Your strangest Bible Passage

[IHAQ]

I think those bloggers would be more modern than iron age. Still I can see some sense in your comment. The gilding a lily view does have some fit. Paul has no interest a Virgin birth,Mark, the first gospel does not mention such and John finds in unnecessary as well.It does seem it could be a late add on story. I don't think it would realistically fit to consider it an old story covering an early birth starting the Jesus movement though the idea has a touch of humor.

The Gospels aren't first hand journalistic recordings of what happened. They are the equivalent to opinion pieces written with second or third (or worse) hand knowledge. Did they write their pieces based on hearsay? From something they had read? Rumour? Myth? Legend? Who knows. There's some suggestion that some of the Gospels used another of the Gospels as their source material, so instead of several corroborating accounts, they all lead to one uncorroborated account. Then add in their inconsistency, and we have reason to say the Gospels cannot be taken as...well...gospel.

Virgin birth or embarrassing pregnancy out of wedlock that needed a good cover story? One is more likely than the other.
And they aren't the only two options - it could equally have been as fictitious as Paul H. Dunn's war stories. The Jesus story could be another Big Foot or Loch Ness Monster tale that simply got out of hand. The Bible is nonsensical and inconsistent - "Thou Shalt Not Kill" versus God seemingly wreaking death and destruction of innocents left, right and centre. People read the Bible because they think it contains supernatural magic. They aren't bothered if it's consistent, accurate, or reflects actual happenings. They read it to make themselves feel better about their earthly existence and the unknown elements of their mortality - not bad motives in and of themselves.

[dastardly stem]

Good to hear. I feared we were coming upon some irreconcilable disagreement. I’ll be back later because something’s mentioned reminded me of something I need to look back up.

We may very well be heading to different conclusions, but that's not a disaster by any means. I was just reading in the Zohar this morning with this issue in mind, in the Haqdamat Sefer-ha-Zohar (Introduction in the actual Zohar, not Daniel Matt's introduction, The Pritzker ed., Vol.1) In the section of the Introduction - it is 105 pages!, there are several different ways of translating the Hebrew of Genesis 1. Then in the next section the Parashat Be-Reshit they continue giving further definitions, ideas, and translations, not having exhausted it yet! Then in Vol. X of Matt's Pritzker ed., in the Midrash Ha-Ne'Lam they yet continue to keep translating the Hebrew/Aramiac meanings and explications even further! In other words, even in the Hebrew, there is not just a single unified understanding, it depends on how one reads the language and where it ties in in other areas of the Hebrew Bible. While the book you recommend does, (thank goodness!) get to the Hebrew, this is a very good first step, not a final answer and analysis. To the Jewish rabbi's there is no final authoritative analysis (at least in the Zohar, Orthodox Jews would perhaps disagree with this, which is why, perhaps, they don't give much credence to the Zohar - even the Jews are not united in their understanding of meaning.

This cannot be over exaggerated. And they are the very ones who say there is not at all just one actual meaning to the scripture.

I am thrilled with your idea to get this book, which I am going to, because I have been brewing about making some videos on the Zohar, and it sounds to me like this book would be the perfect introduction to a new look into the Hebrew scriptures. They are infinite in meaning as far as that goes... there is always more, which is one very gosh darn good reason to never get bored with scripture. If you are, then perhaps it is the person, not the scripture where the problem lies...

Sure. What you describe is exactly what theology and apologetics is for. I don't consider them very worthwhile disciplines though--not in terms of arriving at truth, not suggesting we ever really will. Stavrakopoulou's take suggests, yes, we can read things and interpret them however we like, particularly looking back at them to use them for our own purposes. But, that doesn't give us a good understanding of what was being suggested when the stories were first written.

[dastardly stem]

Still looking up to you, man. Jumping right on it! Let me know what you think.

Well, thank you for the recommendation! I will certainly read this and talk it up, even on my shows. Heck I may have you on my show and we can chat about it!

I would be delighted to get a chance to discuss it. I fear putting my sorry mug on your show, but if it must be done I'm sure I'd be game.

[dastardly stem]

Since Mormon god is in essence an advanced physical being/spaceman and lives by the laws of mechanics, he can't just think an embroyo into Mary's tummy. Why he needed to have sex with her instead of A.I., or whatever - I don't know. It seems to me though that, comic books aside, crossing a god with a human would be like crossing a dog and a donkey. i.e.. not-compatible.

I think though, Non-Morm Christian god has some type of infinite improbability drive which releases him from the bind of physical mechanics. So he can just think a baby into a body. I don't know why - since he isn't bound to mechanics - he doesn't use that I.I. drive to just wish everybody into heaven.

Seriously though, this thing is so convoluted it makes even an I.I. drive seem reasonable. God needed to have Jesus acquire a physical body by having atoms arranged in the usual mortal manner, so he could live, die, be resurrected and then own his permanent forever body - so he impregnates a mortal with non-mortal seed. Ok then.

If magic is involved it doesn't matter if the magician has a body or not. God could snap his fingers, if he has fingers, and in effect punch me in the face whether he has a body or not, without actually punching me in the face. That's what magical ideas of God are. Mormons also think God does magic. he somehow knows every thought everyone has. He somehow raises the dead and heals the otherwise terminal.

If God impregnated Mary through magic, it may be that he didn't come down and, well, you know, but even if he used magic and violated her body, the effect is quite similar. She may not have been impacted because a stranger came and, well, you know....and certainly that does sound better. Either way God violated a mortal person without permission, it appears. But the larger problem here is before this mythic story of God fathering Jesus was penned in the New Testament, God had a body. That Christians today go back and read into the text their developed idea that God was body-less doesn't really change that. Additionally none of this changes the imagery God apparently endorses in the Bible of God being a sexual deviant--or at least what I'd call a sexual deviant. The mythic story involving Mary fits well with the traditional teachings here.

[Rivendale]

Since Mormon god is in essence an advanced physical being/spaceman and lives by the laws of mechanics, he can't just think an embroyo into Mary's tummy. Why he needed to have sex with her instead of A.I., or whatever - I don't know. It seems to me though that, comic books aside, crossing a god with a human would be like crossing a dog and a donkey. i.e.. not-compatible.

I think though, Non-Morm Christian god has some type of infinite improbability drive which releases him from the bind of physical mechanics. So he can just think a baby into a body. I don't know why - since he isn't bound to mechanics - he doesn't use that I.I. drive to just wish everybody into heaven.

Seriously though, this thing is so convoluted it makes even an I.I. drive seem reasonable. God needed to have Jesus acquire a physical body by having atoms arranged in the usual mortal manner, so he could live, die, be resurrected and then own his permanent forever body - so he impregnates a mortal with non-mortal seed. Ok then.

If magic is involved it doesn't matter if the magician has a body or not. God could snap his fingers, if he has fingers, and in effect punch me in the face whether he has a body or not, without actually punching me in the face. That's what magical ideas of God are. Mormons also think God does magic. he somehow knows every thought everyone has. He somehow raises the dead and heals the otherwise terminal.

If God impregnated Mary through magic, it may be that he didn't come down and, well, you know, but even if he used magic and violated her body, the effect is quite similar. She may not have been impacted because a stranger came and, well, you know....and certainly that does sound better. Either way God violated a mortal person without permission, it appears. But the larger problem here is before this mythic story of God fathering Jesus was penned in the New Testament, God had a body. That Christians today go back and read into the text their developed idea that God was body-less doesn't really change that. Additionally none of this changes the imagery God apparently endorses in the Bible of God being a sexual deviant--or at least what I'd call a sexual deviant. The mythic story involving Mary fits well with the traditional teachings here.

Someone needs to make a list of all the magic that has to be believed to believe everything in Mormonism.

[dantana]

If magic is involved it doesn't matter if the magician has a body or not. God could snap his fingers, if he has fingers, and in effect punch me in the face whether he has a body or not, without actually punching me in the face. That's what magical ideas of God are. Mormons also think God does magic. he somehow knows every thought everyone has. He somehow raises the dead and heals the otherwise terminal.

If God impregnated Mary through magic, it may be that he didn't come down and, well, you know, but even if he used magic and violated her body, the effect is quite similar. She may not have been impacted because a stranger came and, well, you know....and certainly that does sound better. Either way God violated a mortal person without permission, it appears. But the larger problem here is before this mythic story of God fathering Jesus was penned in the New Testament, God had a body. That Christians today go back and read into the text their developed idea that God was body-less doesn't really change that. Additionally none of this changes the imagery God apparently endorses in the Bible of God being a sexual deviant--or at least what I'd call a sexual deviant. The mythic story involving Mary fits well with the traditional teachings here.

Someone needs to make a list of all the magic that has to be believed to believe everything in Mormonism.

Yeah. I guess first we would have to define magic.

I see Morm magic as slight of hand, smoke and mirrors magic ala David Copperfield. It only appears to be unexplainable to those who don't know the trick. Mormon Magic (ala) David Copperfield - MMDC =2600. 2600 is bound by laws of physics and is always mechanical. 2600 god is a god of rules and red tape and is in essence a physicalist since even spirit is made of particles and therefore bound to them.

Mainstream Christian Magic (via) Infinite Improbability (drive) - MCMII = 1902. 1902 god is a god not beholding to physics. I like this god better because spirit then is not a product of the mindless interaction of particles. As I noted earlier though, 1902 theory has some logic problems; When 1902 god thought people into existence he could have just thought them up without all of their personality disorders and when he's done with his simulation he could just think them into the happy place without all of the 2600 type bureaucracy.

[Rivendale]

Someone needs to make a list of all the magic that has to be believed to believe everything in Mormonism.

Yeah. I guess first we would have to define magic.

I see Morm magic as slight of hand, smoke and mirrors magic ala David Copperfield. It only appears to be unexplainable to those who don't know the trick. Mormon Magic (ala) David Copperfield - MMDC =2600. 2600 is bound by laws of physics and is always mechanical. 2600 god is a god of rules and red tape and is in essence a physicalist since even spirit is made of particles and therefore bound to them.

Mainstream Christian Magic (via) Infinite Improbability (drive) - MCMII = 1902. 1902 god is a god not beholding to physics. I like this god better because spirit then is not a product of the mindless interaction of particles. As I noted earlier though, 1902 theory has some logic problems; When 1902 god thought people into existence he could have just thought them up without all of their personality disorders and when he's done with his simulation he could just think them into the happy place without all of the 2600 type bureaucracy.

I don't think most Mormons think like Arthur C Clark.

“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.”

I realize that the theology states that god is bound by physical laws (in my opinion makes him god and not God). Which begs the question where did the natural laws originate assuming that it isn't just a brute fact. The magic of Mormonism is all over starting with Joseph Smith and his occult practices. Todays believing Mormons believe in patriarchal blessings which is a form of Astrology. They also believe in prayer. An actual communication to another being that is light years away from Earth. Words appearing on rocks. Rising from the dead. Promptings. Here is a list found on the exmormon reddit that summarizes how Mormonism twists belief systems. https://old.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comme ... ween_post/



[*] You don't believe in ghosts, you believe in the holy spirit.

[*] You don't believe in scrying, you believe in seer's stones.

[*] You don't believe in casting spells, you believe in prayers.

[*] You don't believe in crystals or magical enchantments, you believe in holy oil and sealing powers.

[*] You don't believe in secret naked rituals at midnight, you believe(d) in secret naked rituals at noon (last decade's initiatory)

[*] You don't believe in aura's, you believe in countenance.

[*] You don't believe in astrology, you believe in prophecy, which may or may not include new stars in the sky.

[*] You don't believe in dark magic, you believe in the power of Satan.

[*] You don't believe in conjuring, you believe in inviting dark spirits.

[*] You don't believe in a coven, you believe in societies and quorums.

[*] You don't believe in hexes or curses, you believe in dusting off the feet.

[*] You don't believe in elemental lords, you believe in a devil with the power over the waters.

[*] You don't believe in incantations, you believe in hosannah shouts, sacraments, and bowing your head and saying yes.

[*] You don't believe in seances, you believe the spirits of the dead can accompany you in the temple.

[*] You don't believe in Shamanism, you believe in commanding the elements if faithful enough.

[*] You don't believe in talismans against evil, you believe in CTR rings or garments.

[*] You don't believe in fortune-telling, you believe in patriarchal blessings.

[*] You don't believe in Clairsentience, you believe in discernment.

[*] You don't believe in dowsing, you believe in the gift of the rod (okay, and dowsing. That one's pretty overt).

[*] You don't believe in Clairvoyance, you believe in revalations.

[*] You don't believe in magic. You believe in priesthood

[Philo Sofee]

Rivendale - on Mormons contrasted to others beliefs....

[*] You don't believe in ghosts, you believe in the holy spirit.

[*] You don't believe in scrying, you believe in seer's stones.

[*] You don't believe in casting spells, you believe in prayers.

[*] You don't believe in crystals or magical enchantments, you believe in holy oil and sealing powers.

[*] You don't believe in secret naked rituals at midnight, you believe(d) in secret naked rituals at noon (last decade's initiatory)

[*] You don't believe in aura's, you believe in countenance.

[*] You don't believe in astrology, you believe in prophecy, which may or may not include new stars in the sky.

[*] You don't believe in dark magic, you believe in the power of Satan.

[*] You don't believe in conjuring, you believe in inviting dark spirits.

[*] You don't believe in a coven, you believe in societies and quorums.

[*] You don't believe in hexes or curses, you believe in dusting off the feet.

[*] You don't believe in elemental lords, you believe in a devil with the power over the waters.

[*] You don't believe in incantations, you believe in hosannah shouts, sacraments, and bowing your head and saying yes.

[*] You don't believe in seances, you believe the spirits of the dead can accompany you in the temple.

[*] You don't believe in Shamanism, you believe in commanding the elements if faithful enough.

[*] You don't believe in talismans against evil, you believe in CTR rings or garments.

[*] You don't believe in fortune-telling, you believe in patriarchal blessings.

[*] You don't believe in Clairsentience, you believe in discernment.

[*] You don't believe in dowsing, you believe in the gift of the rod (okay, and dowsing. That one's pretty overt).

[*] You don't believe in Clairvoyance, you believe in revalations.

[*] You don't believe in magic. You believe in priesthood

That is worth doing a podcast about! What a helluva list!!!

[dantana]

Good post, Rivendale.

Yeah, another head scratcher to go on the shelf. On the one hand we have the 'Great Gods Pyramid Program' with the God of this universe as just a blip on an infinite upline, and a to be determined downline. We have J. Smith declaring spirit is made of stuff. We have Kolob as an actual celestial orb at, in or near this dimension. It all certainly makes it read like Morm God comes from an advanced technological society. But then we have your published list, which reads the opposite.

What to believe... Maybe Philo can sort it out some more in a podcast. That would be fun to see.