Why the fall had to occur

a reply to: whereislogic
edit:

“Even though there are those who are called ‘gods,’ whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords,’ there is actually to us one God the Father.” (1Co 8:5, 6) Jehovah is the Almighty God, the only true God, and he rightfully exacts exclusive devotion. (Ex 20:5)

Just to be clear:

...Servetus’ quest for the truth also led him to use the name Jehovah. Some months after William Tyndale employed this name in his translation of the Pentateuch, Servetus published On the Errors of the Trinity​—in which he used the name Jehovah throughout. He explained in this work: “The other name, the most holy of all, יהוה, . . . can be interpreted as follows, . . . ‘He causes to be,’ ‘he who brings into being,’ ‘the cause of existence.’” He noted: “The name of Jehovah can properly apply only to the Father.”

In 1542, Servetus also edited the renowned Latin translation of the Bible by Santes Pagninus (shown below). In his extensive marginal notes, Servetus highlighted the divine name again. He included the name Jehovah in the marginal references to key texts such as Psalm 83:18, where the word for “Lord” appeared in the main text.

In his final work, The Restitution of Christianity, Servetus stated regarding the divine name, Jehovah: “[It] is clear . . . that there were many who pronounced this name in ancient times.”

Source: Michael Servetus—A Solitary Quest for the Truth

Paragraphs in reverse order this time because I started with Paul's words in my previous comment and I've shared this information before in response to Chronaut (no need to express further denial or evasion if feeling so inclined):

Paul’s reference to “God the Father” does not mean that the true God’s name is “Father,” for the designation “father” applies as well to every human male parent and describes men in other relationships. (Ro 4:11, 16; 1Co 4:15) The Messiah is given the title “Eternal Father.” (Isa 9:6) Jesus called Satan the “father” of certain murderous opposers. (Joh 8:44) The term was also applied to gods of the nations, the Greek god Zeus being represented as the great father god in Homeric poetry. That “God the Father” has a name, one that is distinct from his Son’s name, is shown in numerous texts. (Mt 28:19; Re 3:12; 14:1) Paul knew the personal name of God, Jehovah, as found in the creation account in Genesis, from which Paul quoted in his writings. That name, Jehovah, distinguishes “God the Father” (compare Isa 64:8), thereby blocking any attempt at merging or blending his identity and person with that of any other to whom the title “god” or “father” may be applied.

...[back to the introductory parapraphs]

“God” and “Father” not distinctive. The title “God” is neither personal nor distinctive (one can even make a god of his belly; Php 3:19). In the Hebrew Scriptures the same word (ʼElo·himʹ) is applied to Jehovah, the true God, and also to false gods, such as the Philistine god Dagon (Jg 16:23, 24; 1Sa 5:7) and the Assyrian god Nisroch. (2Ki 19:37) [whereislogic: and as I've demonstrated to real gods, like angels and Jesus, heavenly beings, sprits, spirit beings and mighty ones, such as at John 1:1c, Psalm 8:5 and Isaiah 9:6] For a Hebrew to tell a Philistine or an Assyrian that he worshiped “God [ʼElo·himʹ]” would obviously not have sufficed to identify the Person to whom his worship went.

In its articles on Jehovah, The Imperial Bible-Dictionary nicely illustrates the difference between ʼElo·himʹ (God) and Jehovah. Of the name Jehovah, it says: “It is everywhere a proper name, denoting the personal God and him only; whereas Elohim partakes more of the character of a common noun, denoting usually, indeed, but not necessarily nor uniformly, the Supreme. . . . The Hebrew may say the Elohim, the true God, in opposition to all false gods; but he never says the Jehovah, for Jehovah is the name of the true God only. He says again and again my God . . . ; but never my Jehovah, for when he says my God, he means Jehovah. He speaks of the God of Israel, but never of the Jehovah of Israel, for there is no other Jehovah. He speaks of the living God, but never of the living Jehovah, for he cannot conceive of Jehovah as other than living.”​—Edited by P. Fairbairn, London, 1874, Vol. I, p. 856.

The same is true of the Greek term for God, The·osʹ. It was applied alike to the true God and to such pagan gods as Zeus and Hermes (Roman Jupiter and Mercury). (Compare Ac 14:11-15.) [whereislogic: and again,to heavenly beings and mighty ones, including Jesus at John 1:1c, allthough there a grammatical variant of The·osʹ is used to make it even more clear that this is going on and it isn't identifying"the Word" with the God mentioned at the start of the verse] Presenting the true situation are Paul’s words at 1 Corinthians 8:4-6:...

Source: Jehovah: Insight, Volume 2

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: chr0naut
Biblical references, which do talk about 'gods' other than YHWH, describe them as false gods.

False/incorrect. At Psalm 8:5 angels are referred to as gods (Hebrew: elohim). They are not false gods and they are not described as false gods. They are really gods; one definition in A Dictionary of Biblical Languages w/ Semantic Domains: Hebrew (OT) for the Hebrew word "elohim" is: heavenly being(s). Another broader definition is: mighty one(s).

There are several assumptions that you are making here.

The first is that Psalm 8:5 refers to 'angels' when in its original Hebrew, it says Elohim.

Elohim can mean the plural of a little "g" god (i.e; false gods), or it has been used as the title applied to the one true God (YHWH) and its plurality is an honorific.

This means that Psalm 8:5 could more correctly read as:

"You have made them a little lower than God (YHWH, the one and only true God)... "

or it could mean, "You have made them a little lower than the false gods (conceptually)... " as well as, "You have made them a little lower than heavenly beings... " but that is not explicitly what the original text said.

You must also be cognizant of the fact that the Psalms were songs and therefore use metaphor and analogy extensively.

Shakespeare used similar allegory, "What a piece of work is man, How noble in reason, how infinite in faculty, In form and moving how express and admirable, In action how like an Angel, In apprehension how like a god, The beauty of the world, The paragon of animals. And yet to me, what is this quintessence of dust?"

The words that have been translated to "God, god" or "gods" are not limited in their definition to either false gods or the true God. Even Paul distinguishes between "there are many gods" and "so-called gods".

The context of Paul's words was that he was talking of "so called gods", not actual other gods, as follows;

"For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live." - 1 Corinthians 8:5-6.

The bible mentions many gods, it does not describe all these gods as false gods and in some cases such as those angels who are clearly shown to be in the service of Jehovah God, it is clear from the context that these are not false gods, but real gods/mighty ones or heavenly beings (at Psalm 8:5 the latter definition applies, at John 1:1c both "mighty one" or "heavenly being" can apply, and that's why people are kept in the dark about these broader definitions).

No, the appellation "the one and only true God", among many other highly definite phrases of similar intent, spread throughout the Bible clearly indicate that there are no other true gods from the point of view of Judaism or Christianity.

Standard Trinitarian twist and keeping people in the dark, confusing them about monotheism. Trinitarianism isn't monotheism no matter how good some dishonest or misled (indoctrinated) theologians can twist that issue and do some psychological projection on those acknowledging just like Paul that there are many gods, there is just one that stands out from the rest of them regarding his uniqueness and might, hence the only God who is referred to as God Almighty in the bible whereas Jesus is prophetically referred to as "Mighty God" at Isaiah 9:6, not Almighty God or God Almighty.

Perhaps the guy in this video explains it better than me:

The 2nd video above might give the wrong impression regarding Hebrews 1:8 but you probably won't watch it anyway or care about what it reminds people of. But just in case someone is out there who does. Just remember if you want a proper response to the standard Trinitarian twist regarding Heb.1:8 go here and search for "Hebrews 1:8".

Psalm 8:5

English Standard Version
Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.

New American Standard Bible
Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty!

King James Bible
For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

NET Bible
and make them a little less than the heavenly beings? You grant mankind honor and majesty;

NW
You made him a little lower than godlike ones,* [Or “than angels.”]

And you crowned him with glory and splendor.

Of course, I would disagree with conclusions drawn from translations which ignore the specifics of the source texts.

a reply to: chr0naut
I guess you can't resist denial and evasion. Psalm 8:5 is talking about angels which are heavenly beings and not false gods, period. Try to confuse Joel about it, you'll have more luck. Your argument regarding what Psalm 8:5 is talking about (as if it's referring to Jehovah God, God Almighty, "the only true God") only works better on those unaware of what I left out this time:

At Psalm 8:5, the angels are also referred to as ʼelo·himʹ, as is confirmed by Paul’s quotation of the passage at Hebrews 2:6-8.

Source: God: Insight, Volume 1

These are neither "false gods" nor "God" (in the sense of Jehovah God). These are "gods/heavenly beings/godlike ones" just like the Hebrew word says and means as defined in honest dictionaries (even those made by Trinitarians and Jewish scholars of Hebrew). Now go and produce a translation of some fringe translator that says "God" at Hebrews 2:7 in Paul's quotation of Psalm 8:5. All of the ones listed on this website talk about "angels" except for YLT which has "messengers":

Hebrews 2:7 (biblehub)

And you still wanna argue that:

This means that Psalm 8:5 could more correctly read as:

"You have made them a little lower than God (YHWH, the one and only true God)... "

No way it could. Try to make something else more vague and blurry (like a fog over one's mind or as if veiled in a shroud of darkness and unclarity/uncertainty), this is crystal clear it's talking about "angels", "as is confirmed by Paul’s quotation of the passage at Hebrews 2:6-8". Which are not false gods which shows what's wrong with your earlier comment trying to limit the meaning of the related words in Greek and Hebrew to either referring to false gods or "the one and only true God" as the way you phrase it so it helps with twisting those verses where Jesus is referred to as a god, a real god, a mighty one, but not the Almighty God, Jehovah God.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: chr0naut
I guess you can't resist denial and evasion. Psalm 8:5 is talking about angels which are heavenly beings and not false gods, period. Try to confuse Joel about it, you'll have more luck.

Psalm 8:5 in the Hebrew scriptures (in pre-Masoretic texts, such as those among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and in the Masoretic version) makes no mention of angels.

The first mention of ' angels' is in the Septuagint translation into Koine Greek, from about 300 years BC. The first English translation was not until 1200 AD.

The Septuagint and other versions are copies and translations and later than the original Hebrew scriptures.

a reply to: chr0naut
Paul does (way earlier than the Masoretes too). And the Masoretic Text and older Hebrew manuscripts have ʼelo·himʹ, which in that situation at Psalm 8:5 is still referring to heavenly beings/angels/spirit beings/spirits/gods (and not "false gods" nor "God"). According to the definitions for that word some of whom are listed in for example A Dictionary of Biblical Languages w/ Semantic Domains: Hebrew (OT). So they do refer to angels.

But you know better than Paul and every hypocritical dishonest and inconsistent bible translator of the translations listed at biblehub that uses "God" at Psalm 8:5 but "angels" at Hebrews 2:7?

Time for another round of Paul-bashing with WWF defense from Trinitarians or Binitarians (incl. those referring to themselves as "Jewish Christians")? Haven't seen that for a while on this forum.

Did Paul quote from Psalm 8:5 and refer to "angels", yes or no? Are you with Paul on this, yes or no?

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: chr0naut
Paul does (way earlier than the Masoretes too). And the Masoretic Text and older Hebrew manuscripts have ʼelo·himʹ, which in that situation a Psalm 8:5 is still referring to heavenly beings/angels/spirit being/spirits/gods. According to the definitions for that word some of whom are listed in for example A Dictionary of Biblical Languages w/ Semantic Domains: Hebrew (OT). So they do refer to angels.

They say ʼelo·himʹ not 'mal'akhim' or something similar like 'cherubim'.

They already had a Hebrew word for angel and they didn't use it.

Why would that be?

Perhaps they weren't talking about angels?

a reply to: chr0naut
I already thoroughly explained why that would be in my explanation of the meaning and multiple broader definitions for the word ʼelo·himʹ which you desire to limit to 2 definitions, either a false god or Jehovah God who you refer to as "God (YHWH, the one and only true God)". Perhaps hoping that people wil not notice the broader definitions and how they apply to Jesus as well without them meaning that Jesus is "God (YHWH, the one and only true God)", the standard twist of all these texts that refer to Jesus as "a god" or even "Mighty God". Denying the existence of other gods that are not false gods but just like Jesus, gods in the service to their God, Jehovah.

Ephesians 1:3a (Paul again)

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,...

"...whose name alone is JEHOVAH..." (Ps 83:18; KJV)

“Even though there are those who are called ‘gods,’ whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords,’ there is actually to us one God the Father.” (1Co 8:5, 6)

"...whose name alone is JEHOVAH..." (Ps 83:18; KJV)

Btw, I see almost the same lack of support or supporting evidence for your arguments as I see in the arguments made by JoelR, perhaps only the style is a little bit different, more distractions and evasions of the issue to bring up facts that don't affect that Psalm 8:5 is neither referring to what you described as "the false gods (conceptually)" nor is it referring to "God (YHWH, the one and only true God)" and the misleading description " could more correctly read as" and "or it could mean" referring to those 2 options intermingled with the only crystal clear correct/truthful/conclusive meaning of "heavenly beings/angels/gods/etc." (synonyms apply) is very distracting and blurring the matter. A favorite tactic of those promoting selective agnosticism or applying selective agnosticism (or ignorance) regarding inconvenient facts/realities/certainties/truths* such as the fact that the bible acknowledges the existence of other gods that are not false gods, and it identifies some of these gods as angelic creatures, just like Jesus is a creature, a created being. But that's getting into a connected topic.

*: or things that are factual/true/certain/correct, without error/absolute/conclusive/definitive/unambiguous, i.e. not "could be" this, or "could be" that, maybe this, maybe that, 'let's just forget all about determining the truth of the matter so we can more easily ignore how this is relevant to Trinitarian dogma' whenever the Hebrew or Greek words for "God, god(s), a god, the god(s)" are applied to Jesus when it's also clearly referring to him either being a " mighty one" or "heavenly being" or both, but never to him being Jehovah God, God Almighty or any designation that exclusively applies to Jehovah who is distinguished from Jesus over 7000 times in the bible by the use of his unique personal name that most Trinitarian biased bible translations will not render at all or only 4 times like the KJV.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: chr0naut
I already thoroughly explained why that would be in my explanation of the meaning and multiple broader definitions for the word ʼelo·himʹ which you desire to limit to 2 definitions, either a false god or Jehovah God who you refer to as "God (YHWH, the one and only true God)". Perhaps hoping that people wil not notice the broader definitions and how they apply to Jesus as well without them meaning that Jesus is "God (YHWH, the one and only true God)", the standard twist of all these texts that refer to Jesus as "a god" or even "Mighty God". Denying the existence of other gods that are not false gods but just like Jesus, gods in the service to their God, Jehovah.

Ephesians 1:3a (Paul again)

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,...

"...whose name alone is JEHOVAH..." (Ps 83:18; KJV)

“Even though there are those who are called ‘gods,’ whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords,’ there is actually to us one God the Father.” (1Co 8:5, 6)

"...whose name alone is JEHOVAH..." (Ps 83:18; KJV)

Btw, I see almost the same lack of support or supporting evidence for your arguments as I see in the arguments made by JoelR, perhaps only the style is a little bit different, more distractions and evasions of the issue to bring up facts that don't affect that Psalm 8:5 is neither referring to what you described as "the false gods (conceptually)" nor is it referring to "God (YHWH, the one and only true God)" and the misleading description " could more correctly read as" and "or it could mean" referring to those 2 options intermingled with the only crystal clear correct/truthful/conclusive meaning of "heavenly beings/angels/gods/etc." (synonyms apply) is very distracting and blurring the matter. A favorite tactic of those promoting selective agnosticism or applying selective agnosticism (or ignorance) regarding inconvenient facts/realities/certainties/truths* such as the fact that the bible acknowledges the existence of other gods that are not false gods, and it identifies some of these gods as angelic creatures, just like Jesus is a creature, a created being. But that's getting into a connected topic.

*: or things that are factual/true/certain/correct, without error/absolute/conclusive/definitive/unambiguous, i.e. not "could be" this, or "could be" that, maybe this, maybe that, 'let's just forget all about determining the truth of the matter so we can more easily ignore how this is relevant to Trinitarian dogma' whenever the Hebrew or Greek words for "God, god(s), a god, the god(s)" are applied to Jesus when it's also clearly referring to him either being a " mighty one" or "heavenly being" or both, but never to him being Jehovah God, God Almighty or any designation that exclusively applies to Jehovah who is distinguished from Jesus over 7000 times in the bible by the use of his unique personal name that most Trinitarian biased bible translations will not render at all or only 4 times like the KJV.

Why would you believe a vague inference which directly contradicts the open and clearly expressed content elsewhere in the Bible?

Surely a consistent interpretation is the most likely.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Surely a consistent interpretation is the most likely.

Which is why I don't believe your interpretation regarding verses in the bible where Jesus is referred to as "a god" (falsely translated "God" at John 1:1c in most Trinitarian bible translations) or "Mighty God", such as at Isaiah 9:6, a "shepherd" (just like Jehovah is a shepherd but that doesn't make them the same shepherd), a Lord (just like Jehovah is a Lord, but that doesn't make....etc.), a King, "Eternal Father", a savior, etc. (every title or noun that just happens to apply to Jehovah as well but doesn't mention a specific name, all of whom are twisted to pretend they mean that the sovereign Lord, shepherd, King, God and Father Jehovah, is the same individual as the Lord, King, god, Mighty God and shepherd Jesus). It is entirely inconsistent with the rest of the bible, including those 3 verses I just quoted in my last comment, Eph.1:3, 1Co 8:5, 6 and Psalm 83:18. It's also conveniently ignoring the meaning for the words that have been translated "god, a god, the god, the God and God".

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: chr0naut
Surely a consistent interpretation is the most likely.

Which is why I don't believe your interpretation regarding verses in the bible where Jesus is referred to as "a god" (falsely translated "God" at John 1:1c in most Trinitarian bible translations) or "Mighty God", such as at Isaiah 9:6, a "shepherd" (just like Jehovah is a shepherd but that doesn't make them the same shepherd), a Lord (just like Jehovah is a Lord, but that doesn't make....etc.), a King, "Eternal Father", a savior, etc. (every title or noun that just happens to apply to Jehovah as well but doesn't mention a specific name, all of whom are twisted to pretend they mean that the sovereign Lord, shepherd, King, God and Father Jehovah, is the same individual as the Lord, King, god, Mighty God and shepherd Jesus). It is entirely inconsistent with the rest of the bible, including those 3 verses I just quoted in my last comment, Eph.1:3, 1Co 8:5, 6 and Psalm 83:18. It's also conveniently ignoring the meaning for the words that have been translated "god, a god, the god, the God and God".

So you throw away parts of the Bible that happen to disagree with your opinion?

How convenient of you.

I suggest that an interpretation that is self-consistent across the whole Bible, not requiring that you reinterpret or discard any part, makes far more sense.

originally posted by: chr0naut

I did not call any entire field of scholars kooks. I said "there are kooks, even among scholars".

There may be some kooks but when I say the "field" I mean the majority view that there was no supernatural Jesus.
I believe you were trying to fluff that fact off buy saying they were kooks.

originally posted by: chr0naut

I just told you I didn't call Jesus a superhero. How is your response any sort of rational logic?.

Yes you did, you said you believed Jesus was the son of a god. This means he has supernatural powers. In this myth, when this man existed he would have been a superhero. Yes a preach-y kind of evangelical hero but if he did miracles then he was a superhero. It does not matter that that term didn't exist back then. In his day he was a superhero, same as any son of any god.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Science is mute on the subject. Most people don't venerate ignorance as you do.

Well this is getting boring, round and round, same argument. Science also doesn't say anything about Thor or Krishna. That doesn't make them any more real. So there is no debate their. If you want to pretend like science doesn't disprove Jesus then we can say the same thing about ANY fairy tale.
Maybe Celtic tales of fairies were real also - because science is mute on the subject......yawn....zzzzzz

originally posted by: chr0naut
So if someone doesn't believe in Leprachons you can say "No they must exist or that's circular reasoning", all day long but they still won't exist in reality.

How is that any sort of rational logic?

What don't you get here? Do you think modern scientific knowledge and scientific thought basically (probabilistically) disproves the existence of the literal existence of all the Hindu gods? If your answer is "yes" then the same applies to any myth.

originally posted by: chr0nautThen all supernatural stories are actually true and science has failed? Sure, that's a nice fantasy to live in.

More irrationality.

See, again, same point. If you think science does not disprove Christianity then it also doesn't disprove Hinduism.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Not true. The vast majority of historical and archaeological studies confirm the Gospel accounts.

That's it. We have already been here. The history field and the archeology field both consider the supernatural aspects of all religions to be myth. I've shown this with fact, then a few posts later, you're right back here pretending like your beliefs aren't faith based. They are. The fact that you've nowhere new to go is clear evidence you've nothing else to say.

originally posted by: chr0nautLike I said, the peer reviewed stuff that is accepted as part of the field says Jesus was just a man.
If these peer-reviewed academic papers are in such proliferation, why can't you link to some of them directly?

I've listed a few of the peer reviewed books accepted in the field as accurate work including Richard Purvo the worlds leading expert on Acts who shows Acts is fiction, John Dominic Crossan and Elaine Pagels.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Books are not published according to academic peer review, nor is video.

Oh, I'm sorry, I had no idea you didn't know about this. Yes, books, once peer reviewed and accepted, vetted etc..become the main source for historical information.

Many of these books are just collections of papers anyways. Hitler Homer Bible Christ: The Historical Papers of Richard Carrier 1995-2013 are all of Carriers published works.

originally posted by: chr0naut

No, science, reasoning, history, philosophy, textual criticism and archaeology are not on your side.

Science, reasoning, history, philosophy, textual criticism and archaeology are on the side that believes the supernatural aspects of all religion is myth. End of story. There is no debate or anything related in the world where anyone thinks religion is real in scholarship. The ONLY exception is fundamentalists who are themselves scholars. But by listening to their debates we see they are fooling themselves. No one else believes in myths.

Do you think "reasoning" can show Krishna was a real god?

originally posted by: chr0naut

The "one and only God", established in the earliest scriptures, means that there isn't any other 'gods'.

Yes there is that passage BUT many others that refer to multiple gods. Many. Why do you get to pick and choose?
There are Egyptian gods and other gods all over the OT? How the hell can you just ignore scripture that says Yahweh is the greatest among many gods.

originally posted by: chr0naut

If you can show academically peer reviewed papers, I will give you some credence. That would be fair and reasonable.

Don't waste your time quoting from a dubious source such as a video, blog or populist book, though.

I can't do all the work for you. It's a huge field of study. One reading is enough for me.
richardcarrier.blogspot.com... for sources

Thom Stark wrote an article with some critique of some of this info which was rebutted here:
www.richardcarrier.info...

originally posted by: chr0naut
Why should she not be listed as an alumnus?


I cannot comment on posts on the forums of the 'truthbeknown' site because the site is (conveniently) broken and the forums are inaccessible.

Accessible? Nope. Got to truthbeknown.com, click on the forums link, nada.

I don't know bout her alumni status and I don't know why her forum is down? But she took on all of Ehrmans debates and always backed up her work with sources.
These articles by Murdock address much of Erhmans issues and exposes him as a bit of a fraud.
freethoughtnation.com...

I've read all her work and posts so I formed an opinion based on the totality of her writings.

Carrier is a higher level scholar at any rate, a PHd in history is basically 4 years extra of learning how to vet sources and produce the most accurate work as possible.

originally posted by: chr0naut




What happened to Paul being the originator as you previously suggested?

The origin isn't known. Paul was possibly speaking of a celestial being but that mythology was possibly already in place. As Carrier points out there was a firstborn son of God angel named (Joseph?) - a name that had the same meaning as Jesus in Greek.
Paul mentioned "scripture" but this scripture clearly did not (based on evidence) have any earthly Jesus, a church, followers, disciples, it was just a death and resurrection. Probably in the lower firmament because that is where many events happened at that time in writing mythology. Also the previous first of god angel who battles Satan and was re-born all happened in the firmament.

This is what the evidence suggests. Take the entire stories of Jesus, imagine you were Paul and knew about these stories, for sure you would have mentioned them.
The author who was writing stories heard from Mark is the one who produces an earth Jesus with a ministry.
conveniently this new god is just like all the new demigods being produced across the Middle East and Egypt.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Monogamy, are you sure you don't mean monolagmy?

Oh yeah like monotheistic/monolatric, ha, funny.

originally posted by: chr0naut

Does Richard Carrier Exist? - Dr Glenn Andrews Peoples

...

I'm not backing his Bayesian reasoning. Christian apologetics have to have some negative stuff to poke Carrier about, makes sense.
He's showing there is valid reasoning behind the mythicist theory (the mathematical proof notwithstanding) and Christians are upset.
The historicity field had closed the book on the mythicist theory because an actual kook wrote a book about it that was terrible and full of inaccuracies. So it was an embarrassment for scholars to even consider it. Like ufos and commercial pilots. Even if you see something very ufo-ish, you can't talk about it unless you want a desk job.

So ~10 years ago Carrier received a grant to begin a historicity study of Jesus.

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: joelr
y pointing me to large swaths of text and lengthy videos without specifics (from ancient documents) that match your specific claims, you haven't given me much motivation to look any further or consider your argument any further.

Romulus: The Savior-God of Rome.

In religious syncretism we see not exact copies but concepts moving from each religion. In this case:
"Romulus’ story follows a very common format, in which we see the offspring of an immortal god and earthly mother, a miraculous birth, harrowing survival into adulthood, discovery of divine ancestry, great and miraculous works, disappearance or death, followed by assent to godhood."

I believe Carrier had a reference to followers undergoing baptism and receiving forgiveness for personal sins as well.
But each savior god mixed the general concept with concepts from the religion it was being adapted into.
There are several other pre-Chriatian messiah gods as well we can prove but likely there were dozens or hundreds.

discoveringancienthistory.wordpress.com...

Specific places to find source material are here.

originally posted by: whereislogic

Regarding the references made by first- and second-century historians to Jesus and the early Christians, the Encyclopædia Britannica, 2002 Edition, says:

These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.

Richard Carrier seems to be listed a lot on wikipages that talk about the so-called "Christ myth theory" or "Jesus mythicism" so I would count him among those mentioned above. As far as I can tell from their methods and yours is that the Encyclopædia Britannica got it right when they decided to use the term "on inadequate grounds". They are usually quite serious about what they decide to put in their Encyclopædia and thoroughly research such matters. It doesn't seem to be the same way for certain other sources and rather biased individuals selling books that tickle the ears of a particular target audience who would perhaps get bored reading an Encyclopædia instead.

Yes Carrier speaks about the latest attempts to pass off the mythicist theory from a man who is literally crazy/delusional and wrote a book where Jesus was actually Julias Cesar.
An embarrassment to scholars. This is what the encyclopedia was mentioning.

Carrier started his study with no bias actually and was a former practitioner of Tao and did accept supernatural happenings if history supported them. OF course, they absolutely do not.

Carrier is an actual PHd and has had 30+ hours of public debate against fundamentalist scholars and historicity scholars. He won all debates hands down. So his work has stood strong against previous scholarship. His work will be vetted and accepted in time, no doubt. If you don't understand something he will answer questions on his blog.
I find no flaws in his work after investing endless hours seeing how his knowledge faired against respected scholars.

originally posted by: chr0naut


Psalm 8:5 in the Hebrew scriptures (in pre-Masoretic texts, such as those among the Dead Sea Scrolls, and in the Masoretic version) makes no mention of angels.

The first mention of ' angels' is in the Septuagint translation into Koine Greek, from about 300 years BC. The first English translation was not until 1200 AD.

The Septuagint and other versions are copies and translations and later than the original Hebrew scriptures.

In the Nag Nammandi there is a passage where God finds out there is still a God above him, a feminine God.

Joseph Campbell talks about this myth appearing in various places (In Hindu on the audiobook I was listening to). Where a strong male deity who believes itself supreme encounters a female deity who is actually the source of all of the gods powers. The male god is humbled and learns a lesson.

originally posted by: chr0naut

So you throw away parts of the Bible that happen to disagree with your opinion?

How convenient of you.

I suggest that an interpretation that is self-consistent across the whole Bible, not requiring that you reinterpret or discard any part, makes far more sense.

Psychological projection - Wikipedia

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.

I wonder how people call it when it's not "unconscious" because they are very well aware they're full of it and are doing it deliberately because it works so well as a propaganda technique. I guess I can still categorize it under "appealing to emotions" and in particular fear and pride again. Similar to this technique (except swap "intelligent" or "smart" with the notion of having biblical support for one's views, or using your words "an interpretation that is self-consistent across the whole Bible" and swap "stupid" with 'throwing away parts of the bible', 'reinterpret or discard any part', not talking about a word for word swap but conceptually):

Playing on the Emotions

Even though feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion. Emotional appeals are fabricated by practiced publicists, who play on feelings as skillfully as a virtuoso plays the piano.
...
Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.
...
They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

Source: The Manipulation of Information: Awake!—2000+the next page

Just to be extra clear this time, you said:

Surely a consistent interpretation is the most likely.

It sure is, which is why I don't believe your interpretation regarding verses in the bible where Jesus is referred to as "a god" (falsely translated "God" at John 1:1c in most Trinitarian bible translations) or "Mighty God", such as at Isaiah 9:6, a "shepherd" (just like Jehovah is a shepherd but that doesn't make them the same shepherd), a Lord (just like Jehovah is a Lord, but that doesn't make....etc.), a King, "Eternal Father", a savior, etc. (every title or noun that just happens to apply to Jehovah as well but doesn't mention a specific name, all of whom are twisted to pretend they mean that the sovereign Lord, shepherd, King, God and Father Jehovah, is the same individual as the Lord, King, god, Mighty God and shepherd Jesus). It is entirely inconsistent with the rest of the bible, including those 3 verses I just quoted in my last comment, Eph.1:3, 1Co 8:5, 6 and Psalm 83:18. It's also conveniently ignoring the meaning for the words that have been translated "god, a god, the god, the God and God".

I don't have to interpret Ephesians 1:3, conveniently ignore or avoid any response to it (tip-toe or tapdance around the issue, distracting from the clear bible teachings in it: Jesus has a God, there is someone who is "the God...of our Lord Jesus Christ"). I just need to quote it to refute your twisted interpretations described above:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,... (Eph.1:3)

"...whose name alone is JEHOVAH..." (Ps 83:18; KJV)

“Even though there are those who are called ‘gods,’ whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords,’ there is actually to us one God the Father.” (1Co 8:5, 6)

"...whose name alone is JEHOVAH..." (Ps 83:18; KJV)

It spells it out quite clearly. Along with the thousands of other verses in the bible that consistently clear up the matter that I can't use in one comment. Jesus "was a god" as were the angels and many others (even humans as clearly demonstrated and quoted from the bible in the videos you refuse to acknowledge), just like John 1:1 and Ps.8:5 says. Which is entirely consistent with the teachings above. He is even prophetically referred to as "Mighty God". But that doesn't make him Jehovah God, God Almighty. That's something the bible doesn't say or teach. If you want to read or want people to read that into the bible you have to twist then and specialize "in lies and half-truths". Just as I am observing you and many other people doing. I can't just ignore what I'm observing and not give people a heads-up about it.

I'm also not the one who has to interpret Ps 8:5 in an inconsistent manner with Paul's quotation of it and avoid and distract from that subject as well. Where angels are referred to with the Hebrew word for "gods". Clearly indicating that angels are also gods, just like Jesus, but referring to them as "gods" (or in Jesus case "a god" or "Mighty God") doesn't make any of them Jehovah God either. It doesn't put them on equal footing or rank either.

1 Cor.11:3

But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn, the head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Christ is God.

Crystal clear, no interpretation required. It's Trinitarians, Binitarians, and Jewish Christians among others that have to reinterpret the bolded part of the phrase to still pretend it means that "Christ is God" (the God mentioned there as "the head of Christ", not just any god or God). And then conveniently ignore applying that logic to the first part of the sentence that says "the head of every man is the Christ" to not consistently argue that "every man is the Christ". Or just ignore the whole verse and quickly quote something completely irrelevant to the above teaching about who is in charge here, who outranks who. Just playing the next card in the house of cards that resembles the house of cards of those promoting and teaching evolutionary philosophies who also won't get into details and specifics and quickly avoid and distract from the facts that are inconvenient for them. Using red herrings and distracting distorted facts, half-truths and even outright lies/falsehoods or respond with irrational sometimes even contradictory interpretations of how it is supposedly to be understood so that it doesn't refute Trinitarian dogma a.k.a. "a first-rate mystery" (according to the official Assemblies of God website quoted further below).

Details:
John 1:1c: "...and the Word was a god"

originally posted by: chr0naut

No, the appellation "the one and only true God", among many other highly definite phrases of similar intent, spread throughout the Bible clearly indicate that there are no other true gods from the point of view of Judaism or Christianity.

False/incorrect and another twist distracting from what's important to understand from that verse where the phrase is actually different and it's clearly Jesus referring to someone else (which you left out from your argument cause it doesn't work so well to mention that along with that phrase for your underlying argumentation about the identity of God and Jesus).

Does the Bible teach that each of those said to be part of the Trinity is God?

Jesus said in prayer: “Father, . . . this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:1-3, RS; italics added.) (Most translations here use the expression “the only true God” with reference to the Father. NE reads “who alone art truly God.” He cannot be “the only true God,” the one “who alone [is] truly God,” if there are two others who are God to the same degree as he is, can he? Any others referred to as “gods” must be either false or merely a reflection of the true God.)

1 Cor. 8:5, 6, RS: “Although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” (This presents the Father as the “one God” of Christians and as being in a class distinct from Jesus Christ.)

1 Pet. 1:3, RS: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!” (Repeatedly, even following Jesus’ ascension to heaven, the Scriptures refer to the Father as “the God” of Jesus Christ. At John 20:17, following Jesus’ resurrection, he himself spoke of the Father as “my God.” Later, when in heaven, as recorded at Revelation 3:12, he again used the same expression. But never in the Bible is the Father reported to refer to the Son as “my God,” nor does either the Father or the Son refer to the holy spirit as “my God.”)
...
John 1:1, 2:

RS reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” (KJ, Dy, JB, NAB use similar wording.) However, NW reads: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God.”

Which translation of John 1:1, 2 agrees with the context? John 1:18 says: “No one has ever seen God.” Verse 14 clearly says that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . we have beheld his glory.” Also, verses 1, 2 say that in the beginning he was “with God.” Can one be with someone and at the same time be that person? At John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father as “the only true God”; so, Jesus as “a god” merely reflects his Father’s divine qualities.—Heb. 1:3.

Col.1:15 (regarding Jesus)

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: chr0naut

Psychological projection - Wikipedia

Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against their own unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.

I wonder how people call it when it's not "unconscious" because they are very well aware they're full of it and are doing it deliberately because it works so well as a propaganda technique. I guess I can still categorize it under "appealing to emotions" and in particular fear and pride again. Similar to this technique (except swap "intelligent" or "smart" with the notion of having biblical support for one's views, or using your words "an interpretation that is self-consistent across the whole Bible" and swap "stupid" with 'throwing away parts of the bible', 'reinterpret or discard any part', not talking about a word for word swap but conceptually):

Playing on the Emotions

Even though feelings might be irrelevant when it comes to factual claims or the logic of an argument, they play a crucial role in persuasion. Emotional appeals are fabricated by practiced publicists, who play on feelings as skillfully as a virtuoso plays the piano.
...
Some propagandists play on pride. Often we can spot appeals to pride by looking for such key phrases as: “Any intelligent person knows that . . .” or, “A person with your education can’t help but see that . . .” A reverse appeal to pride plays on our fear of seeming stupid. Professionals in persuasion are well aware of that.
...
They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths. Your emotions, not your logical thinking abilities, are their target.

The propagandist makes sure that his message appears to be the right and moral one and that it gives you a sense of importance and belonging if you follow it. You are one of the smart ones, you are not alone, you are comfortable and secure—so they say.

Source: The Manipulation of Information: Awake!—2000+the next page

Just to be extra clear this time, you said:

It sure is, which is why I don't believe your interpretation regarding verses in the bible where Jesus is referred to as "a god" (falsely translated "God" at John 1:1c in most Trinitarian bible translations) or "Mighty God", such as at Isaiah 9:6, a "shepherd" (just like Jehovah is a shepherd but that doesn't make them the same shepherd), a Lord (just like Jehovah is a Lord, but that doesn't make....etc.), a King, "Eternal Father", a savior, etc. (every title or noun that just happens to apply to Jehovah as well but doesn't mention a specific name, all of whom are twisted to pretend they mean that the sovereign Lord, shepherd, King, God and Father Jehovah, is the same individual as the Lord, King, god, Mighty God and shepherd Jesus). It is entirely inconsistent with the rest of the bible, including those 3 verses I just quoted in my last comment, Eph.1:3, 1Co 8:5, 6 and Psalm 83:18. It's also conveniently ignoring the meaning for the words that have been translated "god, a god, the god, the God and God".

You appear to have taken the section you bolded out of context. Read the whole sentence (beyond the comma) in context and I was pointing out your subdivision of the Godhead into separate gods, is inconsistent with the Bible.

I don't have to interpret Ephesians 1:3, conveniently ignore or avoid any response to it (tip-toe or tapdance around the issue, distracting from the clear bible teachings in it: Jesus has a God, there is someone who is "the God...of our Lord Jesus Christ"). I just need to quote it to refute your twisted interpretations described above:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,... (Eph.1:3)

"...whose name alone is JEHOVAH..." (Ps 83:18; KJV)

“Even though there are those who are called ‘gods,’ whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords,’ there is actually to us one God the Father.” (1Co 8:5, 6)

"...whose name alone is JEHOVAH..." (Ps 83:18; KJV)

It spells it out quite clearly. Along with the thousands of other verses in the bible that consistently clear up the matter that I can't use in one comment. Jesus "was a god" as were the angels and many others (even humans as clearly demonstrated and quoted from the bible in the videos you refuse to acknowledge), just like John 1:1 and Ps.8:5 says. Which is entirely consistent with the teachings above. He is even prophetically referred to as "Mighty God". But that doesn't make him Jehovah God, God Almighty. That's something the bible doesn't say or teach. If you want to read or want people to read that into the bible you have to twist then and specialize "in lies and half-truths". Just as I am observing you and many other people doing. I can't just ignore what I'm observing and not give people a heads-up about it.

I'm also not the one who has to interpret Ps 8:5 in an inconsistent manner with Paul's quotation of it and avoid and distract from that subject as well. Where angels are referred to with the Hebrew word for "gods". Clearly indicating that angels are also gods, just like Jesus, but referring to them as "gods" (or in Jesus case "a god" or "Mighty God") doesn't make any of them Jehovah God either. It doesn't put them on equal footing or rank either.

1 Cor.11:3

But I want you to know that the head of every man is the Christ; in turn, the head of a woman is the man; in turn, the head of the Christ is God.

Crystal clear, no interpretation required. It's Trinitarians, Binitarians, and Jewish Christians among others that have to reinterpret the bolded part of the phrase to still pretend it means that "Christ is God" (the God mentioned there as "the head of Christ", not just any god or God). And then conveniently ignore applying that logic to the first part of the sentence that says "the head of every man is the Christ" to not consistently argue that "every man is the Christ". Or just ignore the whole verse and quickly quote something completely irrelevant to the above teaching about who is in charge here, who outranks who. Just playing the next card in the house of cards that resembles the house of cards of those promoting and teaching evolutionary philosophies who also won't get into details and specifics and quickly avoid and distract from the facts that are inconvenient for them. Using red herrings and distracting distorted facts, half-truths and even outright lies/falsehoods or respond with irrational sometimes even contradictory interpretations of how it is supposedly to be understood so that it doesn't refute Trinitarian dogma a.k.a. "a first-rate mystery" (according to the official Assemblies of God website quoted further below).

Details:
John 1:1c: "...and the Word was a god"

Nice segue into into ad hominem.

but fail.

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: chr0naut

No, the appellation "the one and only true God", among many other highly definite phrases of similar intent, spread throughout the Bible clearly indicate that there are no other true gods from the point of view of Judaism or Christianity.

False/incorrect and another twist distracting from what's important to understand from that verse where the phrase is actually different and it's clearly Jesus referring to someone else (which you left out from your argument cause it doesn't work so well to mention that along with that phrase for your underlying argumentation about the identity of God and Jesus).

Does the Bible teach that each of those said to be part of the Trinity is God?

Jesus said in prayer: “Father, . . . this is eternal life, that they know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.” (John 17:1-3, RS; italics added.) (Most translations here use the expression “the only true God” with reference to the Father. NE reads “who alone art truly God.” He cannot be “the only true God,” the one “who alone [is] truly God,” if there are two others who are God to the same degree as he is, can he? Any others referred to as “gods” must be either false or merely a reflection of the true God.)

1 Cor. 8:5, 6, RS: “Although there may be so-called gods in heaven or on earth—as indeed there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords’—yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through whom we exist.” (This presents the Father as the “one God” of Christians and as being in a class distinct from Jesus Christ.)

1 Pet. 1:3, RS: “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!” (Repeatedly, even following Jesus’ ascension to heaven, the Scriptures refer to the Father as “the God” of Jesus Christ. At John 20:17, following Jesus’ resurrection, he himself spoke of the Father as “my God.” Later, when in heaven, as recorded at Revelation 3:12, he again used the same expression. But never in the Bible is the Father reported to refer to the Son as “my God,” nor does either the Father or the Son refer to the holy spirit as “my God.”)
...
John 1:1, 2:

RS reads: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God.” (KJ, Dy, JB, NAB use similar wording.) However, NW reads: “In the beginning the Word was, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god. This one was in the beginning with God.”

Which translation of John 1:1, 2 agrees with the context? John 1:18 says: “No one has ever seen God.” Verse 14 clearly says that “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us . . . we have beheld his glory.” Also, verses 1, 2 say that in the beginning he was “with God.” Can one be with someone and at the same time be that person? At John 17:3, Jesus addresses the Father as “the only true God”; so, Jesus as “a god” merely reflects his Father’s divine qualities.—Heb. 1:3.

Col.1:15 (regarding Jesus)

15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation;

So, the Bible doesn't repeatedly make reference to the one and only true God?

See, to believe what you believe, you have to discard those sections of the Bible. It is inconsistent of you to call some parts scripture and other parts not scriptural.

There is only one true God in the Bible.

a reply to: chr0naut
Again you twist Jesus' phrase to what you want to hear or how you want to interpret it. He clearly spoke of his Father and his God (the One he also refers to as "my God" and Paul refers to as "the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ") as:

"the only true God."

Not "the one and only true God". That's what you turned it into while conveniently distracting away from the fact that Jesus is saying this not about himself, but someone else, his God and Father, a significant problem with your underlying argumentation that Jesus is the One he is speaking about here, while at the same time claiming he's not if you follow Trinitarian dogma and say "Jesus is not the Father" (yet still say "Jesus is God" in the sense of meaning that he is "the only true God" being spoken of here by Jesus; why is it so hard for you to acknowledge this simple fact that Jesus is clearly talking about another individual here? He's even praying to Him and asking Him things (John 17). I recon John 8:19, 25-27,38-47 covers that question pretty well). Jesus is not denying the existence of other real gods that are not false gods. And neither do any of the other verses that speak about one God in a unique sense standing out from the other gods, regardless if these other gods are false gods or real gods (rightfully called gods because they are either mighty ones, heavenly beings and/or other definitions for the Hebrew and Greek words that have been translated to "God, god(s), a god, the god(s), angels, heavenly beings, judges, godlike ones, etc." (depending on what translation you're reading and what verse you're reading). Just like when the bible says there is only one savior does not deny the existence of other ones that are rightfully called "savior", as one can find throughout the bible that God sent multiple saviors to Israel. None of these were false saviors.

And the verse quoted in the title of the video below also does not mean that "there is no one else". Of course other individuals exist, it's a ridiculous far-fetched interpretation to interpret such phrases that way, a total disregard for common sense. The meaning is clear, there is no one else that falls in the same category of the things being described there in the context (or qualifies for the same category, Jehovah God is a unique individual, a unique God among the other gods, real or false, or rightfully/correctly called "gods" or falsely called or seen as "gods"). Psalm 86:8-10:

8 There is none like you among the gods, O Jehovah, [it doesn't say "false gods" so why conveniently interpret it that way? The way it's phrased here, it does not limit it to either false gods or real gods, I see no indication that both aren't referred to here, none of the false gods are like Jehovah, and none of the real gods like angels are like Jehovah, how one can even suggest that angels in the service of Jehovah are false gods because there's onle one true God in a unique sense is almost beyond me, if I hadn't read texts such as 2 Timothy 4:3,4, 1 Timothy 6:3-5 and 1 Tim.4:1]

There are no works like yours.

9 All the nations that you made

Will come and bow down before you, O Jehovah,

And they will give glory to your name.

10 For you are great and do wondrous things;

You are God, you alone.

Only 2 verses after acknowledging that there are other "gods" that are not described as "false gods" as per your initial claim I responded to that we have now conveniently talked past with multiple comments and perhaps you were hoping I forgot, it describes Jehovah as being "God, you alone", according to your interpretation of such verses these verses would become contradictory; which is why you try to forcefit your "false gods" interpretation of the "gods" mentioned in verse 8, just like the Trinitarian does in the video entitled "Re: Is Jesus just a god like others are called gods?" that I shared initially. And yet, both verse 8 and verse 10 uses the same Hebrew word ʼelo·himʹ. So there is no excuse to pretend the first time the word is referring to "false gods". If the Hebrew bible writer meant exclusively "false gods" at verse 8, he would have said "false gods" in Hebrew (which are 2 words).

It's just standard Trinitarian argumentation and thinking that has been drilled into the minds of Trinitarians, Binitarians and others (they didn't get it from just reading the bible). Discussed below as well after 5:00 (his introduction isn't accurate), keypoint at 11:48: