Regardless of the particular interpretive bent of any Christian, it's very obvious that some passages are ignored, given lip service, or interpreted in a strange way that sometimes strains credulity. Given the span of time and the probable number of authors and editors that were involved in the creation of the biblical corpus, the Bible as we have it today is a rich source for creating your own theology. There's just so much material to work with...
I don't care about the interpretation, once people start man-hating or woman-hating ,"God says you gotta shut up and obey m!!", that's when people start going home to commit violence against their family members.
It truly is a “choose your own adventure” book. A clear example of this is how many different Christians interpret what one specifically has to do to be saved and/or prove one is saved. The funniest thing is that every one of them will make snarky remarks like “it’s so easy to understand” or “it’s not that hard” while each of them are giving different criteria. Yeah, it’s so easy that none of y’all are on the same page despite apparently having the Holy Spirit that’s supposed to unify you 😂. It’s amazing how tribal they can get too, asserting who is and who isn’t a “real Christian”, then labeling them as a part of the “out group” they have to watch out for.
And yet Paul spoke well of women pastors, deacons, and even apostles. Whenever there is a contradiction, I choose the side which is the most helpful and useful. God gave us brains, so we should use them. Since the bible is contradictory, everyone must choose what to follow. Why choose to follow ideas which are harmful? If Paul accepted women, then i can accept women too. If his accept of women leaders is erroneous, and the misogynistic passages are really from Paul....then, i still reject it. I will not call evil good, even if a book claims God believes evil is good.
@@ratamacue0320 did I say that? I think a lot of scriptures are our attempts at understanding life and the cosmos. So they could be called inspired. Of course, a lot of texts seem inspired, religious or not. My peers are pretty open minded. I'm in the ELCA, but the UU is probably closer to my belief.
So basically you are cherry pick what you like and reject what you dislike and make up your own criteria to decide whats from God and what not. You are the living proof that Christianity is a failed religion and that the Bible(s) is/are not to be trusted at all and thst God couldnt preserve the bibles😂 remember: Jesus followed the whole torah. He didn't cherry pick anything and most likely wouldn't even have accepted Paul at all. So in the first century, Jesus wouldnt have accepted you as his follower.
@@langreeves6419 I thought at least that it logically followed from what you had said, if you didn't say so directly. However, I see that you've edited your comment, so I can't check now and be sure. Care you share your thoughts on the topic?
So you are cherry picking what you like and reject what you dislike based on your own criteria. You are the living proof that Christianity is a failed religion and that be bible can not be trusted.😂 you are basically admitting that God couldn't preserve a book😂
Wow! Not used to hearing Dan unleash a full blast like this. Reminds me of a line from a movie critic (can’t even remember the film being reviewed): “He might be shooting fish in a barrel, but his aim is excellent.”
I don't know how it can be better explained. Over and over and over. One of these day, maybe it will be enough. Authoritative interpretation of text under the auspices of divine inspiration is.... There are two choices, bend the knee to whoever is speaking it or reject the authority. Every single person who engages in the practice is saying, this is the word of God and I am speaking it. I am the word of God. Listen and do what I say or suffer the consequences. That's it. Every single person. Every single time.
@@goldenalt3166 or truth... so many different groups claiming to have the truth and making war over it... there can only be 1 truth... most likely none of them that claim it..
Thanks again for these timely insights. Indeed, the standard Christian creeds (Nicene, Apostles’, or even the less familiar Athanasian or Chalcedonian creeds) say nothing about the nature, source, accuracy, or role of the Bible, nor any duty of Christians to read it or believe it. Traditionally, one or another of those creeds has been accepted as the litmus test of being a Christian, so anything beyond that is someone's later opinion and not part of historical orthodox Christianity.
Would a wife even be sitting close enough to her husband? Wouldn't it have been segregated? She wouldn't be able to whisper to her hubby during church.
The Bible. On the one hand we are asked to believe that women were more steadfast disciples than some of Christ's male disciples, as it was a group of women that remained at the foot of the cross, while the men all ran away.......but then also believe that women shouldn't be priests or ministers? Really? And we are also asked to believe that those women at the cross weren't as much Christ's disciples as the men? Mary of Magdala wasn't a disciple? Human men wrote scriptures, and (sometimes) they wrote them to say just what they wanted them to say, including their own opinions, prejudices, and sexism.
I have learned so much about how to handle these contradictions. It takes real knowledge about the origins of the texts. And a clearing of the mind in relation to dogma.
@@pansepot1490 yeah because he couldn't openly be gay, so he forced everyone to be an ace or he just didn't want to be the only one without a woman, to not get exposed.
@@pansepot1490 Yep. Almost all the serious scholarship takes this view. If he was anything we might classify today, it's likely in the asexual neighborhood. Him recommending heterosexual sex within marriage as a prophylactic for distracting lust would fit a low libido and an apocalyptic vision.
As a gay during pride month I want to certify the skill Dan has to READ creators TO FILTH while maintaining a deadpan attitude and polite vocabulary. YOU GO MY. MAN!!!!
I wonder if that young creator is a Jehovah witness. “Elders” and “overseers” are titles they use in their organization. And they implement strict rules about women being subservient to men.
Eh, the other language he uses doesn't strike me as witness-ese not to mention that in my experience this sort of "witnessing" online is not really approved or lifted up among witnesses. For example, you will find not find anyone doing "witness blogging" or something similar in the organisation publications. Not saying he definitely isn't, just that I don't find it the likeliest possibility without more evidence pointing in that direction.
“Elders” are common roles in evangelical churches. However, since “overseers” then are called “bishops” today, they all ignore that bit as too Catholic :)
I think the most telling argument against denying women an exclesiastical role is that if Kat Kerr had been silenced, the truths about Jello Land and Christmas Town might never have been heard. I shudder to think ...
I agree with Dan saying the Bible is not univocal, but when reading it I find it is even more chaotic than I expected. The Bible is not univocal even when we compare adjacent verses. Compare Galatians 6:5 (all must carry their own loads) to Galatians 6:2 (bear one another's burdens) and Galatians 6:6 (share good things with [your] teacher). I had assumed that non-univocality meant that one writer might be inconsistent with another writer when they were different people, or perhaps the same person with time inbetween to change their opinion, but it is worse than that. Paul in particular seems to have difficulty getting his story straight.
1. Would you kindly make a video addressing the theology of universal salvation as contrasted with annihilationism and ECT? I've seen some of your vids that debunk or challenge ECT, but none that have squarely addressed universal or inevitable universal salvation, and I'd really like to get your analysis on it. 2. I would encourage you to avoid jumping to conclusions about the motives of some YT commenters. You often prognosticate on the motives of people and assume that they are simply trying to structure power in their favor and maintain traditional value systems for their own sake. But unless you're psychic, these are baseless conclusions about motives that you have no way of knowing. You may be right with some of them, but I'm sure that others are genuinely motivated by a desire to be loyal and obedient to God and the edicts in the Bible. They are certainly wrong about many things, but that doesn't mean they are all cynical monsters playing power politics. They may very well feel compelled by Scripture to adopt positions that they personally dislike. It's fine to just say they are wrong without baselessly assuming negative character traits about those you critique.
I seriously feel so lost. As a person trying to find my way into Christianity, it is becoming more and more difficult to count myself as one. The more I go down Dan’s rabbit hole, the less I believe. I’m genuinely appreciative of his work and content. This is not in any way an attack on him. It’s the opposite actually. I just don’t know what it really means to be Christian after seeing all the dogmas and interpretations are stripped away.
When I went to bible college we were having a discussion in a class and it got heated. All the students kept asserting that the bible is the inerrant inspired word of God. I disagreed with them. I was like the bible has numerous authors, all human. Meaning they all observed different things, interpret differently and are not immune to human fallacy. Therefore the bible is not inerrant. I was like have y'all actually read the whole bible? I don't think y'all have.
Just because the epistle was written pseudonymously doesn't mean you ignore it. We have it today because the early church saw its value. We don't know who wrote most of the Bible. There may have been valid reasons for those problematic verses in their original context. For example, Timothy could equally be read, a wife should not usurp her husband's authority. The law it refers to might have been a civic law. Corinthians might be about women causing a disturbance to proceedings, already cited as a problem, not an outright ban, since elsewhere it refers to woman praying aloud. Having said all that, I agree with you. We are not compelled to treat these texts as immutable laws for all time. After all, using Paul own words, "we are discharged from law to serve in the new way of the Spirit"; "what counts is faith working in love". Complementary-ism fails to love. As an old pastor mine, now departed, once told me, you need to exercise some common sense.
Consider the problem with that on a theological level. If we just look at it anthropologically, sure, the pseudoepigraphic nature of the letter doesn't matter, and for all we know the people who canonized it knew it wasn't by Paul but valued it anyway. But theologically, going from the position that scripture is inspired by the Holy Spirit and authorized by God, we have a serious issue here: The Holy Spirit can authorize and inspire frauds. This is an untenable position. Consider the following example: Tomorrow, your friend shows up and reveals to you that he has "discovered" a lost epistle from the apostle Peter, inspired by God and with the authority of scripture. You read the letter and strongly suspect your friend wrote it, or at the very least, the apostle Peter didn't write it. If we believe that scripture must be authenticated in at least some general sense to have come from an identifiable source, then we're free to reject your friend's claims. If, on the other hand, the Holy Spirit can inspire frauds who wrote long after the supposed author was dead, we have no basis for claiming that the Holy Spirit did not inspire your friend's letter as scripture EVEN IF HE ADMITS HE FORGED IT. Absent some independent basis for verifying the inspiration of scripture, any writing by any person in any time could hypothetically be divinely inspired scripture with the same authority as anything in the Bible. But if we were to propose such a metric for verifying scripture, we don't need the canon in the first place; we just test every document against our metric, and accept whatever passes the test.
@@Uryvichk I think 1 Timothy reads like a fictional letter from an older pastor offering advice to a junior pastor. Paul and Timothy were well-known historical figures that could fit those roles. There's nothing fraudulent about it. Scripture is not "authorized by God", it is merely recognized by believers. Rather, I think God providentially let them be produced in a way that fulfilled God's purposes.
1) I think a few more ducktails shirt fit checks and Dan will be full on singing the whole song. 2) A thing that Dan articulates really well that I long ago struggled to explain is that the Bible is just a collection of books that someone chose to elevate. The authors, like Paul, are just some guys. We aren't required to believe any word of it. It is a choice to by every person.
Insane that someone could look at that Corinthians passage and come to the conclusion that it’s saying the exact opposite of what it says. Dogma is a trip
The book is just way more interesting and theologically effective when readers are asked to chew on it, ponder it, identify tensions and resolve them - or not. “The Bible says it I believe it that settles it” is so deeply unhelpful, unpastoral, and… unbiblical
I’m reading a book called Women in the Church: An Interpretation and Application of 1 Timothy 2:9-15 and it is incredibly fascinating and loaded with historical context. I’m not too deep in the book yet, but the authors (so far) have treated 1 Timothy as if it were a letter written by Paul. I know McClellan posted an article in the original video, and I tried to look up other articles and read a couple commentaries and Study Bible notes, but I’m not seeing where other scholars are saying 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus are not considered to be written by Paul outside of that one article. I’m a baby theologian and would love some more resources on this topic.
I’ve studied under four Christian historians that have taught a historical approach to early Christianity that all agree that the Timothy letters, Titus, and 2nd Peter were not written by those apostles but are 2nd cent documents written long after Paul and Peter died. There were many documents left out of the canon as Constantine wanted a uniform doctrine and Bible that would be acceptable to a large number of Romans. The Roman church was established to be a political force to keep the splintering empire together. That’s it. Add John Calvin to the mix and you have a Christianity that does not know what it is, and can only use bullying to keep people in line and under control. These attempts to turn America into a Christian nationalistic theocracy will not end well. Sad that the comedy Idiocracy turned out to be prophetic.
@@garytorresani8846 Thanks for the response! And we can for sure say that about the catholic bible, but what about the Protestant bible? Luther had his own version that left out Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation (a Catholic priest I listened to mentioned Luther leaving out more, but I can’t find a source for that information). So, if it was the Catholic Church that used the Timothy’s/Titus/2nd Peter to oppress and suppress different groups of the population into a form of submission, then why would the Protestant church, which was a solid and clear break away from the Catholic Church, want to keep books that are, for lack of a better word, heretical? Especially considering their eagerness to leave out books such as Judith. You may not have a great answer for this, and I imagine the easy answer would be that they wanted the same influence as the C.C. or that they didn’t have the same tools we had today to determine the legitimacy of different books, but I’d love to hear your take because of your background in studying all of this.
I caution you to be aware that I and other scholars have critiqued Al Wolters' contribution in chapter 2. It is most certainly not what the editors of the book claim it to be: "the definitive essay on authenteō"! I'm not alone with my criticism which (if you read the intro to the book) was written to counter egalitarian claims that the woman's authority being prohibited was of a pejorative kind. Without detailing here all of Wolters' questionable methodology and unjustified assumptions which he makes, he completely shoots himself in the foot, as well. In short he says that it is the exercise of "ordinary authority of a master" in his household. Yet he derives this definition from a second century reprimand not to call a despotēs an authentēs. Yes, despotēs is a master - but a SLAVE master who has absolute despotic control over every aspect of their lives - the MOST pejorative sort of authority there could be!! 😂
@@alirowan1999 lol and absolutely! I’m trying to approach this book as neutral as possible because of the intro chapter and from what other people have said about the book. Lisa Bevere said on her podcast, ‘The Fight for Female’, that she is not pro-egalitarian nor is she pro-complimentarian, she’s somewhere in between when it comes to the question of should women be involved in ministry. So I’m being really cautious with where I step within this book. Since I feel like I have a calling in ministry, I’m seeing the Vodie Bauchams and the Lisa Beveres, and I equally feel this desire to be properly equipped? Like I want to be able to defend myself, but I think the point is that, ultimately, there’s not a super great answer and to rely on God for if and when that moment arrives. Thanks for your response! If you have anything you wanna recommend, I’m always willing to learn, even if it’s not related to women in ministry 🤠
@@alanateal I have been an independent researcher doing my own study from the texts and related historical and cultural setting for many years. This is an old article, written when I still held to the standard church dogma that everything that is canonised was written by the claimed author and conformed to 2 Tim 3:16 (although I cannot justify any of that position, now). I wrote it as a result of looking at the Greek original of passages about the qualifications for leadership in the church. There are links to other related aspects as well ... again written years ago, but I would probably still agree with most of the material I covered. I made no reference to 1 Tim 2 since I have done considerably more research since then. Although what I sketched out as a definition of authentein in this article may seem urprising, I believe that historically and lexically, can be still viaible and relevant as a secondary connotation of authentein. The primary meaning is given in the definition by Aelius Moeris, a sophist writing almost contemporaneously to the pseudonymous author of the Pastorals in the late second century. Wolters is one of the few scholars who looks at this definition, but is thrown off the scent by the definition of the related adverbial expression, autodikē, ("by independent jurisdiction" - strictly it is more literally, "being responsible for (auto) justice (diké)" - to defend yourself in court *independently* from the orators whom a defendant would usually pay as defense lawyers. However most scholars in the Comp/Egal debate, erroneously try to make their definition fit into the context of a modern church. They pick on the word, "independent" and assume women should still be under the jurisdiction of a man to do their teaching (on the Comp side), or from Egal scholars, that they are teaching prematurely before getting full endorsement for being sufficiently trained. Both are completely wrong, imo, from at least half a dozen angles.) docs.google.com/document/d/1HMjsKIoVtIn54PYX43cA6watlVxKpgP0Z99wCjwHrEg/edit?usp=drivesdk Anyway, I'll let you browse and I hope it's helpful. (Explaining what I now believe the entire letter of 1 Tim is about as the proper context for understanding 2:11-12, is too much to explain here, other to say it's a rebuttal of the three-tiered "gnostic" heresies of the second century. But it's not really seen because it is esoterically written in an underlayer to this seemingly innocuous document on church order. A work of sheer genius, possibly by Clement of Alexandria, since he was adept at this sort of writing in his Stromata. If you find the comment by Brent Johnson, I have put some thoughts about 1 Cor 14:34-35, there)
Well they do this bc they already have preconceived views and morals, and they have to submit the Bible to their morals rather than submitting their morals to the Bible… bc regardless of how unpolitically correct they claim to be, they have to concede to some extent. Wouldn’t be such a difficult thing if inerrancy and infallibility weren’t staples of their approach to the Bible. Just more negotiations, like you always say
Hey Dan, idk if this is a thing on your end with the way you're uploading your videos, but the HDR thing really hurts my eyes and makes it hard to watch your videos. Would it be possible for you to upload in non-HDR in the future?
So?? based on real theological, historical scholarship the Bible --combined Jewish writings and New Testament writings--is TOTALLY "man-made". It can be "negotiated" to fit whatever doctrine of man --dogma--as needed.
I agree,in a sense,,if a rightious man is leading nether gender should care,,but a voice from either is always a good thing. Thank you duckie lol good stuff.
"The qualifications for the overseer don't start until [1 Timothy 2] 16" @2:09 threw me for a loop, lol. I'm assuming Dan meant 1 Timothy 3:1 there. I've made the same types of mistakes when trying to reorder arguments I've typed up on the fly though.
maybe I got mixed up somewhere or I'm confused where does your first Corinthians 14 34 and 35 contradict the Timothy versuses that you listed??? And then mentioned that there are verses that support women being deacons and stuff but aren't those ALSO found in first Timothy ? And if Paul didn't write those texts aren't we just back to first Corinthians and which scholars do you believe Paul wrote Which says women must be silent in church ???
I believe Dan is saying that 1 Cor 14:34-35 clearly contradicts what the other creator said, and then shows how even Timothy’s passage was manipulated in context. Scholars often assert that the 1 Cor verses seem to have been lifted from 1 Tim and inserted in this *otherwise* (mostly) genuine letter.
More gender wars. Once people start man-hating or woman-hating , im out, they lost my attention. This gender-based hate eventually leads to domestic violence.
Seems like broboy here was attempting to read Timmy like it was a bracketed lecture: intro, powerpoints, summary. Like the shit about ecclesiastical settings was a punchline.
Hey Dan appreciate the education. Even when its hard at times to understand because of your choice of woods. I am not an intellectual as you . Pull out the dictionary. All good. What you mention is easily seen in politics. Especially during the 911 and George Floyd situations. Some top journalists investigated deeply and it was not as we were told. It was whatever pushed the agenda needed to.prove a specific point. Same as biblical individuals as you mentioned. Take care.
As usual the smart people totally miss the obvious problem with all of this paul spew THE TRUE PROBLEM WITH THIS STORY IS THAT AT ITS CORE THE CLAIM IS THAT THERE ARE 2 HOLY SPIRITS AND THE ONE IN WOMEN IS INCAPABLE OF TEACHING JESUS WORD THERE IS ONLY ONE FULLY CAPABLE SPIRIT IN A BAPTISED WOMEN OR MAN NOT 2 SO THE BASIC TEACHING OF PAUL IS BLASPHEMY AGAINST THE SPIRIT WITH HIS INCAPABLE CLAIM
2nd Timothy 3:16-17, “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.” Psalm 12:6-7, “The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.” So because of the above verses we know that the Apostle Paul wrote all of the scripture in this video. Secondly, those scriptures do not speak of women being silent in absolutely all worship in the service as everybody in attendance is supposed to sing with their heart to the Lord. God's children should not sit quietly during the song service because we are afraid someone will hear our imperfect singing voice. We are not singing to those around us, but to the Lord. Let us raise our voices, the harps the Lord has made, in singing to Him. "Let the word of Christ dwell in you richly in all wisdom, teaching and admonishing one another in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing with grace in your hearts to the Lord." [Colossians 3:16] There are to be no women evangelists, preachers, or teachers in the church but everyone is supposed to sing to the Lord.
Guess who DIDN'T write 2 Timothy? Paul. So you're saying Paul wrote 2 Timothy because 2 Timothy says all scripture is from God, except the only reason you think 2 Timothy is itself scripture is because someone decided it was written by Paul, which it wasn't. This is hopelessly confused.
@@Uryvichk Where’s your proof that Paul did not write 2nd Timothy? My evidence is in the first two verses, “Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the will of God, according to the promise of life which is in Christ Jesus,To Timothy, my dearly beloved son: Grace, mercy, and peace, from God the Father and Christ Jesus our Lord.”
@@treystevenson9872You have twice used the argument, in your original comment and in this response, “This book is true and reliable because it says it is.” If you can’t see the problem there, I don’t know what to tell you. It’s easy to find the several reasons most scholars don’t think Paul wrote those books. You just have to look. The Wikipedia article gives a decent summary and links to sources. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Epistle_to_Timothy#Authorship In summary, the earliest lists of Paul's writings didn't include it; the style and vocabulary are very different from Paul's writings; and it contains an anachronistic portrait of church organization that didn't yet exist in Paul's time.
The content creator is a typical example of his type as if he is reading from a script. There is nothing new or creative in this rancid stale expression of I can't control myself so let's talk about what the other should do.
Wow. We didn't even get to the apparent contradiction in 1 Corinthians 11:5:Yet every woman praying OR PROPHESYING with uncovered head. I'm assuming she's doing so in the ecclesia. But can you imagine Danny boy spewing all this scholarly garbage to our Lord? Dan tupes have obviously taken the serpent's declaration in Gen. 3:5 to heart: and you shall become like God. Dan types impose on believers all this 20th century existentialist: you can't ignore. You must choose, yada yada. Doubting Thomases gone wild. Dan, what happened to Romans 12:3: God imparts to each the measure of faith. Perhaps He parted to you a bunch of sophisticated scholarly knowledge but oh so very little faith.
This passage is a horrible squelching of burgeoning equality. It came as such a shock when I read it I dropped my Bible in the bin. The four prophetesses, the deacons, the apostle - suddenly they had no right to even speak now? I wish I knew about multivocality back then. It would’ve spared me such heartache.
Sure Dan always tags on a few "knuckle dragging" comments in his creator replies, but the real meat of his rebuttals are never, ever ad hominems -- there's always an impersonal valid argument WITH examples front and center. The tag-on digs are just delicious splashes of Carolina reaper sauce.
I always appreciate your work. However, every time you engage this topic and these passages, you leave so much out. The context of 1 Cor. 14:34-35 is all of Chs.11-14 with the immediate context all of ch. 14. Paul’s prohibition falls within general disorder among those exercising their spiritual gifts selfishly and disrupting worship. This includes, I think, women disrupting worship asking questions. What if a woman doesn’t have a husband? Is she just supposed to shut up and never ask questions? This is a particular issue within the Corinthian church at this particular time. Paul wants them to clean their drunken parties/worship time up (see Lord’s Supper issues in ch. 11). Not put a stop to women speaking in worship for all time. This question does not need to be reduced scribal interpolations. Exegetically, this answer makes much more sense than isolating 14:34-35 from its rhetorical context and claiming it doesn’t belong. Side note* I’m glad the NRSVUE moved 14:33 as ending 26-32 (or better yet, 1-32) instead of opening the discussion of women. Prior to the NRVSUE, the only translation that put it there was the KJV and that was probably an accident. Side note 2# citing Al Mohler on scripture? He might as well cite Donald Trump on medical decisions during a pandemic.
"the only translation that put it there was the KJV and that was probably an accident." I will challenge you to convince ANY Southern Baptist that something - _anything_ - in the KJV is incorrect or an accident. Southern Baptists will tell you that every _OTHER_ version of the Bible is incorrect, and cite your example as proof that the KJV is indeed the one and only "true" Bible.
@@christasimon9716 You’re not wrong 😂! However, reading v.33 at the end of 26-32 instead of before v.34 takes the teeth out of SBC’s and other complementarian/patriarchal claims that Paul’s silencing of women in church was a universal command. So, I imagine they would do their best to wriggle their way out of that to maintain their misogyny.
@@BrentJohnson-ki7jy when verses 33-34 are removed, the logic of the argument he's making about the origin of prophetic words in the immediately surrounding verses follows seemlesly. Also, if what the data analysis shows is correct that Marcion's Apostolos are the original, unedited Pauline Corpus, then those offending verses 33-34 prohibiting women from saying anything in church, appeared after v 21, another reference to the Law, as part of an argument about another "prohibition" of speaking in tongues which some in Corinth were angling for. Paul actually says in v 39, that in his churches people are not to forbid speaking in tongues or prophesying (we know that women were from 1 Cor 11!) Forgive my intrusion here, but there is moderator interference in Dan's channel regarding pushback against Ammon Hillman. A friend just alerted me to your excellent discussion with Occult examiner (Dion Barber) on Dan's rebuttal of Ammon's Chriō nonsense. I tried to join in the string .. my reply posted for a while, but when I returned it had gone. Fyi, this is what I had said: Did you know that @occultexaminer is a moderator on LadyBabylon666 and has power to control what is happening in the comment thread? In yesterday's production, Neal Sendlak, the host of Gnostic Informant and chief enabler of Ammon's cult, (who has also publicly trashed all New Testament scholarship because they don't know Classical Greek) "verified" Ammon's novel translation of lēstēs as "trafficker." I've taken a 30 seconds clip ru-vid.comUgkxMVmqoKkrkzWf2p_58QrHVsFWU-SiGMTK?si=nHrlgoCOnupFkqL6 He has found out that the associated noun is leis, "booty" and exclaims he hadn't realised how right Ammon was that lēstēs literally means "trafficker of booty" The definition of the word, lēstēs, is crucial for Ammon's entire fabrication: the only crime in Ammon's books that Jesus did, was to be profiteering from the Mystery rite - apart from this "sin," Ammon actually fully endorses all the atrocities that he alleges Jesus was doing as an essential part of "the Christian Mystery" which he has stated that he has ambitions to replicate, himself, as part of his Satanic commission to initiate the Apocalypse. He claims that when Jesus sees the "swat team" coming to arrest him, he is "screaming, I'm not a trafficker!" By itself his paraphrase of Mk 14:48 is utterly wrong because it's merely an exclamation of surprise at the size of the force coming to arrest him *as if* he's a lēstēs. It is not a guilty confession! In the context of Lk 23:2-3, 13-14 it shows that they went to arrest him believing him to be a dangerous "rebel" about to lead an insurrection with an armed gang. "Rebel" is not the definition you will find in the LSJ because it still means brigand, outlaw, but when Josephus published his works, he disparagingly calls the *rebels* "lēstai" 114 times. All the Gospels were written after his publications, so their use of the word in this way is entirely understandable. In reply I posted this comment, knowing beforehand that they will protect the coward who will not ever engage with any pushback that clearly shows the falsehood - the philological fakery and textual trickery he has used to construct his entire fairytale. ----------------- If all mods and Ammon honour Diké and Alētheia, they will leave this comment and any further replies in public view. The confirmation bias, here, is so obvious! Booty can be cattle, cargo of any sort, anything valuable as well as people. And the thieves can be on land or sea. And they aren't "trafficking" when they violently steal something, raid a village or board another ship or pillage anything, either. Perhaps they'll horde it, perhaps they'll sell their booty on, perhaps they'll divide it among themselves, perhaps they'll just eat or drink it. There already exists a Greek word for "human trafficker" that stayed unchanged from Classical to Koine times. It's andrapodistēs: Aristoph. Pl. 521, reads: "κερδαίνειν βουλόμενός τις ἔμπορος ἥκων ἐκ Θετταλίας παρὰ πλείστων *ἀνδραποδιστῶν."* Translated, it means: "Perhaps a merchant wanting to profit through many *slave-dealers* coming from Thessaly." 1 Tim 1:10 reads: πόρνοις, ἀρσενοκοίταις, *ἀνδραποδισταῖς,* ψεύσταις, ἐπιόρκοις, καὶ εἴ τι ἕτερον τῇ ὑγιαινούσῃ διδασκαλίᾳ ἀντίκειται, (The law is) For fornicators, for males who lie down with males, for *kidnappers of free men,* for liars, for oath breakers and for all things opposed to the sound teaching." Andrapodistēs has *ALWAYS* meant "kidnapper/slave dealer/menstealer/trafficker" - this meaning has *NEVER* been legitimately translated from lēstēs, in any *KOINE* text anywhere. (The NT was written in Koine, not Classical). To my knowledge it's not translated "trafficker" in any Classical text either. No-one has ever yet acknowledged this truth from the texts when I've raised it, before - are you always going to be too invested in being an unthinking echo-chamber? Let's discuss it, please -------------- It has been hidden from public view 🤔
Interesting, after I posted my reply into the conversation you and Dion were having on the vid where Dan exposed the bad scholarship re chriō, suddenly my comment on Monday's Lady Babylon has now appeared. Someone has already liked it (was it you?) but there is no-one willing yet to enter into discussion on it.
@@alirowan1999 greetings MS (Mrs? Dr?) Rowan. Thanks for your thoughtful engagement. The prohibition does seem to be a bit out of place, but I think it fits the overall rhetorical context of chapter 14. Especially as it relates to issues of disordered worship. The issue for me is the universal application despite ignoring other aspects chapter 14. The text critical grounds for arguing 34-35 are an interpolation are almost non-existent. On internal grounds there seems to be a slim possibility they were added later, but in the earliest mss of Paul’s letters they are present and the manuscript evidence Philip Payne champions is speculative at best and wildly exaggerated. That doesn’t mean I don’t agree with his motivated reasoning for arguing they are later additions. I too want to see the church be fully gender inclusive recognizing, celebrating and honoring the gifts of women instead of relegating women to the background. My faith tradition has a long history of patriarchal/misogynistic interpretations and practices. I speak out against it and minister in a church that is fully gender inclusive. However, the interpolation theory does not fit the evidence. I’ve stayed away from the Ammon Hill conversation after Dr. M initially released his video response. Hill’s claims are ridiculous and dangerous for a variety of reasons. He has a PhD, but is far from an academic. The ways in which his acolytes flood internet spaces is a bit disconcerting and do not actually engage the relevant materials or have any understanding of the ancient Greco-Roman context broadly or in the Levant. I think your analysis of the claim lesetes should be translated human-trafficker is spot on. It shouldn’t be translated that way. As you note, There were terms that were readily available to denote that.
1 Corinthians 14:34 was referring to the authoritative ACTIVITY referred in the PRECEDING VERSE 33-which is making authoritative judgements ON the uttered ecstatic prophecies uttered by the maximum of 2-ish people that Paul orders them to listen to within the wider context. This Occam's Razor eliminates the questionable text-critical option of claiming verses 34ff are late interpolation (despite not being missing from any manuscripts whatsoever)
@@muchacho56 it's literally written there in the earlier verses. Read from verses 30 to 33-it describes what Paul prescribed concerning a more orderly organization of ecstatic prophecy: 2-ish people deliver their ecstatic prophetic performance, and then those in authority judge the prophecies/performances that have been delivered by the 2-ish prophets/prophetesses-it is against this background that the female silence of verses 34-36 comes in; women should not be allowed to participate in these discussions that authoritatively judge/assess the prophecies uttered by the 2 prophets. McClellan does not consider interpreting those verses in light of the context of the verses that directly precede it.
I just read it and completely disagree. 1 Corinthians 14:30-33 appears to be gender neutral. Then suddenly :34 refers to women and men as having different rights. It mentions inquiring specifically and does not mention prophecy, which is what :30-:33 is about. I can see how people would think it’s an interpolation. On the other hand, Paul seems to contradict himself regularly and suddenly in other passages.
@@scienceexplains302 it only appears gender-neutral BECAUSE judging the prophecy given by prophets is where authority comes in-SEQUENTIALLY-hence it is precisely at that point that the inferior gender has to be identified & silenced-that is why 34 comes IMMEDIATELY AFTER 33 that mentions DELIBERATION on the prophecies uttered by both male & female prophets. Oral performance has to be FIRST carried out before judgement can be passed on the performance
@@scienceexplains302 The language is masculine gender for "prophets" No "prophetesses" are here in the text, so women would not be included in the talking. If she distracts her hubby during the teaching, how is he going to learn? Ever go to a movie when people are whispering back and forth? Kinda ruins it for the others next to them.
Either ALL of the Bible is true, or NONE of it is. You can't cherry pick what you like, and what you don't like. If you doubt the Word, you're probably not saved, and thus can't understand the scripture in the way that it's supposed to be understood in the first place. The Gospel is 1 Cor 15; 1-4. God bless you all, in Jesus' name. Amen.
First of all, there's no reason to think that this is a true dichotomy. It could be possible that some of the Bible is true and some of it is not, and there is nothing which would make that categorically impossible. For instance, if every single book of the Bible were the inspired word of God except, say, Amos, would Amos not being inspired suddenly render everything else in the Bible untrue? No, it would just mean the people who compiled the scriptures got something wrong. But to my knowledge, no one is claiming the COMPILERS of scripture were inerrant (outside of maybe the Catholics), so why is that an issue? Second, even if this choice were a true dichotomy, then it would just lead a rational person to the conclude that none of it is true (at least with respect to religious claims). It is impossible for everything in the Bible to be true, so the only conclusion left (in your forced choice) is that it's all false. Oh well, so much for that incompetent bungler Yahweh; what else have we got to consider? There is no position that can reasonably hold it all to be true, so forcing this choice is just defeating your own religion. Don't make the atheists' and Muslims' jobs easier for them. Also, Paul's gospel in 1 Corinthians 15 goes on quite a bit longer than verses 1-4. Why did you arbitrarily stop before the appearance to Cephas? That also is part of Paul's asserted gospel. Do you believe Christ did not appear to Cephas, the twelve, etc., and lastly to Paul? Is it not important to believe that? If you think ALL of the Bible has to be true, isn't the "Gospel" basically the whole thing cover to cover? Paul himself cites the scriptures in the very passage you're referencing, so clearly he meant for there to be additional relevant information than just what he preached there!
Either my CAT is the president of Papua New Guinea, or NO ONE is. See? I can make confident, dichotomous statements without offering any evidence or arguments too. All Christians cherry pick from the Bible, because it’s literally impossible to follow everything in it, given its internal contradictions, and the commands that violate modern laws and mores (like stoning disobedient children or keeping slaves).
It must be hard growing up and only hearing that Jesus was a good guy, then realising that the bible is actually an absolute cesspit when you get old enough to read it yourself. To sit there and insist that the book means the exact opposite of what it says has to be putting a huge amount of strain on these kids.
@@velocibadgery if you know anything about the true history of the Jesuits and their anti-reformation agenda, you know they will take on a label, including Mormon, to further it. If you are at all interested in who they are, look into the book Rulers of Evil by Tupper Saussy; be careful, it might change your entire worldview.
McClellan is not Catholic, and none of his four degrees come from a Catholic institution. His undergraduate degree is from a school sponsored by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (of which he is a member), and one master's degree is from a school sponsored by the Evangelical Free Church of Canada. His other master's and his doctorate are from public schools in England. It's entirely possible one or more of his instructors was Jesuit, but his thesis was written under the supervision of a Greek-English atheist.
Besides, I doubt it makes any difference that 1 Timothy was certainly not written by Paul-you can't make me accept this modern feminist wishful thinking according to which Paul was conveniently more liberal than the author of 1 Timothy-the writer pretending to be Paul (there have been scholars who propose this letter was fabricated by none other than Timothy himself) was expressing Pauline teaching against a pagan heresy that wanted to introduce female jewelry & attractive appearance in contradiction to ancient Jewish/christian ethics (which ironically only continue to survive in conservative Islamic nations today)
Leaving aside the nonsense paradox of "pagan heresy": the differing aesthetic and cosmetic practices of the men of some eastern Mediterranean and West Asian cultures have extremely ancient foundations, and Greco-Roman commenters were expressing discomfort with them centuries before Jesus. All Paul did was incorporate that same nonsense into the early Church. But to the other point, there are places in the epistles where Paul is clearly acknowledging the contributions of women in the early Church, even implying his letter was being read one of them. That's just what the data show.
The social dynamics of a community where there aren't official power structures, charisma is what makes a leader, and women are doing a lot of the work are going to be very different from a community where there's an official all-male bureaucracy whose job it is to interpret the rules. That is the difference between the authentic Paul and the author of the Pastorals: even though Paul was deeply conservative in many ways (especially on sex and gender) the social reality was that women were already de facto spiritual leaders. So his approach is to enforce cultural norms *around* that--women can pray and prophesy publicly but they must have head coverings as a sign of deference to the social order that God allegedly set up from creation. A Christian feminist only needs to reject Paul's argument about that and a more equal balance of power follows.
@@digitaljanus your use of the word "nonsense" shows how clearly you are projecting modern western Christianity onto Paul. Everyone who is sufficiently educated about LATE Second Temple, Rabbinic & Medieval Judaism, as well as literally all of Christianity/Islam of ancient ANTIQUITY, knows that there was a RADICAL difference between Abrahamic religions and the rest of the polytheistic world on the TOPIC OF FEMALE APPEARANCE: all Jews/Christians/Muslims of antiquity were extremely strict in insisting that it was SINFUL for a woman to deviate from the dress code of covering her hair, face & body from the sight of all males who were not her husband or blood relations. Most other Greeks, Romans, as well as many NON-JEWISH/non-christian peoples of the Near East permitted (and sometimes even required) unmarried females to open their hair publicly. On this very specific topic of female appearance & sexual ethics-it is historically accurate to state that there was a radical difference between all Abrahamic traditions and literally every member of polytheistic society surrounding Christians/Jews (and Muslims) of antiquity (i.e. "pagans"-despite how problematic such a word might be in literally any other critical scholarly topic of history; an exception should be made on this topic)
@@fre2725 it's important to realize that gender equality is exclusively a 20th century phenomenon. Random examples of female leadership have always existed in literally every patriarchal community that has ever existed; what matters is that even charismatic female leaders in early Christianity often firmly believed in pre modern gender roles in other aspects of their lives that were not related to their sphere of charismatic leadership. What is important historically is to throw away the feminist myth that Paul was significantly more open to female leadership than literally any generation after him. Tertullian eventually believed in Montanism that was built around a female leader in much later centuries. Even the author of 1 Timothy would have been very much open to female leaders who did not violate the Jewish/christian norms of dressing/appearance; this passages silencing women are very situation-specific & consistently mention women deviating from prescribed dressing rules-this is likely because of an early recurrent phenomenon of unsuccessful attempts to smuggle in a pagan acceptance for extravagant female dressing that contradicted the Christian/Jewish traditions that still survive in Islamic nations today (concerning female appearance)
