Creatio ex Nihilo, Monotheism, and Divinization

[maklelan]

Mak,

When will you be finishing up your thesis? Plan on winning another award?

I will take my time with this one and plan on finishing late next year. It's going to be pretty intensive and lengthy (around 200 pages), and I've got dozens of German articles and books I have to stagger through, but I do plan on making it award-worthy, even if TWU doesn't give out awards for theses.

[maklelan]

Based on what I have observed, I am not willing to make that assumption.

Please be specific, what exactly have you observed that would lead you to doubt my familiarity with the relevant scholarship in threads I start?

[Brennin]

Then, rather than whine about Mak's "assertion", you should be whining about Hayman's "assertion".

When he repeats it he makes it his own.

[volgadon]

The name does not ring a bell in this context.

See Maklelan's response below.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Based on what I have observed, I am not willing to make that assumption.

Prediction about to be fulfilled.

[Vance]

The Eastern Orthodox, among others, accept 2 Maccabees.

LOL!!!

And what does Eastern Orthodox have to do with Protestant? Nice "red herring".

(No doubt Vance heard that absurd bit of apologia from the pulpit about there being only two legitimate choices, Mormonism and Catholicism, and accepted it enthusiastically.)

LOL!!!

Just more BS from Brennin.

I do not have to belong to a church that recognizes 2 Maccabees as authoritative, nor do I have to accept 2 Maccabees myself (not saying if I do or not) to appeal to it to counter maklelan's dating of the doctrine of creatio ex nihilo to the second century A.D.

So, when it comes to fighting Mormonism, any argument will do whether you believe it or not or whether it is legitimate or not. I see where you are coming from.

[Brennin]

Prediction about to be fulfilled.

Your edit reminds me of the changes to the Book of Commandments.

[Vance]

Please be specific, what exactly have you observed that would lead you to doubt my familiarity with the relevant scholarship in threads I start?

All he has is;

1) You are a Mormon. (Based in bigotry.)

2) You disagree with him. (Based in arrogance.)

Other than that, Zip, Zero, Nada.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Your edit reminds me of the changes to the Book of Commandments.

Ha, are you serious? Are you guys seeing this? Lol!

[Vance]

I will just preempt this with a big "nu-uh".

You are far more prescient than Brennin.

[Brennin]

LOL!!!

And what does Eastern Orthodox have to do with Protestant? Nice "red herring".

You wrote, "Unless Brennin is a Catholic he does not have a leg to stand on" or some such. Do you have trouble remembering what you wrote just a little while ago? (Although, I can't say I blame you. What you write is not particularly memorable.)

So, when it comes to fighting Mormonism, any argument will do whether you believe it or not or whether it is legitimate or not. I see where you are coming from.

That's a fine non sequitur. (I am using non sequitur here in the standard sense, not in Mola's peculiar "I disagree with what you wrote" sense.)

[Vance]

Ha, are you serious? Are you guys seeing this? Lol!

He has lost the argument so he is resorting to silliness.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

That's a fine non sequitur. (I am using non sequitur here in the standard sense, not in Mola's peculiar "I disagree with what you wrote" sense.)

Hahahaha, were in have I used that?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

You are far more prescient than Brennin.

This could be true. I just want to apologize for Mak for the derail.

[Vance]

You wrote, "Unless Brennin is a Catholic he does not have a leg to stand on" or some such. Do you have trouble remembering what you wrote just a little while ago? (Although, I can't say I blame you. What you write is not particularly memorable.)

Eastern Orthodox Church, also officially called the Orthodox Catholic Church.

Your ignorance is SHINING through.

[maklelan]

Your edit reminds me of the changes to the Book of Commandments.

Your careful avoidance of my explanation of the academic consensus in the interest of responding to other minutiae reminds me of somebody who can't defend their dogmatism.

[Brennin]

I presented a paper on 2 Macc 7:28 and creatio ex nihilo at a regional SBL a couple years ago. I later published an expansion of that paper (full disclosure: In my own journal - pages 81-96 here). My argument concerning the doctrine was that the academic consensus is sound, but that 2 Macc 7 was not published until the late first or early second century CE anyway, so it's pretty immaterial. Here are the reasons the consensus is sound:

The Platonists often used the same phrase to refer to preexistent matter, and Xenephon uses it to refer to the creation of children by their parents, which is obviously not ex nihilo (Memorabilia 2.2.3: ??? ?? ?????? ?? ??? ??? ????? ???????? ?????). You cannot find an example of this phrase used in Greek literature anywhere before the second century CE where the author is actually espousing creatio ex nihilo. The Greek usage was understood to refer to creatio ex materia, and 2 Maccabees really had no other context for its use. Even if the author intended it to mean ex nihilo, there's the audience would not have understood the concept in any other way. Your personal understanding of the Greek, then, misses the mark concerning how it was originally read.

My argument for a later date for 2 Maccabees 7 also places the text at a time period where philosophical speculation is rampant in polemic between Greeks and Christians. Christians are arguing for the resurrection, and their argument moves from the notion that God can create the human body out of so little material, so he can reconstitute it out of so little material to the absolutely novel idea that God created the cosmos out of nothing, and so he can reconstitute the human body out of nothing. May has a slightly different take on this process, but the context of the development of the doctrine is the same. At this point, Copan and Craig are the only scholars of which I'm aware that actually believe 2 Macc 7:28 is creatio ex nihilo. J.C. O'Neill wrote an article defending it, but has since changed his position (at a conference, not in print, as far as I can tell). Goldstein did the same, and because of the response of David Winston, had to admit the weakness of his positions. The most relevant scholarship is as follows:

David Winston,

[Vance]

Dating 2 Maccabees after the destruction of Jerusalem is beyond absurd,. . .

Another bald assertion.

You sure make a lot of bald assertions for one who complains about the assertions of others.

[Brennin]

Eastern Orthodox Church, also officially called the Orthodox Catholic Church.

Your ignorance is SHINING through.

I don't know who you think you are fooling. Anglicans consider themselves to be part of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as well but they are not referred to as "Catholic." In fact, given the rivalry that exists between Eastern Catholic Churches and the Eastern Orthodox Church I suspect that referring to the latter as "Catholic" would not be appreciated at all. You were clearly referring to the Roman Catholic Church in your post and now are trying to save face.

[Brennin]

Another bald assertion.

You sure make a lot of bald assertions for one who complains about the assertions of others.

You dishonestly edited out my further comments.

[Vance]

I don't know who you think you are fooling. Anglicans consider themselves to be part of the Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church as well but they are not referred to as "Catholic." In fact, given the rivalry that exists between Eastern Catholic Churches and the Eastern Orthodox Church I suspect that referring to the latter as "Catholic" would not be appreciated at all. You were clearly referring to the Roman Catholic Church in your post and now are trying to save face.

Trying to deny the term "Catholic" to the Eastern Orthodox Church is your attempt at saving face.

[Vance]

You dishonestly edited out my further comments.

So, placing ellipses to indicate the removal of text is dishonest?

Who knew?

[maklelan]

Dating 2 Maccabees after the destruction of Jerusalem is beyond absurd, given the cordial relations with the Romans in the text. I'll have to get back to you on your other comments.

Pay better attention. I only said 2 Macc 7 was published in the late first or early second century CE. The rest of the book was written much earlier, but it wasn't fully disseminated until chapter 7 was composed and some other redaction was done. If you wish to critique my conclusion regarding the provenance of 2 Maccabees, feel free to read my paper first.

[Brennin]

Pay better attention. I only said 2 Macc 7 was published in the late first or early second century CE. The rest of the book was written much earlier, but it wasn't fully disseminated until chapter 7 was composed and some other redaction was done. If you wish to critique my conclusion regarding the provenance of 2 Maccabees, feel free to read my paper first.

That's awfully convenient. Although that sort of thing occurred, the null hypothesis should be that 2 Maccabees is unified. However, you claim to have offered evidence to the contrary so I guess I'll take a look, time permitting.

[maklelan]

That's awfully convenient.

It's what is supported by the evidence. I suggest you familiarize yourself with that evidence before you try to undermine it with broad and flippant strokes.

Although that sort of thing occurred, the null hypothesis should be that 2 Maccabees is unified. However, you claim to have offered evidence to the contrary so I guess I'll take a look, time permitting.

I look forward to your comments.