I recently read Latayne Scott's book, The Mormon Mirage. She does a decent job of cataloging in a general fashion many of the problems of Mormonism, although I can't think of much, if anything she has added to prior, much more scholarly books on the subject.

What I did find noteworthy about her book is how she has gone from a true believing Mormon apologist to a complete non believer and to a true believing Christian apologist. In discussing the many problems with Mormonism which demonstrate its absurdity, Ms. Scott relies for her position on books written by skeptics and doesn't rely or discuss any books written by Mormon apologists. However, now that she has found Jesus, she relies exclusively on books written by Christian apologists to support her evangelical Christian beliefs, many of which are at least as absurd as her prior Mormon beliefs. For example, she asserts that Christians have so many early manuscripts of the Bible that they can be confident the Bible wasn't changed as time passed. Really? Has she even bothered to read any of the several excellent books written on this and related subjects by Bart Ehrman and other critical scholars which show that the opposite is in fact true.

What I can't understand is how people justify to themselves using a critical, common sense, studious approach to learning the truth about Mormonism and then throw this approach out the window and use the same blind faith, I believe anything that supports what I want to believe approach with respect to their new evangelical Christian beliefs. Christianity and Mormonism are equally beyond rational belief. Personally, I think that the Islamic belief that Mohammed rode up to heaven on a winged horse at the end of his life and that the angel Gabriel dictated word for word to Mohammed in a cave the entire Quoran which is the inerrant word of God makes more sense. Thank you, Allah.

omyheck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> For example, she
> asserts that Christians have so many early
> manuscripts of the Bible that they can be
> confident the Bible wasn't changed as time passed.

As you pointed out, that position isn't supportable in light of scholarly work.
And it's irrelevant anyway.
Let's pretend for a moment that the bible *didn't* "change" from any of the original writings...

A great deal of it is still factually wrong. It would only then be unchanged but factually wrong, instead of changed but factually wrong.

Oops.

Bart Ehrman said on his blog ( http://ehrmanblog.org/do-textual-variants-really-matter-for-anything/ ) that all the textual variants dont matter when it comes to doctrinal issues because doctrine is established by various verses across the text and not just 1 verse. Bart Ehrman said that the variants are interesting on an academic level but dont affect the doctrines of Christianity.

I think that isthechurchtrue is overstating and misstating Ehrman's view on manuscript changes when in stating Ehrman thinks they don't affect doctrine and are only interesting on an academic level. In fact, he thinks they do affect some doctrines such as the doctrine of the Trinity which only appears in one verse in John's Gospel which was not originally in that Gospel but was added much later. The fact that Christian theologians will point to other later writings outside the New Testament to support the doctrine is irrelevant to the point. More importantly, as Ehrman discusses at length in his books such as Misquoting Jesus, Jesus Interrupted, How Jesus Became God and others, the textual variants are important for reasons other than doctrine. As he points out, how can you say the Bible is the inerrant word of God if you don't know what God supposedly originally said and there are many, many contradictions and inconsistencies.

But, Ms. Scott's statement about confidence in the original content of the manuscripts was just one example of the many times she casually relies on apologetic nonsense to support her views. Another example is when she says that even if there are not any contemporaneous sources Christians know by faith that when these sources are discovered they will be consistent with later sources. Of course--and I know by faith that Zeus is really the one true God and eventually He will reveal himself to mankind.

The larger point is that the Bible is so chock full of ridiculous absurdities, myths, legends and contradictions that you really have to wonder how Christians can believe this stuff while at the same time trashing Mormonism. Use the same standard to judge your religion as you use to judge another religion. You're all cross-eyed.

@omyheck
Did you read the article? It says "But does the fact that the only verse explicitly to teach the Trinity was not in the NT 'threaten' the doctrine of the Trinity? Of course not. Theologians will turn to other passages that do not explicitly teach the doctrine in order to provide support for their views that there is a Trinity"

The point is that Christians dont just read a single verse and start pontificating about it. You have to read all the verses together in context before you draw a conclusion.

Yes,isthechurchtrue, I did read the article and I have read several of Ehrman's books which discuss in detail many of the contradictions and inconsistencies in the gospels and other New Testament (and Old Testament) books. The point I made is that Ms. Scott's claim that the Christians know with great confidence what was in the original manuscripts and there are no significant differences in later manuscripts, is simply not true and she would know that if she didn't just read and/or rely on apologetics. In his blog, Ehrman discusses some of the changes that impact doctrine and other important issues such as whether the Bible is the inerrant word of God as evangelical Christians and Mormons (to the extent it is translated correctly) claim. Did Jesus ascend to Heaven on Easter evening or 40 days later? Did the disciples go to Galilee to meet Jesus after his resurrection as instructed or did they stay in Jerusalem as instructed. Did Joseph and Mary live in Bethlehem or Nazareth at the time of Jesus's birth. Did Joseph and Mary take Jesus to Egypt to avoid the slaughter of the innocents or did they return to Nazareth after the birth of Jesus. The story of the woman who committed adultery and was told to go and sin no more is only found in the Gospel of John and was not added until many hundreds of years after the original gospel was written. And, on and on. If God wrote or inspired the very words of the Bible, He apparently was extremely confused. If you want to know if Mormonism is true it isn't a very good idea to just read faithful Mormon apologists and just rely on faith and a warm feeling in your bosom and likewise with Christianity. Christians just need to be consistent.

Ehrman is not joined in his views by most Biblical scholars.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bart_D._Ehrman#Reception

When pressed, Ehrman himself admits that vast majority of NT variants are minor and inconsequential. He has been unable to come up with a single one that would change a single Christian doctrine.

The NT is by far the best-attested work of its period.

OT is another story, of course.

Ehrman pretty much lost me when he said in effect in his book "Did Jesus Exist?" that the proof that Jesus really existed is that most biblical scholars agree that he did.

That's like saying that the Book of Mormon is true because most BYU professors agree that it is.

I don't think Templar is being fair to Ehrman when Templar says Ehrman said that the reason he thinks Jesus existed is that most biblical scholars believe he did. Although Ehrman did make the point that almost all biblical scholars teaching at academic institutions hold that belief, he specifically said that this did not make the belief true and went on to discuss in detail the historical evidence that convinces these scholars.

And, Eric3's reliance on Wikipaedia to claim that most biblical scholars don't agree with Ehrman, I think what he should say is that most Christian apologists and other believing Christian scholars don't agree with him. That is like saying that most BYU religion scholars don't agree with Fawn Brodie and Grant Palmer. Most Christian scholars believe "march of the Zombies" in Matthew where at the time of the crucifixion many dead Jewish saints climbed out of their graves, wandered around Jerusalem and were seen by many and that Jesus drove demons out of a man and into a herd of swine who then ran off a cliff to their deaths and only the demons knew who Jesus was. Really? This is scholarship? The fact is that although critical scholars disagree over all manner of things, they generally agree with the basis positions set forth by Ehrman.

I am no Ehrman apologist, but I'll take his opinions more readily than "scholars" who believe that Jesus made water out of wine and healed a blind person by spitting on the ground, rubbing the mixture on the eyes and saying a few magic words. The doctrine of the Trinity evolved over hundreds of years to try to explain how there could only be one God yet Jesus is also God, but my point is if you really want to study Christianity, you can't just proof text the Bible anymore than you can do so with the Book of Mormon to prove that Jesus came to America and 2500 Nephites stood in line for many hours to thrust their hands into Jesus's side and feel the nail prints in his hands and feet.

"Eric3's reliance on Wikipaedia to claim that most biblical scholars don't agree with Ehrman, I think what he should say is that most Christian apologists and other believing Christian scholars don't agree with him"

That mischaracterizes both me and Ehrman :)

Ehrman claims most NT scholars agree with him.

I made no assertion about what believing people believe.

I observed that most NT scholars do not agree with Ehrman.

A decent summary: "[Ehrman's] book is a good introduction to the science of textual criticism. But some of Bart’s conclusions seem to outrun the evidence — even the evidence that he himself cites. Consider that Bart is looking at the same evidence every other textual critic looks at. He’s “discovered” nothing new. Yet, hardly anyone goes to the extreme Bart goes to in his conclusions.

One of Ehrman’s teachers, whom I also knew at Princeton, was Bruce Metzger. Metzger came to much more conservative conclusions than Ehrman — yet looked at the exact same evidence. The vast majority of textual critics are closer to Metzger than Ehrman"

http://reknew.org/2008/01/how-do-you-respond-to-ehrmans-book-misquoting-jesus/

-- Gred Boyd, Ph.D. Princeton Theological Seminary

Eric3,

I think you have proven the original point of my post that evangelical Christians use a different standard with respect to their fundamentalist Christian beliefs than they did in deciding that Mormonism is not true. You've gone from citing Wikipedia to relying on Greg Boyd and the late Dr. Bruce Metzger to support you position on changes to the manuscripts. Greg Boyd is a fairly well known evangelical Christian apologist who defends the evangelical Christian positions against critical scholarship. He's the evangelical equivalent of BYU professor Daniel Petersen or his Mormon apologetic brethren. Dr. Metzger, although very prominent and accomplished as an expert on New Testament manuscripts, was himself a devout evangelical Christian with an apologetic bent. See, for example, The Case Against The Case For Christ, Chapter 3, by Robert M. Price.

When you decided Mormonism was false, were you just reading faithful Mormon apologetic tomes or were you relying on critical scholarship from authors such as Brodie, the Tanners,Palmer, Quinn and Whitehead?

My challenge to you is to immerse yourself in the real critical scholarship on the Bible and early Christianity with the same desire for truth that led you out of Mormonism and then decide what you believe. You will find that most critical New Testament scholars have views very similar to Ehrman's with respect to the manuscript changes.

By the way, I did not mischaracterize your comment that most Biblical scholars disagree with Ehrman concerning changes in the manuscripts. I was sarcastically observing that to be accurate what you should have said is that most evangelical Christian and other Christian scholars disagree with Ehrman, not that you actually said that. Of course, Christian apologists disagree with Ehrman,just as all faithful Mormon scholars disagree with critical scholarship showing the Book of Mormon is 19th Century fiction.

It's interesting that you mischaracterize not only what I wrote but also who I am: "when you decided Mormonism was false...that led you out of Mormonism" etc. I'm a nevermo.

Scholars like Boyd and Metzger and schools like Princeton Theological Seminary are hardly tools of evangelical doctrine. It is simply inaccurate to say only fundamentalist scholars disagree with Ehrman. Boyd summarizes it nicely: all textual critics are looking at the same evidence, but hardly anyone shares Ehrman's extreme views.

To avoid further mischaracterization: please note this doesn't mean Ehrman's wrong. Maybe he's the only one who got it right. Likewise accurate transmission of text doesn't mean the text is correct. Maybe it's nonsense and always was. These are separate questions. All this means is if you're interested in NT scholarship, it's helpful to note that Ehrman's views are far from what most scholars share; it might inform a decision not to depend on Ehrman alone.

Templar Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ehrman pretty much lost me when he said in effect
> in his book "Did Jesus Exist?" that the proof that
> Jesus really existed is that most biblical
> scholars agree that he did.
>
> That's like saying that the Book of Mormon is true
> because most BYU professors agree that it is.


My sentiments, as well.

The last time I approached a similar topic I was told to quit pushing Christianity and to get off the forum.

I am not an apologist, I only want to report what I was taught. I mean to speak to the process Christian theologians use, not to the validity of their conclusions.

And the woman who ordered me off the forum can shove it.

isthechurchtrue seems to understand the Christian apologists' process when he talks about reading "all the verses together in context" before drawing conclusions. I was taught, for example, that the first indicator of the Trinity is in Genesis 1:1. From the Christian theologian's point of view, there is much more "proof" of the Trinity in the OT than in the New.

I admit to having not read Ehrman's work. But if he says what omyheck says he does about proof of the Trinity (and I trust omyheck), I would say Ehrman needs to nut up and do more study.

Steve Spoonemore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I was taught, for example,
> that the first indicator of the Trinity is in
> Genesis 1:1. From the Christian theologian's
> point of view, there is much more "proof" of the
> Trinity in the OT than in the New.

A better example of "christian apologist lying" I can't imagine :)
The reason is, that claim (that the "trinity" is in Genesis) is not only *not* supported by a literal reading, not only *not* supported by the kind of "read across multiple verses" advocated above, it's shown false by both christian/secular scholarship as well as history and archeology.

Genesis, you see, is a combination of multiple legends and belief systems, one of which was derived from the Canaanites -- with their pantheon of many gods, the head of which was El (with his consorts and offspring, one of which was Ba'al Hadad, and one of which was Yahweh the Thunder God). Elohim is plural, and refers to El and his group of under-him-god-things. It's not a foreshadowing of the "trinity" (a concept NOBODY had until well into the 2nd century CE), it's the belief system of the Canaanites (from whom the Hebrews arose). Mix in some Babylonian and Sumerian myths, and you have a mish-mash of creation/origin myths with various god-things in various parts. It appears these were all different oral myths until around 800-600 BCE, when they were first written down. And when they were, the emerging Hebrews tried to make sense of them, and merge them with their emerging Yahweh as the most powerful god tradition (Yahweh as the only god idea didn't come until much later). So at least two editors/redactors went over the creation myths, and put together the hybrid Elohist/Yahwist mish-mash we have now as "Genesis."

That's supported by scholarship, textual analysis, archeology, documentary evidence, and much more. To insist that an idea which didn't occur to ANYONE for another 600-800 years ("trinity") is in that book is the boldest kind of poppycock. It just ain't so. No matter how much anyone wants it to be.

Now, what was that you were saying about more study...?

Hie, I know it is desperately important to you that the idea of the Trinity did not develop until 200 CE or later, but you are wrong.

Again, I'm not trying to push any Christian belief. But Trinitarian Christian scholars see the beginning of the doctrine of the Trinity in Genesis 1:1 because they know how rabbinical tradition treats the word Elohim. You are apparently limited by Mormon beliefs that do extreme violence the name Elohim.

The Hebrew word Elohim according to Hebrew scholars demands a concept of plurality of person but not multiple beings. There is a fast chasm between those concepts. The reason you don't understand that idea is, again, because your understanding is polluted by Mormon theology.

As my husband loves to say, "Google that shit.". Or, better yet, pursue the Hebrew word Elohim in a good Bible Concordance like Strong's or Young's or Nave's.

But that's it for me. As I said before, I will discuss the scholarly process but I won't argue theology. I am still smarting from the harridan who ordered me off the forum. She is on other threads today so I know she is sharpening her claws and watching for my ass.

@ificouldhietokolob
The idea of a "Godhead" has existed in Christianity since its beginning. This is distinct from believing that only 1 person is God or that there are multiple Gods. John 1:1-2 explains it well.

It says "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God."

The New Testament teaches the Trinity but it is subtle so most people miss it.

Colossians 2:9 "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

isthechurchtrue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @ificouldhietokolob
> The idea of a "Godhead" has existed in
> Christianity since its beginning.

When was its beginning? And what evidence do you have for that? The earliest christian writings ("Paul," somewhere around 50-70CE) make no mention of the concept.

> This is distinct
> from believing that only 1 person is God or that
> there are multiple Gods. John 1:1-2 explains it
> well.

"John" (the gospel according to whomever wrote it, as it wasn't "John") is dated to the early 2nd century by most scholars. Not the beginning of christianity.

@ificouldhietokolob
You said "The earliest christian writings ('Paul,' somewhere around 50-70CE) make no mention of the concept."

Paul wrote about Jesus in Colossians 2:9 saying Jesus is a physical representation of the Godhead. This shows a clear distinction between the Father and the Son Jesus but doesnt call them different Gods. Thus the trinity.

Colossians 2:9 "For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily."

isthechurchtrue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @ificouldhietokolob
> You said "The earliest christian writings ('Paul,'
> somewhere around 50-70CE) make no mention of the
> concept."
>
> Paul wrote about Jesus in Colossians 2:9 saying
> Jesus is a physical representation of the Godhead.
> This shows a clear distinction between the Father
> and the Son Jesus but doesnt call them different
> Gods. Thus the trinity.
>
> Colossians 2:9 "For in him dwelleth all the
> fulness of the Godhead bodily."

Interesting that you chose the KJV translation of Colossians, as it's the one of the few English versions that uses "godhead." Most of the others (and those in other languages) use a singular there instead of a plural, such as:

"For it is in Christ that the fulness of God's nature dwells embodied, and in Him you are made complete." (Weymouth)

"For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form." (NIV)

The earliest Greek text seems more in line with the singular, as well.

So the idea of the "fullness of god" being in Christ is very different from the idea of "the godhead" being in Christ. And not only does the KJV "godhead" translation not jibe with the earliest Greek texts, it's not even agreed upon by all christian translators. Hardly the slam dunk implied, eh?

That's the thing with *all* supposed "trinity" mentions in the bible...they're all quite a stretch. You'd think the all-powerful god of the universe could have clearly expressed an idea if it was that important, yes? :)

@ificouldhietokolob
Nope. You are the one who literally just cherry picked the translation based on what you wanted the verse to say. I always use the KJV because it is a classic. If you want to look at Colossians 2:9 in various English translations then be my guest. Here they are:
KJ21 For in Him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
ASV for in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,
AMP For in Him all the fullness of Deity (the Godhead) dwells in bodily form [completely expressing the divine essence of God].
AMPC For in Him the whole fullness of Deity (the Godhead) continues to dwell in bodily form [giving complete expression of the divine nature].
BRG For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
CEB All the fullness of deity lives in Christ’s body.
CJB For in him, bodily, lives the fullness of all that God is.
CEV God lives fully in Christ.
DARBY For in him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily;
DLNT because in Him dwells all the fullness of the Deity bodily.
DRA For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead corporeally;
ERV I say this because all of God lives in Christ fully, even in his life on earth.
ESV For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,
ESVUK For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,
EXB ·All of God lives fully in Christ [L For in him all the fullness of deity dwells] ·in a human body [bodily; embodied],
GNV For in him dwelleth all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
GW All of God lives in Christ’s body,
GNT For the full content of divine nature lives in Christ, in his humanity,
HCSB For the entire fullness of God’s nature dwells bodily in Christ,
ICB All of God lives fully in Christ (even when Christ was on earth).
ISV because all the essence of deity inhabits him in bodily form.
PHILLIPS Yet it is in him that God gives a full and complete expression of himself (within the physical limits that he set himself in Christ). Moreover, your own completeness is only realised in him, who is the authority over all authorities, and the supreme power over all powers.
JUB For in him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily,
KJV For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
AKJV For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.
LEB because in him all the fullness of deity dwells bodily,
TLB For in Christ there is all of God in a human body;
MSG Watch out for people who try to dazzle you with big words and intellectual double-talk. They want to drag you off into endless arguments that never amount to anything. They spread their ideas through the empty traditions of human beings and the empty superstitions of spirit beings. But that’s not the way of Christ. Everything of God gets expressed in him, so you can see and hear him clearly. You don’t need a telescope, a microscope, or a horoscope to realize the fullness of Christ, and the emptiness of the universe without him. When you come to him, that fullness comes together for you, too. His power extends over everything.
MEV For in Him lives all the fullness of the Godhead bodily.
MOUNCE For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells in bodily form,
NOG All of God lives in Christ’s body,
NABRE For in him dwells the whole fullness of the deity bodily,
NASB For in Him all the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form,
NCV All of God lives fully in Christ (even when Christ was on earth),
NET For in him all the fullness of deity lives in bodily form,
NIRV God’s whole nature is living in Christ in human form.
NIV For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,
NIVUK For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form,
NKJV For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily;
NLV For Christ is not only God-like, He is God in human flesh.
NLT For in Christ lives all the fullness of God in a human body.
NRSV For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,
NRSVA For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,
NRSVACE For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,
NRSVCE For in him the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,
OJB Because in Moshiach kol melo Elohim (all the plentitude of G-d) finds its bodily maon laShechinah (dwelling place for the Shechinah).
RSV For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily,
RSVCE For in him the whole fulness of deity dwells bodily,
TLV For all the fullness of Deity lives bodily in Him,
VOICE You see, all that is God, all His fullness, resides in His body.
WEB For in him all the fullness of the Godhead dwells bodily,
WE Christ has everything that God has.
WYC For in him dwelleth body-like all the fullness of the Godhead.
YLT because in him doth tabernacle all the fulness of the Godhead bodily,


Your nonsense about me picking the KJV because it says "Godhead" falls flat on its face. Nearly all of them says "Godhead".

This is why textual variants ultimately dont matter. When people give lectures they tend to repeat themselves many times. This is helpful because it makes it nearly impossible for people who are paying attention to miss the points.

Colossians 1:19 "For it pleased the Father that in him should all fulness dwell;"

Ephesians 2:18 "For through him we both have access by one Spirit unto the Father."

The Father is not the Son or the Spirit. We get access to the Father through the Spirit and the Son. Each has their role illustrating how they are different persons working together as the same God.

isthechurchtrue Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @ificouldhietokolob
> Nope. You are the one who literally just cherry
> picked the translation based on what you wanted
> the verse to say. I always use the KJV because it
> is a classic.

I didn't cherry pick anything, I pointed out variants.

> Your nonsense about me picking the KJV because it
> says "Godhead" falls flat on its face. Nearly all
> of them says "Godhead".

I also didn't say you picked the KJV *because* it says godhead. Go read it again. It just said it was interesting that the one you picked said "godhead" when others didn't.

For me (and many others), the most concise, direct, accurate translation of THAT particular verse is (expressed in modern English) something along the lines of "the power of god was with Jesus." Maybe I'm wrong, and the others with me. It's hard to dig out the meaning of one line somebody wrote nearly 2,000 years ago. But it's just as possible the trinity-supporters are wrong, and this doesn't seem a very strong candidate for "the bible mentions the trinity!" even if they're not. It's ambiguous at best.

What about all the verses that are contra-trinity?
Jesus saying he'll be sitting at the right hand of the father (how can the same being sit at its own right hand)?
Jesus praying to the father that the father's will be done, and not his (the same being has two different wills at the same time)?
And dozens more...

There's *nothing* in the bible that even comes close to explicitly saying "god and jesus and HG are all one being, a trinity." The simple fact is, the bible contradicts itself all over the place. The idea of the "trinity" was a creative solution to try and resolve some of those contradictions, AND to support worship of Jesus (because if it wasn't "god," it would be wrong to worship him, you're only supposed to worship "god"). It's a creative attempt at a solution, but not a very good one. That's borne out by the billions of lines of text written over the past 1500 years by christian apologists trying to explain the idea, justify the idea, and sell the idea...

Peace.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2016 08:40PM by ificouldhietokolob.

Steve Spoonemore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hie, I know it is desperately important to you
> that the idea of the Trinity did not develop until
> 200 CE or later, but you are wrong.

Steve, if you ever learn anything about me, learn this: all that's important is fact. Not what I want. Got it?

> Again, I'm not trying to push any Christian
> belief. But Trinitarian Christian scholars see
> the beginning of the doctrine of the Trinity in
> Genesis 1:1 because they know how rabbinical
> tradition treats the word Elohim. You are
> apparently limited by Mormon beliefs that do
> extreme violence the name Elohim.

Gee, those "trinitarian christian scholars," already believing in an defending their 2nd century idea of "trinity," wouldn't be biased, would they?

I have no mormon beliefs. I go by what linguistic scholars and archaeology show, not what "trinitarians" or rabbis say to try and defend their faith. Know why? Because the linguists and archaeologists have no agenda, and have evidence to back up their claims. Not so with the other two.

> The Hebrew word Elohim according to Hebrew
> scholars demands a concept of plurality of person
> but not multiple beings. There is a fast chasm
> between those concepts. The reason you don't
> understand that idea is, again, because your
> understanding is polluted by Mormon theology.

I understand the idea -- it's just a wrong idea, proven wrong by linguistics and archaeology. Where's your evidence for these "scholars" insisting it "demands a concept of plurality of person?" Please, by all means, present it.

> As my husband loves to say, "Google that shit.".
> Or, better yet, pursue the Hebrew word Elohim in a
> good Bible Concordance like Strong's or Young's or
> Nave's.


You see, I have googled it. And then some. Contrary to what you seem to think, google is not the arbiter of truth, and the internet does not contain all information. Try peer-reviewed science journals instead. Much more reliable. And avoid "bible concordances," which are blatantly apologetic works written to support christian ideas about the bible, not peer-reviewed scholarly works.
But what the heck, here's an internet reference:

"Elohim (Hebrew: אֱלֹהִים) is a grammatically plural noun for "gods" or "Deity" in Biblical Hebrew. In the modern it is often times referred to in the singular despite the -im ending that denotes plural masculine nouns in Hebrew.[1][2]

It is generally thought that Elohim is a formation from eloah, the latter being an expanded form of the Northwest Semitic noun il (אֵל, ʾēl[3]). The related nouns eloah (אלוה) and el (אֵל) are used as proper names or as generics, in which case they are interchangeable with elohim.[3]

The notion of divinity underwent radical changes throughout the period of early Israelite identity. The ambiguity of the term elohim is the result of such changes, cast in terms of "vertical translatability", i.e. the re-interpretation of the gods of the earliest recalled period as the national god of monolatrism as it emerged in the 7th to 6th century BCE in the Kingdom of Judah and during the Babylonian captivity, and further in terms of monotheism by the emergence of Rabbinical Judaism in the 2nd century CE.[4]

The word is identical to the usual plural of el meaning gods or magistrates, and is cognate to the 'l-h-m found in Ugaritic, where it is used for the pantheon of Canaanite gods, the children of El and conventionally vocalized as "Elohim". Most use of the term Elohim in the later Hebrew text imply a view that is at least monolatrist at the time of writing, and such usage (in the singular), as a proper title for the supreme deity, is generally not considered to be synonymous with the term elohim, "gods" (plural, simple noun). Hebrew grammar allows for this nominally-plural form to mean "He is the Power (singular) over powers (plural)", or roughly, "God of gods". Rabbinic scholar Maimonides wrote that the various other usages are commonly understood to be homonyms."

Check out the references that accompany that passage (which contradicts your "trinitarians" and your claim of Rabbinic support). The Hebrews considered Elohim *singular* as they changed their god concepts from the Canaanite pantheon with El at its head, to Yahweh being the bestest of the many gods, to Yahweh being the only god for THEM, to Yahweh being the only god. They changed the meaning of the word, which they got from other cultures and languages. They never, ever considered it to mean any kind of "trinity." It was originally El and his retinue, then changed to be Yahweh. Never "trinity."


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elohim

> But that's it for me. As I said before, I will
> discuss the scholarly process but I won't argue
> theology. I am still smarting from the harridan
> who ordered me off the forum. She is on other
> threads today so I know she is sharpening her
> claws and watching for my ass.

Now let's be fair -- you were "booted" previously for clearly violating site rules by "preaching." At least own up to it.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 07/13/2016 09:46AM by ificouldhietokolob.

Steve Spoonemore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The Hebrew word Elohim according to Hebrew
> scholars demands a concept of plurality of person
> but not multiple beings.

plurality of person = multiple beings
plurality = multiple
person = being

That seems to me to be a nonsense statement. What I am missing Steve?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2016 05:51PM by pathdocmd.

I hope I'm following the thread of this argument correctly, but I agree with the original premise that the Christian doctrine is no more sustainable or provable that Mormon ism. One also needs to read Elaine Pagels books on Satan and the Gnostic Gospels. There was a lot of thinking which was way outside of the current accepted Christian doctrine, which was systematically eradicated by the early Church commencing in the first century of the Common Era. Those who supported the Gnostic way of thinking were branded as heretics and eventually weeded out of the early church. What Pagels and Ehrman point out is that there were no surviving original sources for the four gospels which were produced many years after Christ. For a little fun, you can do a computer search of Paul's and other gospel letters, using the phrases Jesus taught, Jesus said or other variants, and you come up with zilch. This is because, as Pagels points out, Paul did not have any scriptural books to refer to which had catalogued Jesus's teachings. Those came much much later. Consequently, Christianity is an invention of Paul, not of Jesus. As for the Old Testament, it was assembled by the priests after their return from the first Babylonian captivity in order to establish Jewish prominence in government. There is nothing to substantiate that the OT
is anything other than a myth, and there is little to no evidence to substantiate archaeological, or otherwise, Jewish history from the Exodus and further back in history. Additionally, outside of these problems, Christian apologist have to reconcile scientific findings where DNA has made us the relatives of the Neanderthals and others going back into history. As we uncover more of this type of evidence, the idea that there was ever an Adam & Eve, or even the necessity of a savior necessary to overcome Original Sin, becomes even more attenuated. The mental gymnastics necessary to get around that particular problem really does undermine any credibility that the Bible has as a truthful document.

This is rather pedantic, but Paul does say "Jesus said" a least one time that I can find. I Corinthians 11.

Steve Spoonemore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This is rather pedantic, but Paul does say "Jesus
> said" a least one time that I can find. I
> Corinthians 11.

I'll be even more pedantic:

Does "Paul" say that, or was that a later insertion?
And if "Paul" did say that, how would he know? By his own admission, he never met an earthly Jesus. So he has no knowledge of anything Jesus ever said or didn't say.

Got it, hie. You always were right, will always be right.

The fact that you are throwing apples at my oranges doesn't matter. You are right. Always will be.

Rave on, brother.

Oh, and when you and that woman say I was preaching in the posts from several weeks ago, well, you and she are wrong about that. I KEPT saying things like "From what I understand..." and "my understanding is..." and "What I was taught is..." "Conservative Christian scholars say...". I wasn't preaching, I was discussing others' processes. I admit that I made a serious mistake yesterday:. I failed to explain more than once that I was trying to explain the process of Trinitarians, not support their conclusions. OF COURSE "Trinitarian Christian scholars" are prejudiced. That is why I called them "Trinitarian Christian scholars" rather than saying "the fact of the Trinity is...".

But again, you are right. You know my motives better than I do.
How you non-supernatural athiests can read minds is beyond me.

Steve Spoonemore Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Got it, hie. You always were right, will always
> be right.
>
> The fact that you are throwing apples at my
> oranges doesn't matter. You are right. Always
> will be.

I asked two questions, neither of which you answered.
Resorting to insults instead of answering sincerely asked questions isn't a very reasonable way to have a discussion. Especially since not once did I say "I'm right," I simply asked you to answer a couple of questions.

you're right

if you believe mormonism you'll believe anything.

Eric3,

Is "mischaracterization" your favorite multi-syllable word? I haven't mischaracterized anything, including your religious views. I simply made the apparently unwarranted assumption that you are an Ex-Mormon based on your presence on an Ex-Mormon site and your posting on a thread on the subject of Ex-Mormons who find Christianity using a far different standard in evaluating their new religion. I can't tell you how very sorry I am for this inexcusable mistake. Perhaps it could have been avoided had you stated you are not an Ex and what religion, if any, to which you belong.

But, to stick to the issue, you have not disputed my basic argument that Christians should employ the same standard of study and rational, good faith analysis to Christianity that they use to decide Mormonism is false. Do you disagree with this position? Assuming you are a Christian, have you engaged in such a study or have you just relied on the Christian equivalent of BYU scholars and LDS General Authorities?

If you don't believe Greg Boyd is an evangelical Christian apologist, you should listen to some of his You Tube debates. You could also read The Case Against The Case For Christ, chapter 6, which discusses Boyd and some of his apologetics. The late Dr. Metzger was also a very devout Christian and his views were sometimes colored by his faith. And, believe it or not, many evangelical Christian students have attended Princeton Theological, including Ehrman. Thankfully, many of these students have had the intellectual honesty to forsake their evangelical views once exposed to real, critical scholarship. Contrary to what you assert, I have not stated that only fundamentalists scholars disagree with Ehrman. I have simply disputed your contention that Ehrman's views are extreme and stated that his views are in general shared by many critical Biblical scholars.

Finally, your gratuitous insult that I need to rely on scholars other than Ehrman is based upon an unwarranted assumption. I have in fact read widely in critical scholarship concerning the Bible and early Christianity as well as reading and listening to evangelical Christian books, articles and debates involving such people as William Lang Craig, Greg Boyd and Michael Lacona. Incidentally, Lacona lost his job as apologetics coordinator for a Christian fundamentalist organization because he publicly questioned whether the March of the Zombies at the time of the resurrection recounted only in Matthew is real history or just allegory. Such is the fundamentalist commitment to truth and open discussion. Thank you, Jesus.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/14/2016 06:07PM by omyheck.

pathdocmd:.

You bring up some interesting ideas for discussion with your questions above. The Trinitarian concepts and understanding of the ideas of personhood, personality, and modes of expression are both difficult and interesting to me. It is especially interesting to compare/contrast classic Christian and LDS doctrines. I would be happy to discuss these things with you.

But I am exhausted in trying to have discussions of issues on this forum only to be shotgunned by people who cannot discuss because they cannot imagine that they might be able to learn something. They find it impossible to even consider an opinion that conflicts with their own. They must always be right, so I've determined to let them be right. What is that old expression? Something about a person being lost in in his own conceits or something?

Steve