Genocide. Slavery. Polygamy: DENNIS PRAGER on Tough OT Questions

How can God command genocide and slavery? Why doesn't the Bible clearly condemn polygamy? As a Christian, I get these kinds of questions regularly. In this video, I get to talk with Jewish talk show host (and Bible commentator) Dennis Prager about these questions and other tough ones from the Old Testament. Let us know what you think!
JOIN Sean and Dennis on a Caribbean cruise (Nov 29-Dec 8): www.inspiratio...
READ: Genesis: The Rational Bible, by Dennis Prager (amzn.to/4dYLQsZ)
*Get a MASTERS IN APOLOGETICS or SCIENCE AND RELIGION at BIOLA (bit.ly/3LdNqKf)
*USE Discount Code [SMDCERTDISC] for 25% off the BIOLA APOLOGETICS CERTIFICATE program (bit.ly/3AzfPFM)
*See our fully online UNDERGRAD DEGREE in Bible, Theology, and Apologetics: (bit.ly/448STKK)
FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA:
Twitter: / sean_mcdowell
TikTok: @sean_mcdowell
Instagram: / seanmcdowell
Website: seanmcdowell.org

[@HiVizJoe]

As a religious Jew who grew up secular but who dabbled in Christianity for several years as a young man before becoming a religious Jew I enjoy Sean McDowell’s interviews and his very gentle and loving apologetic methods and I really enjoy my fellow religious Jew Dennis Prager and his commentaries have influenced me a lot in my Torah study and my Lubavitcher Chasidic neighbors who I eat Shabbat dinner with and who I celebrate the holidays with also really enjoy him and the wife of the family whose brother is a Rabbi in Cali knows him

[@XfreshcakesX]

I know I won’t get it from a comment, but I’d like clarity on Prager’s argument regarding genocide in the Bible. I’m a pastor so I have my own understanding but his argument that “because the entire race wasn’t wiped out, therefore it isn’t genocide” does not hold water. Plenty of genocides have not resulted in the extinction of a people group. Maybe if someone understands better what he was getting at they could chime in.

[@cbrooks97]

I think the missing piece is that in Joshua is seems they accomplished their mission. And then these people are all back. So the argument is this shows the statement of their mission was hyperbolic language. Paul Copan's book goes into detail to show this is a feature of much ANE literature.

[@richiejourney1840]

Who was to stop Joshua if an actual genocide was called? Why would Joshua himself not hunt them all down or continue in it somehow? Hitler, would not have stopped if he hadn’t been stopped. Get it now? What was the important thing they were to do in the first place? Punish and diminish that evil culture and the leftover “Nephilum”. Nevertheless, I think it all depends on one’s total view and understanding if a “genocide(s)” commanded by God is actually evil or not. In the end there might be a “genocide” (or at minimum a ‘total separation’) of those who love God and those who don’t.

[@darrenmiller6927]

Sean McDowell and Dennis Prager!? Wow! Predictably, outstanding and exceptional, but so unexpected. I hope they record their talks on the cruise, I bet that would be fantastic to see.

[@doreenknudson2098]

Fantastic! Two favorite Bible scholars in one interview. Made my day

[@suewright9542]

I respect so much of what you and Dennis say, but I take issue with the age of the earth and 6-day creation not being an important issue. It is not a salvation issue, but it is not a side issue. I just retired from a young earth creation ministry. I have spent years studying the issue as have the PhD scientists and scholars in the YEC community. I would recommend that you interview someone from Creation Ministries International to get another perspective. Aside from that question, I felt enlightened and encouraged by Dennis’ responses.

[@SeanMcDowell]

Thanks for watching and sharing. As you suggest, much more could be said about each of these issues. My main interest was how he, as a Jew, makes sense of these issues. I appreciate the suggestion!

[@jippedgamer9723]

I wouldn't worry too much about radiometric dating, because not only are there plenty of different topics that disprove the old ages, but evolutionary scientists ignore the old ages themselves if it doesn't agree with the theory of evolution. For example, skull 1470 is a 230 million year old human skull that was reduced down to several million years old since humans obviously weren't around 230 million years ago (according to evolution), or how we have found diamonds that contained 6 billion years worth of argon decay in them, which is claimed to be the must reliable dating method as well, but they were reduced down to around 3 billion years old and claimed to have 2.5 billion years worth of contamination. There's literally dozens of more examples like the two I mentioned above as well. Don't worry about the age of the Earth because even under the Best circumstances, old earthers are hypocritical because they are telling you that you can't ignore the old ages yet they can though, over, and over, and over again. They are ignorant hypocrites, no ifs, ands or buts.

[@BigJFindAWay]

The issue of the six days of creation was cleared up more than a century ago by Albert Einstein.

[@rc6289]

I believe in the Creation Prophecy. A total of 8 days. When the Messiah Returns after the Great Tribulation this will usher us into the 7th day of the Millennial Kingdom. God Rested on the 7th day, keep the 7th day Holy, Jesus said the Son of Man is the Lord of the Sabbath, if we are in Christ we have Rest "in" Him (currently) and when he returns we will Have Rest "WITH" Him. And when the Millennial Kingdom is OVER then this will be the 8th day when Judgement occurs the New Heavens and earth is created go into Eternity forever. So, I still hold the New Earth or Young Earth idea of a 6 day of Creation because of this Creation Prophecy. But I don't go around and telling others what they believe is wrong but I do share what I believe when they share what they believe. I wrestled with it years ago, "was it a literal 6 days or not." I now do hold onto this idea it was literal 6 days. This prophecy is much more detailed than what I put in this comment. But this is the jist of it.

[@joshuawoodin]

What do you not feel right with in his response to the age of the earth ? He explained it using the sabbath and is why it's literally the 7th of the weeks, 24 hour day. Denies also explained God's reason for sabbath because creation and he rested on the 7th day, translated to us, they rest on the 7th day. And Moses reiterated the sabbath rest as to honor YHVH for him leading israel out of Egypt.

[@marilynnoosterhof1853]

love it.... thank you Sean and Dennis... God bless you both

[@paradisecityX0]

The harping on OT slavery from your average village-Atheist is always meaningless not just because of their ignorance of the harsh realities of the ancient world but also because they don't really care about slaves who lived and died thousands of years ago (just as they could care less about slavery today in Islamic and Atheist communist countries), just exploiting their lot in life for rhetorical effect.

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

@paradisecityX0 "your average village-Atheist is always meaningless not just because of their ignorance" That pretty much sums it up, on most topics.

[@paradisecityX0]

@@stevenwiederholt7000 Anti-theists and fundie-Atheists in particular

[@stevenwiederholt7000]

@@paradisecityX0 What really Gets me is they don't know What we Really say Why we say it. What is worse no interest in finding out. Drop in make a snide remark an leave.

[@joshuawoodin]

​@@stevenwiederholt7000what, I assume your not a follower of christ given this comment here. Your talking like an atheist trying to paint a hateful picture of a Christians view of atheists. We are called to love them while they are objectively wrong, and the big give away that solidifies what your not is saying anyone is meaningless, whatever you are may I suggest you look at the meaning of (Greek< eikon tou theou / Latin< Imago Dei /Hebrew< tzelem Elohim) no human is meaningless, as ignorant and as much of an empty suit kamala Harris and joe biden are, they are made in the image of God. And are not meaningless, there politics and rhetoric and absolutely fake persona they are, is acctually harmful. This whole judeo-christian concept of being created in the image of God is why we have human rights today.

[@daleproctor3723]

I don’t know if I meet the qualifications for an “average village atheist” or not but it’s precisely a wish that the world was less harsh and had less suffering in it (including that of slaves) that has been what causes me to question the claim that YHWH, if he actually exists, is the ultimate source for morals, justness, etc. When your god was doling out all the commandments that he supposedly did he could’ve/should’ve also included “Thou shalt not own other people as property” and saved the world at least some misery. I can only conclude on this basis that either your god doesn’t actually exist and he is just the creation of some ancient barbarians or, if he does exist, isn’t a god worth worshipping.

[@tianarhastings8372]

Thank you! My goodness I have tried to explain to so many others that 1 day to God is generations to man!

[@susanlouck1255]

Two of my favorite podcasters together! Wonderful interview!

[@rachelbuckner3786]

Love this interview. Soooo eye opening.

[@paulsadler3339]

Great conversation Sean and Dennis, thank you.

[@stetsonwatkins]

Two definining moments highlighted by Mr. Prager in Judaism: 1. Creation 2. Exodus Two defining moments highlighted by Mr. Prager in Christianity: 1. Crucifixion 2. Resurrection The Exodus is how the Jews were set free from slavery in Egypt. The crucifixion is how Christians are set free from slavery from sin. Creation, as recorded in Genesis, is the beginning of life. The resurrection of Christ is the demonstration of God's promise of eternal life (Colossians 11:25-26). I love the Bible! Reference: 23:33

[@highlander-jb6jv]

I hope that Dennis is a repeat guest! Bring him back on when Numbers is released.

[@SFitzhenry]

Hi Sean. This was wonderfully helpful. I listened to all. Please listen to it and note the glutteral sounds interjected into the interview. I almost dropped out, but your questions were chosen and well expressed, that I tried to ignore your grunting sounds of affirmation. I don't remember Dennis ever doing the same. I usually don't listen to an interview who has this habit, but you are a favorite of me and many others. I would love to join the Prager cruise with you and Dennis and all those seeking answers asked by believers and unbelievers.

[@cygnusustus]

"That God's intervention to end the slavery of a people is a pretty important story." Yeah. And what about the very next part where he commands them to keep other people as slaves? Hmmmm?

[@Hoe-numan5]

Voltaire was a slave trader.

[@Hoe-numan5]

Voltaire was a slave trader.

[@Hoe-numan5]

Slavery is never mandated.

[@richiejourney1840]

He who has ears let him hear. Listen to the video closely this time…

[@cygnusustus]

@@richiejourney1840 I accept your concession of defeat. Dismissed.

[@God_Has_Commonsense]

I have so many things to say about what Dennis Prager said about Moses. Is he saying now that the “excesses” in it are Moses’s idea and not God’s? Is he alluding to the fact that Moses wrote the Torah, or Moses and God wrote it? Because I have him on record for saying that God alone is the author of the Torah. Of course God didn’t hold the pen 🖊️, but he believes He wrote it. Is he changing his stance now?

[@melissaa152]

Love the Rational Bible. Looking forward to the next installment!

[@SeanMcDowell]

Me too

[@gheorghebirca]

I would like to hear Denis Prager's commentary on the verse from the old testament: “Those who spare the rod hate their children, but those who love them are diligent to discipline them” (Proverbs 13:24)!

[@richiejourney1840]

Why? Gonna go into YOUR modern culture tirade on discipline?

[@gheorghebirca]

@@richiejourney1840 you lack intellectual curiosity. Why wouldn’t you want to hear what Dennis might say about it? Since you are watching Dennis Prager, probably you are not close minded person, however why wouldn’t you want to hear what he could say about this verse. Dennis is a Jew and probably he understands the meaning of this verse much better than most people. Anyway, I hope Dennis will give his take on this verse and many others in the Old Testament.

[@michaelpatterson1736]

Great conversation ! Thank you Sean & Dennis !

[@NeedSomeNuance]

Sean - is there any point at which someone would be justified to not believe Christianity?

[@richiejourney1840]

You can “justify” anything according to your philosophical view point. One is free to do so. Possible results and personal responsibility might not turn out the way you want though.

[@lorrainejakins2496]

So, Denis, if you believe in God because of the Torah, Would you not believe in God if you were alive before the Torah was given.??

[@ericbarlow6772]

One thing we have to realize is Genesis (first 11 chapters) is likely Middle Bronze Age literature. The times and number of years are likely some form of cultural significance. Our view of history is a number of events anchored in a a linear timeline. This is a modern view and we can’t read that into ancient texts. Around the time of the Gospels a biography would focus on the events and the sequence wasn’t as important. There are a couple of biographies of Julius Caesar that disagree on the timeline but not the events themselves.

[@CHutch-w2u]

Creation was created with maturity in place. Adam and eve mature creations. I see no problem with a 6000 year earth Having said that i deeply respect Dennis

[@Bugsy0333]

No evidence for creation Adam and Eve never existed and the earth Earth is estimated to be 4.54 billion years old according to science not the Bible.

[@thearamsay9578]

If they weren’t literal 24 hour periods, how come every day starts like every piece of creation starts with and the evening in the morning where the first day and the evening in the morning or the second day and so on and so on until God is finished making the world. it seems to go out of its way to say that there are 24 hour literal days.

[@desertrose0601]

Yeah I tend to agree with this. I was raised to believe in seven day creation, but even as I’ve tried to research other theories, I still find myself coming back to this one. I’m not fully sure it really matters ultimately, but it would be interesting to have more of a good faith discussion on this seven day topic.

[@richiejourney1840]

Literary devices.

[@frocurl]

I would love to hear Dennis take on the 2nd exodus and kazears.

[@cygnusustus]

"And by the way, they weren't even slaves. They were indentured servants." Prager and Sean, lying once again. Chattel slavery is defined as "the enslaving and owning of human beings and their offspring as property, able to be bought, sold, and forced to work. Another definition is: "The condition in which one person is owned as property by another and is under the owner's control, especially in involuntary servitude." Leviticus 25 explicitly describes and condones chattel slavery. "44 Both thy bondmen, and thy bondmaids, which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you; of them shall ye buy bondmen and bondmaids. 45 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land: and they shall be your possession. 46 And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession; they shall be your bondmen for ever: but over your brethren the children of Israel, ye shall not rule one over another with rigour." IF YOU HAVE TO LIE TO DEFEND YOUR BELIEFS, IT IS TIME TO GET NEW BELIEFS!

[@Hoe-numan5]

They became Jewish.

[@bambie1830]

Growing up LDS I’m always surprised how Jewish Mormonism is

[@daleproctor3723]

Not one of Prager’s favourite slavery verses: Exodus 21:20-21: When a slaveowner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. But if the slave survives a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner’s property. Also not a favourite verse: Leviticus 25:44-46 - As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. So Prager’s god could’ve given a commandment “Though shalt not own other people as property” and save the world from at least some of the misery that followed throughout history but…people would’ve ignored it so he didn’t! Instead get some good guidelines like how you can beat your slaves so long as they don’t die right a way. Lots of people have ignored lots of YHWH’s commandments but that didn’t seem to stop him from issuing those ones. For a rational examination of biblical slavery check out Dr. Josh Bowen’s book “Did the Old Testament Endorse Slavery?”

[@Hoe-numan5]

Mosaic Law, or the Law of Moses, was given partly in response to the transgressions and disobedience of the Israelites. According to the Bible, the Israelites frequently strayed from God's commands and fell into idolatry and sin. In the New Testament, particularly in Galatians 3:19, the Apostle Paul explains, "Why, then, was the law given? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come." This suggests that the law served as a guide and a way to show the Israelites their sins, as well as to keep them in line until the coming of Christ, who is referred to as the "Seed" in this passage. The law was also meant to set the Israelites (Jews) apart as a holy nation, distinct from the surrounding nations, and to guide them in their relationship with God. However, it also highlighted the need for a savior, as it was impossible for people to perfectly keep the law. Christians are not binded by mosaic covenant. Christians follow the new testament which Jesus Christ established. God promised this in old testament and it was fullfilled.

[@Hoe-numan5]

Leviticus 25:44-46 - no rule exists in a vacuum. 1. Who is doing the selling? You don't get to ignore Expdus 21:16, or Deuteronomy 23:15-16 when implementing this rule it explicitly forbids kidnapping and making people slaves. 2. Who does the buying? 3. Read Exodus 21:6-7. Ifa servant wants to stay with you in perpetuity, what do you do with them? 4. Lev 25:43 -46 - the context is that only Hebrew people could own land in Israel. If you set a slave free by sabbatical it jubilee rules, if he/she is Hebrew they go back to their property. Foreigners have nowhere to go except back out of Israel. 5.. You people need to get out of the west more and go live in other parts of the world. Try the Middle East where you cannot become a permanent resident or own any property no matter how long you live and work there. Selective fact-ing and faulty logic. First, regulation does not mean approval or endorsement. Much like laws related to drunk driving do not mean that the authorities endorse the consumption of alcohol. Now, how did Hebrews "buy" or acquire slaves, actually "bondservants"? In slave markets, from kidnappers and slave traders? And, who does the "selling"? In the same chapter, verses 39 and 47, bookend the quoted passage. The person going into servitude "sells" themselves. Jew or non-Jew, this was the transaction back then. Think poor Irish immigrants to the US during the potato famine. Where did they get the money for their transatlantic voyage? Or were they kidnapped and sold stateside?

[@Hoe-numan5]

The Bible forbids beating slaves, such that if an eye or even a tooth is lost to beating the slave is allowed to go free: Exodus 21:26-27 An owner who hits a male or female slave in the eye and destroys it must let the slave go free to compensate for the eye. And an owner who knocks out the tooth of a male or female slave must let the slave go free to compensate for the tooth. If a slave ran away, he wasn’t to be returned to his master, rather the family who he ran to is required to harbor him, and to treat him well and let him live where he chooses. Deuteronomy 23:15-16 You point to Exodus 21:20-21 as proof that you are allowed to beat a slave, so long as the slave doesn’t die, without punishment. However the Hebrew term used here to refer to punishment is naqam, which specifically refers to the death penalty. If you beat a slave but he is able to stand up fully within two days, you shouldn’t be executed for it. However the slave will still be released, as per verses 26 and 27 just a few verses later.

[@daleproctor3723]

@@Hoe-numan5 It's a moral failing of the god of bible that he didn’t see fit to guide the Israelites…show them their sins…keep them in line…set them apart as a holy nation distinct for their neighbours…highlight the need for a saviour in such manner that included a prohibition against owning other people as property and beating them along with all the other commandments that he gave. Claiming Christians aren’t bound by mosaic law etc. is a cop-out. For starters the god of the NT is same as the god of the OT. Second, you likely don’t throw out the concept of original sin, the ten commandments, etc. so you are just dodging the problem and being conveniently/unconvincingly selective.

[@daleproctor3723]

@@Hoe-numan5 Leviticus 25:44-46 says you can own foreigners and treat them as property which your children can inherit. It’s morally reprehensible and it doesn’t matter who is doing the selling. You don’t need to kidnap people to obtain slaves so Exodus 21:16 doesn’t redeem your god for this gross shortcoming. Instead of commanding “thou shalt not own other people as property” he said you can buy foreigners and that you can beat them. You can also keep the offspring of slaves. In Exodus 21 a master can manipulate a Hebrew indentured servant into committing to a lifetime of servitude by giving the servant a wife, letting them have children but when the servant has completed his six years he can’t take his wife and child away with him which stinks for him if he loves his family. As if slavery is moral solution to the supposed issue of foreigners not being able to own land in Judah. You apologists have such low credibility when you accept any solution, no matter how absurd, to resolve problems with the bible. You Christian apologists for biblical slavery are the ones doing the selective reading. “Regulation does not mean approval or endorsement”> Traffic laws do not mean approval or endorsement of driving on the roads either I guess. The point is that it’s not a prohibition. Your god came up with all kinds of different prohibitions but didn’t see fit to prohibit slavery. Legal prohibitions against drunk driving laws aren’t analogous to what the bible says about slavery which don’t constitute a prohibition. The bible has two sets of edicts: one dealing with Hebrews and another dealing with foreigners which were considered property and could be beaten.

[@jackjohnson9230]

Polygamy is its own punishment.

[@erehwhon]

Prager waxing lyrical about the benefits of cruising was hilarious.

[@markschwartz7480]

Not true, Pragur. We begin every blessing with "Baruch atah," not "Baruch at," the female derivitave of "you." Hebrew very much assigns G-d as male. Elohim is not Elo-ot. In Hebrew, some of our titles for G-d are male. I'm not saying I have a problem with that, but saying G-d is not assigned a sex in Hebrew is not true, unless I'm mistaking your words somehow.

[@glenliesegang233]

Does God really want humans to be divided over questions of exactly how He did or does things like literal 7 days, or use of evolution to modify His creatures over time???

[@desertrose0601]

Sure. He gave us free will. He didn’t even force us to love Him. He likes us to use our reason.

[@richiejourney1840]

No I don’t think He intended that even though He knew it would happen. We have a screwed up free will and had the original priestly pair not partaken of that fruit…

[@richiejourney1840]

There’s also reason to think He intended the confusion of time and process. 1. To confuse us and the fallen angels in deciphering His chosen timeline. (Only God knows that final day…) 2. To keep us witnessing to one another under the free will system.

[@derkennedy1228]

Denis is so good, God talks to us as we are. God leads us in one direction, atheism in another direction entirely.

[@buridah328]

What makes you think it’s God and not the Devil ? Did you hear what he said about slavery.

[@derkennedy1228]

@@buridah328 Surely that is the point, the road from pride to humility

[@richiejourney1840]

@@buridah328well…that would make the Devil greater than God and thus God. What do you think you should then do?

[@richiejourney1840]

@@buridah328are you totally free from slavery? Doubt it…

[@GreatPlanet-c7o]

God is Our Father in Heaven. That's it right there. He's also not 3 guys.

[@JadDragon]

Praise Yahweh the one true God. Revealed Triune as Father, Spirit, and Jesus the Son, each member fully God of which there is only one. 3 distinct Persons coexistant, coequal, and coeternal sharing 1 Divine Essence. Jesus lives and is God, Christ, King. Repent of your sin and believe in Him and be saved to eternal life!

[@karl5395]

Timestamps for future releases ?😊

[@tgrogan6049]

What does Dennis Prager know about these topics? "Prager attended Brooklyn College, where he double majored in anthropology and history, and received a B.A. in 1970." Another pseudo expert.

[@BigJFindAWay]

When Prager got his degrees having a degree actually meant something and he’s a brilliant man so don’t just write him off.

[@Jer20.9]

I tend to agree, he doesn't have the Holy Spirit so his opinions are going to be of limited value.

[@tgrogan6049]

@@BigJFindAWay You can be smart and know nothing about the vast majority of most subjects. He has no credentials in Biblical studies. Real actual doctorates in Biblical Studies from places like Harvard are grueling and require years to get.

[@joshuawoodin]

What, a sudo expert ? This man has studied torah most of his life, your comment is absurd. This is analogous to telling a warehouse worker, janitor, combat specialist with 30-40 years of experience and end up saying what do they know ?

[@tgrogan6049]

@@joshuawoodin According to who has he "studied Torah all his life"? Is he an ordained Rabbi? Do other Jewish scholars (actually scholars) disagree with his interpretations? Don't be so credulous my friend.

[@jcthejfreak]

Wow Dennis Prager

[@elizabethryan2217]

Lol!!! You drive a hard bargain, Sean!! 😂

[@joanschneggenburger8823]

There are times I am embarrassed for comments made on sites. It is telling how many hypocritical expert comments I read below.

[@bambie1830]

12 tribes came from 1 man with 4 wives…

[@heynow1388]

Dennis Prager's certainty is very often impressive. However, the sense of what he says is often in inverse proportion to the absolute conviction with which he states it. There's too much to pick up on in this discussion but I would just highlight one thing which perfectly illustrates that Prager he is so deep in his belief . . . and so certain that his opinions are right that . . . that he often completely misses the point. At 26 minutes he talks about God saying it's OK to take an attractive woman captured in warfare, keep her for 30 days so that she could grieve for her family who you have just killed, and then marry her. He talks as if this is a good thing, saying that God is setting out some form of way to treat people which is superior to other cultures at the time. Crucially, he completely ignores the main point which is that the woman doesn't seem to have had any say at all in what happened to her. That's the point. This and other things like it in the Bible are why critics accuse the God of the Bible of being patriarchal and treating women as second-class citizens, and essentially as property. It says everything about Prager and his morality that he feels it's actually OK to tell a story about a woman being treated as property as something good!

[@lolasimmons9152]

Have you read the New Testament, where many of Jesus ' followers were women. How Jesus reveals Himself to women first after His resurrection and commissions them to tell the twelve disciples that He is risen. Quite a few women supported Jesus financially.

[@heynow1388]

@@lolasimmons9152 Many thanks for your reply I really appreciate it. I don’t disagree that the New Testament shows that there were some women who were involved with Jesus and the early church, but women are still discriminated against. Consider these statements, all of them from the New Testament . . . Corinthians 14:33-35 (NIV) states: " Women should remain silent in the churches, They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church." 1 Timothy 2: 9-15 (NASB) says: "A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint. Ephesians 5:22-33 NIV Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything. I'm a man, but if I were a woman I certainly wouldn't worship a God who regards me as a second class citizen. I would be ashamed to do so.

[@Hoe-numan5]

​@@heynow1388 What does 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 mean? The role of women in church is among the more divisive issues faced by modern believers. This and the following verse play a large part in that conversation, along with 1 Timothy 2:11-15. Paul's thought begins in the previous verse, where he states flatly that this is the practice of all churches of the saints. In other words, he is insisting to the Corinthians that what he is about to instruct them is not a unique teaching; it is the way of all Christian churches. That would deflect claims that this is some special criticism of the people of Corinth, or that it only applies to their specific situation. As stated, the instruction is that women should remain silent in churches. In fact, they are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission-in context, meaning to their specific husbands-as was true for those living under the Law, as well. This raises many questions and misunderstandings. It's important to remember Paul's teaching earlier in this letter (1 Corinthians 11:2-16) that women could pray or prophecy during worship services as long as their heads were properly covered. Taken without care, this verse reads like a contradiction to that passage. Scholars suggest three possible explanations. Some believe these verses were inserted later by someone other than Paul, but they appear in even the earliest known manuscripts. Others suggest that Paul is quoting someone else in these two verses in order to refute their statements with his words in verse 36. That doesn't seem to fit, however, with the pattern of the rest of the letter. Most scholars understand these instructions to be given to wives, specifically, and not to all women. This is based on the word usages and the reference to husbands in the following verse. Taken in this way, many believe the command to "remain silent" to refer to general conversation among the congregation, perhaps while evaluating a prophecy together, as opposed to the prayer or prophesying allowed by Paul in chapter 11. Paul is describing ground rules for orderly worship services, including the use of speaking in tongues and prophecy. In the previous verse and this one, he also places restrictions on participation in the service by women. Earlier, Paul has indicated approval of women praying or prophesying in a service (1 Corinthians 11:2-16). His reference to being silent, then, has to apply to some particular context. At least to some modern scholars, this implies these two verses are directed toward wives and not women in general. These wives are instructed to remain silent, not speaking, in submission to their own husbands. Now Paul adds that if they have questions about what is being taught, they should ask their husbands in the privacy of their own homes. Paul adds that it is shameful for a woman to speak in church. Despite modern offense, scholars reject the suggestions these verses were added by someone other than Paul. Also unlikely is that Paul quotes someone in Corinth so they can be refuted. Looking to the prior comments about head covering, in chapter 11, this seems to be more about how a marriage relationship is expressed in public, than about women's roles in the church, per se. For one thing, Paul clearly allowed for women to participate in services by prayer or prophesying as long as their heads were properly covered (1 Corinthians 11:2-16). For another, the early Christian church countered prevailing Greek and Roman culture, by welcoming women to personal faith in Christ. Radically, Christian women were called to participation in the community with or without their husbands. This seems to have caused backlash against Christianity, as well as causing some women to abuse their freedom in Christ by openly disrespecting their husbands. Perhaps, then, Paul is commanding wives to be clear about their submission to their husbands, rather than speaking openly in the general conversation of the church service. Doing so may have brought shame on their husbands for an apparent lack of knowledge on his part or lack or authority in his home. In any case, Paul's commands in these verses are generally not practiced closely in most modern churches, even very conservative ones. The general sense of a woman publicly speaking, even in church, has a cultural meaning very different from that of the era when these words were written. Few believers interpret these words as a blanket prohibition on any speech by a married woman in church.

[@Hoe-numan5]

​@@heynow1388 What does 1 Timothy 2:9-15 mean? Verse 11 presented what at first appears to be a controversial statement. Viewed in full context, however, Paul has simply stated that women should not be flagrant or excessively loud or frenzied during a church gathering. Just as clothing should reflect a controlled, reasonable person, so too should behavior in a church service reflect godly peace. How, then, is this phrase regarding women and teaching to be understood? In the local church, Paul specified men as elders (1 Timothy 3:1-7) and most likely as deacons (1 Timothy 3:8-13). The point made in the New Testament is not that adult women can never teach adult men, as both Priscilla and her husband Aquila did exactly that with Apollos in Acts 18:26. Phoebe also served in some type of church leadership role, with some believing her role of "servant" was as a deacon (Romans 16:1). However, men are consistently specified as the primary local church leaders, in the role of elders. The key is not the term didaskein, referring to teaching, but the Greek word translated as "exercise authority:" authentein. This word means "to assume a stance of independent authority, give orders to, or dictate to." In simple terms, women are not to serve in the role of elder, or attempt to lead in the specific ways in which elders are expected to lead. Though women were not-and are not-excluded from praying in church gatherings, men were taught to take leadership in this area. The repeated reference to "quietness" here again has more to do with self-control than with absolute lack of sound. Women were not to overtake a worship service, by taking control of public prayers or teaching, and especially not through hysterics or commotion. Elders were expected to oversee instruction and prayer in the church. First Corinthians 14:33-35 notes that this practice was not limited to Ephesus; it was true in all early churches. This short verse, consisting of only six Greek words, states the basis of Paul's teaching regarding women in the church. This stance, given in the prior two verses, was not based on his own preference, but on the Torah. His reference is to Genesis chapters 1 and 2. Those passages affirm God's creation of Adam as the first man. Jesus affirmed this same truth in Matthew 19:3-6. Eve was formed second, as the first woman on earth (Genesis 2:21-23). She was made from Adam (Genesis 2:21). This emphasis on order is Paul's guide for how men and women are to function in church worship gatherings. Men are to lead in prayer (1 Timothy 2:1-2, 8) and in teaching (1 Timothy 3:1-7). Women can certainly perform both of these functions, but cannot overstep their authority by serving in roles in which a male elder is expected to lead (1 Timothy 2:8-12). In verse 13, Paul referenced the order in which Adam and Eve were created (Genesis 1-2) as support for the idea of men taking the primary leadership role in spiritual matters. Continuing his references to Adam and Eve, Paul now refers to the fall of mankind. This catastrophe is charged to Adam: the sin is considered his, though the first to actually disobey was Eve (Romans 5:12). Paul specifies here that "Adam was not deceived." This clarifies that even though Adam ate the forbidden fruit, he did not do so due to the serpent's influence; he did so by taking the fruit from Eve (Genesis 3:17). Instead, "the woman was deceived." In Genesis 3:13, Eve said, "The serpent deceived me, and I ate." All people in history have done as Eve: they have sinned and are "transgressors" (Galatians 2:18; James 2:9, 11). Paul was not writing to make Eve or women appear as worse sinners than men. Instead, he was grounding his teaching about church leadership in the order of creation: man, then woman. All human beings are sinners in need of the grace of God (Galatians 3:28; Ephesians 2:8-9). Paul will go on in the next verse to provide an important contrast related to Eve's role as the first transgressor. This verse has often been confusing to readers. This is not surprising, since it is often debated among translators. The Greek of this passage does not provide explicit clarity as to what Paul means by these phrases. There are several ways in which this first statement about being "saved through childbearing" can be interpreted, and a few which are clearly not part of Paul's intent here. First of all, this is clearly not a reference to salvation, in the sense of heaven and hell. Women are not "saved" in that sense by having children, but by Christ, by grace through faith (John 3:16; Ephesians 2:8-9). Some readers believe Paul is referring to women being kept safe through the physical process of childbirth. That is, that their love and self-control will keep them alive during the dangerous process of labor and delivery. This is possible, but seems highly unlikely given the context of both this passage and the rest of the New Testament. Others think Paul might have been referring to women avoiding the dangers of the world by remaining at home to raise children. The idea would be that a woman who focuses on godly behavior in the home, as a mother, is "preserved" from the kind of deception and failure Eve experienced. This, again, is possible, but also seems unlikely. A more likely interpretation is that Paul is, in this first phrase, still referring to Eve when he mentions "salvation." Paul has just referenced the Old Testament account of Adam and Eve. Adam was formed first, then Eve. Eve was then deceived by the Devil (1 Timothy 2:14). Yet, according to this view of Paul's words, Eve can continue her legacy through her generations of children (Genesis 3:16; 4:1-3). The term sōthēsetai, often translated as "save," can also mean "to preserve, to keep safe." By this account, then, women are not "saved" through children in the spiritual sense, but rather leave a legacy or are preserved through bearing children. The same is true of Eve, who had an opportunity to leave a legacy despite her sin. The salvation in this case is that of heritage: women who lead godly lives and raise children are blessed with a special kind of "preservation" in the future. According to Paul, this legacy is not automatic, but conditional. Women not only have influence through their children; they also must live godly lives. Paul is basically talking to radical feminist here.

[@Hoe-numan5]

​@@heynow1388 What does Ephesians 5:22-33 mean? This verse begins a new section, extending through verse 33, on the topic of wives and husbands. Paul has just mentioned the importance of mutual submission between all believers, in verse 21. Here, he specifically applies this principle within the context of marriage. He begins with wives. Ephesians 5:22-24 is often taken drastically out of context, and grossly misinterpreted. First, wives are to submit to their own husband. Women are not commanded to submit in a similar way to all men. However, all believers are called to practice a form of humble submission to one another, as noted in verse 21. Second, this principle is applied specifically within marriage. Those in dating relationships, social or employment contexts, or a woman with respect to another woman's husband are not included. Those male-female relationships do not carry the same level of expectation Paul shares in this verse. Third, submission is based on being "as to the Lord." In other words, submission is not based on the character or performance of the other individual. Instead, there is an unconditional treatment of the husband based on love for him and for God. Wives are to show love to their husbands regardless of whether they feel the husband "deserves" it. Though perhaps extremely difficult at times, this is the biblical ideal. It should also be noted that this deals with marriage, not abuse. Anyone in an abusive situation must seek personal safety as first priority. Nothing in Paul's teachings, here or elsewhere in the Bible, commands a woman to keep herself or her children physically available for spousal abuse. After instructing wives to submit to their husbands in verse 22, Paul provides a spiritual basis for his instruction. He uses the analogy of Christ (the husband) with the church (the wife). Christ loved the church and gave His life for it. Similarly, husbands are to love their wives and be willing to give up their lives on their behalf (Ephesians 5:25-29). Wives are to show devotion to their husbands similar to the church's call to love the Lord. Paul also notes the church is Christ's "body, and [He] is himself its Savior." Using this analogy, husband and wife are one body (Ephesians 5:31). They are called to live united, serving one another together. It is not about one person being better than the other. Instead, this is mutual submission which honors God and shows love. Jesus, as part of the Trinity, is identical in essence and equal to God the Father. And yet, He is able to submit without becoming "inferior." This is the model of marital submission which Paul has in view.

[@mirandahotspring4019]

Hilarious how a conformational bias will turn a collection of nonsensical old myths into someone's belief foundation!

[@Mary-f1k8t]

It is my understanding that Moses was condemned not to enter into the Promise Land because he struck the rock twice. God's reasoning being that He would not have his Son die twice.

[@theeternalsbeliever1779]

God did not allow Moses to enter the Promised Land because he dishonored God in front of the ppl by striking the rock and giving the credit to himself instead of speaking to the rock like he was instructed. While Moses only gave himself credit due to the ppl getting on his nerves with their complaints, it was still a terrible misstep on his part.

[@Lucas1Apple12]

Why platform people like this? Cause he is popular and politically conservative? Why not bring an actual Jewish scholar to get a better Jewish perspective?

[@desertrose0601]

Like this? Wdym? He’s an interesting, wise individual. I quite enjoyed it. If you didn’t, I suppose you can go watch other videos.

[@Lucas1Apple12]

@@desertrose0601 I can indeed watch other videos. That doesn't mean I can't comment to voice my disagreement with this guest. Sean can and has brought much better educated and respected guests in the past so I will vocally protest such a downgrade. Prager and his organization "Prager U" are known to be anything but academically honest. Not to mention his takes on porn and marriage. Much better representatives of the Jewish community could've been chosen instead.

[@elizabethryan2217]

I find it very interesting that the verse Mr Prager quotes as his favourite re: slavery (if you fall in love with a woman on the enemy's side .. ) is exactly what i have recently heard used to mock the Bible - and Christians, in their claims that the Bible is not against slavery. Sorry, this is not a criticism! 🙏🏼 I'm literally genuinely intrigued and interested in the arguments, and it's interesting how both sides view the same examples.

[@LifeasaLEOWife]

That's interesting. I don't know any Christian who is not against slavery or one who thinks the Bible is for slavery. In fact, Christians are the ones who began to fight against slavery in the 1800's due to the Bible. I'm sure there were rich people who wanted to keep their slaves & either thought they were born-again or who pretended to be, so they convinced themselves in their own minds that it was ok. However, if you study the abolition, you will find it was Christians who fought for it. Without Christianity, I don't think it would have ever been abolished.

[@Hoe-numan5]

What

[@cygnusustus]

"I don't understand how Christians could reconcile their religious faith with slavery." The same way you do, Dennis. The same way you do.

[@cygnusustus]

@@Christ-SAVES-SIMPLY-BELIEVE Uhm...nope. It certainly does, since Jesus and God are one, and God condoned chattel slavery. You can deny the fact that chattel slavery is condoned by the God you worship, but then you are denying the God you worship. "The free gift of eternal live, and the love, grace, and peace of God cancels out anything that's negative." So you're cool millions of people spending their lives in chattel slavery, as long as you get the warm fuzzies. OK.

[@desertrose0601]

He doesn’t. What’s your actual point?

[@cygnusustus]

@@desertrose0601 He does. That was my actual point.

[@cygnusustus]

@@Christ-SAVES-SIMPLY-BELIEVE ummm. You're angry, bitter, miserable, ignorant, and dishonest. I accept your concession that you can defend your faith. Dismissed.

[@Hoe-numan5]

​@@cygnusustus Mosaic Law, or the Law of Moses, was given partly in response to the transgressions and disobedience of the Israelites. According to the Bible, the Israelites frequently strayed from God's commands and fell into idolatry and sin. In the New Testament, particularly in Galatians 3:19, the Apostle Paul explains, "Why, then, was the law given? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come." This suggests that the law served as a guide and a way to show the Israelites their sins, as well as to keep them in line until the coming of Christ, who is referred to as the "Seed" in this passage. The law was also meant to set the Israelites (Jews) apart as a holy nation, distinct from the surrounding nations, and to guide them in their relationship with God. However, it also highlighted the need for a savior, as it was impossible for people to perfectly keep the law. Christians are not binded by mosaic covenant. Christians follow the new testament which Jesus Christ established. God promised this in old testament and it was fullfilled.

[@cygnusustus]

"Why would I care if Christians call the Torah the Bible?" ...as long as they keep sending me money.

[@markmcflounder15]

I had to laugh today! I just happen to be reviewing & "Rise of Christianity" by Rodney Stark, Harper One, New York, NY, 1996 Discussing the rise of the Moonies, Stark writes, "Converts to new religious movements are overwhelmingly from relatively irreligious backgrounds. The majority of converts to modern American cult movements report that their parents had no religious affiliation (Stark and Bainbridge 1985). Let me state this as a theoretical proposition: New religious movements mainly draw their converts from the ranks of the religiously inactive and discontented, and those affiliated with the most accommodated (worldly) religious communities." (emphasis original, p19)       Nowadays It's Moonlit Charged Crystals & Mandalas       "But skepticism does not entail a general immunity to the essential supernaturalism of all religions. For example, although sociologists have long believed that people who give their religious affiliation as 'none' are primarily secular humanists, considerable recent research shows this not to be the case. Most such people are merely indicating a lack of conviction in a conventional brand of faith, for they are also the group most likely to express interest in belief in unconventional mystical, magical, and religious doctrines. For example, 'nones' are the group of Americans most willing to accept astrology, yoga, reincarnation, ghosts, and the like (Bainbridge and Stark 1980, 1981). Moreover, people who report their original religious background as 'none' are extremely overrepresented in the ranks of converts to new religious movements (Stark and Bainbridge 1985)" (emphasis original, 37, 38)

[@cygnusustus]

The Israelites had human sacrifice too, Dennis. So willfully ignorant.....

[@daleproctor3723]

Prager is regularly amazed at what bugs people yet seems to have an issue with designating the years with BCE & CE. It’s not about denying “facts” as Prager suggests but rather recognizing that history and science isn’t just the purview of Christians. Implementing a new calendar with a more neutral year one might be a bit too upending but using those secular time references in the literature will only bother religious extremists who can’t stand not having their pet beliefs dominating society.

[@desertrose0601]

That was a fairly recent change though. It’s been called BC and AD for centuries before that. You’re probably too young to remember this. It’s more the principle of woke people changing how we speak about things because they’re offended by things. It doesn’t make sense to then say the people upset about the change for change’s sake are the ones with the issue.

[@daleproctor3723]

@@desertrose0601 As already stated, science and history are not sole purview of Christians. That being the case it makes sense you use neutral, secular standards. The only thing affected this change are the feelings of too conservative people who use the word “woke” to label things they don’t like. The sort of people for whom the qualities of empathy, toleration, inclusivity, etc. are of limited supply. The sort of people who resent any diminishing of their privilege in society. They can all go cry me a river.

[@richiejourney1840]

😂you’re still referencing a religious event as it’s base…

[@richiejourney1840]

Make your own calendar…Atheistic Woke…year 1…

[@daleproctor3723]

@@richiejourney1840 Like I wrote, doing away with the calendar might be a bit too much but using those secular time references in the literature will only bother religious extremists who can’t stand not having their pet beliefs dominating society.

[@wanttopreach]

The Cannonite empire was wiped out. The people group survived!

[@kymdickman8910]

What Cannonite Empire is that?

[@User28870]

Prager’s arguments are embarrassing and he doesn’t even begin to grapple the difficulties in the biblical texts.

[@cygnusustus]

"God makes it clear in the Torah, 'I want monogamy." Nope. Nowhere does the Torah state this.

[@lolasimmons9152]

Have you forgotten Genesis 2:24- This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one. Now, although Adam and his wife were both naked, neither of them felt any shame.

[@cygnusustus]

@@lolasimmons9152 "Have you forgotten Genesis 2:24" No, I haven't. "This explains why a man leaves his father and mother and is joined to his wife, and the two are united into one. " It does not state that a man cannot have more than one wife, In fact, this was commonplace. Got anything else?

[@lolasimmons9152]

@@cygnusustus You are right about it not stating about how many women men could marry, but at that time table, there were only two people on the earth. After the fall of Mankind in Genesis 3, that men began to marry more than one woman. I will definitely talk to my Pastor about this. Thanks so much and God bless.

[@cygnusustus]

@@lolasimmons9152 Nope. Even according to Biblical pseudo-history, at the time that the phrase "Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh", there were hundreds of thousands of people on the earth, and the author of Genesis is clearly creating an extrapolation to contempory times. An extrapolation which clearly did not include monogamy. Got anything else? " I will definitely talk to my Pastor about this. " Why? He'll just tell you lies. If you want to know about this, talk to an Ancient Near East historian. You're welcome. Baal bless.

[@richiejourney1840]

😂 “a” man and “his” and “his wife”…singular. “They”…the plural of just the two. The text does not say, “a man may join with “wives””. It does not matter what the ANE was doing…certainly they were not worshipping YHWH…nor does man completely obey YHWH even in His chosen Nation-like in the matter of divorce. The point is, coupled with Jesus’ and the Apostles teachings…”monogamy” (one man and one woman in marriage) is what God set up.

[@DundaMifflin]

If I'm a Christian, can I vote for Trump and consider myself a good person?

[@andrewjohnson8232]

If you're a Christian, you should consider yourself a person absolutely dependent on Christ. What can any political figure have to do with that?

[@Mary-f1k8t]

Don't use MSM as a guide to who a person or candidate is. Do you due diligence to "search a thing out."

[@desertrose0601]

Sure. God used imperfect people all throughout history. Trump’s been the most sympathetic President to Christians in my lifetime. Just because he himself is imperfect, I kind of see that as irrelevant. We’re not electing a priest or pastor.

[@Dizerner]

Better of two evils is a real thing.

[@hondotheology]

are jews christian josh? what do they believe about Christ? you need to think about what you do here

[@richiejourney1840]

You mean talk about the OT from 2 different perspectives?

[@hondotheology]

@@richiejourney1840 from the perspective of a man who denies Christ. if you do not worship Christ, you worship satan. _think dude_

[@hondotheology]

@@richiejourney1840 the man is on record as being pro-pornography. he is a pervert. use your brain

[@paulacoyle5685]

Yeah I’m preparing for lots of face palms re prager.

[@joshuawoodin]

Face palms re prager, what does this mean ?

[@TXLogic]

⁠It means that Prager’s arguments are preposterous.

[@paulacoyle5685]

@@joshuawoodin it didn’t take too long for him to touch on abortion, and then suggest that these issues are not matters for legislation, such as murder would be. At least that’s how I understood his train of thought there. He has also made arguments in the past about the use of pornography within marriage and how that’s OK because it’s not involving another person . 🤦🏻‍♀️ I’m still listening, so I don’t know if they actually get that one.

[@joshuawoodin]

​@@paulacoyle5685well your understanding is wrong, the ab0rtion issue he explained his 5 minute prager U video on abortion dealing with its immorality and not about the legislation of the issue of ab0rtion, and I am not sure what your talking about with the p0rn0graphy subject here, I watched it 3 times and I assume your talking about Dennis's past comments on p0rn in a marriage which i do disagree with his take on p0rn. And this video that your commenting on about these 2 topics are 1st < ab0rtion = not accurate / 2nd < phonography = is not really in this video assuming your bringing up his past comments I think he spoke to jordan b peterson and some others about it. So I am confused what is a face palm for you ?

[@desertrose0601]

@@paulacoyle5685I don’t think you were listening. What he was saying was that you can’t change hearts by legislation but that if you can move the needle on how a society feels about something, often legislation follows.

[@Hungry4Holiness2]

I think if God worked at light speed or more,

[@markmcflounder15]

The sheer absurdity & immorality of saying a triangle for men & a circle for women is offensive!!! I say immoral because the individual has to blatantly and wildly go out of their way to vilify people

[@cygnusustus]

Kids, get your Bible knowledge from scholars. Not from Bible "commentators". Any liar can commentate.

[@desertrose0601]

Same difference. He had to study it to commentate on it. Doesn’t mean he’s necessarily correct, but it also doesn’t mean he’s necessarily incorrect either.

[@cygnusustus]

@@desertrose0601 "He had to study it to commentate on it. " Exactly the sort of thing an ignorant person would think. No, child. No study is required to commentate.

[@rOmeyODavid_o08891]

🙏🏼☦️🙏🏼

[@nickbrasing8786]

I was actually interested in Pragers take on slavery in the Bible. I don't think I've personally heard him talk on this before. But as an obviously well educated Jew on the Torah I was a little disappointed to be honest. This is a subject of great interest to me, and his answer really seemed to avoid the actual question. And show either a lack of knowing what all the Old Testament says, or more likely simply avoiding the more difficult laws. Which he never mentioned here. Indentured servitude laws are not the issue here, the chattel slavery laws are? And a law against kidnapping in absolutely no way would have ended slavery. In the Bible or in America. Why? Because that is not how most people became slaves. No, they became slaves mostly through either war, debt, or simply being born into it to slave parents. All of which are perfectly fine, and none of which involve kidnapping. Dennis should know this. And most black slaves in America were not kidnapped. They were captured in tribal wars. Something else Dennis should know? And it turns out that the Biblical laws around slavery are very very similar to the laws in America, and the nations surrounding Israel at the time the laws were given. It is not at all the case that "men would not have made up these laws", since the other nations had similar laws. Not all mind you, but most. Israel had some better laws, some worse laws, but overall were pretty consistent with those existing in the ANE at the time. This seemed more like avoiding the question than answering it to be honest?

[@Hoe-numan5]

Mosaic Law, or the Law of Moses, was given partly in response to the transgressions and disobedience of the Israelites. According to the Bible, the Israelites frequently strayed from God's commands and fell into idolatry and sin. In the New Testament, particularly in Galatians 3:19, the Apostle Paul explains, "Why, then, was the law given? It was added because of transgressions until the Seed to whom the promise referred had come." This suggests that the law served as a guide and a way to show the Israelites their sins, as well as to keep them in line until the coming of Christ, who is referred to as the "Seed" in this passage. The law was also meant to set the Israelites (Jews) apart as a holy nation, distinct from the surrounding nations, and to guide them in their relationship with God. However, it also highlighted the need for a savior, as it was impossible for people to perfectly keep the law. Christians are not binded by mosaic covenant. Christians follow the new testament which Jesus Christ established. God promised this in old testament and it was fullfilled.

[@nickbrasing8786]

@@Hoe-numan5 Exactly what Prager did not say. And I get that they didn't always follow God's "commands" as you say. But there was not command about slavery for them to follow. Nothing negative about slavery at all in the OT actually. So it wasn't rebellion or being sinful. They were never told they shouldn't do it, or God didn't like it. So how were they supposed to know it was wrong? I mean God had 613 commandments in the OT, but not one word against slavery itself? I mean they were told not to enslave a fellow Israelite, but never that it was a sin or wrong? That's the difference here. And if the old law was to "keep them in line until the coming of Christ", then why did Jesus not say slavery was wrong either? He did with divorce, why not slavery? I mean hopefully we could agree that divorce is sometimes warranted, but never slavery? That slavery is worse than divorce? I just don't get it. All it would have taken was a single sentence. And if we're not bound by the old law, that would mean the 10 commandments are no longer relevant today too? I've never heard that, but they were a part of the Mosaic law too.And if the old law was to set the Israelites apart from the other nations, the laws around slavery did not do that. They were pretty consistent with those in the surrounding nations. Not something that made Israel stand out really.

[@Hoe-numan5]

@@nickbrasing8786 Jesus also said nothing about beastiality.

[@Hoe-numan5]

@@nickbrasing8786 the laws Israelites had were better and more humane than surrounding nations.

[@nickbrasing8786]

@@Hoe-numan5 "the laws Israelites had were better and more humane than surrounding nations." Not really when it came to slavery. Which specific laws are you referring to? Have you actually looked into the laws in the nations around Israel at the time?

[@godschild2432]

Homosexual on the board of prageru ?????

[@cygnusustus]

"Every liberation movement in the modern world used the Exodus story as their paradigm." Nope. Another lie from Dennis.

[@Hoe-numan5]

Nope it's not a lie.

[@cygnusustus]

@@Hoe-numan5 Yep. It is a lie. An Christo-centric lie. An obvious lie.

[@Hoe-numan5]

​@@cygnusustus Voltaire was a slave trader.

[@JadDragon]

BCE and CE is fine. Before Christ's Era, Christ's Era. I see no issue 🤷🏻‍♂️ Jesus lives! ♥️ and is Yahweh God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑

[@walkitoutdaily]

I don't understand why. Christian KZbin channels interview Dennis Prager to ask Tim questions about godly or spiritual concepts. He's a Jew. This means he doesn't believe in the New testament. He doesn't believe that Jesus was the son of God or any of the things that Christians believe. Some might say as a Jew he has a firm grasp on the Old testament. I disagree. Because the entire Old testament is interlaced with Jesus. It all points to Jesus because all of scripture is infused with Jesus. Without an understanding of the New testament you cannot understand completely the Old testament and vice versa. So whatever view he has on any topic or subject is through the lens of a worldview without Christ which is a corrupt view. Don't hear what I'm not saying please. I have all the love and admiration for all Jews, but they have a tainted view of the world. And if you're a true Christian, you know that no matter how much good a Jew does in the world, they're still going to hell. People say Dennis Prager is so smart. If he's so smart then explain to me how he can read the New testament in light of the Old testament and not become a Christian. That in itself tells me he's not as smart as everyone thinks he is.

[@desertrose0601]

Christianity has nothing to do with smartness. Lots of smart people don’t understand basic things. Doesn’t mean he can’t be wise in other areas. You’re very short-sighted if you only ever take wisdom and insight from Christian people. God can use anyone to put forth truth into the world.

[@carolyngirl1]

He is not smart! He can’t explain things that never happened, but yet he’s making these foolish statements.

[@Mary-f1k8t]

How do you reconcile christian faith and gin oh side?

[@desertrose0601]

You don’t. Neither did they. Did you even watch the video?

[@cygnusustus]

"It's in Exodus. If a slave runs away, you cannot return the slave to his owner." HA HA HA HA HA! That passage is from Deuteronomy Dennis. Not from Exodus. And it only applied to slaves escaping from enemy nations. It did not apply to slaves escaping from fellow Hebrews. It is, of course, patently and desperately absurd to suggest that the slave of a Hebrew master could simply walk next door to another Hebrew house and demand sanctuary, yet this is the nonsense that religious apologists would have use believe!

[@Hoe-numan5]

You are just making stuff up.

[@Hoe-numan5]

The word *Deuteronomy* refers to the fifth book of the Hebrew Bible and the Christian Old Testament. It is derived from the Greek words "deutero" (meaning second) and "nomos" (meaning law), and it means "second law." In Deuteronomy, Moses reiterates and expands on the laws given to the Israelites in previous books like Exodus and Leviticus. Deuteronomy primarily consists of Moses' speeches to the Israelites before they enter the Promised Land, reminding them of God's laws and their covenant with Him. It includes both moral and legal instructions. This applies to all. In the context of the Old Testament, specifically in the book of Deuteronomy 23:15-16, the command regarding runaway slaves: "You shall not hand over to his master a slave who has escaped from his master to you. He shall dwell with you, in your midst, in the place which he chooses within one of your gates, where it pleases him best; you shall not oppress him." (Deut. 23:15-16, NKJV) This passage indicates that a runaway slave, once they escape and find refuge among the Israelites, should not be returned to their master but should be allowed to live freely in the land. This law would apply generally to any runaway slave, without a specific distinction between foreign or Israelite slaves, implying that it is applicable to foreign slaves as well.

[@cygnusustus]

@@Hoe-numan5 You are just denying the truth in your self-righteousness.

[@cygnusustus]

@@Hoe-numan5 "This passage indicates that a runaway slave, once they escape and find refuge among the Israelites, should not be returned to their master" It applied only to runaway slaves from other nations. It did not apply to slaves escaping from Hebrew masters. "This law would apply generally to any runaway slave, without a specific distinction between foreign or Israelite slaves" Nope. You are cherry-picking your scriptures. Read those verses in the context of the immediately preceding verses. Again, if you are actually suggesting that the slave of a Hebrew master could simply walk to the neighbor's house and demand sanctuary, your are both ignorant and dishonest.

[@Hoe-numan5]

@@cygnusustus I have read these verse with full context.

[@wolfgangkotz5555]

i love the batman logo in the background very Christian

[@rickparker4047]

The Torah is nothing more than the Foundation Myth for Judaism, just like the Gospels are competing Foundation Myths for Christianity. Genesis- has 2 Creation myths, 2 Abraham/Isaac stories, 2 Joseph stories and they are all "harmonized" terribly. The "laws" in the different books contradict each other. There are THREE different "ten commandments". The problems with the texts are endless.

[@kymdickman8910]

Endless? 🤔

[@richiejourney1840]

😂

[@jasonseagraves6777]

Who cares what a Christ-denier has to say? Shameful. Dispensationalism is heresy

[@AZRefugeeMinistry]

I appreciate how Sean interviews people of a variety of beliefs so we understand others. Jesus ate dinner with those who were different than Himself. I am very grateful Sean interviews people I wouldn't naturally listen to!

[@susanlouck1255]

Good grief, I would not want to be your neighbor if this is how you love them.

[@desertrose0601]

That’s not a Christlike attitude you’ve got there. God used imperfect non-Christians all throughout history to further His truth, even in the Bible. If you can’t stand discussions with non-Christians, you’re really just a Pharisee and no better than the woke.

[@richiejourney1840]

Irregardless…opportunity to share scholarship in the O.T. And witness personally “to the Jew first”…always

[@susanlouck1255]

@richiejourney1840 It is his kindness that leads people to repentance not throwing names around like "Christ denier". I have never read anything in the NT that supports your uncharible heart. And by the way, I rarely comment on anything as it seems a waste of time. But I truly hope you take a second look at how you respond to people through comments and elsewhere.