How To Get To Heaven When You Die

[BlackJack619]

After his first copy and pasta response a few thousand post ago, I noticed non of his arguments are actually his.

Good for you grouchy for calling out his plagiarism.

He’s even admitted he’s the text book atheist.

I wonder if he knows Christian were the first ones to be called atheist?

[GrouchyUSMC]

After his first copy and pasta response a few thousand post ago, I noticed non of his arguments are actually his.

Good for you grouchy for calling out his plagiarism.

He’s even admitted he’s the text book atheist.

I wonder if he knows Christian were the first ones to be called atheist?

If someone had enough time and went back, likely everything he typed quoting someone or a book was a copy and paste from another website. Ironically I found out by checking his sources.

[ScottLefler]

If someone had enough time and went back, likely everything he typed quoting someone or a book was a copy and paste from another website. Ironically I found out by checking his sources.

It looks like Grouchy has figured out the source of thedickus lies. He likes to copy and paste, no wonder he contradicts himself so much. How did you figure out his sources? Or maybe you don't want to say publicly, perhaps you could PM me. Anyway, great job dealing with this bully. BlackJack and I have been dealing with him for quite a while now.

[GrouchyUSMC]

It looks like Grouchy has figured out the source of thedickus lies. He likes to copy and paste, no wonder he contradicts himself so much. How did you figure out his sources? Or maybe you don't want to say publicly, perhaps you could PM me. Anyway, great job dealing with this bully. BlackJack and I have been dealing with him for quite a while now.

Honestly I was just looking up his source and it was the first post. I almost skipped over it but then I saw the same words verbatim and recognized what he was doing.

[GrouchyUSMC]

From Nicholas F. Gier of the University of Idaho: "Contrary to popular understanding, the First Commandment, "You shall have no other gods before me," does not deny the existence of other deities. In his commentary on Deuteronomy Anthony Phillips maintains that "there is here no thought of monotheism. The commandment does not seek to repudiate the existence of other gods, but to prevent Israel from having anything to do with them."9 The ontological status of other gods besides Yahweh can be explicitly seen in Deut. 32:8, where we find Yahweh setting the boundaries of nations according to the "number of the sons of God." The RSV follows the Septuagint text, which has been reinforced by the copy of Deuteronomy found among the Dead Sea Scrolls in Cave 4 at Qumran."

Out of curiosity I checked this one too as it didn’t match his usual writing style.

Yep, another just straight copy and paste. Not even using his own words. 7th paragraph down.

https://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/henotheism.htm

[BlackJack619]

In his defense he did admit to being the text book definition of an atheist.

Guess he really meant it, word for word.

[thedickus]

You didn’t say divine beings. You said gods.

If you had said “divine beings”, we wouldn’t have been having the same discussion. You have literally being arguing gods for the past four pages until you picked up “divine council” from a blog post. Now you’re trying to back track.

I love that you’re trying to change what you said now though. It only shows you know I’m right even though you won’t admit it.

The divine council was a council of other deities. This is well known and mentioned throughout the Hebrew bible. I have consistently used gods/divine as being synonymous. You're the one who keeps trying to change the meaning of being divine. Regardless, the definition of divine is not relative to the original argument. That when god used "we" and "us" in the Genesis creation story to was talking to other gods and he was not alone.

You still haven't shown any proof that scholars agree that early Israelites were henotheistic and when the creation story and original sin story were told in Genesis god is speaking to other gods (divine beings if you will). You stated that there was no one else with god because the bible doesn't mention him creating any other beings that were gods/divine. I have showed you citations where scholars disagree with you. Scholars believe that these other beings that are gods/divine were in existence along with your god when the Hebrews created their bible. Are you now denying that? If so then you agree with me. You can't deny that, all you can do is try to change the argument, that's your only defense. You can't even create a strawman argument, you just have to outright try to change it. I see through your deceitful tactics and have repeatedly called you out on them. So far your only rebuttal to what I cited was that it came from a mormon website. Dr Levenson is an actual scholar of the Hebrew bible. Where the citation came from is irrelevant, much like all of your arguments have been.

Quit avoiding the question. So because only a fine is imposed for the death of a common person or a slave, you don’t believe they are human?

This is not a question relative to the original statement that your god doesn't value a fetus the same as a human life. The passage I quoted shows your god doesn't place the same value on a fetus as an actual human life. It is again you trying to change the actual argument because you can't refute the actual issue. That it is only a fine if a fetus where to die if a pregnant woman were assaulted but death/life for life if the pregnant woman dies.

You do know I shared the image of what you actually said so people can see you’re lying again, right? You didn’t say that at all in the beginning. What’s funny is you won’t admit it, but you know I’m right again.

Again? You haven't been right once so far. You still haven't been able to refute the actual statement I made that scholars believe that the historical Jesus never said he was god/divine. You can't so you keep trying to move the conversation to what the gospels say. It's not the same question or argument. Trying to make my answer to what did the historical Jesus say or think about himself being god/divine the answer to what did the writers of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John think about Jesus being god/divine is deceitful of you. Once again I see through you.

[GrouchyUSMC]

The divine council was a council of other deities. This is well known and mentioned throughout the Hebrew bible. I have consistently used gods/divine as being synonymous. You're the one who keeps trying to change the meaning of being divine. Regardless, the definition of divine is not relative to the original argument. That when god used "we" and "us" in the Genesis creation story to was talking to other gods and he was not alone.

The divine council in the Bible refers to the heavenly host, the armies of the Lord, angels, etc. None of them are other gods. You have not consistently used gods/divine as synonymous at all which is where the whole discussion came from. You kept insisting it was other gods present. You didn't even use the term "divine council" until you copied and pasted it from the blog you stole from. I searched this whole threat and the first time you used it was on the 20th when you plagiarized from the Mormon blog.



Another lie. Your dishonesty is showing more and more. You steal intellectual information and try to pass it off as your own, giving no credit to the site where you stole it from. This is why your arguments are inconsistent. You have been caught lying about reading books (the Qu'ran and the link where you plagiarized from). And now you're trying to gaslight other people by saying you really meant something else when you never mentioned it before and was never even typed.

You still haven't shown any proof that scholars agree that early Israelites were henotheistic and when the creation story and original sin story were told in Genesis god is speaking to other gods (divine beings if you will). You stated that there was no one else with god because the bible doesn't mention him creating any other beings that were gods/divine. I have showed you citations where scholars disagree with you. Scholars believe that these other beings that are gods/divine were in existence along with your god when the Hebrews created their bible. Are you now denying that?

No other gods were present was and is my argument. The divine council is not other gods - none of the information you copied and pasted and claimed as your own stated that when you got to the actual source. The only people who supported it was the Mormons who wrote the blog.

You can't even create a strawman argument, you just have to outright try to change it.

Ironic that you are doing the exact same thing in this post, but trying to accuse others of doing it.

Dr Levenson is an actual scholar of the Hebrew bible. Where the citation came from is irrelevant, much like all of your arguments have been.

But Levenson doesn't say there are other gods in addition to God, he talks of the divine council/heavenly host which are generally considered angels (hence why in Genesis 32 when Jacob goes to "God's camp" there are angels there).

Your argument from the beginning was other gods were present. Angels aren't considered gods. The information you tried passing on as your own has no relevance to that argument.

This is not a question relative to the original statement that your god doesn't value a fetus the same as a human life. The passage I quoted shows your god doesn't place the same value on a fetus as an actual human life. It is again you trying to change the actual argument because you can't refute the actual issue. That it is only a fine if a fetus where to die if a pregnant woman were assaulted but death/life for life if the pregnant woman dies.

Nope, you still refuse to admit it. The word "miscarriage" isn't used there. It indicates premature birth. Premature birth is a fine. Miscarriage is death. The NKJV (1982) spells it out plainly: If men [a]fight, and hurt a woman with child, so that [b]she gives birth prematurely, yet no harm follows, he shall surely be punished accordingly as the woman’s husband imposes on him; and he shall pay as the judges determine. 23 But if any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, 24 eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25 burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

You stubbornly refuse to admit that, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, and claimed because it was a fine the fetus clearly wasn't important. So I tried a different tactic. I showed how the old laws only penalized a death for a noble, not a common or slave, which is why I was specifically asking you if they weren't human beings because only a fine was involved. You won't answer that and just keep insisting you are right. You must still be searching for someone else's thoughts to call your own to justify your opinion.

Again? You haven't been right once so far. You still haven't been able to refute the actual statement I made that scholars believe that the historical Jesus never said he was god/divine. You can't so you keep trying to move the conversation to what the gospels say. It's not the same question or argument. Trying to make my answer to what did the historical Jesus say or think about himself being god/divine the answer to what did the writers of Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John think about Jesus being god/divine is deceitful of you. Once again I see through you.

You said "only John portrays Jesus as being divine." I showed you all four Gospels do which was confirmed by your own source. Ehrman states he believes now all four Gospels do show they thought Jesus was divine. Whether He is or not to you isn't the issue. The issue was you were wrong, got proven wrong, and still refuse to admit it. When literally you could have just said "oh hey, being that that's new information, I didn't know that because these books I allegedly read were all old." Literally the strongest defense possible - what could I have said to that? But the fact that you won't even admit that is hilarious.

[GrouchyUSMC]

I have consistently used gods/divine as being synonymous.

Total lie.

From the 14th until you stole that blog post, you only said "gods". Then, as of yesterday, you started saying "gods/divine beings." And so you can see for yourself, here's the evidence in order.











All say "gods".



And this is when you try to change it to "gods/divine beings."

You are caught lying. Again.

[thedickus]

The divine council in the Bible refers to the heavenly host, the armies of the Lord, angels, etc. None of them are other gods. You have not consistently used gods/divine as synonymous at all which is where the whole discussion came from. You kept insisting it was other gods present. You didn't even use the term "divine council" until you copied and pasted it from the blog you stole from.

You're comical. You ask which scholars are saying this. I cite one to you and all you can do is bltch about where it came from. You can't refute the actual facts. Anyone who has studied the bible knows about the divine council, it's used all throughout the Hebrew bible and is a group of several deities. It's common knowledge. It doesn't refer to angels. Even in Psalms 82 it says that "God presides in the great assembly; he renders judgment among the gods."
I have repeatedly said that I use god and divine being as being the same. I don't believe in your god or any god. They're all gods/divine beings to me whether I take the time to actually type our god or god/divine being or not. Regardless of whether I say god or god/divine being doesn't change the facts. That's what you so desperately want to try to hide. The fact that I am right. I usually say logos/spirit if I don't take the time I'm not referring to anything different. Trying to focus so granularly on the specifics of an argument is a sure sign you're getting your @$$ handed to you.

This is where your deceitfulness really shines. I repeatedly have come at the bible from a scholarly historical perspective. I have said what historians believed about the historical Jesus. My argument about the use of "we" "us" in the Genesis creation story was that scholars agree that ancient Israelites (the people who made up your god and wrote stories about him) were henotheistic, they believed in several gods, but only worshipped one. I cite a scholar, Jon D Levenson, who stated that: “It is true—and quite significant–that the God of Israel has no myth of origin. Not a trace of theogony can be found in the Hebrew bible. God has no nativity. But there do seem to be other divine beings in Genesis 1, to whom God proposes the creation of humanity, male and female together: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (v. 26). When were these other divine beings created? They too seem to have been primordial." This is an actual scholar who disagrees with you. That other divine beings were also made to be present in Genesis at the time of the creation by the Israelite authors. Again you don't and can't refute that, instead you try to attack where the citation came from, which happened to be a mormon website. As if a Hebrew scholar actually wrote a book about ancient Hebrew beliefs specifically to further a mormon agenda. Typical, you can't refute the actual facts but instead you try and fail to attack the source, where the source comes from is irrelevant as it pertains to the factualness of the source. Or you try to redefine the use of divine versus god. The divine council were made up of numerous devine beings. These were all other gods/deities/divine beings (insert your word of choice for a god). You said this in post #3121 "The bold part by Ehrman said God referring to Himself in the plural due to elevating his majesty. Nothing more than that. No mention of other gods present." Ehrman wasn't talking in this post on his Ehrman Blog of the divine council. He was talking about the erroneous belief of christians in the trinity, that god (Yahweh), the son (Jesus), and the word (logos or spirit) all existed prior to creation. So by you referencing Ehrman on this then you must not believe that Jesus was a prior, separate, divine being who existed along with god (Yahweh) and existed along with the word/logos/spirit. Because that's what Ehrman is saying. I agree with Ehrman on this.
You really look more and more foolish. You can't beat the actual argument, that there were other gods/divine beings present at the creation. You stated in post #3112 "...Genesis where it says there was nothing that was not created by Him. There is no mention of Him creating other gods. " Apparently you're trying to put here your definition of what a god is, which is incorrect. There were numerous gods of varying powers, some lesser divinities than the others, but still gods. You have said that there was no mention of your god creating any other gods, therefor you must agree with Levenson that the others in "we" and "us" that your god was speaking to were also primordial. Why would I need to mention the divine council? Anyone who has actually read the bible as you claim you have should know this. Again, I don't think you've actually read and studied the bible. I think you just read an apologists cliff's notes version. Your arguments have been laughable and designed to not actually prove anything, only to try to attack and discredit. You can't make an actual argument against the use of "we" and "us" in the Hebrew bible meaning anything other than other gods being present. You've made an easily disproved reference to the royal we or the divine plurality but his didn't come into existence until much later.

Instead of actually defending your position that god was alone when he created the world as described in Genesis I'm sure you'll try to deflect away to something else.

So far your debate style can best be summed up like this

[GrouchyUSMC]

You're comical. You ask which scholars are saying this. I cite one to you and all you can do is bltch about where it came from.

None of your sources support other gods hanging out with God during the creation of the world.

Anyone who has studied the bible knows about the divine council, it's used all throughout the Hebrew bible and is a group of several deities. It's common knowledge. It doesn't refer to angels. Even in Psalms 82 it says that "God presides in the great assembly; he renders judgment among the gods."

You never mentioned the divine council until the 20th of this month when you plagiarized a blog and passed it off as your own. The divine council was not even discussed until then. So by your admission, you don't study the Bible since that is common knowledge.

I have repeatedly said that I use god and divine being as being the same.

Refer to my previous post where you constantly argued it was "gods" until you changed it to "gods/divine beings" AFTER stealing someone else's thoughts and passing it off as your own.

This is where your deceitfulness really shines. I repeatedly have come at the bible from a scholarly historical perspective.

Scholars do their own research, they don't steal the intellectual property of others and pass it off as their own. Especially if they're going to be too lazy to actually make sure it defends their opinion. You could have at least typed it up using your own words. You simply copied and pasted what you thought was correct. And you have done it more than once. And I guarantee the more people look back, the more they will see that none of these opinions are your own but rather just stolen from other people because you believed they supported your opinion. You're not a scholar - you're a liar and a plagiarist.

I cite a scholar, Jon D Levenson, who stated that: “It is true—and quite significant–that the God of Israel has no myth of origin. Not a trace of theogony can be found in the Hebrew bible. God has no nativity. But there do seem to be other divine beings in Genesis 1, to whom God proposes the creation of humanity, male and female together: “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness” (v. 26). When were these other divine beings created? They too seem to have been primordial." This is an actual scholar who disagrees with you. That other divine beings were also made to be present in Genesis at the time of the creation by the Israelite authors.

Why are you cutting the quote short? Share the whole thing.

hether their existence should be interpreted as a qualification upon God’s mastery in Genesis is impossible to determine. Because they do not dissent from his proposal to create humanity in his and their image, we cannot say whether God’s authority, like Marduk’s, involved some element of collegiality. From other biblical accounts of the divine assembly in session, it would appear that these “sons of God/gods” played an active roles and made fresh proposals to God, who nonetheless retained the final say.”[1]

So he's confirming the divine council theory, not that other gods were present with God during the creation. The latter was your argument right from the get go until you tried changing your opinion and hoped nobody would notice. You never read his book so you wouldn't know that. You just thought it supported your opinion of other gods being there and tried using it.

You stated in post #3112 "...Genesis where it says there was nothing that was not created by Him. There is no mention of Him creating other gods. " Apparently you're trying to put here your definition of what a god is, which is incorrect. There were numerous gods of varying powers, some lesser divinities than the others, but still gods.

Why don't we use your own source? Thanks to the digital age, you can borrow books using your library card. So I borrowed Levenson's book, the exact same one. As luck would have it, he addresses Psalm 82 in conjunction with this.

And guess what happens when you read your quote in context? I'll save you the argument. Read for yourself.



He does not support other gods being present during creation. If you had said "divine beings", we wouldn't even still be discussing this. But you didn't. You said gods.

Though I am barely a beginner at Hebrew, from what I have learned the plural form is used when you want to signify something greater or to strengthen an idea. Which I believe is the case here, as do many other scholars.

Here's one that makes it pretty simple and straightforward. Same author for the Biblical Hebrew reference book at my church's study area.

Notice how I included the link so I'm not trying to pass it off as my own intellectual property.

https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/as...and%20seraphim).

Elohim is actually a plural noun (indicated by the /im/ as in cherubim and seraphim). Sometimes the referent is plural. At other times the referent is singular. Like most words in English, Elohim can mean several things. Sometimes Elohim refers to plural "gods," as in "You shall have no other gods before me" (Deuteronomy 5:7). At other times it refers to the singular "God," as in "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). It is clear in this latter example that even though the form of the word Elohim is plural, the referent is singular, because the verb with which Elohim is used ("created") is singular in Hebrew.

So, why the plural form if the referent is singular? The best answer is that this is an "honorific plural," that is to say, a plural used to show honor to a singular referent. Such an honorific plural is used for humans in texts like 1Kings 1:43, where we read, "our lord King David." The Hebrew word translated "lord" in this case is plural, even though it refers to the singular David. This honorific plural is also used of God elsewhere in texts like Psalm 8:1, where we read, "O LORD, our Lord…." In this text "LORD" (small caps) translates YHWH, while "Lord" translates a common noun for "master," which is in this text plural in form though referring to the singular YHWH. So Psalm 8:1 could be translated "O YHWH, our Master…."

So, YWHW is the true God's personal name, and Elohim by itself is simply the Hebrew common noun used to refer to the true God in an honorific way.

[ScottLefler]

None of your sources support other gods hanging out with God during the creation of the world.



You never mentioned the divine council until the 20th of this month when you plagiarized a blog and passed it off as your own. The divine council was not even discussed until then. So by your admission, you don't study the Bible since that is common knowledge.



Refer to my previous post where you constantly argued it was "gods" until you changed it to "gods/divine beings" AFTER stealing someone else's thoughts and passing it off as your own.



Scholars do their own research, they don't steal the intellectual property of others and pass it off as their own. Especially if they're going to be too lazy to actually make sure it defends their opinion. You could have at least typed it up using your own words. You simply copied and pasted what you thought was correct. And you have done it more than once. And I guarantee the more people look back, the more they will see that none of these opinions are your own but rather just stolen from other people because you believed they supported your opinion. You're not a scholar - you're a liar and a plagiarist.



Why are you cutting the quote short? Share the whole thing.

hether their existence should be interpreted as a qualification upon God’s mastery in Genesis is impossible to determine. Because they do not dissent from his proposal to create humanity in his and their image, we cannot say whether God’s authority, like Marduk’s, involved some element of collegiality. From other biblical accounts of the divine assembly in session, it would appear that these “sons of God/gods” played an active roles and made fresh proposals to God, who nonetheless retained the final say.”[1]

So he's confirming the divine council theory, not that other gods were present with God during the creation. The latter was your argument right from the get go until you tried changing your opinion and hoped nobody would notice. You never read his book so you wouldn't know that. You just thought it supported your opinion of other gods being there and tried using it.



Why don't we use your own source? Thanks to the digital age, you can borrow books using your library card. So I borrowed Levenson's book, the exact same one. As luck would have it, he addresses Psalm 82 in conjunction with this.

And guess what happens when you read your quote in context? I'll save you the argument. Read for yourself.



He does not support other gods being present during creation. If you had said "divine beings", we wouldn't even still be discussing this. But you didn't. You said gods.

Though I am barely a beginner at Hebrew, from what I have learned the plural form is used when you want to signify something greater or to strengthen an idea. Which I believe is the case here, as do many other scholars.

Here's one that makes it pretty simple and straightforward. Same author for the Biblical Hebrew reference book at my church's study area.

Notice how I included the link so I'm not trying to pass it off as my own intellectual property.

https://www.nas.org/blogs/article/as...and%20seraphim).

Elohim is actually a plural noun (indicated by the /im/ as in cherubim and seraphim). Sometimes the referent is plural. At other times the referent is singular. Like most words in English, Elohim can mean several things. Sometimes Elohim refers to plural "gods," as in "You shall have no other gods before me" (Deuteronomy 5:7). At other times it refers to the singular "God," as in "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Genesis 1:1). It is clear in this latter example that even though the form of the word Elohim is plural, the referent is singular, because the verb with which Elohim is used ("created") is singular in Hebrew.

So, why the plural form if the referent is singular? The best answer is that this is an "honorific plural," that is to say, a plural used to show honor to a singular referent. Such an honorific plural is used for humans in texts like 1Kings 1:43, where we read, "our lord King David." The Hebrew word translated "lord" in this case is plural, even though it refers to the singular David. This honorific plural is also used of God elsewhere in texts like Psalm 8:1, where we read, "O LORD, our Lord…." In this text "LORD" (small caps) translates YHWH, while "Lord" translates a common noun for "master," which is in this text plural in form though referring to the singular YHWH. So Psalm 8:1 could be translated "O YHWH, our Master…."

So, YWHW is the true God's personal name, and Elohim by itself is simply the Hebrew common noun used to refer to the true God in an honorific way.

It looks like thedickus worst nightmare, GROUCHYUSMC has showed up! LOL It's a good thing because thedickus likes to gang up on people, insult people, refuses to admit when he is wrong about anything, denies the truth even when it's in his face as he copies and pastes his answers from other sites rather than his own mind, which doesn't even know the Bible as I have stated many times before. Glad to have GROUCHYUSMC on our side. GrouchyUSMC, he's not going to admit you are right, even when you prove him wrong, BUT remember that there are hundreds, even thousands of people viewing this thread every day. THAT'S what he has been actively trying to prevent for the last several months to a year, but God used you and BlackJack to help with this thread. God bless you both.

[GrouchyUSMC]

It looks like thedickus worst nightmare, GROUCHYUSMC has showed up! LOL It's a good thing because thedickus likes to gang up on people, insult people, refuses to admit when he is wrong about anything, denies the truth even when it's in his face as he copies and pastes his answers from other sites rather than his own mind, which doesn't even know the Bible as I have stated many times before. Glad to have GROUCHYUSMC on our side. GrouchyUSMC, he's not going to admit you are right, even when you prove him wrong, BUT remember that there are hundreds, even thousands of people viewing this thread every day. THAT'S what he has been actively trying to prevent for the last several months to a year, but God used you and BlackJack to help with this thread. God bless you both.

Thanks Scott.

I’m not claiming to have all the answers, or be the best Christian, or never to struggle myself. I just want to do the best I can for Him and keep becoming more like the kind of man I should be for Him, in the hopes that someone else will see Him through me and open the door.

We have all made mistakes but through God we are a new creation and what nonbelievers don’t understand is that doesn’t make you sin free. We still make mistakes. But now we try NOT to and try to exhibit self discipline on our habits to rid ourselves of the ones we know ruin our chances of drawing closer to Him. We are armed to make better choices because we want to draw closer to God.

Honestly a big boost to my faith this year was a deep dive into Christian monasticism, e.g. the works of Benedict of Nursia and how modern Christian monks and oblates are using it in their lives.

Highly recommend this one.

https://www.amazon.com/Humility-Rule...s=books&sr=1-1

[thedickus]

None of your sources support other gods hanging out with God during the creation of the world.



You never mentioned the divine council until the 20th of this month when you plagiarized a blog and passed it off as your own. The divine council was not even discussed until then. So by your admission, you don't study the Bible since that is common knowledge.



Refer to my previous post where you constantly argued it was "gods" until you changed it to "gods/divine beings" AFTER stealing someone else's thoughts and passing it off as your own.

Hebrew scholars agree that the use of "we" "us" were used to signify that god was talking to other gods. You don't seem to understand that gods and divine beings are the same. There were lesser gods that polytheism and henotheistic religions worshipped, like the early Israelites. You're the one trying to change the definition of a divine being to suit your psuedo-monotheistic beliefs. You read things as a christian and think that there was always only one god. This is not the case. The Hebrew bible shows it's roots in polytheism, then shows how it morphs to henotheism, and finally monotheism. Christians want to go back and reinterpret all verses as monotheistic. I provided an actual Hebrew scholar's thoughts on the fact that these other deities that your god was talking to were or also must have been "primordial" as he stated. Scholars have known that scribes or rabbis have gone back and tried to remove their god's polytheistic roots.

You asked what scholars. I quote from them and you can't refute the actual facts. So instead you attack the source. You try to say things like you only mentioned the divine council on September 20th as if it's in any way relevant. Most atheists know about the divine council, it's roots in polytheism in the ancient world, and how it was compromised of other gods, divine beings, deities, or whatever you want to call them. What does it matter when I first mentioned it? What does it matter as it pertains to the actual facts whether I've known about the divine council for 30 years, 3 years, 3 months, or 3 days? It doesn't change the fact that Hebrew scholars believe that the "we" and "us" in the Genesis creation story refer to your god talking to other gods.

Again, you can't refute facts so you try a propaganda campaign against the actual source.

I don't recall ever claiming to have been a scholar. You seemed to have tagged me with that moniker as some type of insult. It's obvious I've read more of and about the bible and its origins and history than you have. You don't even seem to know that ancient Israelites believed in the existence of other gods or that the divine council was comprised of other gods. I can't blame you, you're a christian. You think the bible is inerrant, that snakes and donkeys can talk, and apparently that Pangea didn't break apart until 4 or 5 thousand years ago when the story of Noah and the great flood was made up. Tell us again how kangaroos got from Australia to Africa. That's funny.

[thedickus]

It looks like thedickus worst nightmare, GROUCHYUSMC has showed up! LOL It's a good thing because thedickus likes to gang up on people, insult people, refuses to admit when he is wrong about anything, denies the truth even when it's in his face as he copies and pastes his answers from other sites rather than his own mind, which doesn't even know the Bible as I have stated many times before. Glad to have GROUCHYUSMC on our side. GrouchyUSMC, he's not going to admit you are right, even when you prove him wrong, BUT remember that there are hundreds, even thousands of people viewing this thread every day. THAT'S what he has been actively trying to prevent for the last several months to a year, but God used you and BlackJack to help with this thread. God bless you both.

Grouchy's no nightmare. He's been no more effective than you or BlackJack in trying to disprove anything I've said. He's just like any other evangelical apologist I've argued with. Desperate to not have to discuss the actual argument because he knows he's lost.

I've said that scholars believe the ancient Israelites were henotheistic, they believed in other gods, but only were supposed to worship one. He hasn't refuted this. I've provided quotes from scholars that back this up. All he can try and fail to do is to attack the source. He has not proved that scholars don't believe this. Levenson acknowledges there were other gods around from the beginning. Even Heiser who seems to fall under the divine uniqueness of god camp can't refute that this is what the majority of scholars believe. "The dominant
critical consensus since the late nineteenth century holds that Israel’s faith evolved from polytheism or henotheism to monotheism. Passages in the Hebrew Bible that assume the existence of other gods are compared to other passages that put forth the declaration that “there are no other gods besides” the God of Israel as proof of this view. Other scholars who reject this evolutionary paradigm tend to assume passages evincing divine plurality actually speak of human beings, or that the other gods are merely idols." (Notice I put Haiser's words in "", for those of you too stupid to understand that "" means that someone is being quoted, I'm quoting Heiser here.) I could put a link to the actual website but you'd have to be pretty foolish to follow links in an internet forum. Grouchy can't refute what I've been saying, that scholars agree that the ancient Israelites were henotheistic. Grouchy wants to say crap like they weren't other gods, they were divine beings, that's different from a god. Huh? No it's not. Might be different from what he believes a god is, but they're the same thing. He'll say stupid crap like they weren't gods, they were just idols or false gods. What's the difference between an idol and god or a god and a false god? Absolutely NOTHING. They're all made up including your god (Yahweh).
Grouchy was unable to disprove that scholars don't think the historical Jesus ever called or considered himself god. The historical Jesus didn't. The Jesus written about in the gospels only calls himself god in John. There's a difference between what the writers think about Jesus and what the writers actually have Jesus saying. Matthew, Mark, and Luke never have Jesus actually saying he's god, but it's obvious the writers think he is, they just don't portray him that way while he's alive. The writer of John of course goes down a different path with what he has Jesus saying about his divinity. Grouchy can't refute this and hasn't been able to.
He's failed miserably when he tried to argue about biblically sanctioned slavery in the old testament. It's there and obvious. He hasn't been able to refute this.
He failed miserably at showing that his god values all life the same and thinks that a fetus is a live person. The verses in Exodus I've quoted show that's not the case. His god treats a fetus as property and imposes a fine or compensation. All he could do was try to change the argument to whether the fetus was miscarried or prematurely born which has nothing to do with the passage. Desperate pathetic attempts to try to change the subject.
Anyone with half a brain can see through his deceitfulness. Scotty, I don't expect too much from you though, you're stupid and think that donkeys and snakes can talk.

The most important thing that neither Grouchy, you Scotty, or BlackJack have been able to disprove is when I've said that there's no proof that a god (any god, not just yours) exists. Quite honestly what a fictional book like your bible says is completely irrelevant until you can actually prove that the god you say wrote it is real.

I still think it's fukking hilarious that Grouchy's main argument against they're being other gods present at the creation is that even if the divine council were real, they weren't actually gods. Because his bible says they weren't gods, even though his bible says they were gods, they weren't, they were just idols or divine beings. Only his god is a god, everything else are false gods or not gods at all.

[ScottLefler]

Check them out:

http://www.lesfeldick.org/

https://www.ttb.org/

[BlackJack619]

Check them out:

http://www.lesfeldick.org/

https://www.ttb.org/

When are you gonna tell me your connection to Ron? Are you Ron?

[ScottLefler]

Thanks Scott.

I’m not claiming to have all the answers, or be the best Christian, or never to struggle myself. I just want to do the best I can for Him and keep becoming more like the kind of man I should be for Him, in the hopes that someone else will see Him through me and open the door.

We have all made mistakes but through God we are a new creation and what nonbelievers don’t understand is that doesn’t make you sin free. We still make mistakes. But now we try NOT to and try to exhibit self discipline on our habits to rid ourselves of the ones we know ruin our chances of drawing closer to Him. We are armed to make better choices because we want to draw closer to God.

Honestly a big boost to my faith this year was a deep dive into Christian monasticism, e.g. the works of Benedict of Nursia and how modern Christian monks and oblates are using it in their lives.

Highly recommend this one.

https://www.amazon.com/Humility-Rule...s=books&sr=1-1

I have gone through the Bible twice in the last several years in deep study with Les Feldick and Dr James Vernon Mcghee. Both are great teachers but Les Feldick is the greatest Bible teacher I have ever heard. His insight is deep and he shows how it all fits together.


Check them out:

http://www.lesfeldick.org/

https://www.ttb.org/

[ScottLefler]

When are you gonna tell me your connection to Ron? Are you Ron?

I don't remember I am sorry. I know lots of Rons, but I doubt any of them know you. Have you listened to Through the Bible with Les Feldick yet?

[BlackJack619]

No but maybe I’ll start listening to them soon. I got a new job with a little bit of a commute, so I’ll start listening to them while I sit in traffic.

[ScottLefler]

Grouchy's no nightmare. He's been no more effective than you or BlackJack in trying to disprove anything I've said. He's just like any other evangelical apologist I've argued with. Desperate to not have to discuss the actual argument because he knows he's lost.

I've said that scholars believe the ancient Israelites were henotheistic, they believed in other gods, but only were supposed to worship one. He hasn't refuted this. I've provided quotes from scholars that back this up. All he can try and fail to do is to attack the source. He has not proved that scholars don't believe this. Levenson acknowledges there were other gods around from the beginning. Even Heiser who seems to fall under the divine uniqueness of god camp can't refute that this is what the majority of scholars believe. "The dominant
critical consensus since the late nineteenth century holds that Israel’s faith evolved from polytheism or henotheism to monotheism. Passages in the Hebrew Bible that assume the existence of other gods are compared to other passages that put forth the declaration that “there are no other gods besides” the God of Israel as proof of this view. Other scholars who reject this evolutionary paradigm tend to assume passages evincing divine plurality actually speak of human beings, or that the other gods are merely idols." (Notice I put Haiser's words in "", for those of you too stupid to understand that "" means that someone is being quoted, I'm quoting Heiser here.) I could put a link to the actual website but you'd have to be pretty foolish to follow links in an internet forum. Grouchy can't refute what I've been saying, that scholars agree that the ancient Israelites were henotheistic. Grouchy wants to say crap like they weren't other gods, they were divine beings, that's different from a god. Huh? No it's not. Might be different from what he believes a god is, but they're the same thing. He'll say stupid crap like they weren't gods, they were just idols or false gods. What's the difference between an idol and god or a god and a false god? Absolutely NOTHING. They're all made up including your god (Yahweh).
Grouchy was unable to disprove that scholars don't think the historical Jesus ever called or considered himself god. The historical Jesus didn't. The Jesus written about in the gospels only calls himself god in John. There's a difference between what the writers think about Jesus and what the writers actually have Jesus saying. Matthew, Mark, and Luke never have Jesus actually saying he's god, but it's obvious the writers think he is, they just don't portray him that way while he's alive. The writer of John of course goes down a different path with what he has Jesus saying about his divinity. Grouchy can't refute this and hasn't been able to.
He's failed miserably when he tried to argue about biblically sanctioned slavery in the old testament. It's there and obvious. He hasn't been able to refute this.
He failed miserably at showing that his god values all life the same and thinks that a fetus is a live person. The verses in Exodus I've quoted show that's not the case. His god treats a fetus as property and imposes a fine or compensation. All he could do was try to change the argument to whether the fetus was miscarried or prematurely born which has nothing to do with the passage. Desperate pathetic attempts to try to change the subject.
Anyone with half a brain can see through his deceitfulness. Scotty, I don't expect too much from you though, you're stupid and think that donkeys and snakes can talk.

The most important thing that neither Grouchy, you Scotty, or BlackJack have been able to disprove is when I've said that there's no proof that a god (any god, not just yours) exists. Quite honestly what a fictional book like your bible says is completely irrelevant until you can actually prove that the god you say wrote it is real.

I still think it's fukking hilarious that Grouchy's main argument against they're being other gods present at the creation is that even if the divine council were real, they weren't actually gods. Because his bible says they weren't gods, even though his bible says they were gods, they weren't, they were just idols or divine beings. Only his god is a god, everything else are false gods or not gods at all.

I could refute your bull as I have done in the past, but you aren't worth my time. Glad to see the Grouchy has the patience to deal with you so far. You have you shown the truth and so you are without excuse. I didn't do any of it for you for the most part, but because you aren't willing to believe, EVEN if it's shown to your face. I did it for the onlookers who might be deceived by your lies. Grouchy is making you look really bad and yet you still insist that you are somehow right as I knew you would.

The Israelites DID worship other false gods, in spite of the fact that the true God revealed Himself to them for centuries and saved them countless times from the results of their sinful ways. The Bible talks about this. There is only a remnant from Israel what will be saved. True Israel are the ones who actually had Faith in the True God of Abraham, Isaac, Jacob. The Prophets that wrote the Scriptures did NOT worship other gods, NOR did they acknowledge other gods as somehow valid. They condemned the worship of any god other than the God of the Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. If you are trying to claim anything different, then YOU are wrong.

As far as the Prophets and Scripture goes, it's overwhelming that Jesus Christ is God in the flesh and it's all over the Bible, not just in John. I have proven this to you on several occasions, but you don't like the facts, so you just continue spread the same lies. I think that Grouchy has done a great job at proving his points and he has beaten you in spite of the fact that you like to try to filibuster other people, thinking that that makes you somehow right or correct, when it doesn't.

God DOES value all life equally, but He also punishes sin equally. Only those under the blood of Christ will be forgiven. I have shown you that a baby inside of the womb is equal with a baby outside of the womb. Yes, I am stupid enough to believe that a God that is powerful enough to create a Universe out of nothing is also capable of making a Donkey or a Snake talk. Yes, guilty.

You know, for someone who says that they don't believe this stuff, you spend an AWEFUL amount of energy trying to disprove it. It seems to me that you are actually trying to convince yourself because you are scared to death of the consequences of it being true. Sadly you will find one day that it really is true and my hope for you is that you trust in Christ as your Lord and Savior before you die so that when you stand before Him, you will be forgiven rather than condemned.

[mtpockets]

[BlackJack619]

Ok Dick’s meatpocket

[ScottLefler]

I hope everyone had a great Sunday. Take the time to find a good Bible believing Church.

[mtpockets]

Ok Dick’s meatpocket

LOL. That doesn't sound very christian like

[ScottLefler]

The following passage is referring to BELIEVERS in Christ and the Judgement for REWARDS. Notice that it says of the guy who didn't have any rewards that He Himself shall be saved. That's because we are not saved by Works, we are saved by Grace through Faith alone. The FIRE is referring to Judgement of a believers works for Christ, but it's not for Salvation, it's for REWARDS.

1Co 3:9 For we are God's fellow workers; you are God's field, you are God's building.
10 According to the grace of God which was given to me, as a wise master builder I have laid the foundation, and another builds on it. But let each one take heed how he builds on it.
11 For no other foundation can anyone lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ.
12 Now if anyone builds on this foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw,
13 each one's work will become clear; for the Day will declare it, because it will be revealed by fire; and the fire will test each one's work, of what sort it is.
14 If anyone's work which he has built on it endures, he will receive a reward.
15 If anyone's work is burned, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.

Communion, The Lord's Supper is simply a Memorial, symbols of the Body and Blood of Christ, yes. If you took an ultra sound image of the bread and wine in the stomach, they would remain bread and wine in the stomach. They do not turn into the Body and blood of Christ. What Christ said was a Spiritual meaning, not a physical one. It also has no part in Salvation, because it is a Memorial to those who are already saved.

[mtpockets]

[BlackJack619]

LOL. That doesn't sound very christian like

Because pagans know what’s is Christian like?