GakuseiDon

:notworthy

LP675

Are you a muslim woman?

Amlodhi

Then from here you say that this isn't a problem for Christians because NT revelations provide the further information that these supernatural gods were created by (and thus subordinate to) the uncreated God YHWH.

But I think what spin is saying is that this isn't a genuine connection but, rather, a subjective construct.

For instance, if you can do this, I can just as well say that the gnostic gospels provide the further information that YHWH was an evil demiurge who was himself created by a higher power. And while this might alleviate any "problem" I might have with there being supernatural gods mentioned in the HB (happy now? ), it really doesn't explain or identify those gods any more than the NT does.

Namaste'

Amlodhi

GakuseiDon

Here is some information on the Ugaritic texts:

http://www.theology.edu/ugarbib.htm

Very interesting!

LP675

Rather than waste time delving into what on earth you mean by “genuine connection� and “subjective construct� (and how you think that shows that the existence of gods in the OT is some sort of problem for Christian theology), I will simply wait to hear what spin will in fact say, because Spin hasn’t yet responded to the argument.

spin

Gak instead of befuddling yourself with strongs numbers and refusing to learn any Hebrew, why no bite the bullet and do what you should, ie study the language?

Funny.

The psalms are often antiphonal. Who actually says v15?

But Ps 2 doesn't talk of "sons of the most high", but of the listener being made son of the speaker, presumably God. "begotten" on the day of reading the psalm.

We don't have full sight of the pantheon, as "who controls the present controls the past" and later redactors have tended to intervene when dealing with other gods, but not in a total manner, as glimpses still comes through.

Stop existing. Suffer the pangs of death. What is your linguistic problem? Human beings aren't the only ones that can be terminated, are they?

It makes perfect sense because you ignore all the language of the psalm. (And incidentally, I know the interpretation you have borrowed. It is merely attempting to gain control of a text whose meaning doesn't fit the theological norms.)

Perhaps, deep enough to reach you.

You want to say, that god is in the council of god but not god among gods, but not among gods, calling them gods who are not gods, who are sons of the most high, but according to you are not. You make nonsense of the passage because of your prior commitments.

You insist on making the same mistake. What does "god" mean to pharaoh is the question you should be asking.

Something like that would be consistent.

*uck Gak. Read the bloody text in the original and you wouldn't make such blunders. (I can't even tell which bad translation you are using. Not KJV, ASV, NRSV footnote, what is it?) The original has BNY 'LYM. All this "mighty ones" crap is just bad translation.

But keep looking.

Oh, so someone who clearly doesn't understand the language he is talking about is a judge. You're right, Gak: I'm out of my depth. I need to forget all that I know so that I can join you and get wet.

Since when is a literal reading, "what I want"?

You can tell I'm impressed with your evidence. What was it again? Strongs numbers and bad translations. Good work.

What have you said about Ps 29, beside the fact that you're using a translation which doesn't help you understand the literal meaning of the text?


spin

spin

If you are schizophrenic.

When the most high <caused the inheritance> of the nations, and separated the sons of man, he set limits on the peoples according to the number of gods (as per the oldest copy of the text from Qumran -- see decent modern translation), Yahweh's portion was his people, Jacob the lot of his inheritance.

Elyon is clearly not the apportionee, but the apportioner. Yahweh is one of the number of gods receiving a portion. His inheritance was Israel.

Once again we have the notion of the council of gods with the most high in the chair. Once again, the most high, is above the rest of the gods.


spin

judge

Not when we read the Nt in Aramaic. In Aramaic we have One God and three qnome.
This Aramaic concept was never properly translated into greek and hence english. There is no word in greek or english for the Aramaic word qnome and it became understood as three persons (??) rather than three qnome.
The Church of the East rejected the council of 431 a.d.'s findings.

Here si one site which mentions this (although I don't know about everything that Victor says)

spin

As I understand the term it seems to mean "member of a taxonomy", as Tuesday is a member of the days of the week, or Ringo Starr was a member of the Beatles. You might find the term alluring, but how does it help you overcome the conflict of a supposedly monotheistic religion having two gods? Are you calling the taxonomy "God", just as we can call Sunday through to Saturday a "week", or John, Paul, George and Ringo the Beatles?

"For you father all things are possible; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will but what you will."

Two separate entities do not one god make.


spin

spin

Yep.


spin