The Biblical Gods

[maklelan]

This thread is designed to provide some evidence concerning the nature of ancient Israelite belief in God, just so everyone is aware that their criticisms of Mormon henotheism are greatly misplaced. I’ve already covered most of this, but consider this an attempt to consolidate it in one place where it can be free from all the smoke and mirrors that have cluttered up earlier attempt to clarify. If you have questions or concerns, I am happy to answer them, but please refrain from drive-bys.

The first thing of which one must be aware is that there is no consistent theology in the Bible. One part of the Bible will preach one doctrine, and another another doctrine. It was written by hundreds of people from several cultures and subcultures over the course of about a thousand years. It is a mixed bag of theological speculation, ***ertion, and denial. These statements comes from Shaye Cohen, professor of Hebrew literature and philosophy as Harvard University (from From The Maccabees to the Mishna, 52–53):


In the eyes of the ancients, the essence of religion was neither faith nor dogma, but action.


Defining Judaism this way [through theological creeds] is completely foreign to antiquity. Ancient Judaism has no creeds.

What we can tell from the Bible, from archaeology, and from other extra-biblical literature, however, is that the earliest manifestations of Israelite theology don’t view God as alone. Again from Cohen (76):


At first the Israelites believed that their God was merely the God of their nation, mightier than the other gods but not materially different from them.

Through detailed study of the Bible and through cognate literature, like the Ugaritic texts and other inscriptions from the time period, we know that the pantheon of Israel was four-tiered and based on a familial organization. The head God was the father with his wife. The second tier was made up of the main deities. The third tier was messengers of various kinds, and the fourth tier was for divine beings of menial servitude (See Lowell K. Handy, “The Appearance of Pantheon in Judah,” in The Triumph of Elohim, 33–36).

In the biblical version of this pantheon El is the father God, and Asherah the mother. Yahweh is one of the sons of El. A variety of angels (messengers) and other divine creatures inhabited the lower two tiers. Deuteronomy 32:8–9 preserve this ideology. The Masoretic text emends verse 8 to avoid talking about El’s children, but the original text, as evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint, referred to when God divided to the nations their inheritance and “set the boundaries of the people according to the number of the children of El.” Who were these children, and what allotment did they receive? See verse 9: “For Yahweh’s portion is his people: Jacob is the portion of his allotment.” Thus Yahweh is clearly portrayed as a national deity, given his stewardship by his father, El Elyon.

How then do we explain Yahweh Elohim as a ***le for a single deity? Before the eighth century, as the prophets began a propaganda campaign against the surrounding nations they had to exalt their national deity above the rest. They introduced a new ideology that conflated El and Yahweh, got rid of the other national deities, and promoted El/Yahweh to ruler of the whole universe. This promotion is portrayed in Psalm 82. It states that Elohim stands among the ***embly of El (v. 1). He asks how long the other judges will be wicked (v. 2). He states that they are all gods, children of Elyon (v. 6; remember Deut 32:8), but that they will die. He calls out to another god to arise, judge the nations, and inherit them all for his portion (v. 7). Here Yahweh is called upon to destroy the remaining gods of the second tier and take over their stewardships. Thus Yahweh becomes the ruler of all the nations, and the prophets can point to their God as ruler over the countries and cultures around Israel. From Mark Smith’s [I]The Origins of Biblical Monotheism (49):


Psalm 82, like Deuteronomy 32:8–9, preserves the outlines of the older theology it is rejecting. From the perspective of this older theology, Yahweh did not belong to the top tier of the pantheon. Instead, in early Israel the god of Israel apparently belonged to the second tier of the pantheon; he was not the preside god, but one of his sons. Accordingly, what is at work is not a loss of the second tier of a pantheon headed by Yahweh. Instead, the collapse of the first and second tiers in the early Israelite pantheon likely was caused by an identification of El, the head of this pantheon, with Yahweh, a member of its second tier.

Isaiah’s appeals to monotheism are not manifestations of an established theology, nor do they demand a reading of strict monotheism, which is precluded by the mention of angels, seraphim, cherubim, and other divine beings. Isaiah’s primary goal in much of his preaching is iconoclasm, and when he says that there is no God created he means that none of their idols are actually gods, not that there are no other deities in the universe, which, again, is precluded by angels, and demons, and seraphim, and Satan, etc.

The point of this is to show that strict monotheism is unbiblical, and so belligerent criticisms of Mormonism for being henotheistic are quite counterproductive. Yahweh and El were originally conceived as separate deities, and they were not conflated until it served a propagandist purpose.

I also want to show that the Bible is not univocal and not inerrant. One scripture’s restriction does not apply to other scriptures. In Exod 33 God says no man may see him in live, but in Exod 24 Moses and his seventy see God, and verse 11 tells us they lived. One scripture says one thing and others say another. Saul’s son is called Eshbaal (man of Baal) in Chronicles, but Ishbosheth (man of shame) in Samuel. Clearly the scribes have freedom to alter the texts to suit their ideologies. In Exodus 34:24 it references a commandment to go up three times a year to appear before God, but the phrase we translate “appear before God” doesn’t actually say “appear before God.” It says “to see the face of God,” but the Masoretes wanted to avoid claiming God was seen in the temple, so they changed the vowels around to make the verb “to see” p***ive (“appear”). Unfortunately for them, the verb is missing a letter and can’t be p***ive. The same thing happened in Isaiah 1:12, where the verb is made p***ive, but it doesn’t even have the necessary preposition to make “my face” an object of appearance, so what originally said “to see my face” was changed to say “to appear my face.” They also have the freedom to make mistakes. In 1 Samuel 13:1 it says Saul was one year old when he began to rule. He clearly wasn’t, but the original text was corrupted and the number of years was lost. The resulting phrase just happens to be identical to the phrase used to designate a living being as a year old.

Mormonism is not ignorant or corrupt for allowing doctrines that conflict with mainstream Christianity. As it turns out, our perspective is much closer to the original perspective than that of mainstream Christianity. All the bickering, belittling, and self-righteous indignation that goes on here betrays, for the most part, the ignorance of the antagonist rather than the heresy of Mormonism. If you are a cynic, I would think twice before berating Mormonism because it conflicts with your ***umptions about what the Bible does and does not teach. There are people around who know much more about it than you.

[SavedbyTruth]

This thread is designed to provide some evidence concerning the nature of ancient Israelite belief in God, just so everyone is aware that their criticisms of Mormon henotheism are greatly misplaced. I’ve already covered most of this, but consider this an attempt to consolidate it in one place where it can be free from all the smoke and mirrors that have cluttered up earlier attempt to clarify. If you have questions or concerns, I am happy to answer them, but please refrain from drive-bys.

The first thing of which one must be aware is that there is no consistent theology in the Bible. One part of the Bible will preach one doctrine, and another another doctrine. It was written by hundreds of people from several cultures and subcultures over the course of about a thousand years. It is a mixed bag of theological speculation, ***ertion, and denial. These statements comes from Shaye Cohen, professor of Hebrew literature and philosophy as Harvard University (from From The Maccabees to the Mishna, 52–53):

What we can tell from the Bible, from archaeology, and from other extra-biblical literature, however, is that the earliest manifestations of Israelite theology don’t view God as alone. Again from Cohen (76):

Through detailed study of the Bible and through cognate literature, like the Ugaritic texts and other inscriptions from the time period, we know that the pantheon of Israel was four-tiered and based on a familial organization. The head God was the father with his wife. The second tier was made up of the main deities. The third tier was messengers of various kinds, and the fourth tier was for divine beings of menial servitude (See Lowell K. Handy, “The Appearance of Pantheon in Judah,” in The Triumph of Elohim, 33–36).

In the biblical version of this pantheon El is the father God, and Asherah the mother. Yahweh is one of the sons of El. A variety of angels (messengers) and other divine creatures inhabited the lower two tiers. Deuteronomy 32:8–9 preserve this ideology. The Masoretic text emends verse 8 to avoid talking about El’s children, but the original text, as evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint, referred to when God divided to the nations their inheritance and “set the boundaries of the people according to the number of the children of El.” Who were these children, and what allotment did they receive? See verse 9: “For Yahweh’s portion is his people: Jacob is the portion of his allotment.” Thus Yahweh is clearly portrayed as a national deity, given his stewardship by his father, El Elyon.

How then do we explain Yahweh Elohim as a ***le for a single deity? Before the eighth century, as the prophets began a propaganda campaign against the surrounding nations they had to exalt their national deity above the rest. They introduced a new ideology that conflated El and Yahweh, got rid of the other national deities, and promoted El/Yahweh to ruler of the whole universe. This promotion is portrayed in Psalm 82. It states that Elohim stands among the ***embly of El (v. 1). He asks how long the other judges will be wicked (v. 2). He states that they are all gods, children of Elyon (v. 6; remember Deut 32:8), but that they will die. He calls out to another god to arise, judge the nations, and inherit them all for his portion (v. 7). Here Yahweh is called upon to destroy the remaining gods of the second tier and take over their stewardships. Thus Yahweh becomes the ruler of all the nations, and the prophets can point to their God as ruler over the countries and cultures around Israel. From Mark Smith’s [I]The Origins of Biblical Monotheism (49):

Isaiah’s appeals to monotheism are not manifestations of an established theology, nor do they demand a reading of strict monotheism, which is precluded by the mention of angels, seraphim, cherubim, and other divine beings. Isaiah’s primary goal in much of his preaching is iconoclasm, and when he says that there is no God created he means that none of their idols are actually gods, not that there are no other deities in the universe, which, again, is precluded by angels, and demons, and seraphim, and Satan, etc.

The point of this is to show that strict monotheism is unbiblical, and so belligerent criticisms of Mormonism for being henotheistic are quite counterproductive. Yahweh and El were originally conceived as separate deities, and they were not conflated until it served a propagandist purpose.

I also want to show that the Bible is not univocal and not inerrant. One scripture’s restriction does not apply to other scriptures. In Exod 33 God says no man may see him in live, but in Exod 24 Moses and his seventy see God, and verse 11 tells us they lived. One scripture says one thing and others say another. Saul’s son is called Eshbaal (man of Baal) in Chronicles, but Ishbosheth (man of shame) in Samuel. Clearly the scribes have freedom to alter the texts to suit their ideologies. In Exodus 34:24 it references a commandment to go up three times a year to appear before God, but the phrase we translate “appear before God” doesn’t actually say “appear before God.” It says “to see the face of God,” but the Masoretes wanted to avoid claiming God was seen in the temple, so they changed the vowels around to make the verb “to see” p***ive (“appear”). Unfortunately for them, the verb is missing a letter and can’t be p***ive. The same thing happened in Isaiah 1:12, where the verb is made p***ive, but it doesn’t even have the necessary preposition to make “my face” an object of appearance, so what originally said “to see my face” was changed to say “to appear my face.” They also have the freedom to make mistakes. In 1 Samuel 13:1 it says Saul was one year old when he began to rule. He clearly wasn’t, but the original text was corrupted and the number of years was lost. The resulting phrase just happens to be identical to the phrase used to designate a living being as a year old.

Mormonism is not ignorant or corrupt for allowing doctrines that conflict with mainstream Christianity. As it turns out, our perspective is much closer to the original perspective than that of mainstream Christianity. All the bickering, belittling, and self-righteous indignation that goes on here betrays, for the most part, the ignorance of the antagonist rather than the heresy of Mormonism. If you are a cynic, I would think twice before berating Mormonism because it conflicts with your ***umptions about what the Bible does and does not teach. There are people around who know much more about it than you.

Maklelan,

I very much appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to this topic. Having only read this once, I do not currently have any questions concerning the text.

I was wondering if you could clarify some things for the readers so they can understand the relationship certain names carry with the Old Testament. These are names, and or terminology, we run into all of the time. I thought it would be helpful to speak a little about them. Inasmuch as the history surrounding the peoples in the Bible is fascinating, could you even give us some source references we can read on our own which you found to be particularly interesting?

For instance:

a) who were the Masoretes and what established the validity of their influence?

b) who were the Maccabees (I love their story) and their significance?

c) what is the story behind the creation of the Septuagint? If this was the common source of the written word, and Christ refers to it in His teachings (does He?), why was it not used word for word when the Bible was canonized? It is held by many as the most accurate translation of the Old Testament books ever produced. Or is it?

Just out of curiosity, have you ever read Josephus? How about the book of Enoch?

Thank you!

SavedbyTruth

[maklelan]

Maklelan,

I very much appreciate the time and effort you have dedicated to this topic. Having only read this once, I do not currently have any questions concerning the text.

I was wondering if you could clarify some things for the readers so they can understand the relationship certain names carry with the Old Testament. These are names, and or terminology, we run into all of the time. I thought it would be helpful to speak a little about them. Inasmuch as the history surrounding the peoples in the Bible is fascinating, could you even give us some source references we can read on our own which you found to be particularly interesting?

Of course.


For instance:

a) who were the Masoretes and what established the validity of their influence?

The Masoretes were Jewish scribes from the late first millennium CE who lived in and around Tiberias. They spent centuries formulating a system of vocalization to add vowels to the text so it could be read with more fluency. They considered themselves the academic guardians of the text of the Hebrew Bible, and our primary witnesses to the Hebrew Bible are their m****cripts (mainly the Leningrad Codex, from 1008 CE). They represent the orthodoxy of the Judaism of that time period, and the almost exclusive preservation of their texts grants their perspective preeminence in the biblical tradition.


b) who were the Maccabees (I love their story) and their significance?

After Alexander the Great relatively peacefully gained control of Palestine, a later ruler named Antiochus came through and ins***uted a number of suppressing restrictions on Jewish practices in an attempt to squash their supers***ion and barbaric (in his eyes) worship. After months of plundering and killing those who were rebellious, a family from Modin struck back, killing a garrison that was sent to their city to force their priests to sacrifice pigs on their altars. This family fled to the mountains and were successful in rallying other Jews to their cause. They were able to fend off Antiochus' army, and after several leaders from this family died and p***ed on the torch, they retook Jerusalem, cleansed the temple (from which we get Hanukkah), and reestablished Jewish rule. This was the first time Jews has autonomy in Israel since the seventh century BCE. Slowly, however, this new aristocracy reverted to the old ways and formed alliances with the Gentiles, which eventually undermined the Jewish cultural iden***y and created a big enough rift for Rome to sweep in and annex Palestine in 63 BCE. From that time on the rulers in Judea were installed puppets of Rome.


c) what is the story behind the creation of the Septuagint? If this was the common source of the written word, and Christ refers to it in His teachings (does He?), why was it not used word for word when the Bible was canonized? It is held by many as the most accurate translation of the Old Testament books ever produced. Or is it?

The Septuagint was produced over several centuries in Egypt and Palestine so non-Hebrew speaking Jews could still read their scriptures. The Torah was first translated in Alexandria, most likely around the second century BCE. Other books were later translated, but they were never collated into a single m****cript until the Christians appropriated the Greek translations for their use. Later the Jews would reject the Greek when a resurgence of pride in the Hebrew language and the onset of polemics against Christianity mad ethat translation unpalatable. Contemporary ideologies are found throughout the translation, and while some books betray an earlier text than the Masoretic texts, others show a parent text from a later time period. I am presenting a paper at the national SBL in New Orleans this November on the Septuagint translation of Exodus and the anti-anthropomorphisms in it.

The New Testament quotes almost exclusively from the Septuagint, but the version they used is not identical in every instance to the version we have today. The idea of canonization wasn't developed until the third and fourth centuries CE, and by that time the Septuagint was firmly established as the Christian version of the Old Testament. It wasn't until Martin Luther that we found value in returning to the Hebrew texts.


Just out of curiosity, have you ever read Josephus? How about the book of Enoch?

I've read both. Josephus is an invaluable tool for reconstructing first century Judaism. 1 Enoch was considered scripture for a long time and was not included in the canon only because it had fallen out of favor when that canon was actually crystallized.


Thank you!

SavedbyTruth

Not a problem.

[Russ]

But did such people posit that only Mormon men can become Gods over their own planets and populate said planets with their offspring born of celestial, polygamous wives?

[maklelan]

But did such people posit that only Mormon men can become Gods over their own planets and populate said planets with their offspring born of celestial, polygamous wives?

Not the question. Please don't introduce totally unrelated topics into my thread just because you don't know enough to engage the actual topic.

[Russ]

Not the question. Please don't introduce totally unrelated topics into my thread just because you don't know enough to engage the actual topic.

It's the topic of a board having to do with LDS theology which permeates your being.


You wrote in part, "Through detailed study of the Bible and through cognate literature, like the Ugaritic texts and other inscriptions from the time period, we know that the pantheon of Israel was four-tiered and based on a familial organization. The head God was the father with his wife."

In Mormonism, we have a head God (Elohim) and a wife (Mother God, whom little is known nor written about.) We also have LDS concepts leading us to believe that the "council of the Gods" preceded Heavenly Father.

It's obvious you're trying to lead us to consider certain theological concepts as true and that Mormonism has restored such truths to modern man.

Can we not just get right to the meat, er heart of the matter?

[maklelan]

It's the topic of a board having to do with LDS theology which permeates your being.


You wrote in part, "Through detailed study of the Bible and through cognate literature, like the Ugaritic texts and other inscriptions from the time period, we know that the pantheon of Israel was four-tiered and based on a familial organization. The head God was the father with his wife."

In Mormonism, we have a head God (Elohim) and a wife (Mother God, whom little is known nor written about.) We also have LDS concepts leading us to believe that the "council of the Gods" preceded Heavenly Father.

It's obvious you're trying to lead us to consider certain theological concepts as true and that Mormonism has restored such truths to modern man.

Can we not just get right to the meat, er heart of the matter?

I explained quite clearly that I was doing this to put an end to the ignorant ridicule of our doctrine, not to promote our doctrine. Pay better attention and stop wasting my time with this childishness.

[HickPreacher]

Mak, Russ, SbT-

I was aware of the bulk of this information about ancient Israel long before I left the LDS Church. Much of it from my old friend Eugene Seaich (now deceased).

I was working on a thesis and got permissions from him to cite large sections of his work and notes.

IMO understanding this history could be important in future efforts in witnessing to LDS people.

I have shifted over to a night shift at work, and might not have much internet access for a few days---

Later--

[SavedbyTruth]

Of course.

The Masoretes were Jewish scribes from the late first millennium CE who lived in and around Tiberias. They spent centuries formulating a system of vocalization to add vowels to the text so it could be read with more fluency. They considered themselves the academic guardians of the text of the Hebrew Bible, and our primary witnesses to the Hebrew Bible are their m****cripts (mainly the Leningrad Codex, from 1008 CE). They represent the orthodoxy of the Judaism of that time period, and the almost exclusive preservation of their texts grants their perspective preeminence in the biblical tradition.

After Alexander the Great relatively peacefully gained control of Palestine, a later ruler named Antiochus came through and ins***uted a number of suppressing restrictions on Jewish practices in an attempt to squash their supers***ion and barbaric (in his eyes) worship. After months of plundering and killing those who were rebellious, a family from Modin struck back, killing a garrison that was sent to their city to force their priests to sacrifice pigs on their altars. This family fled to the mountains and were successful in rallying other Jews to their cause. They were able to fend off Antiochus' army, and after several leaders from this family died and p***ed on the torch, they retook Jerusalem, cleansed the temple (from which we get Hanukkah), and reestablished Jewish rule. This was the first time Jews has autonomy in Israel since the seventh century BCE. Slowly, however, this new aristocracy reverted to the old ways and formed alliances with the Gentiles, which eventually undermined the Jewish cultural iden***y and created a big enough rift for Rome to sweep in and annex Palestine in 63 BCE. From that time on the rulers in Judea were installed puppets of Rome.

The Septuagint was produced over several centuries in Egypt and Palestine so non-Hebrew speaking Jews could still read their scriptures. The Torah was first translated in Alexandria, most likely around the second century BCE. Other books were later translated, but they were never collated into a single m****cript until the Christians appropriated the Greek translations for their use. Later the Jews would reject the Greek when a resurgence of pride in the Hebrew language and the onset of polemics against Christianity mad ethat translation unpalatable. Contemporary ideologies are found throughout the translation, and while some books betray an earlier text than the Masoretic texts, others show a parent text from a later time period. I am presenting a paper at the national SBL in New Orleans this November on the Septuagint translation of Exodus and the anti-anthropomorphisms in it.

The New Testament quotes almost exclusively from the Septuagint, but the version they used is not identical in every instance to the version we have today. The idea of canonization wasn't developed until the third and fourth centuries CE, and by that time the Septuagint was firmly established as the Christian version of the Old Testament. It wasn't until Martin Luther that we found value in returning to the Hebrew texts.

I've read both. Josephus is an invaluable tool for reconstructing first century Judaism. 1 Enoch was considered scripture for a long time and was not included in the canon only because it had fallen out of favor when that canon was actually crystallized.

Not a problem.

Maklelan,

This has been terrific. And many sincere thanks. I hope you don't mind that I copied your OP post you presented on the nature of ancient Israelite belief in God. I will be sure to use you as my source.

On a side note, I am thrilled to discover this type of knowledge which only strengthens the groundwork of my beliefs. It amazes and humbles me to think my Heavenly Father has had a hand in my life and helped prepare me to be introduced to the Church. When my interpretations of the Bible agreed with the interpretations of the Church I was ****n away.

Even now, with the gift of the Holy Ghost, when I read the Bible and the myriad of instances and circumstances within the verses pertaining to the Godhead, it is so clear to me WHO is being referred to and what the relationships are. To then have the information provided in your post to support what has been spiritually revealed to me is a rush that brings tears to my eyes.

God bless,

SavedbyTruth

(I sent you a private message.)

[maklelan]

Even now, with the gift of the Holy Ghost, when I read the Bible and the myriad of instances and circumstances within the verses pertaining to the Godhead, it is so clear to me WHO is being referred to and what the relationships are. To then have the information provided in your post to support what has been spiritually revealed to me is a rush that brings tears to my eyes.

God bless,

SavedbyTruth

(I sent you a private message.)

I'm glad I could contribute in some way. When I first began investigating the church I felt that every new principle I learned was something I had always known, but that I was being reminded for the first time that I knew it. It's an amazing feeling. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[SavedbyTruth]

It's the topic of a board having to do with LDS theology which permeates your being.


You wrote in part, "Through detailed study of the Bible and through cognate literature, like the Ugaritic texts and other inscriptions from the time period, we know that the pantheon of Israel was four-tiered and based on a familial organization. The head God was the father with his wife."

In Mormonism, we have a head God (Elohim) and a wife (Mother God, whom little is known nor written about.) We also have LDS concepts leading us to believe that the "council of the Gods" preceded Heavenly Father.

It's obvious you're trying to lead us to consider certain theological concepts as true and that Mormonism has restored such truths to modern man.

Can we not just get right to the meat, er heart of the matter?

I have responded to this post by addressing it in another thread, "What makes LDS doctrine a lie?"

[BrianH]

This thread is designed to provide some evidence concerning the nature of ancient Israelite belief in God, just so everyone is aware that their criticisms of Mormon henotheism are greatly misplaced. I’ve already covered most of this, but consider this an attempt to consolidate it in one place where it can be free from all the smoke and mirrors that have cluttered up earlier attempt to clarify. If you have questions or concerns, I am happy to answer them, but please refrain from drive-bys.

There are so many errors here its hard to sum them up. But lets go right from the start Mak: you have created a serious problem for yourself. You say that this is all about Israelite belief in God (presumably YHWH - the God of Israel). But the rest of your post goes on to champion the ERROR of polytheism which drew down God's wrath and judgment upon the Israelites over and over again. Secondly, you have simply ***UMED that any Semitic myth is somehow a valid, authoritative, normative doctrine of Judaism. In fact the core of your argument falls flat on its face once this gross error is exposed. Finally, you both CONDEMN the Bible as mere "speculation", "***ertion" and "denial", and yet you repeatedly APPEAL to the Bible as if this jumbo of speculation and denial has some kind of authority.


The first thing of which one must be aware is that there is no consistent theology in the Bible. One part of the Bible will preach one doctrine, and another another doctrine. It was written by hundreds of people from several cultures and subcultures over the course of about a thousand years. It is a mixed bag of theological speculation, ***ertion, and denial. These statements comes from Shaye Cohen, professor of Hebrew literature and philosophy as Harvard University (from From The Maccabees to the Mishna, 52–53):

Quote:
In the eyes of the ancients, the essence of religion was neither faith nor dogma, but action.

Quote:
Defining Judaism this way [through theological creeds] is completely foreign to antiquity. Ancient Judaism has no creeds.

Well as usual, the Mormon has been reduced to attacking the word of God and thereby revealing the true spirit behind his false Christianity. But beyond that, your unattributed quotes do not support your premise. You say that there is no consistent theology in the Bible (which, I remind you, is explicitly identified as the very "word of God" by YOUR OWN creed). That is your point is it not? But your citations say nothing to support your claims. You say that the Bible was written by "hundereds(sic) of people" but there were in fact only 40 authors named in the Bible. Your citations say nothing one way or the other. You say the Bible was written by "several cultures and subcultures". The FACT is, the Bible was written by Hebrews. Your citations say nothing one way or the other. You say that the Bible was written "over the course of about a thousand years". The FACT is that Moses began the Bible in about 1400BC and John wrote the last book of the Bible in about 90 AD. But your citations say nothing about the matter. Typical of a Mormon who denies the claim of their own creed in their rush to condemn the "word of God", you say that the Bible is nothing but " a mixed bag of theological speculation, ***ertion, and denial". Your sources above say nothing of the kind.

It appears that you are up to the old LDS trick of making blank, empty ***ertions and then adding an irrelevant quote or two in the hope that your citations will somehow give your own empty ***ertions the ring of some kind of authority.

I can only wonder if your condemnation of the Bible includes all those many places where your own "Book of Mormon" copies directly rom the Bible...? But I know you won't answer that question, so relax.

Finally, I can also only wonder why you condemn the monotheism that your own "Book of Mormon" so clearly endorses. You seem very confused on this matter.



What we can tell from the Bible, from archaeology, and from other extra-biblical literature, however, is that the earliest manifestations of Israelite theology don’t view God as alone. Again from Cohen (76):

Quote:
At first the Israelites believed that their God was merely the God of their nation, mightier than the other gods but not materially different from them.

Through detailed study of the Bible and through cognate literature, like the Ugaritic texts and other inscriptions from the time period, we know that the pantheon of Israel was four-tiered and based on a familial organization. The head God was the father with his wife. The second tier was made up of the main deities. The third tier was messengers of various kinds, and the fourth tier was for divine beings of menial servitude (See Lowell K. Handy, “The Appearance of Pantheon in Judah,” in The Triumph of Elohim, 33–36).

Please quote the text you have just cited.

At this point all we have is YOUR ***urance that this is the case and we have good reason to doubt YOU. You also appear to have made the mistake of ***uming that any and all Semitic myths or fairy tales are equal in authority to the revelation of God's word in the Hebrew scritprues. In fact, that error lies at the very heart of every error in this post.

Meanwhile, again, any even minimal familiarity with the Bible would have informed you that God severely judged and punished the Israelites for their ERROR of the very polytheism you are attributing to them.


In the biblical version of this pantheon El is the father God, and Asherah the mother. Yahweh is one of the sons of El. A variety of angels (messengers) and other divine creatures inhabited the lower two tiers. Deuteronomy 32:8–9 preserve this ideology. The Masoretic text emends verse 8 to avoid talking about El’s children, but the original text, as evidenced by the Dead Sea Scrolls and the Septuagint, referred to when God divided to the nations their inheritance and “set the boundaries of the people according to the number of the children of El.” Who were these children, and what allotment did they receive? See verse 9: “For Yahweh’s portion is his people: Jacob [Israel] is the portion of his allotment.” Thus Yahweh is clearly portrayed as a national deity, given his stewardship by his father, El Elyon.

First of all, you are bluntly wrong. There is no "biblical version" of what you describe. The Bible says absolutely NOTHING like what you attribute to it. I challenge you to show me anything in the Bible that affirms the odd notions that you have just ***igned to its content. Secondly, it is very curious that NOW you attribute BIBLICAL authority to this myth, shortly after you just dismissed the entire Bible as "a mixed bag of theological speculation, ***ertion, and denial". So is THIS little bit of " a mixed bag of theological speculation, ***ertion, and denial" somehow CORRECT because it matches the claims of your so-called "prophets"? Why can you not be consistent on this? Does the Bible have the authority of the word of God or not?


How then do we explain Yahweh Elohim as a ***le for a single deity? Before the eighth century, as the prophets began a propaganda campaign against the surrounding nations they had to exalt their national deity above the rest. They introduced a new ideology that conflated El and Yahweh, got rid of the other national deities, and promoted El/Yahweh to ruler of the whole universe. This promotion is portrayed in Psalm 82. It states that Elohim stands among the ***embly of El (v. 1). He asks how long the other judges will be wicked (v. 2). He states that they are all gods, children of Elyon (v. 6; remember Deut 32:8), but that they will die. He calls out to another god to arise, judge the nations, and inherit them all for his portion (v. 7). Here Yahweh is called upon to destroy the remaining gods of the second tier and take over their stewardships. Thus Yahweh becomes the ruler of all the nations, and the prophets can point to their God as ruler over the countries and cultures around Israel.

So then to the Mormon, the Old Testament prophets were only producing a, quote>>"propaganda campaign" <<unquote. Where the Bible is EXPLICIT in detailing the judgments of God upon his people for believing in other "gods" and EXPLICITLY denounces the errors of polytheism, YOU dismiss this as nothing but a "propaganda campaign" master-minded by those evil Old Testament prophets. And again, since your own BoM explicitly affirms ONLY monotheism, it is odd that you would strive so blindly to endorse the polytheism that God himself so clearly condemns.

Secondly, I challenge you once again to support your ***ertion that the OT texts were changed to insert the identification of the God of Israel as "YHWH Elohiym". I also challenge you to show where that specific name-***le for the God of Israel is applied to any other so-called "God". Your continuing failure to meet these challenges will only once again demonstrate the poverty of your entire theology.

(cont in pt. 2)

[BrianH]

(cont from pt. 1)


From Mark Smith’s The Origins of Biblical Monotheism (49):


Quote:
Psalm 82, like Deuteronomy 32:8–9, preserves the outlines of the older theology it is rejecting. From the perspective of this older theology, Yahweh did not belong to the top tier of the pantheon. Instead, in early Israel the god of Israel apparently belonged to the second tier of the pantheon; he was not the preside god, but one of his sons. Accordingly, what is at work is not a loss of the second tier of a pantheon headed by Yahweh. Instead, the collapse of the first and second tiers in the early Israelite pantheon likely was caused by an identification of El, the head of this pantheon, with Yahweh, a member of its second tier.

Isaiah’s appeals to monotheism are not manifestations of an established theology, nor do they demand a reading of strict monotheism, which is precluded by the mention of angels, seraphim, cherubim, and other divine beings. Isaiah’s primary goal in much of his preaching is iconoclasm, and when he says that there is no God created he means that none of their idols are actually gods, not that there are no other deities in the universe, which, again, is precluded by angels, and demons, and seraphim, and Satan, etc.

The point of this is to show that strict monotheism is unbiblical, and so belligerent criticisms of Mormonism for being henotheistic are quite counterproductive. Yahweh and El were originally conceived as separate deities, and they were not conflated until it served a propagandist purpose.

Granting for the sake of argument that you are right in this ***ertion that the Israelites were polytheists (and RIGHTLY SO, despite the thinness of your evidence), the mistake you are continuing to make here is ***UMING that the older theology was the CORRECT theoloyg, DESPITE the indisputable biblical and historical FACT that God severely punished his people when they drifted into this error. And you want US to repeat this error, just like YOU?

Uh ...no thanks.


I also want to show that the Bible is not univocal and not inerrant. One scripture’s restriction does not apply to other scriptures. In Exod 33 God says no man may see him in live, but in Exod 24 Moses and his seventy see God, and verse 11 tells us they lived. One scripture says one thing and others say another..

Context is everything, Mak. Any valid theology must and will HARMONIZE the scriptures not invent contradictions. This is not a contradiction. The authors did not have a systematic theology OF the Bible in mind when they were authoring the individual books of the Bible. God does indeed manifest himself in what theologians (all idiots and dupes for disagreeing with YOU, I am sure) recognize as a "theophany". Look up the word sometime. The biblical FACT is that MANY people see God throughout the OT; no one saw God in all of his glory for no mortal could withstand that radiance.


Saul’s son is called Eshbaal (man of Baal) in Chronicles, but Ishbosheth (man of shame) in Samuel.

LOL...and YOU are called many different names HERE. So what? MANY people throughout the Bible have different names and even have their names CHANGED. This is not the contradiction you need it to be.



Clearly the scribes have freedom to alter the texts to suit their ideologies.

None of your citations support that conclusion.


In Exodus 34:24 it references a commandment to go up three times a year to appear before God, but the phrase we translate “appear before God” doesn’t actually say “appear before God.” It says “to see the face of God,” but the Masoretes wanted to avoid claiming God was seen in the temple, so they changed the vowels around to make the verb “to see” p***ive (“appear”). Unfortunately for them, the verb is missing a letter and can’t be p***ive. The same thing happened in Isaiah 1:12, where the verb is made p***ive, but it doesn’t even have the necessary preposition to make “my face” an object of appearance, so what originally said “to see my face” was changed to say “to appear my face.” They also have the freedom to make mistakes. In 1 Samuel 13:1 it says Saul was one year old when he began to rule. He clearly wasn’t, but the original text was corrupted and the number of years was lost. The resulting phrase just happens to be identical to the phrase used to designate a living being as a year old.

Since you think that God the Father is an exalted man (a "demigod", to use proper terminology), I can see why this would interest you. But the simple fact is that this is simply two idiomatic ways of saying the same thing. The command was to appear before God which can be said using the words "see the face of God". But again, since the Bible is, according to YOU, only a quote>>" a mixed bag of theological speculation, ***ertion, and denial"<<unquote, one wonders why NOW its ALLEGED original text is supposed to be endowed with any authority.



Mormonism is not ignorant or corrupt for allowing doctrines that conflict with mainstream Christianity. As it turns out, our perspective is much closer to the original perspective than that of mainstream Christianity.

I challenge you to show me where Jesus Christ or his apostles affirmed any of the UNIQUE doctrines of Mormonism. SHOW ME for example where Christ or the apostles taught that God the Father is an exalted man living on a planet in outer space. SHOW ME where they affirmed and/or taught that God has a wife or wives one of whom apparently you believe was Ashura (one of the pagan goddesses of Babylon). SHOW ME where Christ or his apostles taught that Satan is Jesus' brother. SHOW ME where they taught that one must p*** through revived Babylonian initiation rites in order to join the pantheon of deities to whom Jesus belonged. Etc. SHOW ME, Mak. Don't just regurgitate LDS doctrine' SHOW ME in their own words where they affirm these UNIQUE doctrines.

AND THEN explain where you got those citations (presuming you have any). Cuz the only place I can figure they even MIGHT come from is the Bible. But since YOU have dismissed the Bible as quote>>" a mixed bag of theological speculation, ***ertion, and denial"<<unquote it will be difficult to see why we should believe the citations even IF you could find them.


All the bickering, belittling, and self-righteous indignation that goes on here betrays, for the most part, the ignorance of the antagonist rather than the heresy of Mormonism.

All of it? Really? Does that include YOUR bickering, belittling, and self-righteous indignation, or are you somehow exempt from your own judgments?


If you are a cynic, I would think twice before berating Mormonism because it conflicts with your ***umptions about what the Bible does and does not teach. There are people around who know much more about it than you.
Notice how disagreeing with Mak makes one a "cynic". Is that part of the "belittling" for which you condemn everyone else, Mak or are you exempt from your own judgments. Secondly, we are told that berating Mormonism is performed because it "conflicts with (our) ***umptions". It is apparently impossible that anyone could have any valid disputes with the claims of Mormonism based on anything BUT ***umptions. Finally we are told that there are those (presumably Mormons, and most presumabely Mak) who know more than anyone. There may indeed be, Mak. Where are they?

-BH

.

[maklelan]

There are so many errors here its hard to sum them up.

I'm sure that's why you're going to have difficulty doing it.


But lets go right from the start Mak: you have created a serious problem for yourself. You say that this is all about Israelite belief in God (presumably YHWH - the God of Israel). But the rest of your post goes on to champion the ERROR of polytheism

Abominably fallacious. If you presuppose the error of the theology you can't presume to objectively evaluate an investigation of that theology in the Hebrew Bible. I don't know what you've conjured up in your mind, but that's a real error.


which drew down God's wrath and judgment upon the Israelites over and over again. Secondly, you have simply ***UMED that any Semitic myth is somehow a valid, authoritative, normative doctrine of Judaism.

Wrong. I've ***umed nothing, and these conclusions are all drawn from the Bible, not from Semitic myths. Pay better attention.


In fact the core of your argument falls flat on its face once this gross error is exposed. Finally, you both CONDEMN the Bible as mere "speculation", "***ertion" and "denial", and yet you repeatedly APPEAL to the Bible as if this jumbo of speculation and denial has some kind of authority.

In no place in this thread do I appeal to any biblical authority.


Well as usual, the Mormon has been reduced to attacking the word of God and thereby revealing the true spirit behind his false Christianity. But beyond that, your unattributed quotes do not support your premise.

I quite clearly cited the volume and page numbers.


You say that there is no consistent theology in the Bible (which, I remind you, is explicitly identified as the very "word of God" by YOUR OWN creed). That is your point is it not? But your citations say nothing to support your claims. You say that the Bible was written by "hundereds(sic) of people"

Quit lying, Brian. I didn't misspell that word, so don't pretend I did.


but there were in fact only 40 authors named in the Bible.

I didn't say people who were named in the Bible, I said people who wrote the Bible. If you're so ignorant to think that only those people named in the Bible are responsible for its composition then you have no business even discussing the Bible.


Your citations say nothing one way or the other. You say the Bible was written by "several cultures and subcultures". The FACT is, the Bible was written by Hebrews.

It was written by Egyptian Israelites, Canaan Israelites, Hellenized Jews, Babylonian Jews, and Pharisaic Jews. Just calling them Hebrew is a gross overgeneralization.


Your citations say nothing one way or the other. You say that the Bible was written "over the course of about a thousand years". The FACT is that Moses began the Bible in about 1400BC and John wrote the last book of the Bible in about 90 AD.

The earliest sections of the Bible can be comfortably dated to the ninth century BCE. Don't tell me you really don't know such basic information.


But your citations say nothing about the matter. Typical of a Mormon who denies the claim of their own creed in their rush to condemn the "word of God", you say that the Bible is nothing but " a mixed bag of theological speculation, ***ertion, and denial". Your sources above say nothing of the kind.

Utterly meaningless posturing.


It appears that you are up to the old LDS trick of making blank, empty ***ertions and then adding an irrelevant quote or two in the hope that your citations will somehow give your own empty ***ertions the ring of some kind of authority.

That doesn't engage anything I've said. This is just a sweeping generalization that in no way supports itself. It's basically ejaculating "Nu-uh!"


I can only wonder if your condemnation of the Bible includes all those many places where your own "Book of Mormon" copies directly rom [sic] the Bible...? But I know you won't answer that question, so relax.

It's Smith's anaphoric translation. There's no conflict, but since you know nothing about translating, it doesn't surprise me that you won't be able to respond intelligently to that.


Finally, I can also only wonder why you condemn the monotheism that your own "Book of Mormon" so clearly endorses. You seem very confused on this matter.

That's not the question, Brian, but to appease your naivety, we use the word God to reference the godhead and God himself.


Please quote the text you have just cited.

Don't pretend you care what it says or that you'll honestly engage it when you have it, but I'll post it when I get home tonight.


At this point all we have is YOUR ***urance that this is the case and we have good reason to doubt YOU. You also appear to have made the mistake of ***uming that any and all Semitic myths or fairy tales are equal in authority to the revelation of God's word in the Hebrew scritprues. In fact, that error lies at the very heart of every error in this post.

Garbage. None of this actually engages anything. You're making sweeping generalizations that amount to, "This is all wrong."


Meanwhile, again, any even minimal familiarity with the Bible would have informed you that God severely judged and punished the Israelites for their ERROR of the very polytheism you are attributing to them.

Actually it was idolatry, but my post explains that the new propaganda took over. You evidently didn't read my post.


First of all, you are bluntly wrong. There is no "biblical version" of what you describe. The Bible says absolutely NOTHING like what you attribute to it.

Nope, it says exactly what I explained. If you don't know the Hebrew that's your problem, not mine.


I challenge you to show me anything in the Bible that affirms the odd notions that you have just ***igned to its content.

I already pointed to Deut 32:8-9. Instead of just blurting out, "Nu-uh!" how about you actually tell me why you're right?


Secondly, it is very curious that NOW you attribute BIBLICAL authority to this myth, shortly after you just dismissed the entire Bible as "a mixed bag of theological speculation, ***ertion, and denial". So is THIS little bit of " a mixed bag of theological speculation, ***ertion, and denial" somehow CORRECT because it matches the claims of your so-called "prophets"?

What an ignorant eisegesis. I attributed no such authority in that statement. It manifests the contemporary theology, which is all I've said I was going to show. Don't put words in my mouth.


Why can you not be consistent on this? Does the Bible have the authority of the word of God or not?

It's the word of God, but that doesn't preclude human perspectives and manipulation.


So then to the Mormon, the Old Testament prophets were only producing a, quote>>"propaganda campaign" <<unquote. Where the Bible is EXPLICIT in detailing the judgments of God upon his people for believing in other "gods" and EXPLICITLY denounces the errors of polytheism, YOU dismiss this as nothing but a "propaganda campaign" master-minded by those evil Old Testament prophets. And again, since your own BoM explicitly affirms ONLY monotheism, it is odd that you would strive so blindly to endorse the polytheism that God himself so clearly condemns.

Childish whining about me being mean to the Bible. You've yet to engage anything I've said.


Secondly, I challenge you once again to support your ***ertion that the OT texts were changed to insert the identification of the God of Israel as "YHWH Elohiym". I also challenge you to show where that specific name-***le for the God of Israel is applied to any other so-called "God". Your continuing failure to meet these challenges will only once again demonstrate the poverty of your entire theology.

I'll wait until you actually engage my argument instead of hurling idiotic generalizations at me from the sideline.

[JDErickson]

This thread is designed to provide some evidence concerning the nature of ancient Israelite belief in God, ........ snip



Your opinion is duly noted.

[maklelan]

Granting for the sake of argument that you are right in this ***ertion that the Israelites were polytheists (and RIGHTLY SO, despite the thinness of your evidence), the mistake you are continuing to make here is ***UMING that the older theology was the CORRECT theoloyg,

I never made any such ***umption. I said we were closer to the older theology and that's all. Don't put words in my mouth.


DESPITE the indisputable biblical and historical FACT that God severely punished his people when they drifted into this error.

He didn't punish anyone for it before the eighth century prophets changed the dogma.


And you want US to repeat this error, just like YOU?

No, just stop making up facts and whining like children.


Context is everything, Mak.

Don't lecture me about context. I've forgotten more about biblical context than you'll ever know.


Any valid theology must and will HARMONIZE the scriptures not invent contradictions.

Totally false. This presupposes the univocality of the scriptures, which is a demonstrably false notion.


This is not a contradiction. The authors did not have a systematic theology OF the Bible in mind when they were authoring the individual books of the Bible. God does indeed manifest himself in what theologians (all idiots and dupes for disagreeing with YOU, I am sure) recognize as a "theophany". Look up the word sometime.

I've published on theophanies before, and I'm presenting at the largest biblical scholarship conference on the planet on the Sinai theophany this fall. Don't ever pretend to condescend to me about some aspect of the Bible.


The biblical FACT is that MANY people see God throughout the OT; no one saw God in all of his glory for no mortal could withstand that radiance.

Again, you're changing what the verses say so you can harmonize clearly conflicting scriptures. If this is all you have you've already lost.


LOL...and YOU are called many different names HERE. So what? MANY people throughout the Bible have different names and even have their names CHANGED. This is not the contradiction you need it to be.

It's not supposed to be a contradiction, it's supposed to show the writers were free to manipulate the text according to their personal ideology, and you haven't contested that.


None of your citations support that conclusion.

You have to show it, not just ***ert it.


Since you think that God the Father is an exalted man (a "demigod", to use proper terminology), I can see why this would interest you. But the simple fact is that this is simply two idiomatic ways of saying the same thing. The command was to appear before God which can be said using the words "see the face of God".

Nope. That phrase is never used to mean that. You're just making up facts.


But again, since the Bible is, according to YOU, only a quote>>" a mixed bag of theological speculation, ***ertion, and denial"<<unquote, one wonders why NOW its ALLEGED original text is supposed to be endowed with any authority.


Fallacious appeal to emotion. You're trying to make me sound icky to the orthodox. That's not debate.


I challenge you to show me where Jesus Christ or his apostles affirmed any of the UNIQUE doctrines of Mormonism. SHOW ME for example where Christ or the apostles taught that God the Father is an exalted man living on a planet in outer space. SHOW ME where they affirmed and/or taught that God has a wife or wives one of whom apparently you believe was Ashura (one of the pagan goddesses of Babylon). SHOW ME where Christ or his apostles taught that Satan is Jesus' brother. SHOW ME where they taught that one must p*** through revived Babylonian initiation rites in order to join the pantheon of deities to whom Jesus belonged. Etc. SHOW ME, Mak. Don't just regurgitate LDS doctrine' SHOW ME in their own words where they affirm these UNIQUE doctrines.

AND THEN explain where you got those citations (presuming you have any). Cuz the only place I can figure they even MIGHT come from is the Bible. But since YOU have dismissed the Bible as quote>>" a mixed bag of theological speculation, ***ertion, and denial"<<unquote it will be difficult to see why we should believe the citations even IF you could find them.

Not the concern of this thread. You still have to respond to my arguments.


All of it? Really? Does that include YOUR bickering, belittling, and self-righteous indignation, or are you somehow exempt from your own judgments?

It applies to some degree, but I always include legitimate points. You guys rarely do.


Notice how disagreeing with Mak makes one a "cynic".

No, ignorantly ridiculing Mormonism makes you a cynic.


Is that part of the "belittling" for which you condemn everyone else, Mak or are you exempt from your own judgments. Secondly, we are told that berating Mormonism is performed because it "conflicts with (our) ***umptions". It is apparently impossible that anyone could have any valid disputes with the claims of Mormonism based on anything BUT ***umptions. Finally we are told that there are those (presumably Mormons, and most presumabely Mak) who know more than anyone. There may indeed be, Mak. Where are they?

More whining. Brian you have yet to engage anything I've said. You've simply whimpered on the sidelines yelling impotent generalizations at the players on the field. If you intend to respond again please actually engage what I've said instead of these ridiculous straw men.

[SavedbyTruth]

Wow Brian,

When I first became involved in apologetics last year, I was intimidated by you and some of the other posters on CARM.

I just finished reading your response to Maklelan's OP. You are so blinded by your hate of the LDS religion you have lost your perspective and reasoning abilities.

Not only have you nailed the coffin shut on your credibility, you have also lost the respect I had for you to try to do your version of the Lord's work, as misguided as you are about that.

SbT

[BrianH]

Mak the problem you are having is threefold ...okay acutally now fourfold and your parsing and bickering and general crybabying does not address these problems:

1.) You say that this is all about "Israelite" belief in God but then you erroneously post comments about generic Semitic myths and fairy tales ***erting that these represent the faith of the Hebrew patriarchs. In that ***umption you are simply WRONG. While there were indeed many Semitic myths cobbled together from fairy tales about pagan gods and other lame, man-made supers***ions, and while various Semitic peoples (including SOME Hebrews) bought into these myths on occasion, these were NOT the source of the Jewish faith nor do they represent the normative faith of the patriarchs and the prophets. Your ***ertion (whether stated or implied) that these polytheistic beliefs were the normative theology of the Jewish prophets is just plain stupid.

2.) The indisputable biblical/historical FACT is that the one and only true God of Israel, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of Moses and the prophets (whom you explicitly dimsiss as mere propagantists!!) severly judged and punished the Israelites for their repeated error of turning to the mythological fantasies of their Semitic neighbors. Yet here YOU are advocating that "true" Christianity should make the very mistake for which God so clearly and so severly punished his people in the past. Try actually R E A D I N G the Bible some time. You should be able to QUICKLY discern the fact that God CONDEMNS and repeatedly and harshly PUNISHED the Israelites when they express belief in other Gods.

3.) You approvingly attribute your Mormon polytheism to the Bible (a total absurdity if ever there was one) out of one side of your face ...but then out of the other side of your face you condemn the Bible as (your words now):

quote>> "a mixed bag of theological speculation, ***ertion, and denial" <<unquote

And you reduce the writnings of the OT prophets to (YOUR word) "propaganda".

So which is it Mak? How can you expect anyone to take such an overt and unmistakable contradiction seriously? And why is it that your own Book of Mormon (which you accept without question despite its total fantasy-like standing when compared to REALITY) is so overtly MONOTHEISTIC in its theology?

The fourth probem is the one you have just created. As usual, when your calims are met with arguments instead of the worship you so obviosuly think you deserve, you instantly resort to your true nature: insults, disclaimers, retreats, condescension, belittling and general cry-babying. You say I am lying. You say I have not engaged your claims. You dodge and side-step. And finally you even claim that ridiculing Mormonism makes one a cynic revealing your own obvious and mocking condescension to those who would DARE to disagree with you. But I guess since your religion teaches you that YOU are a God, so I guess you think you can do whatever you like. But you whimper and whine and writhe around snivelling like a snot-nosed, spoiled whining baby. That is hardly the behavior of the God your church likes to tell you that you are.

I hope you can see why it is continuing to be so difficult for me to take you seriously.

[BrianH]

Once again we see that the Mormon has difficulty getting beyond his own ad-hominem fallacies. I suggest that rather than making the usual LDS mistake of trying to make ME the topic of this thread that you actually DEMONSTRATE your prowess by at least addressing my arguments.

Unless you CAN actually address my arguments and at least TRY to rebut them, it is YOU who has shot your own credibility right through the forehead by your own abysmal behavior.

-BH

.

[maklelan]

Mak the problem you are having is threefold ...okay acutally now fourfold and your parsing and bickering and general crybabying does not address these problems:

1.) You say that this is all about "Israelite" belief in God but then you erroneously post comments about generic Semitic myths and fairy tales ***erting that these represent the faith of the Hebrew patriarchs.

No, what I've done is isolated the ideology in the Bible and used the parallel ideology from Ugaritic literature to more fully explain what's going on. What you've done is reduced my argument down to something that's manageable for you and then simply waved your hand. You aren't well enough educated in this field to comment on the actual scholarship, so you have to find a dishonest and intellectually bankrupt way to just dismiss stuff.


In that ***umption you are simply WRONG. While there were indeed many Semitic myths cobbled together from fairy tales about pagan gods and other lame, man-made supers***ions, and various Semitic peoples (including SOME Hebrews) bought into these myths on occasion, these were NOT the source of the Jewish faith nor do they represent the normative faith of the patriarchs and the prophets. Your ***ertion (whether stated or implied) that these polytheistic beliefs were the normative theology of the Jewish prophets is just plain stupid.

Still meaningless drivel. Those ideologies are found in the Bible and in every other method of historical inquiry, and your ignorance of the subject matter hardly qualifies you to generalize them away. Just calling it wrong and stupid doesn't mean you've engaged a word of my argument.


2.) The indisputable biblical/historical FACT is that the one and only true God of Israel, the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of Moses and the prophets (whom you explicitly dimsiss as mere propagantists!!) severly judged and punished the Israelites for their repeated error of turning to the mythological fantasies of their Semitic neighbors. Yet here YOU are advocating that "true" Christianity should make the very mistake for which God so clearly and so severly punished his people in the past. Try actually R E A D I N G the Bible some time. You should be able to QUICKLY discern the fact that God CONDEMNS and repeatedly and harshly PUNISHED the Israelites when they express belief in other Gods.

Naked ***ertion. Meaningless.


3.) You approvingly attribute your Mormon polytheism to the Bible (a total absurdity if ever there was one) out of one side of your face ...but then out of the other side of your face you condemn the Bible as (your words now):

quote>> "a mixed bag of theological speculation, ***ertion, and denial" <<unquote

And you reduce the writnings of the OT prophets to (YOUR word) "propaganda".

So which is it Mak? How can you expect anyone to take such an overt and unmistakable contradiction seriously? And why is it that your own Book of Mormon (which you accept without question despite its total fantasy-like standing when compared to REALITY) is so overtly MONOTHEISTIC in its theology?

Trying to play my conclusions against my belief system doesn't make my conclusions any less correct. This is another intellectually bankrupt attempt to get around the fact that you just don't know enough to respond. You have to try to paint me as a heathen according to my own dogmas to try to make me feel bad about my conclusions. Enough with the infantile rhetoric. Address my arguments, not my personal convictions.


The fourth probem [sic] is the one you have just created. As usual, when your calims [sic] are met with arguments instead of the worship you so obviosuly [sic] think you deserve, you instantly resort to your true nature: insults, disclaimers, retreats, condescension, belittling and general cry-babying. You say I am lying. You say I have not engaged your claims. You dodge and side-step. And finally you even claim that ridiculing Mormonism makes one a cynic revealing your own obvious and mocking condescension to those who would DARE to disagree with you. But I guess since your religion teaches you that YOU are a God, so I guess you think you can do whatever you like. But you whimper and whine and writhe around snivelling like a snot-nosed, spoiled whining baby. That is hardly the behavior of the God your church likes to tell you that you are.

Meaningless posturing. You'll notice, however, that I have correctly used [sic] when you've misspelled stuff, not when I've accidentally misspelled something and thought it was you doing it. You shouldn't nitpick about spelling and grammar if you're far more guilty of those indiscretions.


I hope you can see why it is continuing to be so difficult for me to take you seriously.

Because your dogmatism doesn't allow it. I've known that for a long time. The other things are your ignorance of the scholarship, your bigotry toward Mormonism, and your sop****ric egotism.

[maklelan]

Once again we see that the Mormon has difficulty getting beyond his own ad-hominem fallacies. I suggest that rather than making the usual LDS mistake of trying to make ME the topic of this thread that you actually DEMONSTRATE your prowess by at least addressing my arguments.

Unless you CAN actually address my arguments and at least TRY to rebut them, it is YOU who has shot your own credibility right through the forehead by your own abysmal behavior.

-BH

.

Keep ejaculating hatred in my direction and you'll feel all better. I don't really expect you to be able to engage the argument, but you've done a wonderful *** of showing everyone how incapable you are of intelligent and objective debate.

[Richard]

But you whimper and whine and writhe around snivelling like a snot-nosed, spoiled whining baby. That is hardly the behavior of the God your church likes to tell you that you are.

This is what Brian has been reduced to. Maklelan calls you out, and your response is now reduced to the above, interesting Brian.

CARM oh, CARM where art thou, I have wondered astray in a land of facts and evidence.

Maklelan, my mind is confused and dense,

My anti- books I must upgrade.

My bed of lies, he does forbade.

[BrianH]

No, what I've done is isolated the ideology in the Bible and used the parallel ideology from Ugaritic literature to more fully explain what's going on. What you've done is reduced my argument down to something that's manageable for you and then simply waved your hand. You aren't well enough educated in this field to comment on the actual scholarship, so you have to find a dishonest and intellectually bankrupt way to just dismiss stuff.

Now you are back-pedaling. Let us get this cleared up. Are you or are you not ***erting that the Ugaritic myths represent the normative faith of the Jewish religion as experienced and expressed by the Old Testament patriarchs and prophets? Yes or no? Which is it?

(As for your lame retreat behind the usual whimpy ad-hom, I should inform you that I was studying the Bible and biblical history while you were still literally making yellow in your diapers, boy. Meanwhile yourso-called "scholarship" appears to consist in your ability to use google to identify and name books that even YOU have not bothered to read.)



Still meaningless drivel. Those ideologies are found in the Bible and in every other method of historical inquiry, and your ignorance of the subject matter hardly qualifies you to generalize them away. Just calling it wrong and stupid doesn't mean you've engaged a word of my argument.

Your usual attempt to hide the feebleness of your re****al behuind a lame ad-hominem attack aside - the only place your polytheistic ideologies are "found in the Bible" is when the word of God CONDEMNS them. They are NOWHERE endorsed and EVERYWHERE condemned. Your argument IS just plain STUPID, sonny. Meanwhile, since YOU dismiss the Bible as "a mixed bag of theological speculation, ***ertion, and denial" and the writtings of a conspiracy of "propagandists", why would you even bother to pretend to cite it as an authority representing your own position?!?!?!


Naked ***ertion. Meaningless.

Wrong again. It is an INDISPUTABLE FACT that the Bible records God REPEATEDLY and HARSHLY judging and punishing the Israelites for the very polythism that you are advocating. Your mindless and dismissive rejection of that universally established and clearly biblical FACT as "meaningless" only further DEMONSTRATES the mindless state into which you are being forced to retreat as well as an apparent near-total ignorance of the content of the Bible.


Trying to play my conclusions against my belief system doesn't make my conclusions any less correct.

LOL try actually THINKING about what you just said. You only mock yourself, Mak.


This is another intellectually bankrupt attempt to get around the fact that you just don't know enough to respond.
As susal, you have no re****al and so you do the Mormon thing: puke up another ad-hominem. Sadly for you, the FACT is that you have repeatedly BOTH cited the Bible (thus granting it authority) AND condemned the Bible as speculation and propaganda. I know enough to know that you are in a state of direct contradiction here.


You have to try to paint me as a heathen according to my own dogmas to try to make me feel bad about my conclusions. Enough with the infantile rhetoric. Address my arguments, not my personal convictions.

Quit exercizing your sophomric vocabulary and start trying to actually THINK, Mak. I have REPEATEDLY addressed your arguments and they ARE substantially the same as your convictions are they not? Are you or are you NOT here to advocate for the idea that the Israelites were RIGHTLY polytheistic as a means to justify your own Mormon polytheism?

Take stand and defend it if you can.


Meaningless posturing. You'll notice, however, that I have correctly used [sic] when you've misspelled stuff, not when I've accidentally misspelled something and thought it was you doing it. You shouldn't nitpick about spelling and grammar if you're far more guilty of those indiscretions.

I note your usual hypocricy. You somehow are ACCIDENTALLY misspelling stuff while when I misspell something like what ...on purpose? Meanwhile as you quibble about spelling and/or typos you have totally failed to respond to my criticism other than the ususal automatic, mindless dismissal as "meaningless". Yet the FACT remains. You PRETEND to be some lofy "scholar" yet your "scholarship" is abysmally amateurish and you behave like a spoiled crybaby when confronted with arguments. You are obiously nothing but a self-inflated diletantte, Mak. You don't fool me for a second.


Because your dogmatism doesn't allow it. I've known that for a long time. The other things are your ignorance of the scholarship, your bigotry toward Mormonism, and your sop****ric egotism.

Nope. It is YOUR behavior that DEMONSTRATES your immaturity and your personal insecurity. My dogma has nothing to do with it.

I note with interest that you have totally failed to actually refute my 4 points. All you have done is mechanically dismissed them as "meaningless" without re****al.

Again, for such a grand "scholar" you behave like a total phony.

-BH

.

[BrianH]

Actually had you bothered to R E A D the post to which you are responding, Richard, you just MIGHT have accidentally discoverd that my response to Mak's attempt to advocate for the polytheism that even the Book of Mormon explicitly rejects consisted of far more than the one sentence you chose to isolate for your lame rhetorical gamesmanship.

Offer a subtantial argument if you are able. Otherwise, go ahead and embarr*** yourself further with more pointless ad-hominems. I am sure you find yourself VERY convincing.

-BH

.

[maklelan]

Now you are back-pedaling. Let us get this cleared up. Are you or are you not ***erting that the Ugaritic myths represent the normative faith of the Jewish religion as experienced and expressed by the Old Testament patriarchs and prophets? Yes or no? Which is it?

Of course not. I never said it did.I said it's cognate. You really need to start paying attention. All you're doing is making up my argument for me and then arguing with that. That's called a straw man, and it's a fallacy.


(As for your lame retreat behind the usual whimpy ad-hom, I should inform you that I was studying the Bible and biblical history while you were still literally making yellow in your diapers, boy. Meanwhile yourso-called "scholarship" appears to consist in your ability to use google to identify and name books that even YOU have not bothered to read.)

How old am I, Brain?


Your usual attempt to hide the feebleness of your re****al behuind a lame ad-hominem attack aside - the only place your polytheistic ideologies are "found in the Bible" is when the word of God CONDEMNS them. They are NOWHERE endorsed and EVERYWHERE condemned.

Psalm 82 is polytheistic, as is Deuteronomy 32:8-9. You're wrong.


Your argument IS just plain STUPID, sonny.

Wow, who could argue with that?


Meanwhile, since YOU dismiss the Bible as "a mixed bag of theological speculation, ***ertion, and denial" and the writtings of a conspiracy of "propagandists", why would you even bother to pretend to cite it as an authority representing your own position?!?!?!

I never did. How many times do I have to repeat that?


Wrong again. It is an INDISPUTABLE FACT that the Bible records God REPEATEDLY and HARSHLY judging and punishing the Israelites for the very polythism that you are advocating. Your mindless and dismissive rejection of that universally established and clearly biblical FACT as "meaningless" only further DEMONSTRATES the mindless state into which you are being forced to retreat as well as an apparent near-total ignorance of the content of the Bible.

Let's watch me do the same thing:

It's an indisputable fact that the Bible preaches a variety of theologies, one of which is polytheistic, the rest of which are henotheistic. There. I've presented as much evidence as you. Do I win?


LOL try actually THINKING about what you just said. You only mock yourself, Mak.

Zing!


As susal [sic], you have no re****al and so you do the Mormon thing: puke up another ad-hominem. Sadly for you, the FACT is that you have repeatedly BOTH cited the Bible (thus granting it authority) AND condemned the Bible as speculation and propaganda. I know enough to know that you are in a state of direct contradiction here.

The fact that you conflate citing a document as a witness to history and citing it as a moral or theological authority betrays just how little you understand the Bible and historical methodologies. This is stuff people learn in introductory courses as freshmen, Brian. You're only showing that your sputtering and belligerence are based on ignorance and dogmatism.


Quit exercizing [sic] your sophomric [sic] vocabulary and start trying to actually THINK, Mak. I have REPEATEDLY addressed your arguments and they ARE substantially the same as your convictions are they not? Are you or are you NOT here to advocate for the idea that the Israelites were RIGHTLY polytheistic as a means to justify your own Mormon polytheism?

You know how I know you're just angrily regurgitating whatever emotion pops into your head rather than thinking about the discussion? You're misspelling everything. You've been dominated this entire time, and now you're getting mad, which means you're going to be thinking and arguing with even less lucidity. Why don't you just take a break?


Take stand [sic] and defend it if you can.

I've already "taken stand." I'm waiting for you to actually engage it.


I note your usual hypocricy [sic]. You somehow are ACCIDENTALLY misspelling stuff while when I misspell something like what ...on purpose?

I've misspelled nothing. Did you not notice that I never misspelled "hundreds"? You still don't realize that that was you misspelling it and not me? Go back and check your quote of my post. You're the one with increasingly ridiculous spelling errors. What does it mean to "take stand"?


Meanwhile as you quibble about spelling and/or typos

If you read my post you'd see I was poking fun at you for quibbling about a spelling error when the error was in fact yours and not mine. In another thread you harped on Richard for more than one post about "test criticism." Don't construct your argument on spelling errors a bunch of times and then cry foul when someone shows you you're making far more. Grow up, dude.


you have totally failed to respond to my criticism other than the ususal [sic] automatic, mindless dismissal as "meaningless". Yet the FACT remains. You PRETEND to be some lofy "scholar" yet your "scholarship" is abysmally amateurish and you behave like a spoiled crybaby when confronted with arguments. You are obiously nothing but a self-inflated diletantte [sic], Mak. You don't fool me for a second.

Only because you don't know enough to see past your own ego and ignorance.


Nope. It is YOUR behavior that DEMONSTRATES your immaturity and your personal insecurity. My dogma has nothing to do with it.

I note with interest that you have totally failed to actually refute my 4 points. All you have done is mechanically dismissed them as "meaningless" without re****al.

Again, for such a grand "scholar" you behave like a total phony.

-BH

.

And evidently I'm the one vomiting up ad hominem. You're getting angry and you've never responded to the substance of my posts. You've only fired poor attempts at generalization from the sidelines and whined like a little girl with a skinned knee. Since you've had absolutely nothing of any consequence to say in this thread, and are clearly getting too angry to think straight (I hope I can grow up to be that mature), you're back on ignore. Enjoy your barking at the moon.

[maklelan]

Actually had you bothered to R E A D the post to which you are responding, Richard, you just MIGHT have accidentally discoverd that my response to Mak's attempt to advocate for the polytheism that even the Book of Mormon explicitly rejects consisted of far more than the one sentence you chose to isolate for your lame rhetorical gamesmanship.

Offer a subtantial argument if you are able. Otherwise, go ahead and embarr*** yourself further with more pointless ad-hominems. I am sure you find yourself VERY convincing.

-BH

.

Brian, there's no hyphen in ad hominem, just so you're aware.

[Father_JD]

Quoting revisionist scholars who hold to the Hegelian theory of religious EVOLUTION and NOT revelation (as EVINCED in scripture itself) proves NOTHING but their own naturalistic, anti-supernatural BIASES and YOUR cognitive dissonance in trying to harmonize two radically different, mutually-exclusive world-views, Mak.

[BrianH]

BH>>Now you are back-pedaling. Let us get this cleared up. Are you or are you not ***erting that the Ugaritic myths represent the normative faith of the Jewish religion as experienced and expressed by the Old Testament patriarchs and prophets? Yes or no? Which is it?

M>Of course not. I never said it did.I said it's cognate. You really need to start paying attention. All you're doing is making up my argument for me and then arguing with that. That's called a straw man, and it's a fallacy.

Now you seem confused. Okay let me try to sort this out ... So then you do NOT think that the polytheism of the Ugantric myths are representative of the normative faith of those who praticed the Judaism of the Old Testament and therefore are NOT part of the OT revelation? Right? So then what is the relevance of your entire thread here?


BH>>(As for your lame retreat behind the usual whimpy ad-hom, I should inform you that I was studying the Bible and biblical history while you were still literally making yellow in your diapers, boy. Meanwhile yourso-called "scholarship" appears to consist in your ability to use google to identify and name books that even YOU have not bothered to read.)

M>How old am I, Brain?

"Brain"? uh ...16?



BH>>Your usual attempt to hide the feebleness of your re****al behuind a lame ad-hominem attack aside - the only place your polytheistic ideologies are "found in the Bible" is when the word of God CONDEMNS them. They are NOWHERE endorsed and EVERYWHERE condemned.

M>Psalm 82 is polytheistic, as is Deuteronomy 32:8-9. You're wrong.

Really? Well then that leaves you with some serious problems:


1.) Do you REALLY think that the judges of Israel were actually ontological deities?
2.) If Ps 82 IS polytheistic, then

a. will you admit that YOU are a polytheist?
b. why would you backpedal in your claim that the Israelites were polytheists???

As for Deut 32 - we have been over this before. Your INTERPRETATION is polythisitic to be sure. Nothing in the text itself warrants that interpretation.


BH >...argument snippped by Mak>Your argument IS just plain STUPID, sonny.

M>Wow, who could argue with that?

Thank you. You have just demosntrated the personal lack of integrity and the dishonest tactics required of Mormons. You are now resorting to the usual LDS game of parsing out the argument and mocking snippets of text. This is EXACTLY what I want people to see you doing Mak.


BH>>Wrong again. It is an INDISPUTABLE FACT that the Bible records God REPEATEDLY and HARSHLY judging and punishing the Israelites for the very polythism that you are advocating. Your mindless and dismissive rejection of that universally established and clearly biblical FACT as "meaningless" only further DEMONSTRATES the mindless state into which you are being forced to retreat as well as an apparent near-total ignorance of the content of the Bible.

M>Let's watch me do the same thing:

It's an indisputable fact that the Bible preaches a variety of theologies, one of which is polytheistic, the rest of which are henotheistic. There. I've presented as much evidence as you. Do I win?

Sadly for you, no. You are unable to support your ***ertion that the Bible "preaches" polytheism. By contrast ANYONE who has ever read even parts of the OT will see that God clearly condemns polytheism and severely punished his people for making the error you are advocating. Do I need to give you some examples or are you sufficiently biblically literate to simply acknowledge this established FACT?


BH>>LOL try actually THINKING about what you just said. You only mock yourself, Mak.

M>Zing!

Lack of re****al noted.


BH>>Meanwhile, since YOU dismiss the Bible as "a mixed bag of theological speculation, ***ertion, and denial" and the writtings of a conspiracy of "propagandists", why would you even bother to pretend to cite it as an authority representing your own position?!?!?!

M>I never did. How many times do I have to repeat that?

You absolutely DID, Mak. In fact you just did it AGAIN right here in this post to whcih I am responding. YOU just said that Ps 82 and Deut 32 (the Bible from the Bible, in case you are having trouble keeping up) are (your word): "polytheisitic" and you YOU just stated: "It's an indisputable fact that the Bible preaches a variety of theologies, one of which is polytheistic, the rest of which are henotheistic."

But since YOU dismiss the Bible as: "a mixed bag of theological speculation, ***ertion, and denial" and you regard the writtings of the OT prophets as "propaganda", why should we NOT dismiss the alleged "polytheisim that YOU see on its pages as (YOUR characterization): "a mixed bag of theological speculation, ***ertion, and denial" and "propaganda"???


BH>>As susal [sic], you have no re****al and so you do the Mormon thing: puke up another ad-hominem. Sadly for you, the FACT is that you have repeatedly BOTH cited the Bible (thus granting it authority) AND condemned the Bible as speculation and propaganda. I know enough to know that you are in a state of direct contradiction here.

M>The fact that you conflate citing a document as a witness to history and citing it as a moral or theological authority betrays just how little you understand the Bible and historical methodologies. This is stuff people learn in introductory courses as freshmen, Brian. You're only showing that your sputtering and belligerence are based on ignorance and dogmatism.

I am not conflating anything. YOU are the one who was citing Ugantric myths in support of the polytheism that you claim is biblical. I am simply addressing YOUR conflation, Mak and REFUTING it. Meanwhile and more to the point here, YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE BOTH cited the Bible in support of your polytheism, and you ABSOLTUELY HAVE characterized that exact same Bible as mere "speculation" and "propoganda". So why would we believe YOUR view of the Bible when YOU are the one who has removed its authority????


BH>>Quit exercizing [sic] your sophomric [sic] vocabulary and start trying to actually THINK, Mak. I have REPEATEDLY addressed your arguments and they ARE substantially the same as your convictions are they not? Are you or are you NOT here to advocate for the idea that the Israelites were RIGHTLY polytheistic as a means to justify your own Mormon polytheism?

M>You know how I know you're just angrily regurgitating whatever emotion pops into your head rather than thinking about the discussion? You're misspelling everything. You've been dominated this entire time, and now you're getting mad, which means you're going to be thinking and arguing with even less lucidity. Why don't you just take a break?

What a maginficent demonstration of pure rhetorical deseperation. Your argument here is a total non-sequitur: Typos and even mis-spellings do not indicate a lack of thought. (I actually type at ~60 wpm and do not always spell everything correctly. So what?) Meanwhile, you know how I know that you are obviously not even thinking here? You are repeatedly contradicting yourself. You are, for example, CITING the very Bible that YOU have told us is only "speculation" and "denial" and "propaganda"! Which one of you should I be debating, Maklelan?


BH>>Take stand [sic] and defend it if you can.

M>I've already "taken stand." I'm waiting for you to actually engage it.

WHICH stand ...the one that advocates that Ugantric myths reflect an alleged biblical polytheism or the one that does NOT support that position?

WHICH stand, Mak - the one that attributes sufficient authority to the Bible to cite it as supporting your polytheism or the one that dismisses the Bible as speculation and propaganda?

Just help me out here and explain your position on YOUR topics here in YOUR thread, Mak.


BH>>I note your usual hypocricy [sic]. You somehow are ACCIDENTALLY misspelling stuff while when I misspell something like what ...on purpose?

M>I've misspelled nothing. Did you not notice that I never misspelled "hundreds"? ...blah blah blah...

You DID misspell it. But so what? Big deal. Why are you not actually addressing the arguments and issues here?


BH>> You have totally failed to respond to my criticism other than the ususal [sic] automatic, mindless dismissal as "meaningless". Yet the FACT remains. You PRETEND to be some lofty "scholar" yet your "scholarship" is abysmally amateurish and you behave like a spoiled crybaby when confronted with arguments. You are obiously nothing but a self-inflated diletantte [sic], Mak. You don't fool me for a second.

M>Only because you don't know enough to see past your own ego and ignorance.

There ...you just did it again.

Amazing.


And evidently I'm the one vomiting up ad hominem. You're getting angry and you've never responded to the substance of my posts. You've only fired poor attempts at generalization from the sidelines and whined like a little girl with a skinned knee. Since you've had absolutely nothing of any consequence to say in this thread, and are clearly getting too angry to think straight (I hope I can grow up to be that mature), you're back on ignore. Enjoy your barking at the moon.
Just coming down to meet you on your own level Mak. I have ABSOLUTELY responded to the substance of your OP and I have clearly identified the errors in your position as well as the fallacies you use to rationalize your conclusions from the evidence.

-BH

.

[BrianH]

Aww poor Mak. Must not like those who refuse to worship him.

SbT failed to post an actual argument. As for the ad-homs to which he was instantly reduced ...well, I suggest that both you and SbT familiarize yourselves with a little basic logic. You will quickly discover that the ad hominem fallacy is a fallacy of relevance for EVEN IF I was THE single most hatful, evil, spiteful, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing trogledyte who ever lived, that would STILL not mean that my arguments are invalid or incorrect.

-BH

.

[Father_JD]

...You are, for example, CITING the very Bible that YOU have told us is only "speculation" and "denial" and "propaganda"! Which one of you should I be debating, Maklelan?

Thanks, Brian, for pointing out the hypocritical, double-standard of most LDS with their attacking the Bible's veracity, and then unbelieveably cite it later as AUTHORITATIVE when they think the Bible supports their non-sensical beliefs!!!

[BrianH]

Hey Faddah!

Good to see you mate.

Yeah, the mindless hypocricy that necessarily underlies this common LDS maneuver is quite stunning. Watch carefully now how Mak will just blankly DENY that he has cited the Bible in support of polytheism OR blankly DENY that he has characterized it as mere 'theologial speculation', 'denial' and 'propaganda'.

...OR (amazingly) he may even DENY BOTH positions.

What is amazing is that he will do this EVEN AFTER this is exactly what I tell him he will do!

Watch and see.

-BH

.

[maklelan]

Quoting revisionist scholars who hold to the Hegelian theory of religious EVOLUTION and NOT revelation (as EVINCED in scripture itself) proves NOTHING but their own naturalistic, anti-supernatural BIASES and YOUR cognitive dissonance in trying to harmonize two radically different, mutually-exclusive world-views, Mak.

Appealing to the same old staple of undereducated Bible scholars, I see. The Hegelian theory of religious evolution is responsible for the old German ideas about cultic worship developing late in the development of theology. It has found its proper place among the relics of biblical criticism, but the criticisms to which I refer have nothing to do with Hegelian theories. They were confined to a very small sector of source critical theory from the 19th and early 20th century. Stop vomiting up "Hegelian!" every time you see something that you don't agree with. You clearly don't know what that means, and you're appealing to it in a totally inappropriate context.

[maklelan]

Thanks, Brian, for pointing out the hypocritical, double-standard of most LDS with their attacking the Bible's veracity, and then unbelieveably cite it later as AUTHORITATIVE when they think the Bible supports their non-sensical beliefs!!!

I'm beginning to think you actually believe that you've read and understand my posts, which, if true, means your powers of comprehension are remarkably stunted. For the fourth time I will explain that I am separating the appeal to a document as history, and the appeal to a document as theological authority. I stated explicitly what I was doing several times, and I'm not going to explain it to you again. I hope those reading will take note and realize that if they claim one more time that I denigrate the authority of the Bible in one place and then appeal to it in another to substantiate my theology,they're simply not paying attention to a word I'm saying. That shouldn't surprise anyone, though.

[Father_JD]

Appealing to the same old staple of undereducated Bible scholars, I see. The Hegelian theory of religious evolution is responsible for the old German ideas about cultic worship developing late in the development of theology. It has found its proper place among the relics of biblical criticism, but the criticisms to which I refer have nothing to do with Hegelian theories. They were confined to a very small sector of source critical theory from the 19th and early 20th century. Stop vomiting up "Hegelian!" every time you see something that you don't agree with. You clearly don't know what that means, and you're appealing to it in a totally inappropriate context.


Gasp! I thought I was on "ignore", your favorite hissy-fit tactic, M. Your criticisms have EVERYTHING to do with the Hegelian THEORY of religious DEVELOPMENT and I clearly know what it ALL means, having had to ingest revisionist nonsense for three long years in earning my M.Div degree at a theologically-liberal seminary.

Typical result of this kind of "evolutionary" thinking?

The Jews were "polytheistic" and later EVOLVED INTO MONOTHEISTS.

And this has been your little game from the beginning.

[BrianH]

The Jews were "polytheistic" and later EVOLVED INTO MONOTHEISTS.

And this has been your little game from the beginning.

Has it...???

I mean it sure looks like that to me. But now Mak is elsewhere DENYING that he thinks the Israelites were originally polytheists and that the Bible preaches polytheism.

I am not sure anymore WHAT this guy is trying to say.

-BH

.

[Father_JD]

You've gone on record that the Bible is this or that, eg. "speculation", "Denial", etc. and yet you insist on citing parts of it thereby quite unconsciously attributing both INERRANCY and INFALLIBILITY to those cited portions.

This shouldn't surprise anyone of your duplicitous handling of God's Word, M.

[maklelan]

Gasp! I thought I was on "ignore",

I'm feeling generous, and a sudden appearance in my thread to the cheers of a belligerent antagonist at least deserves consideration.


your favorite hissy-fit tactic, M. Your criticisms have EVERYTHING to do with the Hegelian THEORY of religious DEVELOPMENT and I clearly know what it ALL means, having had to ingest revisionist nonsense for three long years in earning my M.Div degree at a theologically-liberal seminary.

Please explain how it fits in with Hegelian evolution, and be specific. I know the topic extremely well, and if you just vaguely wave your hand around I'm going to point out you're just making stuff up. You may proceed.

[maklelan]

You've gone on record that the Bible is this or that, eg. "speculation", "Denial", etc. and yet you insist on citing parts of it thereby quite unconsciously attributing both INERRANCY and INFALLIBILITY to those cited portions.

This shouldn't surprise anyone of your duplicitous handling of God's Word, M.

Please quote me in these instances where I attributed inerrancy or infallibility to the Bible.

[Father_JD]

If you know the topic well, then why are you denying the effect of Hegel's evolutionary theory of ALL relgion as if this mind-set hasn't colored ALL of biblical criticism??

[SavedbyTruth]

Aww poor Mak. Must not like those who refuse to worship him.

SbT failed to post an actual argument. As for the ad-homs to which he was instantly reduced ...well, I suggest that both you and SbT familiarize yourselves with a little basic logic. You will quickly discover that the ad hominem fallacy is a fallacy of relevance for EVEN IF I was THE single most hatful, evil, spiteful, knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing trogledyte who ever lived, that would STILL not mean that my arguments are invalid or incorrect.

-BH

.

Brian,

My comments about your response weren't meant to be debatable. I was making an observation of your reasoning abilities. You exhibited through your response to Maklelan, that your credibility as someone who has something truthful to say in a debate is zero.

So far you have not been able to prove any of your arguments - they have been invalid and incorrect. Now, with the added knowledge you have no accurate reasoning abilities, the prospects for your future success are not very promising.

SbT

[Father_JD]

Please quote me in these instances where I attributed inerrancy or infallibility to the Bible.

Duh. Can you read? Did I say you explicitly attributed inerrancy and infallibility? :eek:

You do so everytime you INVOKE the Bible's AUTHORITY on some point you think the Bible supports your beliefs. :rolleyes:

[Bat-Man]

I'm beginning to think you actually believe that you've read and understand my posts, which, if true, means your powers of comprehension are remarkably stunted.
Now you're on to something.

Have you ever actually tried talking to someone who is both spiritually blind and deaf ?

... while they tell you that you're the one who can't see and hear ?

It's entertaining, to a point, but it's also very silly and becomes very boring very fast because the same people are actually capable of both seeing and hearing if and when they really want to.

[maklelan]

If you know the topic well, then why are you denying the effect of Hegel's evolutionary theory of ALL relgion as if this mind-set hasn't colored ALL of biblical criticism??

Hegelian philosophy primarily colors theology, not historical or textual criticism. Primarily it influences conclusions that treat the evolution of religion and philosophy as a linear progression from uncivilized and less true to civilized and more true. This idea was popular among the Germans in the 19th and early 20th centuries, but was dismissed in the mid to late 20th century. Modern biblical criticisms do not incorporate that ***umption.

If my findings were really based on Hegelian philosophy I would be arguing that the shift from polytheism to henotheism to monotheism was evolutionary progression toward truth. Since that's not at all what I'm arguing, my conclusions cannot at all be attributed to Hegelian philosophy. What you're doing is blurting out the naive apologetic litany that you've been exposed to in your limited experiences with biblical scholarship. Specifically, Hegelian philosophy is the mantra of those who are intent on undermining the Documentary Hypothesis, since it originally incorporated ***umptions about the progression toward more structured cultic practices and more refined perspectives of God. You've no doubt heard the term used pejoratively in reference to Wellhausen, Noth, Alt, or one of the remnants of their teachings. You've gleefully and ignorantly ***umed that you can apply the term to all types of biblical scholarship that reject the univocality, consistency, or inerrancy of the Bible. Since you don't really know what you're talking about, though, you've totally misapplied the term and have now shown how little you understand the discussions taking place so far above your head.

You cannot support your ***ertion. You lose.

[maklelan]

Duh. Can you read? Did I say you explicitly attributed inerrancy and infallibility? :eek:

You do so everytime you INVOKE the Bible's AUTHORITY on some point you think the Bible supports your beliefs. :rolleyes:

I explicitly stated that I am not doing that. I am using the Bible as an historical document to show that the beliefs of the earliest Israelites are not in disharmony with our doctrines, and so your berating of our theology as unbiblical is misplaced. I have intentionally not made the ***ertion that the theological authority of the Bible at all means anything to this discussion. I am arguing strictly from an historical point of view. I have made this clear four times now. Do not make that ***ertion again.

[BrianH]

Your comments weren't meant to be debateable?

Well too bad, Sb. They ARE debateable whether you like it or not. I know your religion teaches you that you are a God, but that is just another Mormon lie. YOU do not get to determine if your comments are debated or not. Tough luck.

Meanwhile, I have already explained to you MANY times that I expect no credibility WITH YOU whatsoever. You are a Mormon and as such your are blinded to the facts about your religion. NATURALLY anyone who represents those facts automatically and without investigation is necessarily without credibility.

My intendion, as I have explained to you several times is NOT to gain credibility with YOU or other Mormons, for that is impossible BY DEFINITION. Rather my objective is to get YOU to expose the vacuity of the LDS apologetic by your own words.

You seem to have mistaken your conditioned bias as the objective truth by which to pronunce for one and all who has and does not have any credibility. But as a Mormon you have been conditioned to have no regard whatsoever for the standards of objective truth itself. You actually believe that your own highlyl conditioned, personal, subjective emotional reactions are the final determiner of all truth.

As for your claim that my reasoning abilities are imparied, you have yet to articulate any actual error in my reasoning. But be careful, because to do that you will have to abandond your 100% subjective hide out and enter the arena of debate on an objective standard of truth. That is not something you, as a Mormon can even pretend to do and I suspect from your behaviors that you already know that.

Finally, you have exhibited serious flaws in your own reasoning. Specifically you have employed easily identified logical fallacies where you SHOULD have been posting rational, valid arguments. Your consistent use of the ad hominem fallacy when challenged to support your positoin is one example of your own very damaged reasoning. You claim that I have not been able to prove any of my arguments? How does someone "prove" and argument to someone who has decided in advacne that the argument is defacto false despite the evidence.

We will now watch as your own reasoning fails once again: The Bible is explicit and reduntant in its consistent portrayal of God condemning polytheism and severely punishing his people (the Israelites) when they strayed into that gross error. (Do I really HAVE TO "prove that to you, Sb, or are you sufficinetly informed about the Bible to accept it). Given that indisputable FACT, Mak's claim that the Israelites were polytheists and somehow that supports Mormon polytheism is clearly anti-biblical.

But Mak has BOTH cited the Bible (thereby granting it authority) AND dismissed the Bible (his own cited authority) as "speculation" and "denial" and "propaganda". The challenge to you at this point is to use your allegedly sound reason to explain this problem in cogent terms. IF you can do that, you will begin to demonstrate the credibility you say I lack. If you cannot sort this out, showing how LDS polytheism IS consistent with the Bible, then it will remain obvious that you legitimately deserve no credibility.

Your move hot shot.

Show us what you got.

-BH

.

[maklelan]

Mak has BOTH cited the Bible (thereby granting it authority)

And my ***ertion that you don't know jack about historical methodologies or biblical criticisms is proven. You can't tell the difference between theology and history.

[BrianH]

BH>>Mak has BOTH cited the Bible (thereby granting it authority)

M>And my ***ertion that you don't know jack about historical methodologies or biblical criticisms is proven.

No its only ***erted ..and poorly at that. Mak, I hate to pop your ego balloon again, but my comment above has nothing to do with historical methodology or biblical criticism. The simple, observable and indisputable FACT is that you have BOTH granted the Bible authority (the authority of accurately telling the truth about your position that it "preaches polytheism") AND you have explicitly dismissed the Bible as "a mixed bag of theological speculation, ***ertion, and denial" and the OT prophets conspirators in a "propaganda campaign".

Just showing that you know how to spell big words like "historical methodologies" is FAR from sufficient to establish yourself as the final authority you seem to think you are.

As usual, you have discovered that attacking the word of God (which I again remind you even your OWN creed explicitly acknowledges as "the" "word" "of" "God" - but which you attack nonetheless) will always leave you in a confused mire of stinking rhetorical goo such as the one you have created for yourself here.

-BH

.

[maklelan]

No its only ***erted ..and poorly at that. Mak, I hate to pop your ego balloon again, but my comment above has nothing to do with historical methodology or biblical criticism. The simple, observable and indisputable FACT is that you have BOTH granted the Bible authority (the authority of accurately telling the truth about your position that it "preaches polytheism") AND you have explicitly dismissed the Bible as "a mixed bag of theological speculation, ***ertion, and denial" and the OT prophets conspirators in a "propaganda campaign".

Just showing that you know how to spell big words like "historical methodologies" is FAR from sufficient to establish yourself as the final authority you seem to think you are.

As usual, you have discovered that attacking the word of God (which I again remind you even your OWN creed explicitly acknowledges as "the" "word" "of" "God" - but which you attack nonetheless) will always leave you in a confused mire of stinking rhetorical goo such as the one you have created for yourself here.

-BH

.

Still irrelevant babbling, Brian. It may make you feel like a big person, but everyone can see you haven't raised a single welt on my thesis.

[BrianH]

I note with interest that you are unable to actually REFUTE what I said. All you can do is to opine that it is all "irrelevant babbling".

This is typical of your behavior Mak. But the welts on your "thesis" are self-evident to all except Mormons. The simple FACT is you have overtly contradicted yourself and made key errors in your inferences. You seemed to think that any and all SEMITIC myths somehow are equal in authority to the Bible as representative of the revelation of God to the ISRAELITES. They are not. The Ugaritic texts do NOT carry any religious authority among Jews and were NEVER any part of the normative, orthodox beliefs of Judaism. Period. You loose.

Secondly, you are unable to establish your position relative to the Bible. You have BOTH cited it as representative of the polytheism you claim it "preaches" (YOUR word), AND you have dismissed the same Bible as "a mixed bag of theological speculation, ***ertion, and denial" and the OT prophets as mere propagandists when they supposedly altered the alleged polytheism-supporting p***ages. The hypocricy and contradiction are so obvious that ANYONE (excpet a Mormon) can see it as plain as day. Your state of clinical denial in face of the FACTS so evident throughout this thread only shows the damage that occurs to the human mind when it is infected with the eveil spirits of Mormonism.

It seems that you are FAR from the final authority on all things that you pretend to be.

-BH

.

[Bat-Man]

BrianH,

While I still think you have been misrepresenting what maklelan has been saying, I also think you have a good point concerning the fact that it really doesn't matter what the Israelites believed concerning God if/when the Israelites were wrong about God, and it is a fact that the Israelites, as a whole, were often in a state of apostasy.

Eternal life is to truly know God and Jesus Christ who God sent.

... and if the Israelites/Jews didn't know them... well, we still can.

[BrianH]

Originally, I did not want to get down into the parsing game Mormons play. It represents an inability to engage in ideas that require more than one sentence to represent. That game is like arguing with a 4-year old and only results in the Mormon goal of obscuring the facts and the truth with a cloud of petty bickering. Its also just impractical due to the post-length restrictions. We ultimately end up in creating multi-part responses only to find ourselves trying to document our positions amidst single-sentence and sometimes single clause utterances that no one will read anyway ...because they are so arcane and petty and pointless.

But alas ...here I simply could not resist exposing Mak's lame rhetorical gamesmanship. I have elsewhere (in response to his response to my "Part 2" below) articulated the summary view of the major errors in Mak's claims. Here I would like to dissect some of the responses he has created by parsing out my words to his own rhetorical advantage as a means to exhibit the cheap manipulations to which Mormons are forced to resort in their effort to hide the otherwise blunt hollowness of their claims. If Mak and other Mormons were in any way confident of their own scholarship, such lame manipulations would be unnecessary. But alas ...the ubiquitous employment of these little parlor tricks seems to reveal a void of such confidence. In fact, Mak, you appear downright insecure in your childish lashing out at any who DARE to question your self-proclaimed authority.

(Go ahead and p**** up that paragraph and PROVE my point. I dare ya.)

For those who care to study the tricks, here are a few examples.


1.) BH>>which drew down God's wrath and judgment upon the Israelites over and over again. Secondly, you have simply ***UMED that any Semitic myth is somehow a valid, authoritative, normative doctrine of Judaism.

2.)Wrong. I've ***umed nothing, and these conclusions are all drawn from the Bible, not from Semitic myths. Pay better attention.

Note the condescension. Its SUPPOSED to make Mak look intelligent and superior. But ...had poor Mak been "paying attention" to his own post, he would have known for certain that he absolutely DID cite Semitic myths in his OP. Specifically he cited "cognate literature, like the Ugaritic texts and other inscriptions from the time period". The denial of this reference can only be a deliberate attempt at deception, the evidence of a clinical state of denial or just an AMAZINGLY stupid thing to say, given the textual FACTS so obvious in his own OP.


3.) You say that there is no consistent theology in the Bible (which, I remind you, is explicitly identified as the very "word of God" by YOUR OWN creed). That is your point is it not? But your citations say nothing to support your claims. You say that the Bible was written by "hundereds(sic) of people"

M>Quit lying, Brian. I didn't misspell that word, so don't pretend I did.

See the game here. Mak fails to address let alone refute my point and then calls me a liar. The simple fact is, Mak ***erts that the Bible was written by "hundreds" (regardless of spelling) of people, when in fact the Bible names 40 people as its authors. But his quotations say NOTHING on the matter one way or the other. We are just supposed to think that anything Mak says is TRUE because he has placed a quote (regardless of its content) in support of his claim. See how the game is played?




4.) BH>>Your citations say nothing one way or the other. You say that the Bible was written "over the course of about a thousand years". The FACT is that Moses began the Bible in about 1400BC and John wrote the last book of the Bible in about 90 AD.

M>The earliest sections of the Bible can be comfortably dated to the ninth century BCE. Don't tell me you really don't know such basic information.

Note the evasion again. The fact is Maks citations in his OP simply say NOTHING about the date of authorship of biblical documents. Instead he tries to maneuver to the liberal dating of the OT docs - a mere THEORY that defies facts, and suddenly his argument ignores my point that his own citations do not support his claim, and becomes about what can be "comfortably" claimed. Then, as usual, in order to make his evasion look superior, he chides me for supposedly not being familiar with the liberal, secular, anti-supernaturalist ***umptions about when the OT was written.


5.) BH>>But your citations say nothing about the matter. Typical of a Mormon who denies the claim of their own creed in their rush to condemn the "word of God", you say that the Bible is nothing but " a mixed bag of theological speculation, ***ertion, and denial". Your sources above say nothing of the kind.

M>Utterly meaningless posturing.

No ...its an observable FACT. Mak said that the Bible is "a mixed bag of theological speculation, ***ertion, and denial". He then placed a few one-sentence quotes from some books that say nothing of the kind in a position of support to that ***ertion of the near-uselessness of the Bible (and his other ***ertions - none of which were supported by his one-sentence, uncited quotes either). Even the casual reader will note how Mak fails to offer a refutation, and simply pukes up his predictable opinion instead.



6.) BH>>At this point all we have is YOUR ***urance that this is the case and we have good reason to doubt YOU. You also appear to have made the mistake of ***uming that any and all Semitic myths or fairy tales are equal in authority to the revelation of God's word in the Hebrew scritprues. In fact, that error lies at the very heart of every error in this post.

M>Garbage. None of this actually engages anything. You're making sweeping generalizations that amount to, "This is all wrong."

Once again we see the gammer at work. I DIRECTLY engaged his claim, and he just dismisses it by saying it addresses "nothing". Mak, YOU ABSOLUTELY DID appeal to the content of Ugaritic myth and attributed to it some authoritative representation of polytheism among the Israelites. But sadly for you, no one among the orthodox Israelites then or now recognizes these Semitic myths as authoritative in any way. Your mere denial of the FACTS so bluntly obvious in your own words in your own OP are cause for concern over your mental health.


7.) BH>>Please quote the text you have just cited.

M>Don't pretend you care what it says or that you'll honestly engage it when you have it, but I'll post it when I get home tonight.

Here is one of my favorites. Mormons will often attempt to make anyone who questions them the issue to be confronted. All I did was ask Mak to quote the text he cited. After all, we have no real ***urance that the text says what he attributes to it. And experience with Mormons and MAK IN PARTICULAR have shown that they (and especially HE) will cite books that he never even read. So what is his response to this very reasonable question? He tries to make ME the issue. I am told "Don't pretend you care what it says or that you'll honestly engage it when you have it". See how Mormons play this game? I simply and politely asked the great Maklellan to quote the text to which he was referring and suddenly I am the problem, MY honesty and interest are challenged. This is all supposed to distract you from noticing that the boy did not quote his own source to begin with and would generally indicate that he has little confidence that the text in question really will support the point to which he has ***igned it.



8.) BH>>First of all, you are bluntly wrong. There is no "biblical version" of what you describe. The Bible says absolutely NOTHING like what you attribute to it.

M>Nope, it says exactly what I explained. If you don't know the Hebrew that's your problem, not mine.

Here is another favorite. Mak says: "In the biblical version of this pantheon El is the father God, and Asherah the mother." I point out the FACT that there is no "biblical version" of this claim, and suddenly he just ***erts that the Bible says "exactly what (he) explained" and then pretends that its in the Hebrew that he claims to be such an expert on. You will note that the one thing Mak will not and cannot ever do is actually produce any BIBLICAL support for his strange and even absurd ***ertion. But you are not supposed to notice that. You are supposed to be fooled by all the hand-waving and limply insinuated linguistic authority.

Well thats about it for now, folks. Hopefully you will have seen for yourself how utterly transparent self-inflated Mormon "scholars" really are. Its all gamesmanship, parsing, deflection, evasion and other rhetorical parlor tricks with these guys.

Mak, you are as phony as a 9-dollar bill and YOU KNOW IT. So why would I believe you?

-BH

[Bat-Man]

Originally, I did not want to get down into the parsing game Mormons play. It represents an inability to engage in ideas that require more than one sentence to represent. That game is like arguing with a 4-year old and only results in the Mormon goal of obscuring the facts and the truth with a cloud of petty bickering. Its also just impractical due to the post-length restrictions. We ultimately end up in creating multi-part responses only to find ourselves trying to document our positions amidst single-sentence and sometimes single clause utterances that no one will read anyway ...because they are so arcane and petty and pointless.
You expressed a very negative view of parsing, Brian.

Do you really not see any good in it, at all ?

I like to focus on separate thoughts, at least sometimes, because each thought can often lead to many thoughts which are often worthy of a whole book, or even a collection of books.

If you'd rather that I just give you an overall response to all of your comments when I respond to your comments; however, I can do that.

You'll simply be hearing a lot less, from me, that I would otherwise tell you.

[BrianH]

You expressed a very negative view of parsing, Brian.

Do you really not see any good in it, at all ?

Generally no. I know it is one of your favorite techniques and one that your fellow Mormons (like Mak) rely on heavily . But at the very least it generally represents an inability to deal with even minimally complex thoughts that take more than a few words or even a single sentence to correctly represent. At most its just plain dishonest. It allows the 'p****r' to determine the content of an ***ertion, idea or argument and enables (and even encourages) the use of fallacies such as straw man arguments and arguments from silence (also Mormon favorites).

-BH

.

[BrianH]

I appreciate that concession.

But neither you nor Mak has shown that I have misrepresented anything. In fact, while it is possible I have misunderstood what he is saying, that too has yet to be shown.

ta

-BH

.

[SavedbyTruth]

You expressed a very negative view of parsing, Brian.

Do you really not see any good in it, at all ?

I like to focus on separate thoughts, at least sometimes, because each thought can often lead to many thoughts which are often worthy of a whole book, or even a collection of books.

If you'd rather that I just give you an overall response to all of your comments when I respond to your comments; however, I can do that.

You'll simply be hearing a lot less, from me, that I would otherwise tell you.

Bat-Man,

You are still being so nice and seem untainted by all of the negativism, etc. You are an inspiration.

SbT

[maklelan]

We're all waiting anxiously for Father_JD to respond to this post (http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12522&postcount=43) of mine regarding his statement that my entire argument be tossed out summarily because it relies entirely on fallacious Hegelian theory. Clearly he has been shown to be abysmally unacquainted with the principle to which he appeals. I anticipate one of four responses.

The most unlikely will be the concession. Ok, it's not unlikely, it's absolutely impossible. Admitting an error to a Mormon would apparently for him be tantamount to admitting Mormonism is true. We can dismiss that as a possibility right out of the gate.

Now that I'm being so "arrogant" about it, he could also circumvent the concession by just accusing me of being a huge ****, thereby deflecting the loss and refocusing attention on me. That's option two.

The third option is a weak attempt to support his original ***ertion through equivocation. This would cons***ute claiming that I misunderstood him, or that there are nuances to his argument that I missed that totally vindicate him.

The last option is to totally ignore the thread until it has marched down to the third or fourth page of the board, then return to the fight with renewed fervor and confidence. If he appeals to the fourth option, we can be sure he'll whip out his "That's just Hegelian religious theory!!" argument again once the memory of this discussion has faded to obscurity.

Whichever option he chooses, I hope everyone recognizes that his dialectic and rhetoric are nothing more than naive and manipulative yapping. If he would like to prove me wrong and approach this issue from another angle, I would be shocked that he could so brazenly shatter the mold of online contra-Mormonism.

[Bat-Man]

Generally no. I know it is one of your favorite techniques and one that your fellow Mormons (like Mak) rely on heavily . But at the very least it generally represents an inability to deal with even minimally complex thoughts that take more than a few words or even a single sentence to correctly represent. At most its just plain dishonest. It allows the 'p****r' to determine the content of an ***ertion, idea or argument and enables (and even encourages) the use of fallacies such as straw man arguments and arguments from silence (also Mormon favorites).
I don't agree with everything you just said.

Parsing does not represent an inability to deal with complex thoughts that take more than a few words or even a single sentence to represent.

I can deal with complex thoughts with very few words, at any time.

I have a repertoire of very short answers, such as:

I totally agree with everything you just said.

AND

I agree with some of what you said, but not with everything you said.

AND

I don't agree with you, at all.

... and I do have the ability to use each one of those short responses.

As I said before, parsing, to me, is simply a means of dealing with complex thoughts, individually, thought by thought, rather than giving an overall response to everything someone has said.

Btw, if you consider this response to be too long, just let me know.

I can say less than this, in my responses to you, if you would prefer that.

[BrianH]

I don't agree with everything you just said.

Parsing does not represent an inability to deal with complex thoughts that take more than a few words or even a single sentence to represent.


Perhaps not always. I can see that it sometimes is not such a representation. I have certainly pased out replies - especially in resonse to those who use this tactic. But the sad fact is it usually represents an attempt to control and manipulate the exchange, even if under the guise of attempting to deal with the thought.

Moreover, when you p**** out someone's words and break everything down the way YOU like it, you remove their ability to represent their own thoughts themselves. This tactic allows YOU to adjust the context for your own purposes. Its the on-line version of interrupting. Its rude and childish and ultimately its only a pseudo-clever little parlor trick that actually DEMONSTRATES the rhetorical desperation and dishonesty of the "p****r".

Though again, you are right. It is not ALWAYS so. I am speaking in general terms.

-BH

.

[Bat-Man]

Perhaps not always. I can see that it sometimes is not such a representation. I have certainly pased out replies - especially in resonse to those who use this tactic. But the sad fact is it usually represents an attempt to control and manipulate the exchange, even if under the guise of attempting to deal with the thought.

Moreover, when you p**** out someone's words and break everything down the way YOU like it, you remove their ability to represent their own thoughts themselves. This tactic allows YOU to adjust the context for your own purposes. Its the on-line version of interrupting. Its rude and childish and ultimately its only a pseudo-clever little parlor trick that actually DEMONSTRATES the rhetorical desperation and dishonesty of the "p****r".

Though again, you are right. It is not ALWAYS so. I am speaking in general terms.

-BH

.
When a person p****s they are responding to thoughts a person has already expressed, so I don't see how parsing can be viewed as interrupting someone, at least not while they are sharing their own ideas.

I also don't do it as a means to control or manipulate an exchange of someone else's ideas, either, although it is a means of controlling and manipulating my own thoughts in my own responses.

The only way I can see for me to try to control or manipulate someone else's responses, including your own, would be for me to lay down the law, so to speak, to tell you there are some methods of communication I don't approve of and that until you comply with how I want you to communicate with me, I won't be responding any more to you at all, but I'm not doing that.

Personally, I would prefer that people simply ask me questions about my own beliefs, rather than telling me what they think I believe, but I've grown accustomed to communicating with other people in whatever way they prefer as I try to share my own thoughts with them.

Do you like the method I'm using now, instead of continuing to p**** ?

If not, I can continue to tweak my methods, specifically for you, while I communicate with other people in whatever I prefer until other people start complaining about how I communicate with them, and I then try to suit their particular tastes.

[Father_JD]

I explicitly stated that I am not doing that. I am using the Bible as an historical document to show that the beliefs of the earliest Israelites are not in disharmony with our doctrines, and so your berating of our theology as unbiblical is misplaced. I have intentionally not made the ***ertion that the theological authority of the Bible at all means anything to this discussion. I am arguing strictly from an historical point of view. I have made this clear four times now. Do not make that ***ertion again.


Clearly, you do NOT understand the implications of your own actions, Mak. You are invoking beliefs you believe are represented in the Bible as being in harmony with Mormon beliefs. You are therefore citing these p***ages, verses, what have you as fully AUTHORITATIVE in supporting your points. Ergo, these p***ages, verses you invoke are NECESSARILY inerrant and infallible as to WHY YOU CITE THEM AS EVIDENCE, PROOF OF YOUR CONTENTIONS.

Do you yet understand this?? :eek:

[Father_JD]

LOL. If you think Hegelian philosphy has NOT affected "biblical criticism", i.e. "Higher Criticism" as differentiated from TEXTUAL criticism, you're more naiive than I thought. Regretfully, it's YOU who's virtually clueless to your own ignorance as well as cognitive dissonance as to trying to hold to two mutually-exclusive world-views.

But wait!! Seems to me that's exactly what you've been arguing for:

The Jews were once "polytheistic", then "henotheistic", and only eventually "monotheistic". You can disclaim all you want from "development" of religion, and place "apostasy" in its stead, but the bottom line is that you're in FULL AGREEMENT with modernistic views of Biblical religion which is that of DEVELOPMENT NOT REVELATION:

The first thing of which one must be aware is that there is no consistent theology in the Bible. One part of the Bible will preach one doctrine, and another another doctrine. It was written by hundreds of people from several cultures and subcultures over the course of about a thousand years. It is a mixed bag of theological speculation, ***ertion, and denial. These statements comes from Shaye Cohen, professor of Hebrew literature and philosophy as Harvard University (from From The Maccabees to the Mishna, 52–53):

To say you're not is nothing short of intellectual dishonesty, dude.

[maklelan]

Clearly, you do NOT understand the implications of your own actions, Mak. You are invoking beliefs you believe are represented in the Bible as being in harmony with Mormon beliefs. You are therefore citing these p***ages, verses, what have you as fully AUTHORITATIVE in supporting your points. Ergo, these p***ages, verses you invoke are NECESSARILY inerrant and infallible as to WHY YOU CITE THEM AS EVIDENCE, PROOF OF YOUR CONTENTIONS.

They are evidence only insofar as they are historical documents that reveal ancient historical perspectives. That authority stands only upon the reliability of the Sitz im Leben they manifest. Since I showed cognate literature and other historiographical methods confirm my conclusions, that reliability is established. Stop telling me that I don't know what I'm doing. I do this professionally, and someone who so ignorantly misapplies criticisms of Hegelian philosophy certainly isn't going to convince me they have a stronger grasp of historico-critical methodologies than me. You've lost this debate, JD.

[maklelan]

LOL. If you think Hegelian philosphy has NOT affected "biblical criticism", i.e. "Higher Criticism" as differentiated from TEXTUAL criticism, you're more naiive than I thought. Regretfully, it's YOU who's virtually clueless to your own ignorance as well as cognitive dissonance as to trying to hold to two mutually-exclusive world-views.

No, JD, I understand it very well. It's you who has been shown to be ignorant of the scholarship, but you can't even face that fact. You have to try to turn it around on me, but you so that just as ignorantly. I'm done with you.

[Father_JD]

Sorry, but you've hardly proved that you're NOT HEGELIAN...your whole world-view is that. Even invoking Sitz im Leben merely strengthens MY argument, NOT yours, dude. Your whole approach to scripture is that of DEVELOPMENT and cross-fertizilation of OTHER middle-eastern cultures that merely confirms what you believe in the first place. You think you're "objective"??

Please, don't make me laugh, dude.

Despite your appeals to your oh-so much better education than anyone else here, sadly, you're the mis-informed one and totally oblvious to your own cognitive dissonance in trying to simutaneously believe in two mutually-exclusive world-views.

[Father_JD]

No, JD, I understand it very well. It's you who has been shown to be ignorant of the scholarship, but you can't even face that fact. You have to try to turn it around on me, but you so that just as ignorantly. I'm done with you.

In reality, I understand the implications of your beliefs better than you do, dude. You haven't thought it through for one minute.

Good luck with that cog diss of yours, buddy. :eek:

[maklelan]

Sorry, but you've hardly proved that you're NOT HEGELIAN...your whole world-view is that. Even invoking Sitz im Leben merely strengthens MY argument, NOT yours, dude.

I'll respond to one more post just for the cheap seats. Sitz im Leben is a German term used in form criticism, which is totally unrelated to Hegelian theory, which was applied to redaction and source criticism. You thought "German!" and immediately ***ociated it with your newfound (and still hopelessly inadequate) understanding of Hegelian theory. You're only digging your hole deeper.


Your whole approach to scripture is that of DEVELOPMENT and cross-fertizilation of OTHER middle-eastern cultures that merely confirms what you believe in the first place. You think you're "objective"??

You don't have the first clue what you're talking about, but I don't appeal to "development" as a principle at all. I appeal to what can be shown through the texts and the artifacts. That's called historical criticism, which incorporates other kinds of criticisms, but in no way demands the application of any Hegelian theory whatsoever.


Please, don't make me laugh, dude.

Ridiculous attempt to appear unshaken and confident. Everyone can plainly see you've been caught in your ignorant presumptuousness and are simply trying to reestablish your cred. Impotent posturing and nothing more.


Despite your appeals to your oh-so much better education than anyone else here, sadly, you're the mis-informed one and totally oblvious to your own cognitive dissonance in trying to simutaneously believe in two mutually-exclusive world-views.

You're still appealing to the conclusion that I utterly annihilated long ago. I've finished with you, and anyone who reads this exchange will recognize your pitiful rhetoric and your presumptuousness. Spew more posturing onto the internet if it makes you feel better, but it's certainly not going to change anyone's opinion of you.

[Father_JD]

Dude...sitz im Leben is a part of the whole modernistic, developmental world-view of Hegel. Why can't you understand this, but insist on parsing this out as if the one has nothing to do with the other?

Are you genuinely that BLIND that you don't see the connections??

[maklelan]

Dude...sitz im Leben is a part of the whole modernistic, developmental world-view of Hegel. Why can't you understand this, but insist on parsing this out as if the one has nothing to do with the other?

Are you genuinely that BLIND that you don't see the connections??

You really want to get humiliated again? Fine.

Sitz im Leben was first used as a technical term in biblical scholarship by Hermann Gunkel, who used it to refer to the social setting of literary form, and who was influenced by Hegelian theories of progressively involving central leadership. The term itself as absolutely no significance in that context. Only the specific conclusions about the Sitz im Leben of each text can be influenced by Hegelian theory. The phrase simply references the social perspective and context of the author. Hopefully it doesn't need to be explained to you that author's have social contexts and perspectives. The existence of social perspectives is not really debatable, irrespective of wha tyou do not know about Hegelian theory.

Gunkel's students followed the same tradition (people like Von Rad and Alt, whom I referenced earlier), but in the mid-sixties the academy began to question the ***umptions inherent in the early theories of Gunkel, Mowinckel, Alt, Noth, and Von Rad, particularly the Hegelian preconceptions about the evolution of authority and cult. James Muilenberg spoke against it in his 1968 SBL presidential address. Ferdinande de Saussure revamped the foundations of form criticism, introducing the concepts of langue and parole, and shifting the focus onto linguistic concerns, which have nothing to do with Hegelian theory. Koch, Richter, and Knierim expanded on the linguistic foundations of form criticism, which introduced an entirely new perspective entirely removed from the original German theories. Redaction criticism became the sister methodology for form criticism.

Contemporary form criticism, which still uses the phrases Gatung, Sitz im Leben, and Formgeschichte, long ago abandoned the ***umptions of Gunkel and Hegel and everything suppressed by that perspective. As you can plainly see, Sitz im Leben operates entirely independent of Hegelian theory. While its first proponent appealed to that doctrine, the phrase simply refers to the social perspective of the author of a text, which, I hope I don't have to explain again, is something that is unquestionably real. Your ***ertion is absolutely, positively, and irrefutably meaningless. As I explained before, you ignorantly ***ociated the phrase with your little pet grip despite the fact that you are wholly and entirely ignorant of both principles. You lose again. Stop making me humiliate you.

[BrianH]

Stop making me humiliate you.

Hey look, Maklelan can use GOOGLE. What a genius!

-BH

.

[Richard]

Hey look, Maklelan can use GOOGLE. What a genius!
-BH
.

BH, even though you're on permanent ignore, you just can't help with the pea brain condescending remarks. Good grief good buddy, getting your **** kicked, have you no shame? ;)

[Father_JD]

Do you think I haven't heard of Gunkel, et al??? Is it possible you're that arrogant that you really think no one else here knows about these "scholars" who DENY REVELATION, being fully "modernistic", fully committed to the world-view of religious "development" and NOT REVELATION???

Sorry, dude, you haven't told me even one thing I don't already know. Where you fail is in NOT understanding that all of these scholars, theories ALL STEM FROM THE WORLD VIEW OF RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENT, NOT REVELATION.

Do you NOT see the interconnections between ALL of them??

You think by isolating one person and relating that person to just one theory somehow proves your point.

You're more naiive than I ever thought, despite your vaunted education which is nothing more than BRAIN-WASHING IN MODERNISTIC BIBLICAL STUDIES.

You think you're "Objective"?? Don't flatter yourself. Instead of being objective, you're completely cognitive dissonant trying to believe in two mutually-exclusive world views!!

[maklelan]

Hey look, Maklelan can use GOOGLE. What a genius!

-BH

.

Brian, I don't use google (I use Yahoo), and I didn't look up a thing online. I've published on this topic before, and I own a number of publications on form criticism. I referenced a publication for the proper spelling of a couple of names, other than that it is purely from my own knowledge. I'm not playing around when I tell you that this is my career and I know far more about it than you.

[Father_JD]

Amazing!! Someone who makes a "career" out of being cognitive dissonant, trying to harmonize two mutually exclusive world-views and doesn't know the first thing about the "Law of Non-Contradiction"!!

[maklelan]

Do you think I haven't heard of Gunkel, et al???

Yes.


Is it possible you're that arrogant that you really think no one else here knows about these "scholars" who DENY REVELATION, being fully "modernistic", fully committed to the world-view of religious "development" and NOT REVELATION???

I know you don't know about those scholars. You have a general ***umption that stereotypes certain types of scholars, and you ***ume they are accurate across the board, but you don't know specifics and you've never read a word of their scholarship.


Sorry, dude, you haven't told me even one thing I don't already know.

That's a lie.


Where you fail is in NOT understanding that all of these scholars, theories ALL STEM FROM THE WORLD VIEW OF RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENT, NOT REVELATION.

And your theories presuppose the inerrancy of the Bible, which is utterly ludicrous. Irrespective, flippantly dismissing all unbelieving scholars isn't any more legitimate than saying they're all wrong because you say so.


Do you NOT see the interconnections between ALL of them??

You think by isolating one person and relating that person to just one theory somehow proves your point.

You're more naiive than I ever thought, despite your vaunted BRAIN-WASHING IN MODERNISTIC BIBLICAL STUDIES.

You think you're "Objective"?? Don't flatter yourself. Instead of being objective, you're completely cognitive dissonant trying to believe in two mutually-exclusive world views!!

Thrashing around like an infant who got his toy taken away from him. You've been humiliated twice now and you're responses have amounted nothing more than "You're stupid!" without so much as a shred of a defense of your earlier position. You and Brian are the two least informed and most belligerent Christian apologists I've ever seen. It's quite a feet to crow so loudly about your knowledge and at the same time betray depths of naivety that reach such profundities.

[maklelan]

Amazing!! Someone who makes a "career" out of being cognitive dissonant, trying to harmonize two mutually exclusive world-views and doesn't know the first thing about the "Law of Non-Contradiction"!!

You really want to attempt to apply a law of physical science to an attempt to defend the Bible as inerrant? Are you seriously that out of your mind?

[BrianH]

You really want to attempt to apply a law of physical science to an attempt to defend the Bible as inerrant? Are you seriously that out of your mind?


a law of physical science? :eek:

Bwaaaaa ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

The law of non-contradiction ... "a law of physical science"

LOL LOL LOL LOL

Stop ...


Ho ho he he ha ha LOL LOL

Stop...

YER killin' me ova' hea'h!

you better go google (or yahoo or whatever you use) the "law of non-contradiction" Dr. published "scholar"

Bwaaaaa hha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha

-BH

.

[BrianH]

LOL I'm on permanent ignore?

Oh ... poooooor me.

LOL!

You guys are crakin' me up. You and Dr. Mak the "scholar" are hilarious. Your like a skit on Sa****ay Night Live ...y'know back when it was funny like 20 years ago.

LOL

-BH

.

[Father_JD]

You really want to attempt to apply a law of physical science to an attempt to defend the Bible as inerrant? Are you seriously that out of your mind?

Uh...when did a rule of logic become a "law of physical science"??

Dude. Don't even go there 'cause I know the strawman arguments of those who attack the Bible's veracity.

And btw...you're the one who's "out of your mind" that you can't see your own attempt to mind-manipulate yourself with some kind of "thesis, an***hesis, culminating in synthesis"...another dialectical trick of your mind masters who've somehow made you relativistic in your thinking, thereby causing extreme cognitive dissonance. :eek:

[Father_JD]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
Do you think I haven't heard of Gunkel, et al???


Yes.


HAHAHAHAHAHA! Your arrogance is gonna be your downfall ultimately, dude. Listen again: I attended a liberal theological seminary where "scholars" such as Gunkel, Mowinkel, Gerhard von Rad, et al were literally crammed down our throats. Do you know the name of Bultmann?? Do I have to drop names like you in order to be taken seriously? Ok, here's another scholar's name for ya: The kinder and gentler Barth or how about Mr. Tillich, Mr. I'm-really-quite-insecure, as well you should be since Mormon "scholarship" regarding anything "Mormon" is NOT taken seriously in the academic world? What will your response be now?? No doubt that I've mixed revisionist theologians in with revisionist "higher critics", etc. so you can pat yourself on your back and tell yourself what a smart young man you are!!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
Is it possible you're that arrogant that you really think no one else here knows about these "scholars" who DENY REVELATION, being fully "modernistic", fully committed to the world-view of religious "development" and NOT REVELATION???


I know you don't know about those scholars. You have a general ***umption that stereotypes certain types of scholars, and you ***ume they are accurate across the board, but you don't know specifics and you've never read a word of their scholarship.


Oh, I've read them...but years ago, so you'll have to excuse me for not having lots of "specifics" to throw back at ya, sparky, espeically when I wanted to cleanse my mind of their man-made theories that neither honor God nor scripture. Of course, they will differ with one another regarding their pet theories regarding how Israel "developed" its "relgion"...how they supposedly "borrowed" from the Canaanite societies around them, how the Bible was s***ched together...but what I've been trying to get you to do is to see the BIG PICTURE...i.e. virtually ALL theories derive from their world-view that there's NO SUCH THING AS REVELATION TO THE JEWS...but merely their "engagement with the divine"...the musings of pre-modern, unenlightened people.

Now, by all means DO tell me...give me the name of just one of your vaunted scholars who does NOT SUBSCRIBE TO SOME VERSION OF RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENT, but subscribes to the historical, traditional view of REVELATION and DIVINE INSPIRATION of scripture, wouldja?? ALL of their theories derive from this world view, dude...so up whose skirt are ya trying to **** smoke??


Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
Sorry, dude, you haven't told me even one thing I don't already know.


That's a lie.

Sez you who thinks he knows it all. :rolleyes:




Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
Where you fail is in NOT understanding that all of these scholars, theories ALL STEM FROM THE WORLD VIEW OF RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENT, NOT REVELATION.


And your theories presuppose the inerrancy of the Bible, which is utterly ludicrous. Irrespective, flippantly dismissing all unbelieving scholars isn't any more legitimate than saying they're all wrong because you say so.

LOL. I guess this is the closest you're going to get to admitting that I'M RIGHT...ALL of their theories derive from this world view, thereby skewing their understanding of the Bible that they're ALWAYS forced to "second-guess" scripture as to WHY the writer wrote this. Wanna example?? "Since we KNOW that miracles can NOT happen, WHY do the gospel writers ascribe miracles to Jesus?? Why of course!! To convey the specialness of Jesus, even though we KNOW he was nothing more than some kind of itinerant rabbi! Yeah! That's the ticket!!"

Or...How about the theory concocted that John couldn't have written his gospel because of its supposedly "too high of a christology" therefore the book had to have been written by a "Johannine community"?? Sound familar?? Or that Paul couldn't have written the "Pastoral Epistles" 'cause his ecclesiology just sounds too dog-gone "advanced" for the First Century??

And WHY do they propose this? Well, the "historical" Jesus had to become the "Christ" of scripture, because God didn't REVEAL this to the apostles, they DEVELOPED THEIR CHRISTOLOGY OVER TIME. Sound familiar?? Shades of "From Jesus to Christ" by Paula Fredrickson. Oh, but I'm sure Mr. Know-it-all is certainly familiar with her, and Marcus Borg, John Dominque Crossan, and the whole Jesus seminar group who "vote" on what they think Jesus "really" said, right?? And WHY do they think so? Cause it's NOT REVELATION, but doctrinal DEVELOPMENT, isn't it, junior?? And whom do we have to thank among others for a hundred non-sensical years about an "historical jesus" than the honorable Albert Schweitzer, right??

So have I dropped enough names for ya, sparky?? Need I go on, hammering into your little wooden Mormon head that ALL of their theories DERIVE FROM RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENT and NOT REVELATION AND THEIR THEORIES ARE IN UTTER CONTRADICTION TO THE MORMON WORLD VIEW, THEREBY MAKING YOU SCHIZOID?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
Do you NOT see the interconnections between ALL of them??

You think by isolating one person and relating that person to just one theory somehow proves your point.

You're more naiive than I ever thought, despite your vaunted BRAIN-WASHING IN MODERNISTIC BIBLICAL STUDIES.

You think you're "Objective"?? Don't flatter yourself. Instead of being objective, you're completely cognitive dissonant trying to believe in two mutually-exclusive world views!!


Thrashing around like an infant who got his toy taken away from him. You've been humiliated twice now and you're responses have amounted nothing more than "You're stupid!" without so much as a shred of a defense of your earlier position. You and Brian are the two least informed and most belligerent Christian apologists I've ever seen. It's quite a feet to crow so loudly about your knowledge and at the same time betray depths of naivety that reach such profundities.

Who's thrashing about but Mr. Mak, who labels EVERYONE here as either ignorant or stupid, and when he's challenged, he has a hissy-fit and puts posters on "ignore"??

You've got lots to learn, bud...and especially something called, "humility". :rolleyes:

[maklelan]

Uh...when did a rule of logic become a "law of physical science"??

It's long been a law within physical science. Since that's been on my mind lately, that's the first category I thought of. Irrespective, you haven't yet shown any contradictions exist outside your own worldview, so just blurting out "non-contradiction!" doesn't win you any arguments.


Dude. Don't even go there 'cause I know the strawman arguments of those who attack the Bible's veracity.

I really don't care what you think you know, because you don't know jack about the Bible and you certainly can't defend its inerrancy.


And btw...you're the one who's "out of your mind" that you can't see your own attempt to mind-manipulate yourself with some kind of "thesis, an***hesis, culminating in synthesis"...another dialectical trick of your mind masters who've somehow made you relativistic in your thinking, thereby causing extreme cognitive dissonance. :eek:

Weak posturing. You've already been beaten, and you're still not responding to that. You're responding to tangential remarks in an attempt to feel like you're still coming away with a win in some capacity.

[maklelan]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
Do you think I haven't heard of Gunkel, et al???




HAHAHAHAHAHA! Your arrogance is gonna be your downfall ultimately, dude. Listen again: I attended a liberal theological seminary where "scholars" such as Gunkel, Mowinkel, Gerhard von Rad, et al were literally crammed down our throats.

You spelled Mowinckel wrong.


Do you know the name of Bultmann?? Do I have to drop names like you in order to be taken seriously?

Yes I know Bultmann. I've published papers that have cited him, and I've actually read his research. You have to respond to my argument to be taken seriously. Since you have unilaterally shown yourself unwilling and unable to do so, you will never be taken seriously by me, no matter how many names you look up.


Ok, here's another scholar's name for ya: The kinder and gentler Barth or how about Mr. Tillich, Mr. I'm-really-quite-insecure, as well you should be since Mormon "scholarship" regarding anything "Mormon" is NOT taken seriously in the academic world? What will your response be now?? No doubt that I've mixed revisionist theologians in with revisionist "higher critics", etc. so you can pat yourself on your back and tell yourself what a smart young man you are!!

This doesn't show me you know a thing about their scholarship. Brian would probably be more accurate to address that Google post at you. Can you tell me what Barth showed about vocalization in Semitic prefix verb morphology? That's what he's most famous for, but I doubt you anything about his actual research.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
Is it possible you're that arrogant that you really think no one else here knows about these "scholars" who DENY REVELATION, being fully "modernistic", fully committed to the world-view of religious "development" and NOT REVELATION???




Oh, I've read them...but years ago, so you'll have to excuse me for not having lots of "specifics" to throw back at ya, sparky, espeically when I wanted to cleanse my mind of their man-made theories that neither honor God nor scripture.

That's why you don't know what you're talking about. If you read an entire book (which I honestly doubt you did) thinking how much you hate that heretic for being such a heretic then you really aren't gonna learn anything. This is another manifestation of your dogmatism taking priority over logic, evidence, and honesty. And you accuse me of not being objective. What a joke.


Of course, they will differ with one another regarding their pet theories regarding how Israel "developed" its "relgion"...how they supposedly "borrowed" from the Canaanite societies around them, how the Bible was s***ched together...but what I've been trying to get you to do is to see the BIG PICTURE...i.e. virtually ALL theories derive from their world-view that there's NO SUCH THING AS REVELATION TO THE JEWS...but merely their "engagement with the divine"...the musings of pre-modern, unenlightened people.

Now, by all means DO tell me...give me the name of just one of your vaunted scholars who does NOT SUBSCRIBE TO SOME VERSION OF RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENT, but subscribes to the historical, traditional view of REVELATION and DIVINE INSPIRATION of scripture, wouldja?? ALL of their theories derive from this world view, dude...so up whose skirt are ya trying to **** smoke??

Shaye Cohen is a very faithful Jew. I already pointed this out and you ignored it. He doesn't believe that a donkey talked to a man, but he believes in revelation and inspiration. If you want me to point to someone who has the exact same fundie perspective as you on the inerrancy of scripture then I can't help you there, since your personal perspective has shown itself rather ignorant of very fundamental flaws in that perspective.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
Sorry, dude, you haven't told me even one thing I don't already know.



Sez you who thinks he knows it all. :rolleyes:

What a zinger!


Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
Where you fail is in NOT understanding that all of these scholars, theories ALL STEM FROM THE WORLD VIEW OF RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENT, NOT REVELATION.



LOL. I guess this is the closest you're going to get to admitting that I'M RIGHT...ALL of their theories derive from this world view, thereby skewing their understanding of the Bible that they're ALWAYS forced to "second-guess" scripture as to WHY the writer wrote this. Wanna example?? "Since we KNOW that miracles can NOT happen, WHY do the gospel writers ascribe miracles to Jesus?? Why of course!! To convey the specialness of Jesus, even though we KNOW he was nothing more than some kind of itinerant rabbi! Yeah! That's the ticket!!"

That's actually totally false. They operate under that restrictive perspective because they recognize that the supernatural is not available for empirical testing or verification. With such as the case, being firm about academic conclusions regarding the supernatural is folly. Thus, if we just avoid commenting on the supernatural and only deal with the history insofar as it operates within the natural world, we can be more confident in our conclusions. Believing scholars are more responsible for that at***ude than atheists. You're spouting off about stuff you don't even know.


Or...How about the theory concocted that John couldn't have written his gospel because of its supposedly "too high of a christology" therefore the book had to have been written by a "Johannine community"?? Sound familar??

I prefer to read John 21:24, where the author refers to himself in the first person plural and to John in the third person. The text itself explicitly states it was written by a group of people and not John. I'm aghast that someone who claim to know the Bible doesn't know that about the book of John. That's where the conclusion that it was written by a Johannine Community comes from. The Christology argument has nothing to with it, since John was writing late enough to appeal to a much higher Christology than the other synoptic authors. Something significant, however, is the fact that a low and a high Christology can be isolated within the book of John, which leads many to believe there are original aspects of it and redacted aspects of it.

Is anyone else out there as shocked as me that this dude really seems to think he's saying anything intelligent? It's astonishing how naive and yet how boastful one person can be. He manages to be shown to be in error with every single ***ertion, and yet he turns around and vomits up another one.

Continued . . .

[maklelan]

Or that Paul couldn't have written the "Pastoral Epistles" 'cause his ecclesiology just sounds too dog-gone "advanced" for the First Century??

I don't know of a single reputable scholar who thinks that.


And WHY do they propose this? Well, the "historical" Jesus had to become the "Christ" of scripture, because God didn't REVEAL this to the apostles, they DEVELOPED THEIR CHRISTOLOGY OVER TIME. Sound familiar??

Those ****s. Disagreeing with your blind faith.


Shades of "From Jesus to Christ" by Paula Fredrickson. Oh, but I'm sure Mr. Know-it-all is certainly familiar with her, and Marcus Borg, John Dominque Crossan, and the whole Jesus seminar group who "vote" on what they think Jesus "really" said, right??

I've read some of the Jesus Seminar, but I know enough about their methodologies and their credentials to not be concerned with them. If I got upset about every idiot that conflicted with my view of the universe I wouldn't have time to get to know Christ and raise my family.


And WHY do they think so? Cause it's NOT REVELATION, but doctrinal DEVELOPMENT, isn't it, junior?? And whom do we have to thank among others for a hundred non-sensical years about an "historical jesus" than the honorable Albert Schweitzer, right??

That's not at the foundation of it. It's conflict within the Bible that catalyzes these questions. You're again taking something about which you know little and trying to slather it over everyone who disagrees with you just because you feel confident enough in your ability overcome that one little pet gripe that you think you are able to destroy every liberal argument every leveled at the Bible just by criticizing that one little point. It's vintage armchair scholar naivety.


So have I dropped enough names for ya, sparky?? Need I go on, hammering into your little wooden Mormon head that ALL of their theories DERIVE FROM RELIGIOUS DEVELOPMENT and NOT REVELATION AND THEIR THEORIES ARE IN UTTER CONTRADICTION TO THE MORMON WORLD VIEW, THEREBY MAKING YOU SCHIZOID?

You're a real piece of work, but you haven't managed to show me you understand the first thing about biblical scholarship.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Father_JD
Do you NOT see the interconnections between ALL of them??

You think by isolating one person and relating that person to just one theory somehow proves your point.

You're more naiive than I ever thought, despite your vaunted BRAIN-WASHING IN MODERNISTIC BIBLICAL STUDIES.

You think you're "Objective"?? Don't flatter yourself. Instead of being objective, you're completely cognitive dissonant trying to believe in two mutually-exclusive world views!!

So it's "Nu-uh!" Nu-uh!" and Nu-uh!"


Who's thrashing about but Mr. Mak,

Clearly it's you, growing increasingly belligerent and increasingly mistaken.


who labels EVERYONE here as either ignorant or stupid, and when he's challenged, he has a hissy-fit and puts posters on "ignore"??

I label people as ignorant when they show me they are ignorant.


You've got lots to learn, bud...and especially something called, "humility". :rolleyes:

Yeah, you're one to talk. Everyone needs humility who disagrees with you. You've been getting your **** handed to you all week long and you come back more and more belligerent every time (without, I might add, responding to the original claims). You're the last person on earth who gets to tell anyone anything about humility.

[BrianH]

It's long been a law within physical science. Since that's been on my mind lately, that's the first category I thought of. Irrespective, you haven't yet shown any contradictions exist outside your own worldview, so just blurting out "non-contradiction!" doesn't win you any arguments.

Oh my ...

*Sigh* ... no ...sorry, Mak. You have once again demonstrated that you are a total diletantte and have no idea what you are talking about. You keep trying to foist yourself off as some vaunted, famous, published "scholar" but then you make obvious, lame blunders like this one that even some victims of the public high schools can spot.

Let me see if I can help you out a little...

The law of non-contradiction is one of the three cl***ic laws governing rational thougt. It has NOTHING to do with the laws of the physical sciences (except as any scientific thought must conform to rationality to be considered valid). FAAAAR from having EVER been "a law within physical science" (let alone having "long been a law within physical science"), there has NEVER been nor IS THERE any law of the physical sciences known as "the law of non-contradiction". It is a purely LOGICAL construct, Mak. It is derived from Aristotle's rheotircal logic and has NOTHING to do with PHYSICAL science.

You are not fooling anyone with this fake "scholar" nonsense ...except maybe yourself.

As usual, you have been caught just making stuff up to cover your rear as you retreat from your own demonstration of your PROFOUND level of ignorance.

-BH

.

[Father_JD]

LOL. Forced to stoop to a misspelling of "MowinCkel" for criticism, huh?

Seriously...you keep missing the point, repeatedly. So, for the fifth or sixth time:

If one's world-view DENIES revelation, miracles, etc, that one can NOT read the bible without being already in CONTRADICTION to the very explicit world-view of the bible:

God deigned to REVEAL Himself, His ontology, His attributes, etc. to the Jewish people. You're the Hebrew scholar, so perhaps you've read it over and over and over in the Tenach, "And GOD SAID..."

With the "Enlightenment" thinking of RATIONALISTIC, MODERNISTIC "scholars", ALL theories of theirs can not but be derived from this world-view, hence SKEWING THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF IT ALL. You've made reference to "Deutero-Isaiah", and the major reason "scholars" slice up the Book of Isaiah three ways is because of the naming of Cyrus and the revelation about his coming release of the captives. But when one does NOT believe in REVELATION, one is literally compelled to think that there just had to be another "Isaiah" who wrote these p***ages two hundred years AFTER the "First" Isaiah. The Bible you believe in is nothing more than a "pious fraud".

These are NOTHING more than man-made theories and explanations which can only derive from their ANTI-SUPERNATURAL WORLD VIEW.

The amazing thing is that you can't understand this, you yourself having been brain-washed in their philosophy, and yet still holding to Mormon belief which is founded upon the Biblical model itself: REVELATION.

What's also incredible is your utter disdain for the bible's OWN world-view, scripture itself, but have supers***ious, BLIND FAITH in a book that has NO evident history before 1830 and even more incredible is your blind, supers***ious belief in a proven hoax, called the Book-O-Abraham.

So, sparky, although you're very well versed in the individual THEORIES of modernist scholars, you're BLIND to YOUR OWN BIASES, etc. thinking you're "objective", but having NO OBJECTIVITY whatsoever.

[alanmolstad]

there is only one God....the rest are fake