Imagine playing D&D with Dan as dungeon master. Every time you face a new monster he gives a 20-minute explanation on the history and entomology of the creature. You wouldn’t get very far in the campaign, but it would be fascinating.
During my 25 years in evangelical Christianity I viewed their concept of “Satan” as somewhat ridiculous because they often attributed more power to him than god. My time in the religion was occupied with exponentially more questions than answers recieved.
Just a follow up comment - During my 25 years in Evangelical Christianity, never had I encountered someone like Dan, I engaged with lying apologists who’s sole aim was to give questionably plausible answers to enquiring minds. Truth was NEVER their concern, so I was left with ever more questions followed by more questions, which as those here know, opened you up to rebuke for a lack of faith. I had never even heard of someone like Dan who’s sole aim is data driven truth - Bravo!
Right. Christians are all wrong and Dan is the only one right and Jesus lied when he claim he would send the Holy Spirit to teach the church as a whole.
Yeah one of the big ones for me was when I noticed that Genesis quite plainly said that the serpent in the garden was merely an animal. Then i started asking questions that no one could answer. Stuff that I thought would have been simple such as where the story of the Fall was.
@@4saken404great points. If “the fall” is as significant an event as it is made out to be in Christianity, then why is it literally never referenced again in the entire rest of the Hebrew Scriptures? Why is nobody saying, “Where, oh where, is the savior who is going to save us from the sin that came upon us from father Adam?” But this, too, is never mentioned again after the opening chapters of Genesis. The ancient Israelites and Judahites are far more concerned with land than they are with a Messiah who will save them from their sins. It makes so many of the assumptions of Christianity ring false, no?
@@4saken404 How does Genesis 3:15 makes sense if the serpent was only an animal " and I will put enmity between thee and the woman, between thy seed and her seed, it shall bruise thy head and thou shall bruise his heel."
@@JAMESLEVEE Of course. Jesus Christ defeated satan on the cross. There are many types of Christ throughout the Old Testament. Do you not understand what Jesus meant he is the bronze serpent to be lifted up? As Jordan Peterson told Joe Rogan why didn't God just called off the serpents? Moses rod turned into a serpent and ate the Egyptian's serpent. God told the children to look upon a bronze serpent on a stick to be saved from the serpents and Jesus claimed to be that bronze serpent that would be lifted up. Genesis 3:15 is the first mention of the gospel. Jesus Christ bore the punishment of our sins on the cross. He turn that which is evil and turn it for something good. Even Jordan Peterson as a psychologist realize there is deep meaning behind the serpents and the bronze serpent: As face your fears and put your trust in God's salvation.
I have always felt that the New Testament aligns most with the Book of Enoch. It is quoted and referenced in several of the books, and also referenced as ‘Scripture’ by Jesus.
The Animal Apocalypse would make a good story arc for a new Netflix series. Similar to the Planet of the Apes series, humanity creates a new virus (because of course we would) that makes animals self-aware and tired of our s***.
Sidebar: AiG translates "leviathan" as "dinosaurs" as the justification for all of their theories about "dinosaurs", and their existence in the same time period as Man.
After leaving evangelical churches for very good reasons, a girlfriend encouraged me to return one Sunday. Weird that the pastor dude talked about Satan most of his sermon. Good novels, cults, religions, and Marvel Comics know the antagonist's power.
It might also be worth mentioning that in epic(s) Enuma Elish, from mesopotamian tradition, Tiamat (who matches the description of Leviathan and the 7 headed dragon in The Book of Revelation), was one of the elder gods who waged war against the younger of gods etc. Marduk (one of the younger gods and eventually primary deity of Babylonia) agreed to fight Tiamat. When Marduk defeated Tiamat, he didn't just pull her down to Earth but actually used her corpse to create the Earth (with Babylon, of course, as the centre). Thus Marduk, the son of Ea, gained 50 titles, making him king of gods. So, that "devil" has already been defeated. It's already over... Things like the Book of Revelation can be seen as apocalyptic comparitive literature : It's like saying, 'the old generations of Jews and Romans, etc. don't like us young hippy Christians coz we make too much noise; but I saw a vision/ read about a similar situation where the old generation waged war on the young generation and the son of a god took them out, well - whaddya think's gonna happen this time?'
The idea of God slaying Leviathan to create the world is actually mentioned in Psalm 74! “It was you who split open the sea by your power; you broke the heads of the monster in the waters. It was you who crushed the heads of Leviathan and gave it as food to the creatures of the desert.”
Knowing that I viewed the world “through a medieval lens” of fan-fiction over a 7headed chaos creature that a god used to enjoy wresting with in the sea, does give me pause to smile through the ironic chaos of deconverting
And when the leviathan submarines rise from the sea and fire the missiles to bring the satan satellites tumbling down from the orbital heavens we will need some more text revision
@maklelan any chance you could do a more in depth video (or podcast!) on this topic with some references and examples? It would be awesome to understand how the plural satan became one character with horns and a lake of fire. Also, it’s great when you hold up books so we can screenshot. The comments in this thread have been insightful around the cultural roots of Satan- Milton especially makes sense. Wondering about others. Thanks for your work Dan. It’s helping me heal and sort through a lot of garbage that’s been unchecked in my mind for years.
True..Oddly they maintain Roman Catholic insertions deletions modifications traditions. 1 John 5:7-8 John 7:53 John 8:11 Mark 16: 9 -20 Mathew 17:21 Not in original koine Greek new testament. Virgin in future tense in Isaiah 7:14 modified edited .
@@leom6343 You do realize the scripture talks about gods which includes men right? Caesar would have been refer to as a god. It makes a clear in scripture when it's referring to THE God from the gods. For example God is refer to as the Alpha and Omega. Since Satan would be seen to rule over men who power comes from the God he would be seen as a god as well.
@@smidlee7747 exactly.Jesus is also just a God like many others top. The father is the supreme God. The one who is GREATER than Jesus. The one who is the God of Jesus. The one Jesus worships. But as for Satan, that's dualism.
@@leom6343 No. I already explain to you the scripture make the difference between God from the gods. Jesus is not "a" god as he clearly claims he is equal with the Father. Jesus is also refer to as the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending which referres to the God and not a god. A leader would be considered a god. Genesis 19:24 "Then the LORD rained upon Sodom and upon Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the LORD out of heaven." "The LORD ... from the LORD out of heaven." "My Father and I are one" "My Father which is in heaven."
@maklelan Dan, when you say, “there is one head malevolent angel that goes by different names”, are you saying these names belong to one specific character? Or are you saying these are all different characters holding the “Satan” title/rank?
What ShunM said. "Mark does not provide details, but in Matthew and Luke "the tempter" (Greek: ὁ πειράζων, ho peirazōn) or "the devil" (Greek: ὁ διάβολος, ho diabolos) tempts Jesus..." (Wikipedia, Temptation of Christ) Nowhere is Satan mentioned.
Has anyone ever heard of Samael? Samael is an angel or demon in Jewish mythology and Apochrypha. Sometimes, he is portrayed as being under God’s authority, but other stories characterize him closer to the devil figure we think of today. In Kabbalah, Samael is the prince of darkness with four wives who gave birth to many demons.
When people share they "get their beliefs from the Bible," it often means "they asribe their beliefs to the Bible." Just a few minor inversions of meaning like this can help decode belief.
@maklelan question on the account with Job. I noticed in the NRSVUE translation, Job 2:4 says “all that the man has” which seems pointed to Job specifically. Many other translations say “everything a man has,” which has been used to generalize the claim the Satan makes. When I look up the Hebrew word used in that section, compared to other verses in the HB, it seems like “the man” fits better than “a man.” What’s your thoughts?
Hi Mr. McClellan, I know it may be a little outside your wheelhouse but I'd be interested in hearing your opinion on the Del Tan Stele and its use in arguments for the historicity of the character of king david from the hebrew bible.
As a Christian of 35 years, and a deconstructed Christian of about seven years, I knew most of what Dan is sharing here (with the exception of a few details related to the Enochic literature). We see clear theological development and progression of thought about Satan throughout the Bible. It honestly seems like the authors are just riffing off of each other and making things up as they go. Can anybody help me understand what we should make of the devil/Satan in light of this information? Is it possible to take the historical Jesus (who seemed to believe in a personified devil) seriously while also not believing in the same diabolical figure?
This is great!!! (but I'm still confused) In the gospels, both words "satan" and "devil" are used. I just don't know if they are referring to the same entity.
"A dragon sweeping a 3rd of the stars from heaven." That makes me think that the Draco constellation is one of the largest in the night sky- So does Draco have the size to make a verse like that seem plausible?
The definition of the dragon in the greek corresponds to a serpent which the 7 headed dragon isn't a literal 7 headed dragon it's symbolic Revelation 12:9 And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world: he was cast out into the earth, and his angels were cast out with him.
Hey Mr McClellan when the Pharisee accuse Christ of doing the works of Beelzebub what literature did they get this name from? It's not in the books we understand as the Old Testament that I've found.
If you read the Old Testament in view of its authors beliefs, it really changes things. The Jews of the OT had no Hell, no Heaven, and no Satanic opposition to God. All divine rewards and punishments happened to the living, not the dead. Everybody went to same place after death---a place called Sheol, which was very much like the Greek Hades; a cold, dark cavern where the dead wandered aimlessly without memory of their former lives. In the OT, the worst punishment from God was death; but when you consider that being good and faithful all your life still led you to the same fate, it kind of weakens the plot.
Job 19:26 "and though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God." Daniel 12:2 "and many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life and some to shame and everlasting contempt."
Could someone please explain in Layman's terms please. I kinda understand, but not really. I'm a believer (a little agnostic) but I just call him the devil
Leviathan is a sea creature, probably a whale, the Jews thought would provide the banquet meal after the Messiah had defeated the enemies of the Israelites and instituted the reign of God on Earth. They didn't realize that whales are mammals and therefore not kosher. One joke has it that, at that meal, a Satmar Chasid would pipe up, "I don't trust the kashrut, I'll have a fruit plate!"
Revelation 20:2-"And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years," John 8:44-“Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.” Satan, who is that old serpent and is the father of lies, brought about the first sin by beguiling Eve which led to Adam transgressing God’s law. The scriptures are plain in who Satan is.
Re: Data > Dogma: I told my sibling Facts > Fantasy. Why can we not teach our kids FACTS from our own recent and very well known history, why must we stuff them full of unverifiable mid-eastern FANTASY? I was 24 and traveling outside my country of birth when I first learned of the Soweto Riots of '76. That was never taught in my school, nor by my parents. Similarly most kids in the US today are only taught white history. Black history is skimmed over, only the successful parts are highlighted. "MLK gave a speech and now everyone is equal" and all that. At least Germany has for a long time now made their kids confront the horrors of the Nazi camps and banned any Nazi symbols in their country in an attempt to stop it from rising again.
The great dragon in that verse is referring to the leviathan. The 7 headed dragon can be found even outside of these texts in other myths. So its not even talking about a fallen angel. Leviathan, the great sea monster of Canaanite tradition
Don't you understand Jesus lied when he claimed he would send the Holy Ghost to teach and guide the church as a whole and Dan is the only one who got it right? Those early Christians had no clue what they were talking about. If only God had Dan to be born in the 1st or 2nd century he would been able to straighten those early Christians out.
@@KaijuOfTheOperai watched the video. didnt know he was specifically refering to 12:9 when he said "in revelation" since all of 12 and 13 are about a dragon.
It is a big mistake to assume that any two different mentions of a Satan or diabolos-even within the very same new testament book-are in fact referring to the same character. Lucifer is associated with the planet Venus, which in a Canaanite myth alluded to in the Ezekiel passage, apparently attempted to take the place of Baal/El in the divine council. Since Christianity was fundamentally anti-Imperial in its eschatology-it is understandable why this Helel ben Shachar of pre-Hellenistic Canaanite mythology (associated with the planet Venus) would be conflated by Tertullian (and probably as early as the time of Jesus too) with the head of the Roman Imperial pantheon that holds sway over & is worshipped by the Roman Emperors that ruled the world, and was viewed as a theological rival to Jesus who was viewed as the Deputy-YHWH/El/Baal. The Imperial demand for global political reverence that belonged to the true God who was conflated with the motivations of the Canaanite mythological Venus ("Lucifer") character who tried to replace El. This would then be a separate "satan/devil" existing independently of the characters of 1 Enoch
I only found this on GPT This deity’s role and characteristics varied across different Semitic cultures. In some traditions, ʿAṯtar is depicted as a masculine god who attempted to take the throne of Baal but ultimately descended to rule the underworld2.
@@dganlc no wonder medieval theologies depict a "Satan/Devil" that rules over the Underworld! The problem is that New Testament scholars are only trained in what it explicit in the old testament & later Jewish literature, as well as varying levels of Greco-Roman mythology - but know almost nothing about North-West Semitic pantheons & myths that are not heavily & hyper-explicitly repeated in the texts they work with
It would be wonderful now to hear exactly how Satan was identified with and connected to Lucifer and the serpent on the tree, considering you never said that conclusion is actually correct. We deserve to analyze and determine that, too. Thank you for coming out with this.
This is like the Muslim's argument "Where did Jesus say 'I'm God , worship me.' and since he didn't say it in those exact words then Jesus is not God." The Bible often takes that which is natural to reveal that which is spiritual. Genesis 3:15 reveals the serpent was more than just a physical creature as it's the first mention of the spiritual war between Satan and the Messiah. Notice satan can't war against God as God directly so he must war against the Messiah and his people that promised to appear , the seed of Eve, the seed of Noah , the seed of Abraham ,etc. The first battle of this war was between Cain and Abel. Cain offered up to God his works , the fruit of the ground which God already curse while Abel offered up the blood sacrifice pointing to Christ. The religion of works wars against the religion of faith. Islam is the religion of works vs Christianity the religion of faith.
@@smidlee7747 Fam you have absolutely no authoritative knowledge about these subjects. Stop with this bull. You do not understand these religions or the traditions. You are wasting time. You have nothing to teach me. Read the whole Bible and study the actual history of Christianity before you come at someone with this. This isn't even about Islam. You're now disagreeing with not only me but the Bible scholar in this video. Did you even watch the video? Whose authority is allowed to draw definitive conclusions that are not even supported by the Bible? Not yours. Besides, you're directly contradicting yourself. Your argument is the same fallacy you're trying to claim mine is. I'm not arguing a fallacy to begin with. I've been through this rigmarole. I know the facts. Clearly you don't.
@@nathanmstroud Muslims have said themselves "this religion is all about what you are willing to offer to Allah" vs Christianity is all about what God offer to us. Islam is the religion of Cain as even according to Muslim's own sources Muhammad rejected the cross , the blood sacrifice just like Cain and war and attack his own home town just as Cain shed the blood of his brother. Muslims find the cross offensive and their sources even claim their Christ will come back and break the cross and war against the church and the Jews.
@@smidlee7747 Dude, come on. Does this actually make sense to you? You don't even understand the symbolic significance of serpents and you're talking like you know 100% why the serpent on the tree was a serpent in the first place. With zero conclusive data. Why even read the texts if you can't operate via conclusive reasoning? None of these ideas are justifiable. It's mental gymnastics someone told you to believe, and for some reason, despite that it could be the exact deception you fight against, it's enough for you. Not even a thinking Christian could buy this
@@nathanmstroud We can see the results today as I told you. Just as Cain reject offering God a blood sacrifice while Abel accepted it by faith so Islam rejects the sacrifice Jesus Christ made on the cross. They don't hide that fact. The cross is offensive to Islam.
We are the same species as little green angels and they can procreate with humans? Snake = Shining One, Morning Star, Glistening One, Light of the World, Slippery One. YHWH judged the gods, who neither know nor understand, wandering about in darkness, and became the snake - thus fulfilling the law. Adam, the Christ, wields the fiery sword, judges the earth, and becomes the worm - thus fulfilling the law. Earth is YHWH’s Everlasting Lake of Fire, his furnace of roaring flames where, in his furious wrath, he will gather you up, put you in, and smelt you. If your name is not found in the Book of Life, he will refine you, remove your dross, and purify you until the Devil, the False Prophet, and the Beast (false beliefs) are cleansed from you. The gates of the Abyss/ Hades will not prevail against it, (Mat 16:18)
Hi Dan. The suffering servant of Isaiah 53 is the prophet Jeremiah. Eli Israel (RU-vid channel) has a detailed lesson on this FACT ! You are incorrect by saying it’s the Israelites (Israel). A scholar of the bible should know it is The Prophet Jeremiah. Please watch his lesson. ALL PRAISES TO THE MOST HIGH ALONE.
wondered about this recently. Particularly in the OT, they hardly made mention of Devil or Demons.The NT however had the spiritual realm was more pronounced in terms of the division between angels and demons, then the devil. But what would you say about Job ? Satan is clearly spelt out among the sons . Also the Prince of Persia in Daniel, although he could be considered as principality not the Devil. Also, I don't think the dragon in revelation is the leviathan, because Rev 20.2 points out the serpent from Genesis. again, Illustrating his maturity from Serpent to Dragon.
The “satan” in Job is god’s minion. Job description not personal name. The word translates as “adversary” or even “accuser” and the role is similar to a prosecutor in a court of law. I suggest to scroll through Dan’s back catalogue: he has covered most if not all the topics you mention. Quickest way is to use the RU-vid search putting Dan’s name and a specific topic as keywords.
@@pansepot1490 Yea. I have seen recurring topics on the same subject from him. Like I mentioned I was curious too. But I would point out that unlike the angel of the Lord he repeatedly marks as having the same function as The Satan, the Satan is always ever against the faithful as seen in Job, and noted from the one in Daniel. Rev 12:10 clearly solidifies this painting him as the "accuser of brethren" casted down with his angels, which is different from Genesis sons of God. nonetheless, like I mentioned the OT characters were less entangled with the division between the hosts. NT made that clearer , and that I can agree with.
The satan in Job is doing his job, namely calling out the deity who is being a bit boastful about Job, by daring the deity to put up or shut up. Everything that satan does is explicitly only done with the deity's permission. That is not the classic version of Satan people are taught in Sunday schools.
@@keith6706 hehehe. I supposed the pitched fork dude is meant to scare people. However, if we observe the basic function of the devil , it is to sway people from God and make them accusable before God. But nothing the Devil does is out of God's sight. Like depicted in Job- As Paul said, It is in God we live and have our beings, this includes the opposers.
Why must we trust ridiculous fabricated mythical and magical beings and happenings throughout the "scripture" when we know they don't exist now and didnt exist then? How many 100s of years will we be lied to to hide Mark 14, early Pederasty was not uncommon in those times and eventually they decided it was shameful so they concealed these early practices but continued sodomistic practices secretly in the churches still to this day, inconvenient if you want to paint the "jesus character" as the perfect being😂
The holy scriptures define and name Satan for us: And the great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, called the Devil, and Satan, which deceiveth the whole world....(Revelation 12:9a). Further, Jesus told of Satan's character, saying, Ye are of your father, the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it (John 8:44). The serpent deceived Eve in the garden (see Genesis 3:1, 2 Corinthians 11:3). Second Corinthians 11:14 states that Satan transforms himself into an angel of light. He is the roaring lion which walketh about, seeking whom he may devour--our adversary, according to 1 Peter 5:8. The scriptures give commentary on the scriptures: the Devil, Satan, the old serpent are one in the same.
You were not paying attention. “Most of our ideas ABOUT Satan are non-biblical” BECAUSE they are Greek mythological extrapolations of Enochic literature, which you might have noticed are NOT biblical. Whatever Jesus was saying has nothing to do with these facts, and you are probably misreading it anyway. Think harder next time.
Youre not listening to what he says. Youre just quoting scriptures away in which we already know the proper interpretations thanks to Dan. There is no angel in the bible that fell from heaven named Satan. There is more than one Satan in the book in which Dan is able to show that Genesis and Revelations satan is pretty much Leviathan. There is no figure named that in the original scriptures. The new testament i would disregard all the way because its basically Greeo mythology fused with the ancient Israelite beliefs.
Every reference above is a biblical reference; how could one judge them as non-biblical therefore? The scriptures are clear and easily understood as they speak of the Devil, synonyms for him, and his character. The Bible (Old and New Testaments) is God's word given to men, able to make them wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus (see 2 Timothy 3:15-16). It is authoritative--all else should be judged in light of what it says (see John 17:17, 1 Thessalonians 5:21).
@@sm8johnthreesixteen 2 Timothy can't refer to the New Testament, because the New Testament didn't exist when 2 Timothy was written. "Scripture" referred only to the Hebrew Bible, and the authoritative status of the NT writings circulating at the time varied by congregation, geographical location, and access.
@@tchristianphoto The Old Testament could make men wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus; these are the holy scriptures that Timothy knew from childhood (see 2 Timothy 3:15). Second Timothy is part of the New Testament--the New Testament is likewise scripture, God-breathed, authoritative (Peter references Paul's epistles in 2 Peter 3:15-16, calling them scripture). It is correct to say that the Bible, Old and New Testaments, are the holy scriptures, God's word given to men...
Aside from his blatant misuse of pronouns, Dan ignores his own past scholarly comments on extra-biblical sources which are used in the Bible -- mythical enemies of God, which are defeated by him. Ignoring this broader context here is highly unscholarly.
FWIW, leading with pronouns makes whatever comes next easy to dismiss. But then you don't actually back up any of your claims with citations, or even specific instances, so it's pretty easy to dismiss that on its own as "I don't like how he makes me feel when he says things".
