Irenaeus #Gospels/John, #Gospels/Mark #Gospels/Mark #Gospels/Matthew # Footnotes [^1]: TC 7:27: 'We see it in the middle Assyrian laws. We see it in the middle Assyrian laws, we see it in the laws of Ur-Nammu and Eshunna' [^2]: [New International Version](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2020&version=NIV) [^3]: [NIV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Timothy%202:11-12&version=NIV) [^4]: https://biblehub.com/kjv/2_timothy/3.htm: "All scripture _is_ given by inspiration of God, and _is_ profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:" [^5]: Theopneustos (θεοπεηοσ?) [^6]: [Psalm 82, KJV](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2082&version=ISV) [^7]: Psalm 97:7 'All who serve carved images— and those who praise idols—will be humiliated. Worship him, all you “gods”!' https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%2097&version=ISV, Deuteronomy [^8]: "Praise, O heavens, his people,  worship him, all you gods!" https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Deuteronomy%2032&version=NRSVCE. Also, see https://intertextual.bible/text/deuteronomy-32.43-lxx-deuteronomy-32.43 [^9]: See the wikipedia article [Daniel 8](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_8) [^10]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021%3A%2022-25&version=NASB1995. The expression 'gives birth' is footnoted, saying alternative readings are "an untimely birth occurs; literally 'her children come out" https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2021%3A%2022-25&version=NASB1995#fen-NASB1995-2100a [^11]: See _On Christian Doctrine_ [^12]: See https://cathedral.org/sermons/homily-a-service-of-prayer-for-the-nation/ for the full text of the homily. [^13]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%209%3A13&version=NRSVA [^14]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Hosea%206%3A6&version=NRSVA [^15]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_photo_op_at_St._John's_Church [^16]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202&version=NRSVA [^17]: See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornsweet_illusion [^18]: univoc [^19]: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2019&version=NIV [^20]: Which, Dan suggests, could be interpreted as the Catholic Church saying that a wife is not someone's property [^21]: Exodus 34:28 And he wrote on the tablets the words of the covenant, the ten commandments.[[e](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Exodus%2034&version=NRSVA#fen-NRSVA-2525e "See footnote e")]. Here 'commandments' is the Hebrew word 'words.' [^22]: On says Exodus says 'Remember the Sabbath day', Deut says 'Observe the Sabbath day' [^23]: Or _Every scripture inspired by God is also_ [^24]: In a way, the claim that the bible has no _inherent_ authority follows from the claim that it isn't _univocal_. Without _univocality_ one can just pick and chose parts of it to sustain your claims about what is the received divine wisdom. [^25]: See this ChatGPT link: https://chatgpt.com/share/67ddbb51-1874-8003-9067-6d28c3c5a524 [^26]: [A speech given on the Mount of Olives when Jesus gives an account of the end times](https://chatgpt.com/share/67e60a8e-b660-8003-a14a-016cdb5cd7aa) [^27]: 'Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place.' [[New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised|NRSVA]] [^28]: 'And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders should come my way, I inquired about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip, or Thomas or James, or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and the elder John, the Lord’s disciples, were saying.' [New Testament people named John](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Testament_people_named_John#John_of_Ephesus) [^29]: A mark or imprint on a work with information about the publisher and/or authorship [^30]: Reasoning from the observations to the simplest explanation. [Abductive reasoning](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning)