The Biblical Gods

[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?

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]

Originally Posted by maklelan

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.

[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.




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".

[maklelan]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

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.

Originally Posted by Father_JD

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.

Originally Posted by Father_JD

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.

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]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

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.

Originally Posted by Father_JD

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.

Originally Posted by Father_JD

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.

Originally Posted by Father_JD

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.

Originally Posted by Father_JD

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.

Originally Posted by Father_JD

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.

What a zinger!

Originally Posted by Father_JD

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.

Originally Posted by Father_JD

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]

Originally Posted by Father_JD

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.

Originally Posted by Father_JD

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.

Originally Posted by Father_JD

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.

Originally Posted by Father_JD

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.

Originally Posted by Father_JD

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.

Originally Posted by Father_JD

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!"

Originally Posted by Father_JD

Who's thrashing about but Mr. Mak,

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

Originally Posted by Father_JD

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.

Originally Posted by Father_JD

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

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