There was a recent conversation between Robert Rowe and Kwaku El. The conversation wasn’t as good as I thought it would be.
The conversation kicks off with Robert saying he was wishing for Kwaku to refute Dr. James White. That came across as a bit petty on the part of Robert. Why not route for Dr. White to change Kwaku’s mind? Is it better to win a theological argument or that someone becomes a Christian? That doesn’t mean Dr. White is without fault or that his position is correct. Rowe simply comes across to someone as wishing for the wrong things
Robert states that Kwaku has to convince him that Mormonism is true since Kwaku grants the Bible is an authoritative document. But that wrongheaded, everyone has a burden of proof in these conversations. Rowe needs to show that his position is true. Kwaku has a burden of proof but it’s wrong to state that he only has the burden to bear. We all do.
Kwaku states that Jesus would’ve prophesied falsely about him returning in that generation. So, Jesus must have appeared to the North Americans. It’s a bit weird to think that Jesus stating he would return would mean that generation that he would appear to a people they didn’t know existed. I think other interpretations are more probable:
Kwaku states that the Bible teaches God is a physical being and the angels are physical beings. Robert appeals to the two-Yahwehs doctrine from the 2nd temple period to give a case for Trinitarians. The person named hound states that he affirms Benjamin Sommer’s work on divine corporeality. So, Kwaku now suffers from the fact that God could be physical and Mormonism be false. So, Kwaku’s appeal fails to establish his position. I reject that God is a corporeal being. Robert seemed to affirm this model. That raises a question of the consistency in his worldview.
Why doesn’t Robert just disregard these teachings as archaic ANE teachings? Why does he think we have to affirm it? It’s very difficult for Robert to find the normative usage of scripture. What we ought to believe and what it teaches aren’t the same thing in his scheme. Isn’t their view of God dependent on cosmologies that we reject anyways on his scheme?
Is the Trinity really just one God with multiple bodies? Is that how Robert thinks about the two-powers?
Kwaku gets refuted on the reliability of Joesph Smith’s knowledge of Hebrew. Robert points out a mistake on Smith’s part. Kwaku spends a majority of the time not really getting anyway.