Episode 4 (May 1, 2023), "Ehrmageddon!" with Bart Ehrman
2023 ж. 29 Сәу.
29 198 Рет қаралды
On this week's show, the Dans talk apocalypse with Bart Ehrman. Ehrman's new book Armageddon: What the Bible Really Says About the End is a deep-dive into one of the Bible's most confounding books, Revelation. We talk about the rapture (and all the missed predictions of it), predictions of doom, and whether Revelation was meant to be talking about the future at all.
You can subscribe to Dr Ehrman's blog at: ehrmanblog.org/
To take one of his online courses, check out www.bartehrman.com/
If you enjoy the Data Over Dogma podcast, and feel like helping out, please consider becoming a patron at: / dataoverdogma
Bart is so full of humility and kindness. I appreciate him so very much. Thank you for hosting him
Great sermon. Let's all stand and sing, "You're a Good, Good Father!"
I once called campings office a few weeks before his date and i pretended to be a small church news reporter and his spokesperson was an ex-marine. Verrry guarded because, obviously he had been dealing with uncomfortable questions from hostile people. I asked him how he came to be involved in the group and his answer was "I'm not the subject of this interview" But after i asked some thoughtful questions without the typical hostility the dude opened up and told me all about his life and how he had verified the calculations himself. I asked him "so what about Jews and Muslims" and his answer was delightful. He said "God chose those he would save from the beginning, and once you're chosen by God there's nothing you can do to overcome that" which I would normally consider to be an ugly theology but because he wasn't saying only those who held HIS beliefs would be saved I actually appreciated this response. Then after he was comfortable i asked "I'm not saying you're wrong, but i have to ask this question...what if it doesn't happen?" And he said "i fully believe it's going to happen and I've checked the calculations myself but if, IF it doesn't happen? Then I'm not sure what to believe or do next. After the interview he told me it was the only positive interview he had given in the last several months. To this day i wonder how hes doing but I've long since forgotten his name.
So terrific to hear people saying out loud the kinds of things I think, and interpreting texts in ways I find rational.
Bruh, you can't drop these so late. Now I can't go to sleep! lol ;)
Great stuff. As a youngster in a 1st Baptist Church, I was subject to an annual event of studying Revelation in church and Sunday school. Our preacher always associated it was current events and national entities. It never felt right to me. So, it's wonderfully refreshing to hear a balanced and historical perspective especially since it makes so much more sense.
Such a great interview! My family lived in North Carolina in 1988 when the rapture prophecy was going around and all my friends were evangelical and believed it. Scary time to be a 10 year old! Thankfully my parents were able to explain to me that it wasn’t real, and they were right. 😂
“There is no picture, there is no box” - love this!
Bart and Dan, legendary
I am so excited to have found this! Thank you all for doing it. Be safe and may you have great success!
This episode was great! I think having Bart as a guest really brought out the strengths of both of you.
Great interview, just finished The Delusion of Crowds which also looks into cognitive dissonance, also Trust The Plan which explores the phenomena of recent q group
I appreciate so much you numbering the episodes, I am loving them and going in order and it’s easy to know which ones Ive seen and what comes next
as a Jew: THANK YOU SO MUCH for addressing that antisemitism and for debunking the trope of "evil OT god, nice and kind NT god." It means so much to have educated allies out there helping combat harmful tropes.
I appreciate that view point and respect your right to practice your faith. I personally think both the "old" and new test NT god is evil (as a literary character who I don't think actually exists). Is it anti-Semitic to view the Jewish god as essentially bad, if one views ALL gods and goddesses as essentially bad? Or is it more so the picking and choosing of NT god over the OT god?
I haven't watched this yet but the vile, child murdering god Yahweh is pure evil and the ignororant offspring Jesus is evil for endorcing him. Evil is evil. This is what angers me about religion. It gets decent people like you to support and make excuses for pure evil.
I don't think it's wrong to say the Abrahamic god is evil, if you look at the actions attributed to him. *This website is designed to spread the vicious truth about the Bible. For far too long priests and preachers have completely ignored the vicious criminal acts that the Bible promotes. The so called God of the Bible makes Osama Bin Laden look like a Boy Scout. This God, according to the Bible, is directly responsible for many mass-murders, rapes, pillage, plunder, slavery, child abuse and killing, not to mention the killing of unborn children.* I have included references to the Biblical passages, so grab your Bible and follow along. *It always amazes me how many times this God orders the killing of innocent people even after the Ten Commandments said Thou shall not kill.* For example, God kills 70,000 innocent people because David ordered a census of the people (1 Chronicles 21). God also orders the destruction of 60 cities so that the Israelites can live there. He orders the killing of all the men, women, and children of each city, and the looting of all of value (Deuteronomy 3). He orders another attack and the killing of all the living creatures of the city: men and women, young, and old, as well as oxen sheep, and asses (Joshua 6). In Judges 21 He orders the murder of all the people of Jabesh-gilead, except for the virgin girls who were taken to be forcibly raped and married. When they wanted more virgins, God told them to hide alongside the road and when they saw a girl they liked, kidnap her and forcibly rape her and make her your wife! *Just about every other page in the Old Testament has God killing somebody!* In 2 Kings 10:18-27, God orders the murder of all the worshipers of a different god in their very own church! In total God kills 371,186 people directly and orders another 1,862,265 people murdered The God of the Bible also allows slavery, including selling your own daughter as a sex slave (Exodus 21:1-11), child abuse (Judges 11:29-40 & Isaiah 13:16), and bashing babies against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9). ***This type of criminal behavior should shock any moral person.*** ***Murder, rape, pillage, plunder, slavery, and child abuse can not be justified by saying that some god says it’s OK.*** If more people would actually sit down and read the Bible there would be a lot more atheists like myself. *Jesus also promoted the idea that all men should castrate themselves to go to heaven:* For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven’s sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it (Matthew 19:12). *I don’t know why anyone would follow the teachings of someone who literally tells all men to cut off their privates.* The God of the Bible also was a big fan of ritual human sacrifice and animal sacrifice. *And just in case you are thinking that the evil and immoral laws of the Old Testament are no longer in effect, perhaps you should read where Jesus makes it perfectly clear:* It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid (Luke 16:17). There are many more quotes on this topic at my Do Not Ignore the Old Testament web page. *If you follow the links on this site you will learn about all the nasty things in the Bible that are usually not talked about by priests and preachers.* www.evilbible.com/ Watch *"Context!!!!!!"* by NonStampCollector (A good video for believers who try to rationalise Biblical atrocities and immorality by saying "Out of context".)
@c1 That makes sense, thank you for explaining. I find religion interesting from an anthropological perspective. But I do find most of the behavior of gods to be immoral if done by any other person. If a human sent plagues, flooded the earth, killed the first borns, or any other number of deeds gods are known for, we would call that person evil. Therefore, unless gods are beyond our understanding of morality, I would conclude that most of the actions of gods aren't worthy of praise (although, as you point out, there's nuance to consider).
@@MicahBuzanMUSIC Thats because both the NT and OT were filtered thru the bias of men to control others. God is good but just like society followed his natural moral code, there is consequences for breaking them in society as well as with thier creator. Sins against the body and against others leads to eternal death. Living the moral law leads to eternal life. God actually made it very simple and easy, but man has inserted his own human bias and hyperbole into scripture. For ANY religion to say that both old and new testament texts are innerant, they suffer from the same deception.
Big fan of Bart's scholarship, hope you keep having him back!
I found Dan on tik tok and thought I’d check out what else he’s got going on. Love these interviews…I’m always seeking more information and to hear three very intelligent, educated guys have a conversation is a treat for me. Subscribed! Thank you ❤
Two of my favorite people talking to each other! My favorite episode so far. Y’all were much tighter on this one as far as not talking over each other as well. Awesome job!
Perhaps a more analogous example than Dr Ehrman's of how people read the Bible would be, that they take selected lines from each of the books in the New York Times, best seller list, put them together to form a narrative, and then claim that's what all of the different authors on the list meant to communicate.
Jesus said something like "I came not to bring peace but a sword, to turn father against son, mother against daughter, mother-in-law agaibst daughter-in-law." Not quite Patmos John's "kill all the pagans", but still also not exactly pure pacifism.
Was wishing and yearning for this collab to happen, didn’t expect to see it so soon. Gonna actually listen to it now, just had to leave this comment, really excited.
"Ehrmageddon!" 🤣🤣🤣🤣
What a fantastic show!
Absolutely fantastic guys, thanks!
Exceptional segment.
Stunning... thank you. So enjoy your show.
Love Dan's questions
great show!
Love Bart! I have taken a couple of his online courses and I have learned so much.
Brilliant show, Drs.
Excellent. Thanks
Thanks, I learn every time I hear Dr. Ehrman.
This podcast gets better and better with every episode!!
Dream team episode. Bart, Dan, and Dan. Great to see you guys.
Wow. You guys have really set the bar pretty high with the first 4 episodes. Excellent work and this is fast becoming one of my favourite YT channels on the topic. Great work gents.
Two of my favorite scholars (of 10-12). Yay!!!!
Brilliant
Two Dans and a Bart. 👍
What a great episode. I learned so much and it challenged what I’ve been taught in my church. Loved it!
Found this so enightenning and talking of which the coments about modern evangelicals as a product of enlightenment rationality. Thanks
Love this so much as an active, believing Latter-day Saint. It makes me feel so proud to be represented by Dan McLellan like this.
_muy excellente_
Also, perfect episode title 🤣
Left Behind is the new gospel
Wonderful interview! I am very much enjoying both the informative nature of this podcast and the host's and scholars' energy! I wish a bit of time had been spent discussing why the centrality of Nero (666). I suppose because he was the first Roman emperor to persecute Christians after the great fire?
Wasn't there some apocalyptic mania in 1000 CE due to the 'day of the lord could be a thousand years'?
I ordered Bart's book that Dan gushed over. Then I thought about the intellect of both Bart and Dan. What was I thinking?
You think they're stupid?
@@RonaldParkinson-fm7km No, I thought it was going to be too hard for me. It wasn't, ad I learned some stuff. Further research seemed to indicate it was old news though, that german scholars had covered the same ground in the 19th century. All good though, it increased my understanding for sure.
24:50 Church leaders did not like the idea that the afterlife was an eternal banquet with lots of wine - Socrates raises the same issue in Plato's _Apology_.
Sadly, I did not know about Ehrman being a professor at UNC when I was undergrad in Chapel Hill ‘90-94, so I didn’t take a course with him. Still one of my regrets.
A great show! I felt that Bart kind of talked over Dan at times, but overall, it was pretty great. I'd love to see Dan do a full interview with Bart about the various issues he and others have brought up about Bart's recent scholarship. I know the Journeys to Heaven and Hell book had some issues with it.
Yes, you are correct that Bart did talk more, because this podcast was an interview of Bart. They were asking Bart questions about his book. In any interview the the one being interviewed does talk more.
Two of these guys are smart.
Yes I felt it tooo
a lot of stuff lifted from Ezekiel as well in Revelation, eating of the scroll, tree of life material etc.
Loved the episode. Which of Bart Ehrman's books should I read first?
Yes. ;)
How Jesus became God is a popular one that addresses an interesting topic. 🙂
I started with his New Testament course from The Great Courses. There are a ton of concepts that are helpful as you tackle the subject of secular Bible scholarship. I'm hooked!
❤️❤️❤️
to me it was something to fully & obsessively be obedient to. I gave up my life fully to this
picture was drummed into me from elementary school-high school graduation. Not my thinking. Key word: BRAINWASH
according to the author of Peter 2 then. World is only 7 days old according to Jewish calendar &Jesus was on the earth for seconds
I was persecuted by the Elders or Church leadership
I’ve long heard and agreed with the idea that if you gave someone from antiquity a sci-fi book that they would be completely baffled and have no idea or framework on how to interpret it or read it. But listening to you all talk I had a bit of a brainwave… Sci-fi is rich with made up words where often there is zero explanation or definition given, and the reader is left to decipher what the word means based off of its makeup, spelling, and the context of the ENTIRE book/fictional universe, cultural context of when the book was written, etc. My question is this: do we see that (or something like it) happening in the Bible?
“People are the grapes” 😂😂 jeeesssuussss Christ 🤦🏼♀️ the violence
What’s up with September 23rd? I hear that date all the time from people with prophecies or foresight?????
I am troubled by the lack of justification for Ehrman's statement near the end that most people are not saved and even christians aren't saved. Where is that?
I'm writing a paper on Joachim right now. I think some of his books should be kept illegal for certain cathegories of people.
13:34 2 Peter said that but doesn’t teach the lord will come in 3 days, that in the book of Barnabas dated the time of John. So the lord would arrive 3000ad not 5000ad.
Listening to Bart makes me think that Christians simply don’t understand the Bible in the same a child don’t understand WWF wrestling and believe that the fights are real.
Have you waded into the Mythicism VS Historicity debate at all? Carrier seems to make some good points, but then I don't read ancient Greek. Does it just come down to weighing an ambiguous margin note from 108 BCE against a feather. If the feather is heavier, then we conclude Mythicism is correct?
It’s not really a debate for scholars so much as it is… not sure how to put this not rudely but very online atheists
@@PasteurizedLettuce Exactly, that's what makes it interesting, the fact it's so poorly examined by critical scholarship. In fact if you go back maybe just ten years, there was only one serious scholar, Richard Price, putting forth an argument for Mythicism.
@@Joeyw-2203 it is still an overwhelming minority position, and for a good reason. It’s bad history. I personally have no skin in this hunt, as I’m not, never have been and never will be be a Christian.
@@PasteurizedLettuce right, but it's a field that's overwhelmingly dominated by Christians, Christian scholars of Christianity. They do have some skin in the game.
@@Joeyw-2203 yeah but if you ask any of those people almost any of them hold views as scholar that would make even the most liberal Christians pretty furious, like, the view of the historical Jesus as a Jew who claimed to be the messiah (basically the new king) and got murdered by the state, did not care about or proselytize to or about gentiles, and believed solely in doing acts as a means of salvation, did not believe in heaven but an immediate (like in the next 20 years) earth shattering event where god would come down and make things right because he also didn’t believe in the soul. I think in some ways that’s a MORE devastating position to Christianity as a religion than mythicism. A myth is perfect, immune to examination but a man can be uncovered to be not at all who you think he is. The basic understanding Paul has of Christianity is already in pretty stark contrast to the depiction of Jesus in the synoptic gospels, where Jesus doesn’t say ‘believe in my resurrection and death in order to be saved’ or ‘I’ve come to abolish the Jewish law’ he says ‘take care of the vulnerable and uphold the Jewish law because god is about to come down and DESTROY his enemies the oppressors, and solve the problems of the world. You see how much problem the early Christian’s have proselytizing to Jews because to them an executed criminal being the messiah makes as much sense as a guy dying in a shootout with the police being the Righteous King of America. Firstly because not everyone was even messianic, secondly because even if they were the messiah was supposed to throw off the oppression of the Roman’s. That was the ENTIRE point of the messianic myth, a hero who will destroy our oppressors not a guy who dies for our sins. Most jews thought they already had a solution for their sins- the law.
I agree. The Bible is full of choices. Some connect themselves to a group and let the group make the choices for them, and a few disconnect from all the groups and make the choices themselves.
@43:00. Poof or drown? Poof, or Five months of suffering?
Love this podcast. Dan #2 needs a limiter on his mic. No need to be twice as loud as everyone else when making the goofy voices.
why are christians so obssessed with the end times?
Because it will be the only thing that can prove they’re right.
@@Quack_Shot since ancient times end time prophecies has a 100 percent failure rate...
@@ranilodicen4460 No I mean, if it comes then they can say, “see we’re right!” It’s never gonna come.
@@Quack_Shot yeah.. i know! but christians sure wish it would
Because they are inextricably rooted in apocalypticism. It seems to stem directly from Jesus who, according to all records we have of him, seems to have been an apocalyptic Jewish preacher.
Is it weird that I come out of this with the thought "Revelations is some dudes violent fanfic"?
Awesome guest.
The Holy Trinity all together!
Revelations sounds like some Berserk stuff
I’m an atheist and I’m wondering…Do you guys actually believe in god and the Bible? I can’t imagine you do given your deep study of it and recognition of the obvious flaws, historical inaccuracies, and how ridiculous most (supposed) adherents are, etc. (Update: dude on right just said he is an atheist.)
Bart Ehrmann is open about his atheism and Dan McClellan is (semi-) open about being a faithful christian (church of LDS to be precise).
@@hoax2811 Dan's theological convictions intrigue me. I grew up with the Bible being the inerrant and perfect word of God, and the kind of critical analysis would've been 100% incompatible with my beliefs
@@Agryphos My opinion only, but I feel that Dan likely stays involved with the LDS group in the hope of “softening” their dogma/doctrine with heavy doses of reality. Having come from them with credentials he certainly stands a better chance of doing so than any one else.
@@Agryphos Well it helps that the LDS Church officially rejects both inerrancy of scripture and Sola Scriptura. The orthodox LDS view, there being an obvious spectrum of views among members, is that scripture is the result of human/mortals clothing the pure intelligence of revelation in their own language and learning.
Bart says in his videos read the gospels horizontally especially the resurrection stories. I read that book Bart Mentions When Prophecy Fails. Cognitive dissonance is really uncomfortable. .
Bart? I think you mean Dan Ehrman.
Истинно говорю вам: не прейдет род сей, как всё сие будет.
That was given to Judah which happened in 70 ad. Theres another fulfillment for the house of Israel after 2 days (2k years). As noted in Jeremiah 31, Hosea 6:2-3. Revelation is written to the house of Israel. They were not judged in 70 ad.
In a court of law if one part of a testimony is known to be a lie than you can throw the whole testimony away. The Bible would be thrown out of court.
"If I as a psychotic cult leader can double down after by bad prediction get more people to agree with me, then I will have been proven right and absolved of crimes" This cognitive strategy seems more and more prevalent in these days.
Actually, the rapture did happen in September 1988. You guys just didn’t make it. You went to the wrong church! (Me too)
The gospels were written as allegory/metaphor and later literalized by Rome. The logos was PERSONIFIED as Isaiah 40:3 is just one of many verses in the hebrew that show where the story went off the rails. The voice calling in the wilderness prepared the way for YHWH (LORD) not another man after him. John according to the gospels was the first christ among many to come with him. Revelation is written also in typology as John states in the opening verses. Meaning its NOT LITERAL.
Jehovah`s Witnesses 1914 ??
Do we have any evidence that the writer(s) of Revelation had access to the Gospel accounts, or similar Jesus traditions? Their view seems to be entirely contrary to the standard teachings of Jesus.
Revelation was likely written between 70 CE and 100 CE, and we're pretty sure at least Mark was written before 70 CE By the time Revelation was written, there were many competing factions of Christianity, with Paulian Christianity, aka Catholic/Orthodox Christianity winning out. Which faction was John of Patmos a member of? We don't know. Revelation sure fits in with the Catholic ideology, but which came first, which one influenced the other? I do not know
@@CoffeeAddictEvan keep finding a more-precise date of 95 AD.
@@Ematched where do you get that date from? Everything I see says 72-100
whats your view of the Jehovah`s Witness stance of The book of Revelation suggesting there organisation is fullfilling the prophecies
As an ex-JW, I'd love to hear Dan debunk a lot of their claims
Yeah, Jesus doesn’t talk about judgment in the gospels…. 🤷♂️
Bart seems to have an over-optimistic view of Jesus as only being about love - in the gospels he’s very judgemental, curses whole cities and whips people out of the temple. Perhaps Revelation is picking up on that side of the portrayal.
James Douglas Morrison wrote a song about the end don't ask these educated idiots.....just joking😂
Explain why there are hundreds of variant versions of the Christian bibles none used match the original koine Greek new testament or Hebrew Scripture sources??
The god of revelation is rather trumpian.
There are only so many components to the Bible. The Bible isn't simply a collection of separate books. All of the books are built upon the same components. Elements are built upon, expanded on, and the previous written components are expounded upon. Take the warth of the Lamb, for instance. If he comes for blood, as Bart notes, will you see the Lamb, or Beast? The Beast represents the Lamb, from another perspective. There is only one day of wrath, stored up in his storehouse Due 32:34. It is first noted as Adam wielding the fiery sword guarding the way to the Tree of Life. It takes place at the end of the ages, as the sacrifice of him who did not know sin, Adam, being made to be sin. Harking back to Noah treading the winepress of wrath, it is when God will put an end to all mortals on earth and your covenant with death is canceled. While Bart may be correct that some piece quotes together like a puzzle, you would be crucifying Christ over and over since the day of wrath is what makes him to be sin. Christ was born of a woman, born under the law. By his sacrifice, he justifies David, his Father, when he speaks, and vindicates him in his sentence when he condemns. The crucifixion is imagery for the Sacrifice and Resurrection, two appearances within the same generation, at the end of the ages. First death, then judgment, after which comes the return, so too Christ. Master of the Demon Sin: If you do well, you can hold up your head; but if not, sin is a demon lurking at the door: his urge is toward you, yet you can be his master. (Gen 4:7 NABO) Who, robed in splendor, judges nations, crushes heads across the wide earth, Who drinks from the brook by the wayside and thus holds high the head. (Psa 110:6-7 NABO) him who is and who was and who is to come (Rev 1:4 NABO) The beast that you saw existed once but now exists no longer. It will come up from the abyss and is headed for destruction. (Rev 17:8 NABO) 'Who will go down into the abyss?' (that is, to bring Christ up from the dead)." (Rom 10:7 NABO) hide us from the face of the one who sits on the throne and from the wrath of the Lamb, because the great day of their wrath has come and who can withstand it?" (Rev 6:16-17 NABO) "Who can compare with the beast or who can fight against it?" (Rev 13:4 NABO) Once I was dead, but now I am alive forever and ever. I hold the keys to death and the netherworld. (Rev 1:18 NABO) I saw that one of its heads seemed to have been mortally wounded, but this mortal wound was healed. Fascinated, the whole world followed after the beast. (Rev 13:3 NABO) As the Lawless One, with all the power, signs, and wonders at the disposal of falsehood, and seeming to be a part of the workings of Satan, 2Thess 2:9-11, he leads them astray, as if with a bridle in the jaw of the people, on the day of the great slaughter, Is 30:25-28, having been given the power and rule, along with great authority, of The Dragon as the First Beast/ Red Dragon, Rv 13:2. Jesus is the Lawless One in 2Thess 2:8. In the book of Revelation, he is the first beast whose mortal wound was healed, Rv 13:3, and the second beast that created an image, Rv 13:14, the cross, or Caduceus in honor of the first beast. They are the sacrifice and resurrection, respectively. Or, Isaiah 40:2 and Isaiah 40:3, respectively. The Red Dragon has seven heads and ten horns, Rv 12:3, the same as the first beast, 13:1. When he comes as the first beast, when he comes as a thief, who comes only to slaughter, pillage, and destroy, Jn 10:10, he sets up the Abomination of Desolation, Mk 13:4-19, in himself, the Temple without one stone left standing upon another, Mk 13:2 as the sacrifice of being 'made to be sin'. A thief is the night has come and gone before you wake.
My takeaway is that it is ALL nonsense and a plaque on humanity.
One day Bart Ehrman will realize that Jesus was not an historical person. He used to be a fundamentalist Christian and hopefully one day he will reach total enlightenment and know that all the stories are made up
I used to think mythicism was convincing. It's not when you look at the counter-arguments. Check out *"History for Atheists"* by Tim O'Neill. He addresses all of the mythicist arguments.
I am not a fundamentalist Christian, I am not a Christian, have never been a Christian, will never be a Christian. Jesus existed. Mythicist arguments are terrible. I don’t understand what’s so implausible about him. There were a number of messianic claimants, including messianic claimants who ran afoul of structural power. The exist of a man (probably a rabbi) who claimed to be the messiah around that era of Jewish history, is extremely plausible. There is good reason to believe that portions of Josephus’s account of Jesus and John the Baptist are credible despite portions of the text clearly being edited. Mythicism is a minoritarian opinion for many reasons. And finally, who cares. The Buddha and Muhammad are widely considered historical figures, and yet one understands that a defence of the historical authenticity of Muhammad is not an affirmation that he is the seal of the prophets, or that the Buddha descended from the Tushita heavens after his mother received a prophetic dream about his coming birth
One need not affirm that a man did not exist to affirm that he didn’t produce miracles and was not the son of God or the anointed one.
@@PasteurizedLettuce You should read or listen to Dr. Richard Carrier's work. In fact it would make a great debate to see Bart Ehrman and Richard Carrier debate mythicism but Bart refuses to claiming that "Richard is too mean"
@@ExtremeCleanoutSolutions Richard Carrier is a fringe crank and his vanity published screeds have been cited by exactly 0 legitimate scholars - you know, the kind who have university positions and who publish papers that get reviewed and cited by other scholars. Jesus mythicism ranks right down there with Atlantis and aliens built the pyramids.
Err Err get gone
Dan the atheist thank god that he keeps saying shows he’s not atheist
Genesis 1 > Genesis 2 (Good > Evil) God > LORD of God (Elohim > Yahweh of Elohim) Spirit of God > Spirit of the LORD (Ruach Elohim > Ruach Yahweh) Usurper: the LORD of God Deciever: the LORD your God Just as "Ruach Elohim" from Genesis 1 is "Spirit of God" and not "Spirit God", "Yahweh Elohim" from Genesis 2 is "LORD of God" and not "LORD God". As if some Yahu from Edom and Seir (judges 5, deut 33) is the LORD of God... Nobody sees the character from Genesis 2 for the usurper/deciever it is? Bronze Age Israel 🇮🇱 > Iron Age Israel 🇮🇱 (Canaan)
Here are seven differences between "Ruach Elohim" and "Ruach Yahweh" as they appear in the Bible: 1. "Ruach Elohim" is first mentioned in Genesis 1:2, where it is translated as "God's Spirit." "Ruach Yahweh" is first mentioned in Judges 3:10, where it is translated as "the LORD's Spirit." 2. "Ruach Elohim" is used throughout the Old Testament to describe the Spirit of God in general, while "Ruach Yahweh" is often used specifically in reference to the Spirit of God acting in a prophetic or empowering way, as in Judges 14:6 where Samson is "filled with the Spirit of Yahweh" to defeat a lion. 3. "Ruach Elohim" is sometimes used to describe the breath of life given to all creatures, as in Job 34:14-15 where it says that if God were to "gather back his breath [ruach]," all life would perish. "Ruach Yahweh" is not used in this sense. 4. In some passages, the two terms are used interchangeably. For example, in Isaiah 61:1, the Spirit of the Lord [Ruach Yahweh] is said to be upon the prophet, while in Ezekiel 11:5, the same phrase is translated as "the Spirit of God [Ruach Elohim] came upon me." 5. "Ruach Yahweh" is associated with the creation of humans in Genesis 2:7, where it says that Yahweh "breathed the breath [ruach] of life into [Adam's] nostrils." "Ruach Elohim" is not used in this context. 6. "Ruach Yahweh" is associated with the work of the Messiah in Isaiah 11:2, where it is said that "the Spirit of Yahweh will rest on him." "Ruach Elohim" is not used in this passage. 7. "Ruach Elohim" is used in the New Testament to refer to the Holy Spirit, as in Luke 3:22 where the Spirit descends on Jesus at his baptism "in bodily form like a dove." "Ruach Yahweh" is not used in the New Testament.
Here are seven more differences between "Ruach Elohim" and "Ruach Yahweh" in the Bible: 1. "Ruach Elohim" is used in Psalm 51:11 where David asks God not to take his Spirit away from him, whereas "Ruach Yahweh" is not used in this context. 2. "Ruach Yahweh" is associated with dreams and visions in Numbers 12:6, where it says that Yahweh spoke to Moses in a dream and a vision, "but not like [He spoke] to [His] servant Moses, who had a close relationship with [Yahweh]." "Ruach Elohim" is not used in this passage. 3. "Ruach Elohim" is used in 1 Samuel 10:10 where it says that the Spirit of God came upon Saul and he prophesied along with a group of prophets. "Ruach Yahweh" is not used in this context. 4. "Ruach Yahweh" is associated with judgment in Isaiah 4:4, where it says that Yahweh will "wash away the filth of Zion's people...by a spirit of judgment and a spirit of burning." "Ruach Elohim" is not used in this context. 5. "Ruach Elohim" is used in Job 33:4 where Elihu says that "the Spirit of God has made me, and the breath of the Almighty gives me life." "Ruach Yahweh" is not used in this passage. 6. Ruach Yahweh" is associated with the exodus from Egypt in Isaiah 63:14, where it says that "the Spirit of Yahweh led [the Israelites] through the desert." "Ruach Elohim" is not used in this context. 7. Ruach Elohim" is used in 1 Corinthians 2:10-11 where Paul speaks of the Holy Spirit revealing God's wisdom to believers. "Ruach Yahweh" is not used in this passage.
NO,the God of new testament is never more violent than the old,and this opinion has nothing to do with Anti semetism ‼️
Who needs God when u have the all powerful mute button? Don't fall for Dan's drivel at best its the philosophies of men mingled with scripture. He probably doesn't even subscribe to what I'm putting down.
bart is a great guest.
Now I'm curious where Christians are being persecuted? Palestine?