GakuseiDon

That sounds interesting - what is the cite?

They are all "elohim", supernatural creatures. In the OT they were considered gods. By the time Christianity rolled around, they were considered demons.

I'm a liberal Christian. I think that the Bible is a fascinating work, which I'd like to learn more about, but I don't regard it as the Word of God.

But I realise now that some people here see it through the prism of their own beliefs about the Bible (I don't mean religious beliefs) which skews the discussion, so I'll bow out now. Thanks for your comments, Doc!

LP675

Spin I think it may well be you who doesn’t ‘understrand’ what you are talking about. What I am arguing for (and indeed what the NT argues) is much more nuanced than:
It is more like this:
(ot) “gods� exist
(nt) “gods� are created beings

Lets consider a few verses I have previously mentioned which powerfully demonstrate your error (i.e. they demonstrate that to call something a “god� and then qualify the term is entirely coherent):
‘they are gods
they aren’t gods’

Now here we have something labeled “gods�, but then we are told they are not in fact “gods�! Is this a terrible contradiction? No, they are labeled “gods� because it is a fair description (they were worshipped as such, and understood to be “gods�). Here is an example of having the label “gods� and a later qualification to the effect they are not “gods�.

‘they are gods
they aren’t gods’

Hmmm… Again it would appear we have an example of the label “gods� being used (because it is a fair label, and would be widely understood), but then qualified to the effect that the “gods� are not “gods� at all! Is this fancy theological footwork on behalf of Jeremiah? Should we label him as not being able to “understrand� what he is talking about? No, these “gods� were worshipped and so can fairly be called “gods�, but they were in fact not really “gods�. Here again we have the label of these things as “gods� and a later qualification that they are not “gods�.

Christians believe God’s revelation to us is progressive. It must be, because the books were written at different times. Just because the OT mentions a “god� being worshipped, that does not mean it affirms the existence of the “god� in the way the worshippers believe it exists. The OT affirms the “gods� exist, and are worshipped, attend heavenly assemblies (and whatever other activity you might care to mention). The OT calls all these supernatural beings “gods� because that is what they are widely labeled as, and indeed what they are (they are other gods). The OT may never affirm that they are created beings, but it surely never denies they are created beings. It simply doesn’t say. Then Paul comes along and (according to Christian theology) through Paul God explains that these other “gods�, despite being thought of as just other “gods� like the true God, are in fact not like the true God:

“there is no God but one. For even if there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth (as indeed there are many "gods" and many "lords"), yet for us there is but one God�

Why do you insist there is some sort of contradiction when there obviously isn’t?
LP

spin

I know this is a waste of effort, but...

If I remember correctly you brought the reductionist approach to the subject to the fore, unwilling either to look at the nuances or to read the source texts.

There is nothing nuanced about this. It is you wilfully disregarding much of the ot, by turning gods into “gods�. Hey fine, you can quote Jeremiah, but you can also quote Isaiah out of context.

You completely disregard Ps 82, especially v.6, "You are gods... sons of the most high."

What does "There is none like you among the gods, o Lord" mean if there are no real gods in the Hebrew bible other than your “god�?

The writer talks of those gods of defeated countries. A country being destroyed usually meant the annihilation of its gods. The text wisely says nothing about the gods of the conquerors. And what happened to Judah at the hands of Nebuchadrezzar caused a rewriting of the rules. <grin>

This is still reading the verse in isolation.

Don't you sometimes get the glimmer of an idea that the Hebrew bible was not a monumental work of a single writer? If you don't, you might like to explain why you avoid the evidence that has been presented to you for a long time in this thread.

Cited from Jeremiah [2:11 "Has a nation ever changed its gods? (Yet they are not gods at all.) But my people have exchanged their Glory for worthless idols."] Yup. This is the one verse that always gets cited, especially by those who ignore all the indications of a plurality of gods given significance in the Hebrew bible. Just goes to show that times changed within the period of writing the stuff. It doesn't change the fact that YHWH was the god of gods, not the god of false gods, and the lord of lords, not of false lords. Otherwise you render the significance of the verses void.

What does "gods" in Ps 97:9 mean exactly?? And what significance has the fact that YHWH is exalted above all these gods?? If these gods are not gods, then the statement has little significance, has it??

No, it's fancy footwork on your part, accepting the significance of one verse and ignoring that of another.

This is because they have to believe it, otherwise they are just appendages on Judaism. Change is ok as long as you can forget about what's been changed. (This sort of gay abandon on the part of xians would make a nice separate thread, looking at the abandoning of so many things while claiming to be the same one true religion of God.)

You've got it. Theological ideas change, don't they. What is interesting to note is the way that the changers sweep the implications under the carpet, just like you do.

Wrong, it mentions a god.

I love this sort of revisionism, based on repackaging original ideas so that they no longer mean what they said. They are gods not “gods�. Just learn that theology is not static, but that it has to survive by hiding the implications. I'll just cut the wasted repetition of the “gods� rigmarole.

Thou shalt have no other gods beside me.

I understand that you can turn a blind eye and believe this, but the cost is high. It means that you are unable to read what much of the bible says, because you have prior commitments as to meaning.

Consider this my last post on the subject until you deal with the significance of Ps 82 and the other verse that have been cited to you.


spin

JoeWallack

JW:
Right. Before "The Hebrews" were monotheistic they were not monotheistic. Moses! What kind of Skeptics are you guys? This is one of the most bizarre Skeptical arguments I see. Skeptics trying to argue that the Jewish Bible is polytheistic. You have to ignore all of the narrative indicating there is only one god guy actually doing anything, ignore that there is never any interaction between god guys, ignore clear statements that there is only one god and then proof-text implications that there may be more than one god.

I go right after the moderator here to try and save time but CX seems to be short on examples from the Jewish Bible to support his position that "The hebrews were polytheistic".

To any Skeptic here who believes that the Jewish Bible is polytheistic, please explain why it's okay to ignore evidence from the Jewish Bible that it is monotheistic when trying to determine if the Jewish Bible is monotheistic.

I've had this discussion before with Farrell Till and these were the best reasons he could think of to support his position that the Jewish Bible is polytheistic:

1) The Gods, being omnipotent, foresaw that one day there would be Jewish lawyers so the identity of all but one god has been hidden so that god can only be sued once for malpractice for creating a defective Adam.

2) Under "The Partnership Agreement" all gods but one are Silent Partners for the first 4,000 years of The Agreement".

3) The Gods created a monopoly 15 billion years before Microsoft.


Joseph

TRINITY, n.
In the multiplex theism of certain Christian churches, three entirely distinct deities consistent with only one. Subordinate deities of the polytheistic faith, such as devils and angels, are not dowered with the power of combination, and must urge individually their claims to adoration and propitiation. The Trinity is one of the most sublime mysteries of our holy religion. In rejecting it because it is incomprehensible, Unitarians betray their inadequate sense of theological fundamentals. In religion we believe only what we do not understand, except in the instance of an intelligible doctrine that contradicts an incomprehensible one. In that case we believe the former as a part of the latter.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/abdulreis/myhomepage/

Doctor X

Oh my. . . .

GD:

Check the cite of the Deuteronomy passage a page or two above. If you cannot find it, let me know. You might find the works of Gerd Ludemann very interesting since they cover his loss of faith, it seems. I stumbled over him because of his work on the herem--consecrating people for sacrifice to a god--and in his book he tried to argue for a liberal Christianity only to realize it meant ignoring what the texts actually say. Ultimately, this is what you and LP have to do. You have to argue that the OT says what it does not say. "They interpreted it wrong! The NT says so! PBBBBBBPPPPT!"

As I mentioned a page or two ago, that is a problem for Christianity because how can OT writers have been so wrong?

LP:

What Spin and I have demonstrated to you is that your statement:

1. OT: GODS!!!!
2. NT: NO gods! DEMONS! and ANGELS OH MY!

"2" is a contradiction of "1"!

That is basically it. The OT texts refer to god/gods--even identifies some of them like Asherah. We have extra-biblical references to them.

Joe:

I suggest you read the posts in the thread before miscasting the arguments of others. Calling people "Skeptics" and using quotation marks does not rehabilitate your miscomprehension.

Pay close attention to the OT passages cited and reference to extra-biblical work.

Thus, inscriptions such as blessing you "in the name of YHWH of Samaria and his Asherah" concisely sinks your premises right there.

--J.D.

JoeWallack

JW:
Gotcha. I wouldn't want to be guilty of claiming that in a thread based on the issue of whether the Jewish Bible is polytheistic one reference to a non-Jewish Bible inscription proves someone arguing that the Jewish Bible is monotheistic has miscast the arguments of others here, is miscomprehending and is wrong about the Jewish Bible being monotheistic.

For anyone here who finds an amazing relationship between JD's response and my assertion that Skeptics here seem to be ignoring all the evidence in the Jewish Bible that the Jewish Bible is monotheistic in determining whether the Jewish bible is monotheistic let me state for the record that I don't know JD and have never worked with him before.


Joseph

"See androidgynous gods fighting"

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Errors...yguid=68161660

http://members.aol.com/_ht_a/abdulreis/myhomepage/

Doctor X

"You can lead a whore to culture, but you can't make her think."

--Dorothy Parker: response to being challenge to make up a poem based on the word "horticulture."

There are four pages to this thread with references to texts, one of which has over 400 depictions of iconography. Another lists the polytheistic psalms.

If one wishes to ignore it all that remains his error. However, he cannot wonder why no one takes his response seriously.

--J.D.

LP675

Ok lets talk about Ps 82. Before I can answer your objections (to avoid talking past you) I should ask: Briefly, what do you think a god is? (or what do you think gods are?). Note the absence of the dreaded quotation marks.

Are you going to answer my post?:

LP675

[QUOTE]Originally posted by JoeWallack
JW:
Right. Before "The Hebrews" were monotheistic they were not monotheistic. Moses! What kind of Skeptics are you guys? This is one of the most bizarre Skeptical arguments I see. Skeptics trying to argue that the Jewish Bible is polytheistic. You have to ignore all of the narrative indicating there is only one god guy actually doing anything, ignore that there is never any interaction between god guys, ignore clear statements that there is only one god and then proof-text implications that there may be more than one god.

In my opinion it isn’t such a bizarre argument as you are making it out to be(I have seen much stranger arguments proceed from the lips of some here). I don’t want to have a scrap with you about it, because it is irrelevant to the argument I am making, but my thinking at the moment is if you were to consider the OT as a literary work by itself, with no reference to the NT, you could possibly be forgiven for thinking it might be polytheistic.

spin

As I guess I can't rely on a commonly held archetype, I'll make a tentative (liable to improvement) definition of a god as "a supernatural being which interacts with this world either favourably or unfavourably, and which requires worship from human beings."

Perhaps when you actually answer a few of mine.


spin