spin

I'd give up on this one too. LP675 is just practising being a lawyer. You know, using texts and not reading them. LP has actually said very little in all his posts. So, what does LP really have to say here? Peel back the hedged comment and you'll get duck-and-weave.

The problem of God participating in a council of gods which are not really gods because he created them and therefore can have no meaningful participation is something LP675 can live with. There is apparently no contradiction between henotheism and monotheism, as LP675, who understands what henotheism means, has asserted that “the ‘gods’ are created beings� and bear inverted commas because they are not really gods at all, despite rendering meaningless such phrases as "there is none like you among the gods, o Lord" (Ps 86:8), because they aren't gods. "The Lord is a great god, and a great king above all gods" (Ps 95:3). Both sets of ideas are coherent to LP675.

He is "interested to see if you can confess you have made a mistake." And you sure have, buddy.


spin

GakuseiDon

Spin, LP675 summed up his position as this:

1) The OT accepts the existence of “gods� other than Yahweh.
2) The NT gives further information that these “gods� are created by Yahweh
3) Yahweh is uncreated, therefore in a different category than these other “gods�, who are in fact his creatures.
4) Therefore the existence of “gods� in the OT is not a challenge for Christian Monotheistic theology.

I honestly can't see where you think the problem lies. He didn't say that it isn't a problem for the Hebrews of 700 BCE or 200 BCE. He didn't say it wasn't a problem for Spin. He said that it isn't a problem for Christian Monotheistic theology. And he is right - it hasn't been a problem since about 150 CE, when the earliest apologists said that the ancient gods were demons.

Whether the earliest Hebrews were henotheists or not (I suspect they were), LP675's point is about Christian monotheism, which you've 'forgotten' to address.

If you want to quote from the OT, then at least acknowledge that the word "elohim" was used in a few different ways. I believe the word itself meant "mighty", and used often in places where one was able to exercise power and judgement over others. It could refer to people (like Moses in Ex 7:1 and actual judges) as well as spiritual beings, like angels, God and other gods (which the early Christians regarded as demons, and is also referred to as such in the OT).

Remember, this is Christian theology we are talking about. And there is enough in the OT to support Christian theology. Moses said that "the Lord Himself is God: there is none other besides Him" (Deut 4:35) and "the Lord Himself is God in Heaven above and the earth beneath: there is no other" (Deut 4:39). So LP675 is correct in stating that God stood in a special place in the pantheon. It is that which is expanded on in the NT.

Now, you may disagree, but LP675 didn't say it isn't a problem for Spin, but that it isn't a problem for Christian Monotheistic theology.

Now, just admit your error and let's move on.

GakuseiDon

I just saw this:

Demon: In Hebrew: shed
Almighty: In Hebrew: (from same link) Shaddai.

The words may share a similar root from the words fear or destruction, but they are clearly different words.

How the heck do you get "god of the demons"???

Doctor X

When I make a mistake I do.

That remains your mistake. Confess it and be forgiven.

Re-read the the replies above, which you quote.

Spin:

Indeed.

--J.D.

GakuseiDon

Doc, same question as I asked spin: this is LP675's position:

1) The OT accepts the existence of “gods� other than Yahweh.
2) The NT gives further information that these “gods� are created by Yahweh
3) Yahweh is uncreated, therefore in a different category than these other “gods�, who are in fact his creatures.
4) Therefore the existence of “gods� in the OT is not a challenge for Christian Monotheistic theology.

Where is he wrong? I think we all agree on (1). No-one has denied (2). Are there any OT or NT passages that disagree with (3)? If not, then the (4) follows.

Doctor X

GD:

4 does not follow 3. 3 is an assertion, contradicted by the OT. 2 is also an assertion contradicted by the OT. 3 is not really correct either.

The bottom line, is in order to accept 4 one must reject the OT and the beliefs upon which many of its texts were based. Simply stating that the OT was "wrong" or that "we should interpret it differently than its textual and contemporary evidence"--which is what this arguement does--does not remove the contradictions.

--J.D.

Amlodhi

Hello Doctor X, spin, GakuseiDon and LP675,

You fellows are simply approaching this matter from different angles.

GakuseiDon and LP675 are saying that since Christians have an explanation for why YHWH can be considered to be the only "true" God (i.e. uncreated), they don't consider the OT terminology to be a problem for them . IOW, they are contending that since it is their position that is at issue, secular disagreement is irrelevant.

As far as it goes, this is true. However, all you are really saying is that you reserve the right to believe whatever you want to.

It seems to me that the point that Doctor X and spin are trying to get across is that the poly- and heno- theism came first and the "explanations" came later.

For instance, GakuseiDon, you make the statement:

Yet it is unlikely that anyone names Moses said any such thing. This quote being (as you cited) from the book of Deut., there is good reason to think that it was written just prior to or during the reign of Josiah in the late 7th century. There is further good reason to think that it expounds the sovereignty of YHWH precisely because the proponents of YHWH in Judah at this time wanted to consolidate rural Judah and the remaining north kingdom population in a monotheistic culture centered in Jerusalem.

So I think what Doctor X and spin are trying to get across is that having an "explanation" for a problem doesn't necessarily eliminate the circumstances that created the problem in the first place. IOW, you may believe your explanation, but that doesn't eliminate the problem.

Just my take on the situation. My apologies if I have misrepresented anyone.

Amlodhi

spin

$D can be translated as demon (singular).

$DY can be a plural form of $D


spin

GakuseiDon

This is 2 and 3:
2) The NT gives further information that these “gods� are created by Yahweh
3) Yahweh is uncreated, therefore in a different category than these other “gods�, who are in fact his creatures.

What passages in OT contradict the assertion that the other gods were created by Yahweh?

What passages in the OT contradict the assertion that Yahweh is uncreated, therefore in a different category than the other gods who are in fact His creatures?

spin

When you don't analyse the conflict in your presuppositions you can say absurd things. As you also didn't read the problem you can accept the absurdity unanalysed, ie the absurdity is left on a road not taken, but still there.


spin