Freethought & Rationalism Archive

GakuseiDon · 03-07-2004, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Amlodhi
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.

Exactly so, and IMO spin knows it.

Quote:

However, all you are really saying is that you reserve the right to believe whatever you want to.

Well... I see it more as a matter of sticking to the assertion at hand. "It isn't a problem for Christian theology" is a verifiable assertion, and not a matter of belief.

Quote:

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:

"Moses said that "the Lord Himself is God: there is none other besides Him"

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.

The theological problem was resolved 1900 years ago. The historical problem has arguably not been resolved. LP says it isn't a theological problem, and I agree.

I have no problem with Doc X's comments, but spin has "confused" theological positions with historical quite a few times, so I am interested to see if he admits his error here.

Quote:

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

No, I don't think you have. For me, I believe the ancient Hebrews were henotheistic, in that they thought that YHWH was their tribal god, and one among many. But it's just never been a problem for Christian theology.

spin · 03-07-2004, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by 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?

The first error is “gods�?.

The second error is to stop reading what the Hebrew bible says because you have an nt that redefines terms. Redefining terms is merely a kludge that hides the problem.

What does the term "son of god" mean?

spin

GakuseiDon · 03-07-2004, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spin
$D can be translated as demon (singular).

$DY can be a plural form of $D

spin

Well, "shed" below is translated as devils (plural). Why isn't the word "shaddai" used instead, if it is the plural form?

http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_d...1-1969.html#17

Quote:

They sacrificed unto devils (Ed. "shed"), not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new [gods that] came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.

spin · 03-07-2004, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GakuseiDon
Exactly so, and IMO spin knows it.

You obviously wouldn't know what I know, because you are too busy covering up to take notice.

Quote:

Well... I see it more as a matter of sticking to the assertion at hand. "It isn't a problem for Christian theology" is a verifiable assertion, and not a matter of belief.

If you want to have your Hebrew bible and not have it, then fine. You can be incoherent and it won't matter.

Quote:

The theological problem was resolved 1900 years ago. The historical problem has arguably not been resolved. LP says it isn't a theological problem, and I agree.

This is not a resolution. It is a bandaid. God deals with sons of god at one moment and some theologian at a moment says, but they weren't really what we said they were or accept what I say now and forget what was said then.

Quote:

I have no problem with Doc X's comments, but spin has "confused" theological positions with historical quite a few times, so I am interested to see if he admits his error here.

I think you are confused about what I've been saying. We are not dealing with historical theology, as I see it, ie the way theologies subtlely change their faces, but the implications of those changes. There is no value in watch-me-pull-a-rabbit-out-of-my-hat explanations.

Quote:

No, I don't think you have. For me, I believe the ancient Hebrews were henotheistic, in that they thought that YHWH was their tribal god, and one among many. But it's just never been a problem for Christian theology.

Henotheism is about a preferred god in a multiplicity of gods, not about one god playing around in a plethora of fake gods. If xianity is based on the god of judaism, you, as a xian, have to live with the consequences. (If you don't want to live with Judaism then you render all the "prophecies" and al the heritage stolen from it meaningless.)

spin

GakuseiDon · 03-07-2004, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by spin

Gdon >>>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?

The first error is “gods�?.

The second error is to stop reading what the Hebrew bible says because you have an nt that redefines terms. Redefining terms is merely a kludge that hides the problem.

What does the term "son of god" mean?

spin

"The first error is gods"? Which of the two questions is that addressing?

I think you've replied to the wrong post.

spin · 03-07-2004, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GakuseiDon
Well, "shed" below is translated as devils (plural). Why isn't the word "shaddai" used instead, if it is the plural form?

Because if you could look at the Hebrew you'd see that it was in a plural form.

spin

spin · 03-07-2004, 03:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by GakuseiDon
"The first error is gods"?

Why misquote? Go back and look again.

spin

Doctor X · 03-07-2004, 04:24 PM

GD:

Quote:

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

Not really relevant since there are no passages which state YHWH created gods to my knowledge. I gather one can infer "sons of the gods/god" as a "creation." However, as noted about, there are vestiges of YHWH subordinate to El or limited by other gods.

Quote:

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?

See above. There is no support for them being "his creatures."

The bottom line is the analysis is like this:

1 I feel Romeo and Juliet is really a homoerotic play.
2. I write a play which explains that it is really "Romeo and Julian."
3. I still claim that Romeo and Juliet is relevant.

The problem is the explanation is wrong, just as the "explanation" from on passage in a canonical NT text is wrong. It is irrelevant to the intentions of the OT texts. Whenever someone turns to the actual OT, the explanatioin falls appart.

--J.D.

GakuseiDon · 03-07-2004, 04:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
Not really relevant since there are no passages which state YHWH created gods to my knowledge. I gather one can infer "sons of the gods/god" as a "creation." However, as noted about, there are vestiges of YHWH subordinate to El or limited by other gods...

... See above. There is no support for them being "his creatures."

Doc, you said that there are passages in the OT that contradict the assertations in question. "No support" is not a contradiction (though I think there is support anyway via the Deut passages I quoted).

Where are the passages in the OT that contradict the assertations?

spin · 03-07-2004, 05:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Doctor X
I gather one can infer "sons of the gods/god" as a "creation."

Is Jesus "created" as you intend the term?

spin

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.