Two can play that game

Ooof…. Dans postmodernism is so embarrassing.

Reddit scholar dan strikes again

Are you trying to reduce Dan to “it’s just his opinion too,” so you can make make your own dogmatic opinion just as viable? Dan isn’t saying “it’s all just opinion.” He’s saying the Bible isn’t one unified message, so later readers negotiate meaning with it. He still thinks some readings are better grounded in language, context, and history. Calling that “just Dan’s opinion” skips the entire actual argument so you don’t have to deal with the fact of the matter.

I was gonna say that was a clever uno reverse, until I got through the whole video to find that Dan never actually gave his opinion of his own personal Jesus. So, sorry Michael, kinda fell flat on that one. You only straw-manned him here.

Dan thought he had a mic drop moment and once again he proves nothing! As usual

Dan be like “we all have to negotiate with the text” and then when a Christian tries to negotiate with the text in their tradition he’s like “no that’s not historically accurate because critical scholarship says…”

It’s gross how much of a bad faith actor you are Yes, everyone interprets Jesus of the bible in their own way, that is objectively true as without someone’s interpretation it is just ink on paper. Our interpretation is what gives it meaning. Dan explains this many time (cont)

His general point is that neither you nor I are in an epistemic position to know all that much about the historical Jesus so people project their own ideas on him. You know that’s what he means and I know that’s what he means. Your misrepresentation of him is dishonest.

Dan is annoying.

Nothing is objectively true. Everything is just our view of how things are.

This video is a great example of how not to practice hermeneutical charity.

The “historical Jesus” is still just the perception in the minds of men. Different perceptions. Yeah, that's my opinion, just like whatever Jesus you see is your own opinion.

If Dan loves his scholarly credentials then he should get a PhD in New Testament studies, if not his opinion is worthless and he is doing apologetics with the New Testament

Such a strawman. Dan’s position is that everyone negotiates with the text, you, me, him. And because of that, there is no one Bible; there are your Bible, my Bible, Dan’s Bible. But that does not make everyone’s opinion equal, or immune to fact tfat bear in those opinions

Dan's 1st claim reworded: No two people hold identical models of god in their heads. 2nd reworded: The Bible, written by many different people, presents several conflicting models of god. These statements perfectly agree with each other. The latter is demonstrable in the text.

There's two arguments getting mixed up here. 1) Dan says everyone's "view" of Jesus is their own personal interpretation 2) Dan is saying the bible's actual text is contradictory and doesn't speak in a univocal voice about God's nature.

Isn't this protestantism in a nutshell though? His own personal interpretation vs yours even Martin Luther got frustrated with thisbim his day

It’s impossible for imperfect beings to have an accurate understanding of perfection and impossible for a creator to be defined by one’s own personal interpretation, as it would not be perfect and therefore cannot be God.

Mclellan has a problem of nearly 2000 years of church history and established interpretations to contend with.

I hate Dan's work, but this comes across as really dishonest. Dan is saying everyone has a "personal Jesus" because the Bible, in his view, presents multiple Jesus', not because he doesn't believe people can arrive at objective truth. You're doing a rhetorical sleight of hand.

dogmatic dan strikes again

Ppppppplease do all of this videos!! Please! They are out of control.

Dan’s great

Good ol “Dogma” Dan McClellan….

Brilliant. Dan is certinty incarnate. Hopefully more people help the hapless masses like this.

Wow Dan sucks

Dan McLellan is an atheist pretending to be a Mormon. A mormon!! Shows he doesn't have great critical thinking right off the bat. Also he ran away from a debate with me and blocked me.

Alright Dan let’s see those contradictions. Also, this is akin to saying everyone has different views of a person hence everyone has their own personal “person” referring to that individual

That guy writes his own jokes lol 😆

My own personal interpretation of Dan McClellan is he's a bald chimpanzee shrieking at a camera.

Dogma Dan strikes again

stopped listening to dan a long time ago

@DPGBehler I used to struggle with references of the Father being referred to as God, Mike helped me with that while addressing this guys videos, now I used those videos to teach people about the trinity

And, Michael---he is talking about the Jesus he was taught about in his LDS religion.

When the other guy is so dumb he makes you actually agree with IP