Abstinence and the Virgin Birth (Which I do affirm)

[rogue06]

I referred to "one paper "and there is only one. The other two references are to popular articles.

So you were doing your typical cherry picking and ignoring everything else.

Typical.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

So you were doing your typical cherry picking and ignoring everything else.

Typical.

You confused a paper with two articles.

[rogue06]

You confused a paper with two articles.

You falsely claimed that only the paper was offered.

Dishonest as always.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

You falsely claimed that only the paper was offered.

Dishonest as always.

In your first comment:

Monotheism, Polytheism, Monolatry, or Henotheism?. 31 pages so I won't post it here. Just follow the hyperlink.

From a remark before the introduction:

Israel’s view of God and his relationship to other divine beings in the Hebrew Bible has long been the subject of scholarly debate. The dominant critical consensus since the late nineteenth century holds that Israel’s faith evolved from polytheism or henotheism to monotheism. Passages in the Hebrew Bible that assume the existence of other gods are compared to other passages that put forth the declaration that “there are no other gods besides” the God of Israel as proof of this view. Other scholars who reject this evolutionary paradigm tend to assume passages evincing divine plurality actually speak of human beings, or that the other gods are merely idols. This view insists that “monotheism” must mean that the existence of other gods is denied. Both views are problematic and fall short of doing justice to the full description of Israel’s view of God and the heavenly host in the Hebrew Bible. This article overviews the difficulties of each view and offers a coherent alternative.

I referred to "one paper "and there is only one. The other two references are to popular articles.

[rogue06]

In your first comment:

If that was, as you assert, my "first comment" then how do you account for the other two references I cited?

What led to the emergence of monotheism?

Monotheism in the Ancient World

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

If that was, as you assert, my "first comment" then how do you account for the other two references I cited?

What led to the emergence of monotheism?

Monotheism in the Ancient World

It was your first comment citing a paper. Your previous two references were to popular articles.

[tabibito]

It was your first comment citing a paper. Your previous two references were to popular articles.

The cavil can be permitted. It is still one scholarly source advanced in support of your position as against none at all in support of the contrary argument.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

The cavil can be permitted. It is still one scholarly source advanced in support of your position as against none at all in support of the contrary argument.

It is one paper. It is also by someone who has his own self-evident theological baggage.

However, I know from previous exchanges with your good self, that one paper is all it takes for you to consider that complex historical issues have been decided once and for all by that single paper.

I am also still waiting for you [or indeed anyone else] to provide some attested historical and contemporary sources that demonstrate that early Christians readily accepted and recognised the validity of believing in other gods.

[tabibito]

It is one paper. It is also by someone who has his own self-evident theological baggage.

However, I know from previous exchanges with your good self, that one paper is all it takes for you to consider that complex historical issues have been decided once and for all by that single paper.

One is not conclusive, but it is more than sufficient to counter none.

I am also still waiting for you [or indeed anyone else] to provide some attested historical and contemporary sources that demonstrate that early Christians readily accepted and recognised the validity of believing in other gods.

Monolatry - pt 1.jpg

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/...009.00523_35.x

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

One is not conclusive, but it is more than sufficient to counter none.

From remarks you have made elsewhere I would disagree. One paper is all it takes for you to consider a complex issue resolved by the author of that paper.

A review of a book is not what I requested.

[tabibito]

From remarks you have made elsewhere I would disagree. One paper is all it takes for you to consider a complex issue resolved by the author of that paper.

One paper as representative of a number might be. One paper cited with nothing but speculation and personal opinion is sufficient to show that the opposing argument needs to be supported. One paper in opposition to a claim is sufficient to show that an opinion is not unopposed.

A review of a book is not what I requested.

I have reason to accede to a demand by a person who consistently rejects requests for information substantiating that person's argument?

Lemme see now.



nope.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

One paper as representative of a number might be. One paper cited with nothing but speculation and personal opinion is sufficient to show that the opposing argument needs to be supported.

A position you have adopted with regard to one paper on a different thread. And comments from other [far more reputable scholars in their discipline] were ignored by you.

You might consider healing yourself!

[tabibito]

A position you have adopted with regard to one paper on a different thread. And comments from other [far more reputable scholars in their discipline] were ignored by you.

You might consider healing yourself!

Well, your claim is laughable, so the is appropriate.

Of course, I will reject the claims of scholars when research shows their claims to be deficient: but that is a process that all evidence suggests to be beyond your comprehension.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

Well, your claim is laughable, so the is appropriate.

Of course, I will reject the claims of scholars when research shows their claims to be deficient: but that is a matter that all evidence suggests to be beyond your comprehension.

Correction. You will reject any reputable academic whose interpretations and views do not concur with your own. As has been demonstrated by you on several different threads.

[tabibito]

Correction. You will reject any reputable academic whose interpretations and views do not concur with your own. As has been demonstrated by you on several different threads.

And I have carefully detailed the reasons for doing so - a fact that you have been careful to ensure escapes your attention.