Why John Gee is simply wrong in his FAIR Presentation

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
Post Reply
_Philo Sofee
_Emeritus
Posts: 6660
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:04 am

Why John Gee is simply wrong in his FAIR Presentation

Post by _Philo Sofee »

John Gee said
If the records of the covenants given to Abraham are not historically authentic, or the records of the keeping of covenants, or God's fulfillment of the covenants, what basis do we have for assuming that God will fulfill his promises to us? If those who deny the historical authenticity of the scriptures really believe that, why on earth would they expect God to keep his promises to them?


He doesn't go back far enough. It isn't a question of whether covenants and Abraham are historically authentic, I am wondering where the hands on physical evidence is for a historically authentic God in Abraham's day... if archaeology has shown anything, anything and everything at all it is that the Jews simply fobbed off of their cultural neighbors for not on their covenant idea, but their God idea. Mark S. Smith's several books analysis of this was one of the items that broke my shelf. Jehovah isn't original in any manner, he is simply a regurgitated mythological God taken from earlier peoples. The issue isn't is Abraham real, the issue is is that God real. No one touches that one. I can entirely understand why.

Not only is the historical Abraham invented, as per John Van Seters, John Thompson, but the historical God Abraham supposedly worshipped is also invented, as per Mark S. Smith and many others who have traced Jehovah back to earlier mythological deities, none of which have a smidgin of reality to them in our universe.

To paraphrase Gee, if those who deny historical developments and mythological development of the scriptures, really believe that, why on earth would they expect anyone to accept their own spin on a false interpretation simply because they refuse to follow the evidence against their historical guesswork?
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: Why John Gee is simply wrong in his FAIR Presentation

Post by _Shulem »

The Mormon god-man ELOHIM (resurrected man from Kolob) is nothing but a manmade idea concocted out of the mind of Joseph Smith. The whole concept of Father Elohim and his dumb Son JEHOVAH and his bodiless friend the Ghost are silly religious concepts and can be safely discarded as total and absolute nonsense.

Abraham is nothing but myth and nonsense. The Abrahamic sacrifice of his son Isaac is a horrific biblical story that has no redeeming value whatsoever. It's evil stuff -- shameful. You may safely toss Abraham in the trash can along with Elohim, Jehovah, and the Ghost.
_Philo Sofee
_Emeritus
Posts: 6660
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:04 am

Re: Why John Gee is simply wrong in his FAIR Presentation

Post by _Philo Sofee »

Shulem wrote:The Mormon god-man ELOHIM (resurrected man from Kolob) is nothing but a manmade idea concocted out of the mind of Joseph Smith. The whole concept of Father Elohim and his dumb Son JEHOVAH and his bodiless friend the Ghost are silly religious concepts and can be safely discarded as total and absolute nonsense.


Yeah, but on the other hand, being charitable, it is kinda cool that he took the Hebrew word Elohim and used it as a personal name. No one had thought to do that before. In Smith's day it worked, now, of course, it really does come across as silly, but the inventiveness of it is sorta admirable. It's pure nonsense, but interesting none the less.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: Why John Gee is simply wrong in his FAIR Presentation

Post by _Shulem »

Philo Sofee wrote:Yeah, but on the other hand, being charitable, it is kinda cool that he took the Hebrew word Elohim and used it as a personal name. No one had thought to do that before. In Smith's day it worked, now, of course, it really does come across as silly, but the inventiveness of it is sorta admirable. It's pure nonsense, but interesting none the less.


I will agree with you that Joseph Smith was quite creative and very inventive. He was able to take concepts from other sources and mold them into something fresh and different. Smith did that with everything he touched. That was his nature. I'm willing to say that Smith was highly intelligent and had a deep mind for spiritual things. But he also lusted for the spotlight and was apt to steal anything he could get his hands on. It was in his nature to steal things. He was a common thief and professional at that.
_Philo Sofee
_Emeritus
Posts: 6660
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 9:04 am

Re: Why John Gee is simply wrong in his FAIR Presentation

Post by _Philo Sofee »

Shulem
I will agree with you that Joseph Smith was quite creative and very inventive. He was able to take concepts from other sources and mold them into something fresh and different. Smith did that with everything he touched. That was his nature. I'm willing to say that Smith was highly intelligent and had a deep mind for spiritual things. But he also lusted for the spotlight and was apt to steal anything he could get his hands on. It was in his nature to steal things. He was a common thief and professional at that.


But that is the essence of Western Religion going way back into hoary antiquity. All we have are copies of copies of copies.... one could say instead of stealing, that one is adapting to the current situation, which would be more truthful. But to call that a restoration of an original, when in fact said original is itself a mere adaptation of something earlier is where the problem lies. We all adapt and change things to suit our purposes, instead of being an evil, perhaps we could say it is just human.

The original which has been restored adapted and changed, incidentally, is only from one particular perspective, and certainly not the most ancient (and arguably therefore, a more pristine original) view, which comes from India, not the Ancient Near East. The East is literally ignored, and it makes sense. Joseph Smith was a Westerner and so his bias lies therein. If Joseph Smith was accurate, the Far East would also just as much be littered with all kinds of debris from an original, but it doesn't match much of what Mormonism claims was original, which was supposedly also had in a premortal life.
Dr CamNC4Me
"Dr. Peterson and his Callithumpian cabal of BYU idiots have been marginalized by their own inevitable irrelevancy defending a fraud."
_Shulem
_Emeritus
Posts: 12072
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2011 1:48 am

Re: Why John Gee is simply wrong in his FAIR Presentation

Post by _Shulem »

Philo Sofee wrote:But that is the essence of Western Religion going way back into hoary antiquity. All we have are copies of copies of copies.... one could say instead of stealing, that one is adapting to the current situation, which would be more truthful. But to call that a restoration of an original, when in fact said original is itself a mere adaptation of something earlier is where the problem lies. We all adapt and change things to suit our purposes, instead of being an evil, perhaps we could say it is just human.

The original which has been restored adapted and changed, incidentally, is only from one particular perspective, and certainly not the most ancient (and arguably therefore, a more pristine original) view, which comes from India, not the Ancient Near East. The East is literally ignored, and it makes sense. Joseph Smith was a Westerner and so his bias lies therein. If Joseph Smith was accurate, the Far East would also just as much be littered with all kinds of debris from an original, but it doesn't match much of what Mormonism claims was original, which was supposedly also had in a premortal life.


I hear you.

Well we all know that the original biblical record was not on some golden plates Joseph Smith claimed to have. When it came time to TRANSLATE the Isaiah portions he simply stole them from his handy dandy KJV of the Bible -- errors and all. The most correct book on earth that was translated from the golden plates by the gift and power of God has the KJV errors and warts. This entire claim and application is totally different than Smith's claims in retranslating the Bible (JST) adding new things and clarifications. The golden plates spoke for themselves and we clearly see that the golden plates is nothing but a lie out of lying Smith's mouth.

Smith was a liar and Smith was a thief. He was an adulterer of the worst kind too. A disgusting man all the way around.
Post Reply