Christians--Do Evangelicals Believe Everyone Else Going to Hell? (Jesus Christ, gospel)

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by Comprehend

Not to anyone who understands it.

Feel free to educate yourself a bit about circular logic (from an easy to read source) and then give your argument another shot if you like.

I was being a bit facetious, which doesn't always come through well in writing.

I am assuming the Jews understood their own language as well, they could have used the singular term as they later did but they didn't. I assume the original author understood his own language.

What you are trying to argue is akin to saying that 3,000 years from now, Americans will better understand the intent of each word in the U.S. Constitution than the original authors... I don't think so.

In 3000 years, the Americans will have a whole lot of case law that will help them understand the constitution, and they will use that case law (among other things, such as linguistic history) to reconstruct the original authors' intent.

So it is here. The Jewish stewards of the book of Genesis uses relatively recent Hebrew. The book was composed during the Babylonian captivity, most likely. So it's not all that difficult to reconstruct the meaning. As it turns out, ancient Hebrew is similar to ancient Babylonian and Sumerian and Egyptian in that it can (and, as I argue, in this case does) use plural nouns to refer to singular entities in order to emphasize their majesty. Kings and individual gods were afforded this honor regularly. To argue that "Elohim" actually denotes a plurality of beings, you need further argument.

Besides, the fact that the entire Old testament speaks of God in singular terms, I think we're safe to assume that it is best to interpret the plural noun Elohim as denoting a singular deity but connoting supreme majesty -- likely over against Babylonian deities.

[Dunemeister]

FWIW, I think I've found a decent online discussion of the Hebrew grammar with respect to "Elohim" and "us" in the disputed passage. Although the article contradicts some of my reasoning, it agrees with my conclusion that Elohim denotes a singular entity and not multiple gods. Anyway, here it is:

Genesis 1:26 and the Hebrew Noun 'Elohim'

[Orontes]

Originally Posted by Orontes

Hello,

If I may intrude a bit, to apply the pluralis majestatis to Hebrew texts would be anachronistic. No such phrasing existed in antiquity or within Hebrew parlance. As to any strict Jewish monotheism: this is a dated position. There is a well established academic literature that covers the moves from within Jewry from a monolatrous to monotheistic view. This understanding involves textual criticism, comparisons of the Hebrew Bible with the Dead Sea Scrolls material, Ugaritic texts and archeological studies. In simple terms, Hebrew metaphysical claims were not static.

Here's a few examples from the literature:


"The Origins of Biblical Monotheism: Israel's Polytheistic Background and the Ugaritic Texts"

"Did God Have A Wife? Archeology And Folk Religion In Ancient Israel"

"The Great Angel: A Study of Israel's Second God"


I've not followed your discussion, but if one posits a Judaism that has always been a strict monotheism, then that undercuts any subsequent Christian Trinitarian claims, unless one opts for a modalism.

Originally Posted by Dunemeister

Modalism is merely one way of understanding trinitarianism. Nicean trinitarian preserves monotheism -- that was the whole point.

But you raise a good point about anachronism. And there's no doubt that the Jewish community changed their ideas about the deity over time. I'm only concerned, though, with the view expressed in the documents we have. We can get turned around in circles with textual criticism because the only limiting factor in those investigations are the imaginations of the scholars. So it's safe to say that there's little of value in searching out sources and tracing developments. Occasionally, it may be helpful, but generally not.

Suffice to say that the Jews who wrote and cherished Genesis believed in creational, covenantal monotheism. They didn't believe in many gods. In fact, Genesis was intended to counter Mesopotamian polytheism. So there can be no question that "us" implied a plurality of gods. For the writer of Genesis, there was one and only one God, and he was Israel's god. This god created the world and made a covenant with Israel to be their god and they his people.

Modalism is indeed one aspect or form of trinitarianism. In fact, I think it is the general penchant within Latin Trinitarian Christendom, despite the fact the view is formally deemed a heresy. As to whether trinitarianism preserves monotheism: if one argues

1) Jewry was/is strictly monotheistic
2) And, monotheism is the assertion there is only one God
3) And, any trinitarian schema necessarily entails a notion of three relevant to the Divine
4) Then there is a strain between 2) and 3) which calls into question any Christian preservation of Jewish thinking.

I'm sure you are aware that within Islamic circles the trinitarian claims to monotheism are flatly rejected as polytheistic. This same rejection can be found from Jewish theologians as well. The point remains trinitarian sentiments from the perspective of the larger Oriental religious traditions (Judaism and Islam) appears an innovation.

As to textual criticism: the documents we have do not support the notion Jewry was strictly monotheistic from its inception, but came to the idea over time. This is found both from textual work on the Tanakh and other archeological texts (the Ugaritic texts I mentioned are a simple example). If one rejects such, but remains committed to a given position on Jewish beliefs, it is difficult to see why that position isn't simply a dogmatism.

[Dunemeister]

Originally Posted by Orontes

Modalism is indeed one aspect or form of trinitarianism. In fact, I think it is the general penchant within Latin Trinitarian Christendom, despite the fact the view is formally deemed a heresy. As to whether trinitarianism preserves monotheism: if one argues

1) Jewry was/is strictly monotheistic
2) And, monotheism is the assertion there is only one God
3) And, any trinitarian schema necessarily entails a notion of three relevant to the Divine
4) Then there is a strain between 2) and 3) which calls into question any Christian preservation of Jewish thinking.

Yes, you're absolutely right on this point. The Christian sect retained continuity with the Judaism that preceded it, but certainly trinitarian thinking was a development and variation on Jewish monotheism. Trinitarianism retains the singularity of God but puts a novel twist in the tail, no doubt. But it's still a recognizably monotheistic idea.

I'm sure you are aware that within Islamic circles the trinitarian claims to monotheism are flatly rejected as polytheistic. This same rejection can be found from Jewish theologians as well. The point remains trinitarian sentiments from the perspective of the larger Oriental religious traditions (Judaism and Islam) appears an innovation.

Yes, I agree. The trinitarian conception is an innovation. It was demanded because of the peculiar ways Christians talked about Jesus. For instance, Jesus was consistently included with God as the bestower of blessings rather than with the rest of humanity as the receiver of blessings. This occurred a great deal in the epistles: "Grace to you and peace from God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ." In revelation, Jesus is called "Lord God Almighty," is depicted as sharing God's throne, and receives the same worship as the Father. If a human is going to receive the dignities that Judaism had traditionally reserved for God alone yet retain monotheism, Christians had some explaining to do. Eventually, the church settled on trinitarianism. So certainly Christians must concede that trinitarianism is a theological novelty.

The charge of polytheism really fails. Christians do not affirm the existence of three gods. Rather, we affirm the existence of one god who subsists as three persons. There's only so far you can press the question "How can this be?" Eventually, the Christian must shrug her shoulders and say "That's just how it is."

As to textual criticism: the documents we have do not support the notion Jewry was strictly monotheistic from its inception, but came to the idea over time. This is found both from textual work on the Tanakh and other archeological texts (the Ugaritic texts I mentioned are a simple example). If one rejects such, but remains committed to a given position on Jewish beliefs, it is difficult to see why that position isn't simply a dogmatism.

The problem with textual criticism with respect to the OT is the impossibility of reconstructing what biblical texts were written first, second, third, and so forth. It's really not possible to reconstruct how developments have taken place. Even if we accept the idea that the Jewish notion evolved over time (perfectly reasonable), it's not possible to demonstrate with confidence (that is, without employing extraordinarily questionable assumptions) how it evolved. In short, in this sort of "scholarship", the ruling assumptions tend to be one author's theory of religion, which is generally unsupported by evidence. Based on that theory, a development scheme is proposed. Hence we get billions of theories about what developed first, last, and in between, with each theory's theoretical underpinning consisting only of the imagination of its proponent. It's far better, I think, to simply treat the text as a whole. So we must interpret Genesis in light of the panoply of Old Testament revelation and vice versa. And when we handle the text that way, there's no question that the Jewish conception of God is creational convenantal monotheism. And there can be no question that this was the Jewish conception in Jesus' day.

[donnapstork]

Jesus said,"in my father's house there are many mansions." was He saying that there were doors to God besides himself?

[Katzpur]

Originally Posted by donnapstork

Jesus said,"in my father's house there are many mansions." was He saying that there were doors to God besides himself?

My goodness! What do we have here? An open-minded Christian! Thanks for your input, donnapstork, and welcome to RF!

[Scott C.]

Originally Posted by Izdaari

I would say you are a Christian, albeit a heretical one... but to be a heretic, you must first be a Christian.

While I don't think my religion is heretical, I appreciate your acceptance of my Christianity. I also accept others, who believe in Christ, as Christians, even if I find some of what they believe to be heresy.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by Katzpur

My goodness! What do we have here? An open-minded Christian! Thanks for your input, donnapstork, and welcome to RF!

Take note of donnapstork's denomination. And don't forget Terry...your favorite member? Notice any trends?