Why maklelan can't win a debate with me

[_LittleNipper]

I show you verses and you tell me what your professors taught you.

That's simply not true, and I'll thank you not to pretend to know the first thing about me or my education. I study the languages, the literature, and the history, and I make my own decisions. Both my last two thesis advisors disagreed with portions of my theses but couldn't say I didn't make a compelling case, and in both cases my theses were ideas I came up with entirely on my own. My professors have been Mormon, Anglican, Jewish, Evangelical, Atheist, Muslim, and even Buddhist. I've never just regurgitated what they've taught. How dare you just ignorantly assume those things about me.

Everything Christian scientists say is tainted,

No, everything Christian scientists say that is dogmatic and unevidenced is of no value. Whatever they say that is scientific and is based on evidence is of value. Maybe you missed the memo, but there are many, many Christian scientists who reject creationism and entirely endorse evolution.

and everything secular scientists promote is above reproach with you.

Also completely false.

I was sending you personal messages because you were becoming very argumentative and disruptive to the point of making fun and hurtful to those seeking the knowledge of God's Word. this thread is not about either you or me, but what the Bible says.

Ok, let's talk about what the Bible says. You just posted 2 Kgs 3:27, which says the Israelite forces were driven off by a great wrath. Tell me what that text means.

The people were mad. Great wrath is different from Divine retribution. And if you are educated or not makes absolutely no difference to me. Christians certainly have the privilege to investigate Biblical revelation and history. They are not required to either ignore such because some bias individuals say to. I don't assume anything about you --- you tell me what you believe every time you publish anything on this forum. You do not believe in Biblical inerrancy. You do not believe the Gospel is entirely factual. You do not believe that what Jesus said concerning Noah is really anything actually attributable, or if Jesus did say it, he was merely affirming some truth within an old parable... You are exposing your thoughts. I'm not stupid. I can put 2 and 2 together. It isn't rocket science. Even if you like Betty.

[_maklelan]

The people were mad.

Nope, that Hebrew word (קצף) never refers to the wrath of any people. It refers to divine wrath.

Great wrath is different from Divine retribution.

And yet, it is used to refer to YHWH's divine anger over two dozen times. Below are a couple examples:

Deut 29:28: And the LORD rooted them out of their land in anger, and in wrath, and in great indignation (קצף גדול)

Jer 21:5: And I myself will fight against you with an outstretched hand and with a strong arm, even in anger, and in fury, and in great wrath (קצף גדול)

Jer 32:37: Behold, I will gather them out of all countries, whither I have driven them in mine anger, and in my fury, and in great wrath (קצף גדול)

Zech 7:12: Yea, they made their hearts as an adamant stone, lest they should hear the law, and the words which the LORD of hosts hath sent in his spirit by the former prophets: therefore came a great wrath (קצף גדול) from the LORD of hosts

And if you are educated or not makes absolutely no difference to me.

When it comes to interpreting an ancient Hebrew text it certainly makes a difference to me.

Christians certainly have the privilege to investigate Biblical revelation and history.

Absolutely.

They are not required to either ignore such because some bias individuals say to. I don't assume anything about you --- you tell me what you believe every time you publish anything on this forum.

No, I show you what the scholarship says, and often what my own conclusions are. Whatever you decide about my beliefs is an assumption on your part.

You do not believe in Biblical inerrancy.

Because biblical inerrancy is a demonstrable falsehood. It's like believing that 2+2=5. There's absolutely nothing anywhere in any corner of the universe that actually constitutes evidence in support of inerrancy. It must be accepted entirely arbitrarily.

You do not believe the Gospel is entirely factual.

Because it is demonstrably not entirely factual.

You do not believe that what Jesus said concerning Noah is really anything actually attributable, or if Jesus did say it, he was merely affirming some truth within an old parable... You are exposing your thoughts. I'm not stupid. I can put 2 and 2 together. It isn't rocket science. Even if you like Betty.

If you can put 2 and 2 together, then tell me, do you believe Balaam spoke with a talking donkey? Note, I did not ask you if you believed it was possible for God to make a donkey talk. What I asked was whether or not you believe Balaam spoke to a talking donkey.

[_huckelberry]

As I pointed out, the word "angel" was added later on.

that's not true at all. That's a much later Christian attempt to reconcile God's invisibility with God's visibility. The Angel of YHWH was a corporeal being, which would violate the notion that Christ wasn't incarnate yet. The only honest and informed approach is to just acknowledge these are different ideologies promoted by different authors. That violates your dogmatism, though, so you can't accept that. See, you don't care at all what the text says, you just care what your tradition says the text is allowed to say.

I am quoting the above to keep track of a summary statement which can get lost in all the stuff. This fits with what I took away from an earlier discussion about divine assembly and the later Christian picture of God and the angelic hosts. There is a relationship between the two ideas but the replacement of secondary deities with anges is a post biblical thing. I can imagine that as a process starting before the end of the first century ce but so far I see Maklelan is correct to point out that previously the secondary deities had a familial relationship and would be of at least some sort of related being. That is distinctly different than the sharp created beings and uncreated beings in Christian views of angels and God. There are lots of Christian who view this as a clarification in understanding even if developed after the Bible. Maklelan points out that the developement there viewed is not actually in the Bible.

I suspect he would see the Biblical context as a picture more in harmony with the general shape of Mormon thinking about God and creation than the later Christian theorizing. The biblical picture lacks the sharp absolute division between created and creator)

Maklelam you are welcome to clarify if I am misunderstanding you.

[_maklelan]

I am quoting the above to keep track of a summary statement which can get lost in all the stuff. This fits with what I took away from an earlier discussion about divine assembly and the later Christian picture of God and the angelic hosts. There is a relationship between the two ideas but the replacement of secondary deities with anges is a post biblical thing. I can imagine that as a process starting before the end of the first century ce but so far I see Maklelan is correct to point out that previously the secondary deities had a familial relationship and would be of at least some sort of related being. That is distinctly different than the sharp created beings and uncreated beings in Christian views of angels and God. There are lots of Christian who view this as a clarification in understanding even if developed after the Bible. Maklelan points out that the developement there viewed is not actually in the Bible.

I suspect he would see the Biblical context as a picture more in harmony with the general shape of Mormon thinking about God and creation than the later Christian theorizing. The biblical picture lacks the sharp absolute division between created and creator)

Maklelam you are welcome to clarify if I am misunderstanding you.

I wouldn't be so quick to correlate ancient Israelite religion with modern LDS ideology, but in that particular respect, Mormonism is certainly closer.

That sharp ontological dichotomy between creator and created is the key to contemporary christological scholarship, as Bauckham, Bird, and many others argue. It simply didn't exist, however, until it was appropriated from Platonism by Christian apologists in the second and third centuries CE. Michael Peppard discusses this appropriation in his book The Son of God in the Roman World. The categories of deity and humanity were a continuum prior to that, as Beate Pongratz-Leisten argues in her essay in Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism, and as I argue in my second master's thesis.

[_LittleNipper]

As a Christian, I am very willing to share my faith and explain why I believe the way I do. I want people to hear the truth and perhaps investigate for themselves. Individuals who don't wish to share their faith are exactly like a candle hidden under a basket. This is how I see maklelan. He is here and there, but he is unwilling to simply spell it out. I fully believe that the Bible is the Word of God and perfectly explains that we were created, we have fallen, and we cannot get up by our own will. Our works are trash without God at the helm. We are not here to become temple anointed spirit parents with our own created universes. We are here to glorify God, and to be loved by Him.

[_maklelan]

As a Christian, I am very willing to share my faith and explain why I believe the way I do. I want people to hear the truth and perhaps investigate for themselves. Individuals who don't wish to share their faith are exactly like a candle hidden under a basket. This is how I see maklelan. He is here and there, but he is unwilling to simply spell it out.

I'm not here to proselytize. With this particular issue, my point is to show what the Bible does and does not say. I will spell that out all day long.

I fully believe that the Bible is the Word of God and perfectly explains that we were created, we have fallen, and we cannot get up by our own will. Our works are trash without God at the helm. We are not here to become temple anointed spirit parents with our own created universes. We are here to glorify God, and to be loved by Him.

Terrific. I'm here to talk about what the Bible says. You told me that was your purpose as well.

[_Mittens]

Jacob 4:9 For behold, by the power of his a word man came upon the face of the earth, which earth was created by the power of his word. Wherefore, if God being able to speak and the world was, and to speak and man was created, O then, why not able to command the dearth, or the workmanship of his hands upon the face of it, according to his will and pleasure ?

[_huckelberry]

I am quoting the above to keep track of a summary statement which can get lost in all the stuff. This fits with what I took away from an earlier discussion about divine assembly and the later Christian picture of God and the angelic hosts. There is a relationship between the two ideas but the replacement of secondary deities with anges is a post biblical thing. I can imagine that as a process starting before the end of the first century ce but so far I see Maklelan is correct to point out that previously the secondary deities had a familial relationship and would be of at least some sort of related being. That is distinctly different than the sharp created beings and uncreated beings in Christian views of angels and God. There are lots of Christian who view this as a clarification in understanding even if developed after the Bible. Maklelan points out that the developement there viewed is not actually in the Bible.

I suspect he would see the Biblical context as a picture more in harmony with the general shape of Mormon thinking about God and creation than the later Christian theorizing. The biblical picture lacks the sharp absolute division between created and creator)

Maklelam you are welcome to clarify if I am misunderstanding you.

I wouldn't be so quick to correlate ancient Israelite religion with modern LDS ideology, but in that particular respect, Mormonism is certainly closer.

That sharp ontological dichotomy between creator and created is the key to contemporary christological scholarship, as Bauckham, Bird, and many others argue. It simply didn't exist, however, until it was appropriated from Platonism by Christian apologists in the second and third centuries CE. Michael Peppard discusses this appropriation in his book The Son of God in the Roman World. The categories of deity and humanity were a continuum prior to that, as Beate Pongratz-Leisten argues in her essay in Reconsidering the Concept of Revolutionary Monotheism, and as I argue in my second master's thesis.

Maklalan, I vaguely remember, perhaps over a year ago, sending some quires your way about how close those Old Testament images correlate with Mormon images. I think you declined to measure. I can see the reasonableness of that, a general sense of a more friendly context instead of specific correlation makes sense. Thank you for the book recommendation.

[Guest]

As a Christian, I am very willing to share my faith and explain why I believe the way I do. I want people to hear the truth and perhaps investigate for themselves. Individuals who don't wish to share their faith are exactly like a candle hidden under a basket. This is how I see maklelan. He is here and there, but he is unwilling to simply spell it out.

I'm not here to proselytize. With this particular issue, my point is to show what the Bible does and does not say. I will spell that out all day long.

I fully believe that the Bible is the Word of God and perfectly explains that we were created, we have fallen, and we cannot get up by our own will. Our works are trash without God at the helm. We are not here to become temple anointed spirit parents with our own created universes. We are here to glorify God, and to be loved by Him.

Terrific. I'm here to talk about what the Bible says. You told me that was your purpose as well.

First point, This is what the Bible says: In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. What does that mean to you?

[_Mittens]

http://carm.org/bible-difficulties/isai ... all-things

Is Jesus or God the creator of all things?


Isaiah 44:24 and Colossians 1:16-17
1.God created all alone (Isaiah 44:24)--"Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, and the one who formed you from the womb, "I, the Lord, am the maker of all things, stretching out the heavens by Myself, and spreading out the earth all alone."
2.All things created by/through Jesus (Colossians 1:16-17)--"For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities—all things have been created by Him and for Him. 17And He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together."

There is no difficulty here at all when we realize that the Trinity is involved. The Trinity is the doctrine that God is three persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. The Son is the Word, which was God and with God (John 1:1)--that became flesh in Jesus (John 1:14). Since Jesus is the second person of the Trinity and He has two natures, divine and human (Col. 2:9), we can then have Jesus being the creator, and God being the creator alone. In other words, Jesus is God and God created all things alone.

2 Nephi 11:7 For if there be no Christ there be no God; and if there be no God we are not, for there could have been no creation. But there is a God, and he is Christ, and he cometh in the fulness of his own time.

Helaman 14:12 And also that ye might know of the coming of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and of earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and that ye might know of the signs of his coming, to the intent that ye might believe on his name.