Shiranui117 vs. Shermana: Is the Trinity defensible from the Bible?

[Shiranui117]

Well, you're basically making a claim that the Hebrew text does not necessarily match with the Septuagint, so your claim MUST necessarily involve that the Hebrew text is wrong.

Not necessarily. The Masoretic Text and the Septuagint differ in a number of different ways, not just in terms of what books are in and what books aren't.

Otherwise, it's quite plain that the Hebrew Elohim comes out quite often to Angels in Greek. It's really that simple. I don't know how many other ways to put it.

If you ignore the explanations I've already given and the explanations I'm about to give, then sure.

Well I disagree with this concept, I don't think they were "demoted". I think they are simply "Divine beings".

Read on below.

Oh really? And of course, your own logic wasn't circular? I don't see that as circular at all, please explain why my definition is but yours isn't.

I never said that my definition wasn't circular, I said that the very definition of "Essence" is circular logic. For example...

"What makes a human a human?"
"Their human essence, of course."
"And what does this essence comprise of?"
"Everything that makes a human a human. A human essence is how a human is within himself."
"Then what is the definition of how a human is within himself?"
"It refers to what sets a human apart from everything else. It's what makes a human a human."
Etc, etc...
In order to get a definition of what essence is and how it's been used, look at the first section or two of this article:
ht tp: //en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Essence

None of this essence stuff is remotely scriptural to begin with.

And we established that a long time ago.

And I don't understand why you bolded the same part that completely agrees with what I'm saying, what's your contention?

Did you read what I said? We can only comprehend the hidden things of God through His actions. This means that we can only understand God indirectly, and thus imperfectly, and thus not completely. It's like looking at someone's actions and trying to read what their entire thought process and state of being is. Sure, we can get a pretty good, functional, cursory idea, but it's nowhere close to the full depth of what's going on inside their head.

Also, did you even read the Wiki article on the Essences-Energies distinction? I know "lol, wiki" but in this case, the article is actually spot-on. You can't write it off as non-Scriptural and refuse to address it for the lulz. I've addressed the non-Scriptural stuff you've posted, but you won't do the same for me?

But there's a reason why even the most Prominent of Trinitarian scholars have rendered it as "I have been", in addition the name itself is "I shall be".

Can you elaborate on this? I'm not sure I follow.

Not necessarily. The word can also be very literal, it is used quite often to mean what it literally says especially in the NT.

Romans 8:29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to be conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.

Revelation 1:5 and from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the firstborn from the dead, and the ruler over the kings of the earth.Of which this preeminence would only be had by being the first created being, which Proverbs and Wisdom of Solomon most clearly indicate.

Except "Firstborn" in this case refers to status. Jesus was not the first one to experience resurrection, so "firstborn of the dead" cannot possibly mean that Jesus was the first one to rise from the dead. Likewise, as Christ was incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and thus was true Man as well as true God, He is firstborn in status, not in order.

Huh?

Which is exactly what I just said...

Whoops, quote tag fail.

Depends what you call "Primary sources" and depends on the argument details.

By primary sources, I mean Scripture, the actual writings, treatises, Council acts/canons and histories that were all directly written by the Church Fathers. By secondary sources, I mean encyclopaedic entries and articles that cite specific sections, including work name, volume number, and chapter/epistle number of these aforementioned primary sources, or better yet, they sometimes link you right to it. And if you mean "argument details" as in what's being argued, it has to do with how the Fathers and the Bible spoke of certain doctrinal points, such as Papal supremacy, indulgences, original sin, the Trinity, Christology, and every conceivable part of Christian doctrine.

If, on the other hand, you mean "argument details" to mean how they're actually making the argument, then here's how it goes: They make a claim, back it up with the primary source or aforementioned secondary source that conveniently tells you EXACTLY where they get this from, and then the person goes on to elaborate further on the exact personal, historical and rhetorical contexts in which that primary source was written.

In other words, they're not messing around, and their arguments are completely transparent, and one can immediately assess and verify the conclusions drawn from their sources by comparing it against the aforementioned contexts.

Not a malicious addition, but still an addition.

To boot, an addition that was made based on honest and genuine development of understanding. It was not an innovation, but an elaboration on what was already being believed.

And?

And, I'm explaining how "In my name" does not refer to a rigid baptismal formula, but rather means that we are to baptise with the authority of Jesus. The context makes this clear (and look, I'll even modify the translation to prove it) :

18 And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. 19 Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in My name.


It's the exact same as what happened over and over in the NT. Prophets spoke in the name of the Lord all the time. It means they are speaking with the authority of the Lord.

But for just one example of how this actually played out, John 4:1-3...


Therefore, when the Lord knew that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus made and baptized more disciples than John 2 (though Jesus Himself did not baptize, but His disciples), 3 He left Judea and departed again to Galilee.

...Yeah, case in point. Also, this plays right into my argument that angels are called "Elohim" or "God" because they REPRESENTED God, not because they were gods themselves.

The Firstborn Created Soul. Again, Proverbs and Wisdom of SOlomon clearly indicate that "Wisdom as the First Created being' was NOT metaphorical, which again I bring up the Gnostic Creation story which directly borrowed from this.

Are you referring to Proverbs 8:22-31? Actually, that does not state that there was a time where Wisdom was created, nor does it state that Wisdom was the first created being, as you claim. Rather, it says that Wisdom was possessed at the beginning of God's way (God doesn't have a beginning though, right?). From everlasting (i.e. eternally) Wisdom was established (more commonly means "poured out"). Look and see for yourself:

htt p ://w ww. biblestudytools. com/ interlinear-bible/passage. aspx?q=Proverbs +8%3A22-31&t=nas

As I pointed out above, this does in fact mean "Do likewise", to follow after is obviously not the same as "Afterwards". Thus, "After" in this sense can in fact mean "Like".

In THAT context, you could make that connection. However, I'll address your Isaiah point in my next post.

 

[Shiranui117]

No I haven't and I don't think they would have had an understanding of such a concept. They would have regarded an Angel as a separate being. This is a perfect example of the kinds of methods Trinitarians resort to once their logic has been disproven. Now you are attempting to show that the Angel of God is God himself, a completely alien concept that has no scriptural basis.

Alright, time to put your money where your mouth is. In Genesis 31:11-13, the angel of God speaks as if he is God himself. He does not preface it with "The Lord said" or anything of the sort. Same thing happens in Judges 2:1-4. In Exodus 3, in verse 2 it says that the ANGEL of the Lord appears to Moses in the Burning Bush, but for the rest of the time, it says that it's actually God speaking to Moses.

The angel of the LORD appeared to him in a blazing fire from the midst of a bush ; and he looked, and behold, the bush was burning with fire, yet the bush was not consumed. 3 So Moses said, "I must turn aside now and see this marvelous sight, why the bush is not burned up." 4 When the LORD saw that he turned aside to look, God called to him from the midst of the bush and said, "Moses, Moses !" And he said, "Here I am." 5 Then He said, "Do not come near here ; remove your sandals from your feet, for the place on which you are standing is holy ground." 6 He said also, "I am the God of your father, the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob." Then Moses hid his face, for he was afraid to look at God. 7 The LORD said, "I have surely seen the affliction of My people who are in Egypt, and have given heed to their cry because of their taskmasters, for I am aware of their sufferings. 8 "So I have come down to deliver them from the power of the Egyptians, and to bring them up from that land to a good and spacious land, to a land flowing with milk and honey, to the place of the Canaanite and the Hittite and the Amorite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite. 9 "Now, behold, the cry of the sons of Israel has come to Me; furthermore, I have seen the oppression with which the Egyptians are oppressing them.

And then the rest of that conversation.

Now, is that God, God's Angel, or God's Angel being treated as God and acting as God? Only the third is noncontradictory.

So Ladies and Gentlemen, let this be seen as a perfect example of the necessary distortions and fabrications that Trinitarians must employ to defend their irrational logic that is "Too much for the human mind to understand". Now the Angels of the OT are all God Himself in the flesh. God's messengers....are God Himself!

This is completely false, and you know it. Never have I said that every angel in the OT was God himself. I've seen some bad strawmen, and this one wins the platinum medal.

And of course God sometimes chooses to come down as a person to wrestle Jacob rather than the Angel that Hosea 12:4 clearly says it. So now, we see that the argument has changed. Before, it was impossible that Jacob wrestled with an Angel, once Hosea 12:4 exposes this as wrong, the Angel becomes God. Trinitarian logic is ever adaptive, isn't it.

No. I am literally learning this stuff as the debate goes on. I'm the one adapting here.

Okay, but that's a completely alien idea to Judaism. It seems many of these pro-Trinity apologetics involve ideas that no Jew has ever written about, and is not at all in any Midrash, and is completely based on later ideas. So I see no reason to accept them.

See my first point.

My argument is quite valid, I see nothing that can disprove it and the evidence is overwhelming and I don't see any need to further elaborate it.

2 verses? Oh yeah, impenetrable defenses you got there. Man, I have no clue what to do at all, my mind is imploding under your vast reservoir of evidence for your made-up theory.

EDIT: Also, I hope you understand that "I used 2 verses, so that's all I need to prove my point" is the exact same approach you accuse us Trinitarians of using. And no, it's not different when you do it. At least in debates between Catholics and Eastern Orthodox, we use outside scholarly sources and history to supplement Scripture. So if you're going to stoop to the same standards as the Trinitarians you look down upon, you'd better not ever complain when we feel like using some passages from Scripture.

Ummm, how did I NOT provide evidence? I don't think that was a "likely" attempt whatsoever. You basically are just saying Nuh uh, dismissing the clear evidence I provided, and then fostering later ideas to replace it. Like I said, you won't find this concept in Talmudic Rabbinical literature (and if you go by Rabbinical Theology, why not include their statements on Yeshu?), and the Trinitarians definitely won't be talking about it.

So now the bar for clear evidence is being reduced to 2 verses? Man, research standards must be way down these days.

Oh okay, so any argument now needs more than 2 verses of clear proof? Got it, I'll remember that. But to call it my own invention is just wrong. I am far from the first person to claim this,

Putting your money where your mouth is would be nice.

Heck, the entire JW church formed part of its Theology on this idea, which they didn't invent either. This idea has been around for a long time. But we have later Religious groups, who like I said, were attempting to throw out everything they considered to be "Hellenistic" roots, and other religious groups throwing out all the traces of the old Theology that clashed with their Trinitarian church-state Theology.

So the Jews have Trinitarian church-state Theology now?

There's simply no reason to believe this idea is "invented". Why would they even translate Elohim as Angels in the first place? Your argument, again, must be based on the idea that the Masoretic text is wrong.

The Masoretic Text. Was not. The text. That. The Septuagint. Is based on. Seriously, do you even know when the Masoretic Text was published?

To simply write it off as "Christians used the Septuagint" does not in any way fix the situation. You are still left in a position where you must prove the Masoretic is wrong, and it's not.

You are still left in a position of trying to tell me what my arguments are. And they're not what you say they are.

Hosea 12:4, your counter argument that Angels are God himself is the only defense you have, and its completely baseless.

Again, see my first point.

Most Trinitarians and Masoretic Jews will deny this early connection, but the evidence is well stated, all you've done is deny it and provided baseless attempts to fill the gap. If you want to go by what the Rabbis say about ancient Theology, as I said to Fallingblood, why not also by what they said about Yeshu?

How about linking to one academic source that makes the claim you're making? If this idea that Elohim=Angels=Gods is so ancient and so obvious, then there HAS to be at least one scholarly site on the entire Internet that says it

Ummm no, not at all. I have the text as proof, I don't see what other proof you need. Your assertion has NO basis, and involves a total change in Hebrew Theology in the OT.

You haven't even stated what the Hebrew theology is. The Hebrews used more than just the Bible to explain their theology, you know. You could try finding one single place where this idea is stated within Hebrew Theology if it's so obvious and so well-known.

Several? I don't think there's that many possible reasons. It seems that every piece of plain evidence I present you say is not valid, yet you provide completely baseless answers and expect me to accept them as a valid counter? I think we should just end this debate since as I said, it seems we have different criteria of what constitutes a valid argument and evidence, I have not once seen you effectively disproven anything yet you dismiss my claims with the most flimsy of rationales. As I said, your only hope is to say that the Masoretic text is flat out wrong.

Go ahead, keep ignoring my points. Keep ignoring the progression from polytheism to henotheism to monotheism, including rewritings and reinterpretations of the Bible and of history. Keep saying that 1st-century Jews were in fact henotheists. Don't expect it to fly with me without providing any backing aside from your say-so, however.

There's simply no reason to assume that Philo invented the concept or that the Jews borrowed it. If you do say so, then you agree that Christianity is borne out of Hellenist thought, which would be anathema to Jewish thought.

If you think THAT's bad, then how about the fact that the first 11 chapters or so of Genesis were directly borrowed from Babylonian myth? Or the fact that the Israelites didn't believe in the resurrection of the dead until they came into contact with the Zoroastrians? A bit of Greek philosophy is a drop in the bucket compared to that stuff.

Also, I'm assuming you've never heard of the "Logos spermatikos" concept.

 

[Shiranui117]

EDIT: Shermana, I have noticed that the debate has drifted from the Trinity. You are of course free to give counterpoints to the posts I've recently put up, but if you would also like to add in counterarguments to other Trinitarian prooftexts that we have not already discussed, feel free to do so at any time. This debate is not at a stalemate, and I don't want you to get the impression that this discussion won't be moving forward. For instance, I don't believe that you have used any points or sources against me that you previously used on fallingblood. That alone would give us much more lucrative discussion, if you feel that the current conversation is stalling out. I know your arsenal of counterpoints against the Trinity is quite expansive.

However, none of this is to say that I mind the conversation we're having. I'm perfectly fine with this tangent. Just throwing out a JSYK.

Essentially one of your own contentions is a wet knot, some may have scholarly backing (based on extremely flimsy reasons and very bad, biased criteria) that needs a full thread to debate.

Some scholarly backing is better than none.

Yes, but Philo's Logos Theology is much different than what Trinitarians say it is.

Really? Enlighten me. What are the specifics of Philo's Logos Theology, as opposed to what Trinitarians say it is?

I completely disagree. To follow after Samuel means to go likewise as Samuel did. Again, we would need a whole thread to work this wet knot out. To "follow after" in this case means more than just to go behind, and it certainly doesn't mean just "Afterwards". If I said "Follow after me", it's the same thing. Have you never heard someone say "After me", to mean "Like me"? It doesn't just mean "Afterwards I say", it means "Do as I do". Quite simple. Perhaps I should challenge you to a 1x1 on each of these issues.

Alright, so even if it CAN mean "to do likewise" in the context of that verse, you have yet to prove that "after" can mean "like" in Isaiah 43, which is an entirely different context from Judges or 1 Samuel.

Not at all, the word "before" implies clearly that it means "prominence", otherwise you imply there's a time before God, it's that simple.

Complete non-sequitur. Saying that there is nothing before God by no means implies that God has a beginning; on the contrary, the fact that God HAS no beginning lends even MORE emphasis to the fact that nothing existed before God. You're grasping at straws now.

You have absolutely no basis for saying that it's an error.

Alright, that's one explanation out of the several I listed off the table. Given that you've paraphrased Scripture flat-out falsely, I think it's logical that the author of John paraphrased Zechariah 12:10 to make it clear that the person being pierced was referring to Jesus. Doesn't change the meaning of that verse a bit, least of all in the context of that part of John.

That "influence" never went away, that's what I'm saying. And that "influence" was what the Israelites actually believed.

You have a long row to hoe in proving that the Jews of Jesus' day were henotheists. But go ahead, give me any scholarly source that claims this. Let's examine the evidence.

Source?

I present to you, the first-century Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus. From his Antiquities of the Jews, book xviii, chapter 5, section 9:

9. At this time there were three sects among the Jews, who had different opinions concerning human actions; the one was called the sect of the Pharisees, another the sect of the Sadducees, and the other the sect of the Essens. Now for the Pharisees, they say that some actions, but not all, are the work of fate, and some of them are in our own power, and that they are liable to fate, but are not caused by fate. But the sect of the Essens affirm, that fate governs all things, and that nothing befalls men but what is according to its determination. And for the Sadducees, they take away fate, and say there is no such thing, and that the events of human affairs are not at its disposal; but they suppose that all our actions are in our own power, so that we are ourselves the causes of what is good, and receive what is evil from our own folly. However, I have given a more exact account of these opinions in the second book of the Jewish War.

http ://w ww.sacred-texts. com/jud/josephus/ant-13.h tm

 

[Shermana]

Some scholarly backing is better than none.

Really? Enlighten me. What are the specifics of Philo's Logos Theology, as opposed to what Trinitarians say it is?[/SIZE]

Philo of Alexandria's Logos | Old Testament Pseudepigrapha - School of Divinity, University of St Andrews

Philo clearly distinguishes them as nothing close to the same being. There is nothing of the "Different persons, same being" concept. However, I disagree with the idea that Philo was making the "monotheistic view not reduced", I think that's a misunderstanding based on the traditional view of the alleged Henotheism-Monotheism switch around that time. Philo doesn't flat out say the Logos is a god, but basically implies it is indeed a powerful, heavenly being, a "Divine being" so to speak. Independent of God. The idea that the Logos (Wisdom) was the Firstborn Created being of God is seen clearly in Proverbs and Wisdom of Solomon as mentioned.

3) The Logos as the allegorical application to the mediatorial figures in the biblical context: Philo takes several appropriate texts in the books of Moses, and places the Logos in each context. He is interested in the angelic figure (Leg All 3:177-178; Fug 5-6; Quaest Exod 2:13) or other mediator figures, such as Aaron (Heres 205), 'manna' (Leg All 3:174-178; Det 118; Heres 79, 191), or 'water' (Post 127-129; Somn 2:241-242, 246]). Philo also takes up other texts which sound polytheistic (e.g. the LXX rendering of Gen 31:13 and 9:6) and contends that the divine Logos should be placed beside God instead of other autonomous substances, so that the monotheistic view is not reduced at all (Somn 1:227-230; Quaest Gen 2:62).

II. Philo's Logos and Its Divine Mediator Figures

In the context where the Logos is understood as personal figures, it comes to appear as a divine mediator. In these contexts, the Logos is called 'healer of the soul' (Leg All 3:177-178), 'comforter' (Fug 5-6), 'mediator' (Quaest Exod 2:13), and 'ambassador' (Heres 205), etc. It is also assigned a divine task to increase and to nourish the souls of the people (Leg All 3:174-178; Det 118; Heres 79, 191; Post 127-129; Somn 2:241-242, 246). Philo also argues that God (the invisible supreme cause) can have a real relation to the world (visible), by developing the idea of 'the divine Logos' as the divine mediator who can be a link between them.

Alright, so even if it CAN mean "to do likewise" in the context of that verse, you have yet to prove that "after" can mean "like" in Isaiah 43, which is an entirely different context from Judges or 1 Samuel.

Complete non-sequitur. Saying that there is nothing before God by no means implies that God has a beginning; on the contrary, the fact that God HAS no beginning lends even MORE emphasis to the fact that nothing existed before God. You're grasping at straws now.

It's not necessarily a different usage, the word "Before" most likely means "More important than" or "More prominent", I see no reason to believe otherwise.

Alright, that's one explanation out of the several I listed off the table. Given that you've paraphrased Scripture flat-out falsely, I think it's logical that the author of John paraphrased Zechariah 12:10 to make it clear that the person being pierced was referring to Jesus. Doesn't change the meaning of that verse a bit, least of all in the context of that part of John.

I paraphrased quite falsely? How so? I don't think John paraphrased Zechariah, I think he quoted it. Neither do I think its a scribal error. There's simply no reason to believe that the accusative says "Me". Even if the JPS which borrows 95% from the KJV says so. This too, we should make a whole thread about.

You have a long row to hoe in proving that the Jews of Jesus' day were henotheists. But go ahead, give me any scholarly source that claims this. Let's examine the evidence.

Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God: Heiser

The Deut 32:8 issue is very interesting. Here we see that the 4th century Septuagint itself declares the existence of other gods.

Hebrew Henotheism

And now for an excellent thing on Elohim as Angels, extending into the time period when the SEPTUAGINT WAS WRITTEN (which would be not far from the time period in question). I think its quite clear, as I said, that over time the concept of Angels and gods became so intertwined that for the Greeks the word became interchangeable. Now I'll throw a bone here and say that the Masoretic text may have in fact deliberately changed "Sons of God" to "Sons of Israel" for this very reason of the Rabbis trying to destroy all traces of their "Hellenist" roots. Naturally, both Trinitarian and Rabbinical sources will not admit what we can easily see simply through the differences in the Septuagint here. Now this goes with what I said earlier that your view must necessarily include that the Elohim-Angels connection involves a Hebrew corruption. Well we see a clear corruption in Deut 32:8 that SOMEONE noticed this "problem" and changed it around this time, though arbitrarily apparently. There's no evidence that the Jews were no longer Henotheists by this time, though there may have been fierce anti-Hellenistic reaction during this time pushing for what we call "Monotheism", the only argument against it is through this dubious mainstream understanding of Isaiah. In any event, even the scholars who defend Isaiah's Monotheism must necessarily conclude that the Theology CHANGED by that time.

The 'Elohîm as Angels

The fact that the two divine beings that go to Sodom are called "angels" have led traditional commentators to mitigate the implied polytheism by the qualification that these beings were not true gods, but created angels. This interpretation is discounted by Albright, Weber, Gaster, Speiser, and others.22 The Bible makes a clear distinction between an angel (Heb. malakh; Gk., aggelos) and a god or God ('elohîm; theos). Revelation 19:10 and 22:8,9 are explicit in their injunction that angels are "fellow servants" and not gods that are to be worshipped. The 'elohîm are not created beings because they are with Yahweh from the beginning and are involved in creation itself (Gen. 1:26; Job 38:7). In a letter to me, Brownlee concedes that there is no mention of the creation of angels, but does point out that yahweh saba'ot does mean "Creator of [heavenly] armies." But it is clear, especially in Job, that the Lord's host (=army) is made up of astral deities not angels.23 But the word "creator" here does imply that the beings are created, eliminating an essential divine attribute (at least for philosophical theology). In Vedic hedonism the lesser gods are also many times referred to as created beings. In Job, Satan is one of the subordinate gods, a son of God, and is referred to elsewhere (Is. 14:12) as the "Day Star" (helal) and "son of Dawn" (shahar), both members of the Canaanite pantheon. Scholar Marvin H. Pope states that "these are lesser members of the ancient pagan pantheon who are retained in later monotheistic theology as angels."24

The interchange of God and angels in the Hebrew Scriptures reflect an early conception of the nature of angels before the influx of Persian angelology during and after the Babylonian captivity. For the early Hebrews, an angelic figure was a temporary disguise for Yahweh. "Angels" functioned as mediators across the great difference between Yahweh and mortals.25 Therefore, the "angel" that appears to Hagar (Gen. 16:7); the "angels" at the Oaks of Mamre and Sodom; the "angel" that wrestled with Jacob; and the "angel" that was "commander of the army of the Lord" (Jos. 5:14) are all divine manifestations of either Yahweh or one of the subordinate deities.

This theory of early Hebrew angelology would also preclude a claim that these "men" that appear as Yahweh foreshadow in any way the Incarnation. Outside of Is. 9:6, which has been taken by many as "divinity in might" only, there is no explicit concept of a man-God or a sustained doctrine of the Incarnation in the Hebrew Scriptures. The idea of the man-God most likely inspired by the Greco-Roman state cults and the Hellenistic mystery religions. The idea is not only alien but blasphemous to the Hebrew mind.

The remnants of the original polytheistic base of ancient Judaism are found more often in the nonprophetic works like the Pentateuch, the Psalms, and Job. Psalm 82 is an important text as evidence for Hebraic henotheism. (The following is the RSV translation with Julian Morgenstern's alternative reading for vv. 6-7):

I present to you, the first-century Jewish historian, Flavius Josephus. From his [/SIZE] Antiquities of the Jews, book xviii, chapter 5, section 9:
http ://w ww.sacred-texts. com/jud/josephus/ant-13.h tm

[/QUOTE]

Okay, let's take a look here about this Free will concept that the Essenes denied.

With that said, here is your quote:

9. the one was called the sect of the Pharisees, another the sect of the Sadducees, and the other the sect of the Essens. Now for the Pharisees, (11) they say that some actions, but not all, are the work of fate, and some of them are in our own power, and that they are liable to fate, but are not caused by fate. But the sect of the Essens affirm, that fate governs all things, and that nothing befalls men but what is according to its determination. And for the Sadducees, they take away fate, and say there is no such thing, and that the events of human affairs are not at its disposal;.

I believe in Fate too, just like them. But I'm pretty sure they believe in Free will which deserves it. The relevance?

 

[Shiranui117]

Hebrew Henotheism

Philo of Alexandria's Logos

Oh my God, I cannot believe you gave me two links that prove so many of my earlier points. I can’t thank you enough for this, Shermana. I really can’t. I think I’m going to explode right now. Time to see what arguments of mine these two sites have proven:

Exhibit A:

For the early Hebrews, an angelic figure was a temporary disguise for Yahweh. "Angels" functioned as mediators across the great difference between Yahweh and mortals.25 Therefore, the "angel" that appears to Hagar (Gen. 16:7); the "angels" at the Oaks of Mamre and Sodom; the "angel" that wrestled with Jacob; and the "angel" that was "commander of the army of the Lord" (Jos. 5:14) are all divine manifestations of either Yahweh or one of the subordinate deities.

One explanation is that God came in the form of an angel. Have you heard of the term “Theophanic angel” before?

There is another explanation which I’ve JUST now come across, and that is that "a person's agent is regarded as the person himself". So in Genesis, the Angel is treated as God Himself, but in Hosea, the distinction is made that Jacob wrestled with an Angel, not God Himself.

Exhibit B:

The fact that the two divine beings that go to Sodom are called "angels" have led traditional commentators to mitigate the implied polytheism by the qualification that these beings were not true gods, but created angels. This interpretation is discounted by Albright, Weber, Gaster, Speiser, and others.22 The Bible makes a clear distinction between an angel (Heb. malakh; Gk., aggelos) and a god or God ('elohîm; theos). Revelation 19:10 and 22:8,9 are explicit in their injunction that angels are "fellow servants" and not gods that are to be worshipped. The 'elohîm are not created beings because they are with Yahweh from the beginning and are involved in creation itself (Gen. 1:26; Job 38:7). In a letter to me, Brownlee concedes that there is no mention of the creation of angels, but does point out that yahweh saba'ot does mean "Creator of [heavenly] armies." But it is clear, especially in Job, that the Lord's host (=army) is made up of astral deities not angels.23 But the word "creator" here does imply that the beings are created, eliminating an essential divine attribute (at least for philosophical theology). In Vedic hedonism the lesser gods are also many times referred to as created beings. In Job, Satan is one of the subordinate gods, a son of God, and is referred to elsewhere (Is. 14:12) as the "Day Star" (helal) and "son of Dawn" (shahar), both members of the Canaanite pantheon. Scholar Marvin H. Pope states that "these are lesser members of the ancient pagan pantheon who are retained in later monotheistic theology as angels."

And as I have said before, this was likely an attempt to impose monotheism and get rid of any polytheist readings of the text. . . So your position that angels and gods became synonymous has about as much basis as my assertion that “gods” was translated as “angels” to preserve monotheism. And that’s me being incredibly generous to your position.

Exhibit C:

The interchange of God and angels in the Hebrew Scriptures reflect an early conception of the nature of angels before the influx of Persian angelology during and after the Babylonian captivity . . . Many scholars believe that Zoroastrianism was the world's first truly monotheistic religion and that Hebrew religion was influenced profoundly by the fact that the new state of Israel was a small province in a great Persian empire.

Jewish thought had already been influenced by Zoroastrian thought

This downgrading from angels being gods to mere messengers also fits in better with the history of Israelite religious evolution from polytheism to henotheism to strict monotheism.

Exhibit D:

Traditional interpretations of this psalm have insisted that the 'elohîm are really judges and not divine beings. . .Other psalms refer to Yahweh's divine council and provide further support for our thesis. The "sons of god" (b‘n‘ 'elim) of Ps. 29:1 are again taken by conservatives as referring to judges or rulers. . .
On our theory, pure monotheism did not come to the Hebrew scriptures until the writings of Deutero-Isaiah, i.e., during and after the Babylonian captivity in the sixth century B.C.E. Indications of monotheism before Deutero-Isaiah must then be the work of later monotheistic editors. We have seen how later scribes did not hesitate to change passages (Deut. 32:8; Gen. 31:53) which had explicit polytheistic implications. It is significant to note that the monotheistic passages in Isaiah (like 45:21, 22; 46:90) come after Cyrus the Great has been named the Lord's Messiah, "anointed one," in 45:1. Cyrus was a Zoroastrian, one who worshipped the single, supreme God Ahura Mazda.

Go ahead, keep ignoring my points. Keep ignoring the progression from polytheism to henotheism to monotheism, including rewritings and reinterpretations of the Bible and of history.

This downgrading from angels being gods to mere messengers also fits in better with the history of Israelite religious evolution from polytheism to henotheism to strict monotheism.

And now, onto that Philo article you were talking about, and which I am also indebted to you for:

The Logos as the allegorical application to the mediatorial figures in the biblical context: Philo takes several appropriate texts in the books of Moses, and places the Logos in each context. He is interested in the angelic figure (Leg All 3:177-178; Fug 5-6; Quaest Exod 2:13) or other mediator figures, such as Aaron (Heres 205), 'manna' (Leg All 3:174-178; Det 118; Heres 79, 191), or 'water' (Post 127-129; Somn 2:241-242, 246]). . .
In the context where the Logos is understood as personal figures, it comes to appear as a divine mediator. In these contexts, the Logos is called 'healer of the soul' (Leg All 3:177-178), 'comforter' (Fug 5-6), 'mediator' (Quaest Exod 2:13), and 'ambassador' (Heres 205), etc. It is also assigned a divine task to increase and to nourish the souls of the people (Leg All 3:174-178; Det 118; Heres 79, 191; Post 127-129; Somn 2:241-242, 246). Philo also argues that God (the invisible supreme cause) can have a real relation to the world (visible), by developing the idea of 'the divine Logos' as the divine mediator who can be a link between them.

Kind of sounds like Jesus being the mediator between God and man, and Jesus doing the will of the Father and speaking on the authority of the Father, doesn’t it? Good, because it should.

Philo also takes up other texts which sound polytheistic (e.g. the LXX rendering of Gen 31:13 and 9:6) and contends that the divine Logos should be placed beside God instead of other autonomous substances, so that the monotheistic view is not reduced at all (Somn 1:227-230; Quaest Gen 2:62).

Does that remind you of any points I’ve made about reinterpreting the Bible to make it sound purely monotheistic, and take out any henotheistic or polytheistic interpretations? It should.

Philo also argues that God (the invisible supreme cause) can have a real relation to the world (visible), by developing the idea of 'the divine Logos' as the divine mediator who can be a link between them.

Sure sounds a lot like Colossians 1:15’s referring to Jesus as “the image of the invisible God,” doesn’t it?

The Logos as the word of YHWH (and wisdom of God): In the context where Philo goes back to the Bible, it shows the figure of God's utterance in accordance with the Jewish creation account in Genesis

Oh hey, Shermana, you remember this exchange?

The Son is eternally begotten of the Father, and is also called the "Logos" or "Word" of the Father. The traditional interpretation of this is that the Son is the Word by which God spoke the world into being.

Do you have a link on when this tradition came about? As far as I'm concerned, the concept of "Word" meaning "Actual word" was a later development.

I'm not entirely sure when this came about. All I know is that the first couple verses of Genesis are very popular among Christians to show that the OT hinted at the Trinity. I'll try and find out for you.

Well, I found that link you asked for. Or, rather, you found it. So no, the idea that the Logos is the Word by which God spoke the world into creation is not a “later development,” as you previously thought. The idea reaches back over 2000 years!

Philo clearly distinguishes them as nothing close to the same being. There is nothing of the "Different persons, same being" concept. However, I disagree with the idea that Philo was making the "monotheistic view not reduced", I think that's a misunderstanding based on the traditional view of the alleged Henotheism-Monotheism switch around that time.

You THINK? Sorry, but I’m going to need more than conjecture to buy that idea of yours.
Also, why would you even quote a source with which you disagree?

I have another post coming, don't worry. Just need to sift through that Deuteronomy article of yours a bit more.

 

[Shermana]

Oh my God, I cannot believe you gave me two links that prove so many of my earlier points. I can’t thank you enough for this, Shermana. I really can’t. I think I’m going to explode right now. Time to see what arguments of mine these two sites have proven:

Exhibit A:


Exhibit B:


Exhibit C:



Exhibit D:

I fully admit it does speak of the idea that the Angel of the Lord MAY have been interpreted as God Himself. HOWEVER........

Notice in Exhibit D, it flat out agrees with me that the Masoretes did in fact change Deuteronomy 32:8, exactly as I was saying that they were trying to stamp out traces of this earlier belief.

Also notice that in Exhibit C that it flat out says the moving towards Monotheism may have in fact been a Persian influence. Now do you see that your belief must necessarily be that the Ancient Israelites changed their beliefs based on foreign influence?

And in Exhibit B, it says "This interpretation is discounted by Albright, Weber, Gaster, Speiser, and others". Is it referring to the idea that they weren't "True gods" that they are discounting. I didn't know I had that many scholars on my side if that's the case.

or one of the subordinate deities.

See that subordinate deity part?

And now, onto that Philo article you were talking about, and which I am also indebted to you for:
Kind of sounds like Jesus being the mediator between God and man, and Jesus doing the will of the Father and speaking on the authority of the Father, doesn’t it? Good, because it should.

Your contention? Surely you can see how an Arian-ish interpretation works just fine with that.

Does that remind you of any points I’ve made about reinterpreting the Bible to make it sound purely monotheistic, and take out any henotheistic or polytheistic interpretations? It should.

Umm, I don't think that supports your point. My point was that it was originally Henotheistic, it retained its Henotheism in the Septuagint, and the later Rabbinicists mostly tried to remove it.

Sure sounds a lot like Colossians 1:15’s referring to Jesus as “the image of the invisible God,” doesn’t it?

It sure does. In fact, it supports my point 100% that The Logos is not God Himself but the representative.

Oh hey, Shermana, you remember this exchange?

Your point?

Well, I found that link you asked for. Or, rather, you found it. So no, the idea that the Logos is the Word by which God spoke the world into creation is not a “later development,” as you previously thought. The idea reaches back over 2000 years!

It's not quite the same as you're interpreting it and it's basically similar to what I said about the Logos being the means THROUGH which Creation is made, an entirely independent being. I may have erred in saying this earlier in that he wasn't "The word" of Creation. But the idea is that "The Word", as the First Created being, Wisdom Personified, is not just "a part" of God. It becomes an entirely separate being and entity.

You THINK? Sorry, but I’m going to need more than conjecture to buy that idea of yours.

As long as you accept that I need more than Conjecture for your own ideas like that there's a scribal error in John's recitation of Zech 12:10.

Also, why would you even quote a source with which you disagree?

I should have mentioned but I ran out of characters, that I don't agree with everything the link says but it portrays a point I was making nonetheless.

 

[Shiranui117]

III. Philo's Logos and Its Relation to the Early Christian Understanding of Jesus

Aww, shucks, you even made my work easy for me by giving me whole paragraphs about how Philo’s Logos is CONNECTED to the Early Christian understanding of Jesus! You are one stand-up, charitable dude, and I mean that in all sincerity. You really are a good person, and I appreciate this conversation with you. It’s taught me a lot so far, and it’s been a great learning experience.

Philo clearly distinguishes them as nothing close to the same being. There is nothing of the "Different persons, same being" concept. However, I disagree with the idea that Philo was making the "monotheistic view not reduced", I think that's a misunderstanding based on the traditional view of the alleged Henotheism-Monotheism switch around that time.

You THINK? Sorry, but I’m going to need more than conjecture to buy that idea of yours.
Also, why would you even quote a source with which you disagree?

Philo doesn't flat out say the Logos is a god, but basically implies it is indeed a powerful, heavenly being, a "Divine being" so to speak. Independent of God. [/quote]
Actually, as section III of your article shows, there is still TONS of overlap between Philo’s idea and the Christian conception of Christ the Logos. As you said, they are not the same, but they share many of the same characteristics. The identity between Plato’s Logos ad John’s logos is, of course, different. However, in terms of the roles and the “job description” that the two of them play, they are very much the same.

And no, the Logos, according to your very own article, is not another God, nor is it even a completely independent being. It is the Word and Wisdom of God. Even if one tries to separate the Platonic concept of Logos from God (which you cannot), then one either ends up with a sort of Logos as a second Person of the same being, or you end up with Gregory Palamas’s “energies-essence” distinction.

The idea that the Logos (Wisdom) was the Firstborn Created being of God is seen clearly in Proverbs and Wisdom of Solomon as mentioned.

Nowhere is that mentioned in your source. Sorry, my friend. Unless you can show me where it says that?

It's not necessarily a different usage, the word "Before" most likely means "More important than" or "More prominent", I see no reason to believe otherwise.

Even if this WAS the case, then why should “after” simply mean just “equal to” or “like”? Why would it not mean “there are no gods LESSER than Me”? You have not answered this yet.

I paraphrased quite falsely? How so?

Well, there WAS the time when you tried to say that the Logos was the “First Created Being,” which is neither logical when comparing it to Philo’s actual theology, nor, IIRC, have you yet proven it from Scripture. Proverbs 8:22-31 didn’t help you, and actually contradicted your argument by saying that Wisdom was not created, but poured out and established, and existed eternally.

I don't think John paraphrased Zechariah, I think he quoted it. Neither do I think its a scribal error.

And what makes you “think” that? Do you have any proof to back up your “thoughts”?

The Deut 32:8 issue is very interesting. Here we see that the 4th century Septuagint itself declares the existence of other gods.

From that Deuteronomy source:
[FONT=&quot]

The last phrase, "according to the number of the sons of Israel," reflects the reading of the Masoretic text lxerAW;yi yneB;, a reading also reflected in some later revisions of the Septuagint: a manuscript of Aquila (Codex X), Symmachus (also Codex X), and Theodotion.2 Most witnesses to the Septuagint in verse 8, however, read, a@ggelw?n qeou? ("angels of God"), which is interpretive,3[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]3[/FONT][FONT=&quot] This is the predominant reading in the Septuagint manuscripts and is nearly[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]unanimous[/FONT][FONT=&quot].[/FONT][FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot] The authors of the Old Testament, however, affirmed the existence of plural Myhilox<, while they also asked, "Who among the gods is like you, a LORD?" (Exod. 15:11; cf. Pss. 86:8; 138:1), precisely[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]because[/FONT][FONT=&quot] they already knew[/FONT][FONT=&quot] that Yahweh is an Myhilox<, but that only He is omnipotent, preexistent, and omniscient. It was no conundrum for the people of Israel to affirm that the word Myhilox< in their language described actual beings that Yahweh had credited, who were members of His council, while knowing that none of these Myhilox< were truly comparable to Him. In fact they could not deny the[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]existence[/FONT][FONT=&quot] of other Myhilox< since Yahweh had created them! Whereas other ancient Near Eastern religions showed only glimpses of the monotheistic idea,83 Israel alone was consistent in holding to monotheism.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] There is no need to create wholly interpretive, camouflaged translations,84 or to interpret Myhilox< as human "judges," an approach that requires either paying only lip service to an Old Tes-[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]tament[/FONT][FONT=&quot] hermeneutic that incorporates comparative philology or jettisoning the analogous material altogether.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] Second, it is hardly necessary to balk at affirming the reality of the divine council, for the Old Testament's presentation of the concept is distinguished from the pagan understanding. Aside from[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]uncontradicted[/FONT][FONT=&quot] assertions that none of the Myhilox< were comparable to Yahweh, the description of the divine council in the Old Testament departs from that of other ancient Near Eastern religions in[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]several[/FONT][FONT=&quot] important ways.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] For example Yahweh is clearly depicted as the sole Deity credited with bringing all that exists into being. He was unassisted in His creative acts.85 None of the other Myhilox< aided Him in this[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]endeavor[/FONT][FONT=&quot]. An equally radical departure from the ancient pagan mind is the absence of any hint of theogony in the Old Testament. God produced the Myhilox< and everything else without a consort.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Yahweh's "fatherhood" of the Myhilox< can only be spoken of in formal terms. Also the members of the divine council, contrary to ancient Near Eastern religions, cannot be viewed as genuine rivals to the[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Most High.[/FONT][FONT=&quot] Yahweh does not need to battle them in order to maintain His position as Leader of the council and hence the cosmos. There are no mighty deeds ascribed to any other than Yahweh.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Yahweh is unchallenged and in fact unchallengeable.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] CONCLUSION[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This article responds to the false notion that accepting the Septuagint and Qumran evidence for the "sons of God" reading in Deuteronomy 32:8 requires seeing Israelite religion as polytheistic.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]In other words, I completely misunderstood your point about there being other gods. Why didn&#8217;t you say that all these other gods were just created beings in the first place? It would have cleared up a lot of confusion. The fact that these other gods are all created beings just like us humans doesn&#8217;t really make them gods at all in my eyes, or in the eyes of any Christian.

Hebrew Henotheism

And now for an excellent thing on Elohim as Angels, extending into the time period when the SEPTUAGINT WAS WRITTEN (which would be not far from the time period in question). I think its quite clear, as I said, that over time the concept of Angels and gods became so intertwined that for the Greeks the word became interchangeable. Now I'll throw a bone here and say that the Masoretic text may have in fact deliberately changed "Sons of God" to "Sons of Israel" for this very reason of the Rabbis trying to destroy all traces of their "Hellenist" roots.

[/FONT]
2 things to note here:
1: The polytheism in Israel was due to Canaanite and not Greek influence. In fact, according to Greek philosophy (especially Plato, Aristotle and Socrates), if there WAS a God, then there was only ONE God. Greek philosophy would have helped to actually REINFORCE monotheism, so any push towards monotheism cannot possibly be described as &#8220;trying to destroy all traces of their &#8216;Hellenic&#8217; roots.&#8221; Also, the push towards Monotheism was helped by the Babylonian captivity; since the Zoroastrians were dualistic, the Jews reacted against the idea of Zoroastrian dualism and elevated Yahweh to the role of supreme and only God, and either downgraded all the other gods (Including Yahweh&#8217;s consort, Asherah) to angel status, demon status, or abolished them altogether.

2: Actually, that article makes the EXACT point I told you earlier. Gods were DEMOTED to the status of angels. They were formerly gods in their own right, but got downgraded to the status of being messengers of the one God Yahweh as a result of the Israelite push towards monotheism.

 

[Shiranui117]

Naturally, both Trinitarian and Rabbinical sources will not admit what we can easily see simply through the differences in the Septuagint here. Now this goes with what I said earlier that your view must necessarily include that the Elohim-Angels connection involves a Hebrew corruption. Well we see a clear corruption in Deut 32:8 that SOMEONE noticed this "problem" and changed it around this time, though arbitrarily apparently. There's no evidence that the Jews were no longer Henotheists by this time, though there may have been fierce anti-Hellenistic reaction during this time pushing for what we call "Monotheism", the only argument against it is through this dubious mainstream understanding of Isaiah. In any event, even the scholars who defend Isaiah's Monotheism must necessarily conclude that the Theology CHANGED by that time.

How is monotheism “fiercely anti-Hellenistic”? If anything, Hellenism would have HELPED the Jews push for monotheism! Did you not know that some of the greatest Greek philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and the Stoics spoke of only one God? Have you read any Greek philosophy whatsoever? Look, your own source demonstrates Greek philosophical influence helped Philo to formulate his Logos idea:

[FONT=&quot]

1) The Logos as Plato's or a Middle Platonic model: It is described as a 'divine model' (PARADEIGMA), 'divine plan,' or 'thought' which is placed in God's mind (YUXH (e.g. Op Mund 24, 25; Plant 18-19; Fug 94-102). The parallel correspondences between Timaeus and Philo are as follows: 'model or plan for God's creation' (NOHTOS ZWN) (Tim 30c-31a) // 'God's ideas or model' (KOSMOS NOHTOS) (e.g. Op Mund 24); 'cosmic soul' (YUXH) (Tim 36-37) // 'God's mind' (YUXH) (Op Mund 18, 20); 'the logos as God's thought' (LOGOS KAI DIANOIA) (Tim 38c) // 'the logos' (Leg All 1:24); and 'the reason as God's plan' (LOGISMOS QEOU) (Tim 34a) // 'the reason as the laws' (LOGISMOS) (Op Mund 24).

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]2) The Logos as the word of YHWH (and wisdom of God): In the context where Philo goes back to the Bible, it shows the figure of God's utterance in accordance with the Jewish creation account in Genesis (e.g. Sacr 8; Fug 95) and the figure of the word of YHWH (Leg All 3:204; Post 102). The wisdom motif as 'divine thought' may correspond to Philo's Logos as 'divine plan' (cf. Quis Rer 199; Leg All 1:43, 65; Leg All 2:86; Fug 97; Somn 2:241-242); and since Philo's theological model of the divine Logos can involve the notion of 'wisdom' (of the Second Temple Period), Philo does not need to employ the wisdom motif for his theological argument. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]And as a case in point, in addition to the other 2 articles I’ve also given you that state Philo’s influence from Greek philosophy: Philo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Also see the sections titled Exegesis and Stoic influence.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Also note that in the next section, it states that Philo didn’t even read in Hebrew. Now, you say that the Septuagint wasn’t used as commonly as I think. If not even one of the leading Jewish theologians of the day knew how to read Hebrew, then what does that say about the extent of the Septuagint’s popularity, as opposed to that of any Hebrew manuscript?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Yep, all this TOTALLY proves that the Jews were, in your own words, “fiercely anti-Hellenistic.”[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

Okay, let's take a look here about this Free will concept that the Essenes denied.
I believe in Fate too, just like them. But I'm pretty sure they believe in Free will which deserves it. The relevance?

[/FONT]
No, Josephus explicitly stated that the Essenes believe that Fate governs ALL things. It’s the base definition of Fatalism.
Fatalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (YAY, I can post links now! Happy moment achieved!)

There's simply no reason to believe that the accusative says "Me". Even if the JPS which borrows 95% from the KJV says so. This too, we should make a whole thread about.

Actually, another little tidbit I just found. Neither the Greek of John 19:37 nor the Hebrew of Zechariah 12:10 includes the pronoun “Me” or “him.” Both of them seem to literally read “And they will look upon who they have pierced.” Perhaps the pronouns “Me” and “him” were later added into translations to make the “who” fit into the contexts of their respective passages, or the Greek and Hebrew words “who/whom” were understood within the context?
[FONT=&quot]

Okay, let's take a look here about this Free will concept that the Essenes denied.
I believe in Fate too, just like them. But I'm pretty sure they believe in Free will which deserves it. The relevance?

[/FONT]
No, Josephus explicitly stated that the Essenes believe that Fate governs ALL things. It’s the base definition of Fatalism.
Fatalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (YAY, I can post links now! Happy moment achieved!)

 

[Shiranui117]

I fully admit it does speak of the idea that the Angel of the Lord MAY have been interpreted as God Himself. HOWEVER........

Sorry, but your source says that the Angel of the Lord WAS interpreted as God Himself by the Jews. It leaves no room for "may."

Notice in Exhibit D, it flat out agrees with me that the Masoretes did in fact change Deuteronomy 32:8, exactly as I was saying that they were trying to stamp out traces of this earlier belief.

I was making that point, too. The difference between you and me is, though, that I acknowledge the abundant evidence pointing to the fact that the Jews were monotheists at the turn of the first millenium.

Also notice that in Exhibit C that it flat out says the moving towards Monotheism may have in fact been a Persian influence. Now do you see that your belief must necessarily be that the Ancient Israelites changed their beliefs based on foreign influence?

Okay, sure, I've already made those arguments, no problem for me to believe that. It wouldn't be the first time that the Israelites adopted the beliefs of other peoples as their own. It does not mean that the Christian religion is untrue, since its Jewish predecessor had been influenced by other religious systems. Again, I bring up the Logos Spermatikos concept. The Christian religion came into being as a product of evolution like how man came into being as a product of evolution. It seems random and would seem to belittle our significance, but in reality, the entire process was guided by God.

And in Exhibit B, it says "This interpretation is discounted by Albright, Weber, Gaster, Speiser, and others". Is it referring to the idea that they weren't "True gods" that they are discounting. I didn't know I had that many scholars on my side if that's the case.

And my point in posting that was to show that gods were reinterpreted as angels, in order to preserve and defend Israelite monotheism.

See that subordinate deity part?

Yep. See that later retained as angels part?

My point in bolding that was to show specific examples of gods being downgraded to angel status.

Your contention? Surely you can see how an Arian-ish interpretation works just fine with that.

An Arian-ish interpretaion doesn't work just fine with the Logos being uncreated.

Umm, I don't think that supports your point. My point was that it was originally Henotheistic, it retained its Henotheism in the Septuagint, and the later Rabbinicists mostly tried to remove it.

Traces of Henotheistic belief remain, yes. Heck, traces of polytheism and henotheism remain, even today in the Christian and Jewish bibles. Does this mean that either the Jews or the Christians are polytheists or henotheists? No. In just the same way, henotheist and polytheist traces in the Septuagint do not prove that the Jews of Jesus' day were henotheists. Your sources say that the Israelites WERE monotheists, not that they MAY have been.

It sure does. In fact, it supports my point 100% that The Logos is not God Himself but the representative.

The representative, and the Word of God. None of this contradicts Christian teaching. As I said, OF COURSE Philo and John had different ideas about the identity of the Logos. I never said that Philo's theology was synonymous with John. I simply said that we adapted Philo's theology, like how Philo adapted it from the Middle Platonists.

It's not quite the same as you're interpreting it

Well, as I said, Philo's theology is not quite the same. However, it still bears an incredibly striking resemblance to the Christian idea, and it is clear that Philo is where we got the idea from.

and it's basically similar to what I said about the Logos being the means THROUGH which Creation is made,

Congratulations, you just described the Christian position!

But the idea is that "The Word", as the First Created being, Wisdom Personified, is not just "a part" of God. It becomes an entirely separate being and entity.

You have not demonstrated any of this. Where in any of your sources does it state this?

As long as you accept that I need more than Conjecture for your own ideas like that there's a scribal error in John's recitation of Zech 12:10.

I don't think you have any more proof than I do. If you can find proof one way or the other, sure, I'll accept it.

 

[Shermana]

Sorry, but your source says that the Angel of the Lord WAS interpreted as God Himself by the Jews. It leaves no room for "may."

OR SUBORDINATE DEITIES. As it stands, I see no Jewish midrash saying the Angel of the LORD was the LORD himself.

I was making that point, too. The difference between you and me is, though, that I acknowledge the abundant evidence pointing to the fact that the Jews were monotheists at the turn of the first millenium.

Not exactly a "Scholarly" site (and many "scholarly" links on the matter are not so scholarly), but this site agrees that Paul was in fact Henotheist by definition. Whether or not the Jewish mainstream was what we call "Monotheist", but even then I don't think they completely ruled out the existence of other gods and I see no reason to believe that other than the conventional interpretation of Isaiah.

"Henotheism, A God-Eat-God Cosmic System"

Okay, sure, I've already made those arguments, no problem for me to believe that. It wouldn't be the first time that the Israelites adopted the beliefs of other peoples as their own. It does not mean that the Christian religion is untrue, since its Jewish predecessor had been influenced by other religious systems. Again, I bring up the Logos Spermatikos concept. The Christian religion came into being as a product of evolution like how man came into being as a product of evolution. It seems random and would seem to belittle our significance, but in reality, the entire process was guided by God.

I'm not saying the Christian religion would be untrue, I'm saying the idea that the ancient beliefs were wrong or "developed" into something "more true" would not mesh. Now we agree that the mainstream Gentile Christian religion came into formation through "evolution". To say the entire process was guided by God I won't even consider as an argument. Every process was guided by God. Islam was guided by God. Buddhism was guided by God. Just like Trinitarians and Arians were as well.

And my point in posting that was to show that gods were reinterpreted as angels, in order to preserve and defend Israelite monotheism.

And my point is that this was a direct redaction. Paul himself said "there are indeed other gods and lords, but for us there is One god". He acknowledges their existence, but for the Israelites, we only HAVE one god. Again, a difference between HAVING a god and ACKNOWLEDING a god. "god of" is not the same as "a god".

Yep. See that later retained as angels part?

Later. Redacted. The point being, Elohim became Angels. And the Monotheism redaction is quite blatantly an attempt to "eradicate such traces".

My point in bolding that was to show specific examples of gods being downgraded to angel status.

And my point is that they wouldn't have downgraded "Divine beings" to "Angels" because "Angels" were not considered a class of being but a job description. A divine being sent on a message is an Angel. The redaction is Plain. But Paul was plainly a Henotheist. See the link.

An Arian-ish interpretaion doesn't work just fine with the Logos being uncreated.

I must have missed where you said it's uncreated. I see no reason to believe it was uncreated. Even Tertullian said it was created.

Traces of Henotheistic belief remain, yes. Heck, traces of polytheism and henotheism remain, even today in the Christian and Jewish bibles. Does this mean that either the Jews or the Christians are polytheists or henotheists? No. In just the same way, henotheist and polytheist traces in the Septuagint do not prove that the Jews of Jesus' day were henotheists. Your sources say that the Israelites WERE monotheists, not that they MAY have been.

I will say that the Pharisees may have already been redacted Monotheists but there's no reason to believe the Nazarenes were. So that's another issue, separating mainstream redactionist Jewish 2nd temple theology from the Sects that Jesus came from.

The representative, and the Word of God. None of this contradicts Christian teaching. As I said, OF COURSE Philo and John had different ideas about the identity of the Logos. I never said that Philo's theology was synonymous with John. I simply said that we adapted Philo's theology, like how Philo adapted it from the Middle Platonists.

I don't see any reason to think that Philo's interpretation was different than John other than a Trinitarian presumption in John.

Well, as I said, Philo's theology is not quite the same. However, it still bears an incredibly striking resemblance to the Christian idea, and it is clear that Philo is where we got the idea from.

Of course its incredibly striking. It's virtually the same thing. When you remove your trinitarian presumptions of the text, they are.

Congratulations, you just described the Christian position!

Ummm?

You have not demonstrated any of this. Where in any of your sources does it state this?

Your response to Proverbs 8 was

Proverbs 8:22-31 didn&#8217;t help you, and actually contradicted your argument by saying that Wisdom was not created, but poured out and established, and existed eternally.

Ummm NO. Not at all. Where did you possibly derive that? "BROUGHT ME FORTH AS THE FIRST OF HIS WORKS" = Created. Sorry. I don't see how it doesn't imply that. It clearly says that Wisdom was the first created being as well in Wisdom of Solomon.

 

[Shiranui117]

OR SUBORDINATE DEITIES. As it stands, I see no Jewish midrash saying the Angel of the LORD was the LORD himself.

Not in all circumstances, of course.

I've made my point and have been able to elaborate on and give support for it. You're just restating the same argument without actually countering me.

"Henotheism, A God-Eat-God Cosmic System"[/quote]

Alright, let's give 'er a whirl:
*reads through a couple sections*
Oh dear God, you’re right, this source is nowhere NEAR scholarly. So much atheist bias…

but this site agrees that Paul was in fact Henotheist by definition.

And that claim is the funniest thing I’ve seen this month. 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 WOULD be henotheistic, were it not for verse 4, RIGHT before that, and verse 7, RIGHT after that:

4 Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one. 5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords, 6 yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him. 7 However not all men have this knowledge ; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol ; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

As far as what these gods in verse 5 are, these are things that are not truly gods, but that humans elevate to a god-status, as verse 7 clearly clarifies.

I'm not saying the Christian religion would be untrue, I'm saying the idea that the ancient beliefs were wrong or "developed" into something "more true" would not mesh. Now we agree that the mainstream Gentile Christian religion came into formation through "evolution". To say the entire process was guided by God I won't even consider as an argument. Every process was guided by God. Islam was guided by God. Buddhism was guided by God. Just like Trinitarians and Arians were as well.

So God guided the evolution of false religions, thus possibly leading to the jeopardization of salvation for billions of people? Some helpful God that is.

And my point is that this was a direct redaction. Paul himself said "there are indeed other gods and lords, but for us there is One god". He acknowledges their existence, but for the Israelites, we only HAVE one god. Again, a difference between HAVING a god and ACKNOWLEDING a god. "god of" is not the same as "a god"

See above.

Later. Redacted. The point being, Elohim became Angels. And the Monotheism redaction is quite blatantly an attempt to "eradicate such traces".

CONGRATULATIONS! You now agree with what I've been saying all along!

And my point is that they wouldn't have downgraded "Divine beings" to "Angels" because "Angels" were not considered a class of being but a job description. A divine being sent on a message is an Angel. The redaction is Plain. But Paul was plainly a Henotheist. See the link.

So one out-of-context snippet of Scripture “plainly” shows that Paul’s a Henotheist?

Did you not read your own sources? You were agreeing with what I was saying in other parts about divine beings being redacted down to angel-status. Are you backtracking to your original point now? Man, I thought we were making progress, too.

Even Tertullian said it was created.

Source?

I will say that the Pharisees may have already been redacted Monotheists but there's no reason to believe the Nazarenes were. So that's another issue, separating mainstream redactionist Jewish 2nd temple theology from the Sects that Jesus came from.

The Essenes, Pharisees and Sadducees were all pretty mainstream, man. As I've said before, Jesus' beliefs represent the Pharisees' quite well. Pharisees - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <--Looks a heck of a lot like what Jesus taught, doesn't it? It should.

So, if all the mainstream branches of a religion are all monotheistic... Then it's a monotheistic religion.

I don't see any reason to think that Philo's interpretation was different than John other than a Trinitarian presumption in John.

Of course its incredibly striking. It's virtually the same thing. When you remove your trinitarian presumptions of the text, they are.

HOORAY, you understand my point! This also means that you realize that the Logos isn't a created, fully independent being!

Ummm?

http://faculty.bbc.edu/rdecker/documents/GreekCreeds.pdf

Sure, some English translations of the Nicene Creed translate it out to “By whom all things were made,” but this is really interchangeable with “Through whom all things were made,” and it’s understood as such. “By” and “through” are synonymous in this context.

From dictionary.com (Yes, I’m using Dictionary.com, it’s THAT simple to describe)
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/by
Synonyms [for the word "by", of course]
11. By, through, with indicate agency or means of getting something done or accomplished. By is regularly used to denote the agent (person or force) in passive constructions: It is done by many; destroyed by fire.

Ummm NO. Not at all. Where did you possibly derive that? "BROUGHT ME FORTH AS THE FIRST OF HIS WORKS" = Created. Sorry. I don't see how it doesn't imply that. It clearly says that Wisdom was the first created being as well in Wisdom of Solomon.

So let me get this straight. There are only two Bibles in the English-speaking world that translate Proverbs 8:22 as "Brought me forth as the first of his works". Those two translations are the New Living Translation and the New International Version. So now what, you're changing translations to try and save your argument?

Between those two, the New Living Translation openly admits to being a PARAPHRASE of what the "translators" thought the Bible was saying, and the New International Version deliberately ADDS IN WORDS to make the Bible politically-correct, gender-friendly, and Protestant-biased. So you didn't even pick two half-respectable translations, either.

Here's the ACTUAL rendering of Proverbs 8:22-31, according to the Hebrew:
The Lord possessed(Qanah) me in the beginning of His way, Before His works of old. From everlasting I was established, from the earliest times of the earth.
24 "When there were no depths I was brought forth, When there were no springs abounding with water
25 " Before the mountains were settled, Before the hills I was brought forth ;
26 While He had not yet made the earth and the fields, Nor the first dust of the earth;
27 "When He established the heavens, I was there, When He inscribed a circle on the face of the deep.
28 When He made firm the skies above *, When the springs of the deep became fixed,
29 When He set for the sea its boundary So that the water would not transgress His command, when He marked out the foundations of the earth ;
30 Then I was beside Him, as a master workman ; And I was daily His delight, Rejoicing always * before Him,
31 Rejoicing in the world, His earth, And having my delight in the sons of men.

 

[Shiranui117]

Aww, look, that atheist article has one more cute little attempt at proving NT henotheism...

Henotheism explains why James the brother of Jesus and Saint John the Apostle, together with all the Prophets, were so thoroughly against idols and eating meat sacrificed to idols, even to the point where it was one of the few regulations of the Old Testament that they insisted non-Jewish Christians must keep[2] &#8211; because sacrifices to idols serve profane entities that truly do exist.

Yep, yep, these guys have no idea what they're talking about.

19 What am I saying then? That an idol is anything, or what is offered to idols is anything? 20 Rather, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to demons and not to God, and I do not want you to have fellowship with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons; you cannot partake of the Lord&#8217;s table and of the table of demons. 22 Or do we provoke the Lord to jealousy? Are we stronger than He?

ITT: Demons=gods. Yep, makes perfect sense.

To be fair, I will note that "daimonion" is translated as "deities." And it's translated as "deities" a whopping one time in the entire NT, in Acts 17:18. And that's when Greeks are talking. Now, we all know that the Greeks were in fact polytheistic, even if some of their greatest philosophers spoke of one God. However, Paul, who comes from a monotheistic tradition, would not mean "daimonion" to mean "deities," as polytheism and henotheism would be foreign to his thought. Rather, Paul would use "daimonion" in the sense of the far more oft-occurring Biblical meaning of the word, as the Jews around Jesus had used it: "Demons."

 

[Shermana]

Not in all circumstances, of course.

Why not? I think it can be easily proven in all cases.

I've made my point and have been able to elaborate on and give support for it. You're just restating the same argument without actually countering me.

Like you? I can argue that I've substantiated all my points, and you've misconstrued what they say.

Alright, let's give 'er a whirl:
*reads through a couple sections*
Oh dear God, you&#8217;re right, this source is nowhere NEAR scholarly. So much atheist bias&#8230;

I guess you don't think any Liberal scholars are scholarly.

And that claim is the funniest thing I&#8217;ve seen this month. 1 Corinthians 8:5-6 WOULD be henotheistic, were it not for verse 4, RIGHT before that, and verse 7, RIGHT after that:

There's no "so-called" in the text.

As far as what these gods in verse 5 are, these are things that are not truly gods, but that humans elevate to a god-status, as verse 7 clearly clarifies.

Verse 7 does not clarify that at all. The complete opposite. The translations have to add "So-called" to make it say this. I had a similar problem in another thread hammering in the fact that acknowledging the existence of gods is not the same as making them your god. Do you not understand this concept? Believing in a god's existence is not the same as worshiping it necessarily.
There is a difference between "God of" and "a god", I thought I made this clear.

So God guided the evolution of false religions, thus possibly leading to the jeopardization of salvation for billions of people? Some helpful God that is.

So only your religion was guided and everyone else's wasn't. I see. I mean, that's my belief too, but I'm not using it as some kind of weight.

See above.

See above. This only works if you go with "so-called". Paul is clearly saying they do in fact exist. And I think your'e deliberately ignoring what I said that acknowledging the existence of gods is not the same as having them as your god.

CONGRATULATIONS! You now agree with what I've been saying all along!

So if you agree with me on that you should drop this whole thing and accept what I say that it originally implied they were gods and that they later overzealously redacted this.

So one out-of-context snippet of Scripture &#8220;plainly&#8221; shows that Paul&#8217;s a Henotheist?

It's completely in context. With things like this, we'll get nowhere. You insist on your translation, I insist on mine, you dismiss my argument, I dismiss yours, but how are we to resolve this pickle?

Did you not read your own sources? You were agreeing with what I was saying in other parts about divine beings being redacted down to angel-status. Are you backtracking to your original point now? Man, I thought we were making progress, too.

No, I'm saying that the redaction obviously doesn't reflect the original belief, and I'm saying Pharisaic and Sadducee ideas don't necessarily reflect what the Qumran communities may have believed. I think we need a whole new 1x1 on this since this is the source of our contention.

Source?

Will do on next post.

The Essenes, Pharisees and Sadducees were all pretty mainstream, man. As I've said before, Jesus' beliefs represent the Pharisees' quite well. Pharisees - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia <--Looks a heck of a lot like what Jesus taught, doesn't it? It should.

We don't know if the Essenes believed it, I don't understand your contention by saying Pharisees were mainstream. They were still redactionist.

So, if all the mainstream branches of a religion are all monotheistic... Then it's a monotheistic religion.

We haven't established that the sects adopted this, and there may be some DSS that equates "elohim" with angels which I will go check, but your stance involves that the Jews completely changed their beliefs of Cosmology and Deity, which they did, which would fly in the face of Christian Theology.

HOORAY, you understand my point! This also means that you realize that the Logos isn't a created, fully independent being!

How on Earth did you derive that I got that?

Sure, some English translations of the Nicene Creed translate it out to &#8220;By whom all things were made,&#8221; but this is really interchangeable with &#8220;Through whom all things were made,&#8221; and it&#8217;s understood as such. &#8220;By&#8221; and &#8220;through&#8221; are synonymous in this context.

It's not interchangable whatsoever. Through and by are not the same. By means originated. Through means the mechanism and process.

You're now on a completely different page, using English definitions for a Greek word. The word "Dia" always means "Through", the word By CAN mean Through, like "I went to Mexico by the San Diego freeway". That doesn't mean that Mexico was created by the San Diego freeway. If I said "I went to Paris by plane", the Plane is the MEANS I got there.

So let me get this straight. There are only two Bibles in the English-speaking world that translate Proverbs 8:22 as "Brought me forth as the first of his works". Those two translations are the New Living Translation and the New International Version. So now what, you're changing translations to try and save your argument?

Huh? Where did I change translations? You're the one who made that claim!!!

At this point you're not even on the same page, I'm really getting frustrated dealing with your misunderstandings.

Between those two, the New Living Translation openly admits to being a PARAPHRASE of what the "translators" thought the Bible was saying, and the New International Version deliberately ADDS IN WORDS to make the Bible politically-correct, gender-friendly, and Protestant-biased. So you didn't even pick two half-respectable translations, either.

You're the one who went with that definition!

Here's the ACTUAL rendering of Proverbs 8:22-31, according to the Hebrew:
The Lord possessed(Qanah) me in the beginning of His way, Before His works of old. From

You're right, it says Posessed in most translations. The word is Qanah. Which can mean a few things:

http://concordances.org/hebrew/7069.htm

Including..........................

formed (1), and "acquired" as in a new child.

NAS: and she said, I have gotten a manchild

Now if God possesses something, that makes it DIFFERENT THAN GOD HIMSELF. God does not possess something that is already Him. Now on the next post I will show the Wisdom of Solomon reference that clearly refers to it as being created.

But guess what, here's the big needle for your balloon:

Psalm 139:13
BIB: &#1499;&#1460;&#1468;&#1469;&#1497;&#1470; &#1488;&#1463;&#1453;&#1514;&#1464;&#1468;&#1492; &#1511;&#1464;&#1504;&#1460;&#1443;&#1497;&#1514;&#1464; &#1499;&#1460;&#1500;&#1456;&#1497;&#1465;&#1514;&#1464;&#1425;&#1497; &#1514;&#1456;&#1468;&#1437;&#1505;&#1467;&#1499;&#1461;&#1468;&#1431;&#1504;&#1460;&#1497;
NAS: For You formed my inward parts;
KJV: For thou hast possessed my reins:
INT: for You formed my inward wove


Oh let me repeat that one again:

Psalm 139:13
BIB: &#1499;&#1460;&#1468;&#1469;&#1497;&#1470; &#1488;&#1463;&#1453;&#1514;&#1464;&#1468;&#1492; &#1511;&#1464;&#1504;&#1460;&#1443;&#1497;&#1514;&#1464; &#1499;&#1460;&#1500;&#1456;&#1497;&#1465;&#1514;&#1464;&#1425;&#1497; &#1514;&#1456;&#1468;&#1437;&#1505;&#1467;&#1499;&#1461;&#1468;&#1431;&#1504;&#1460;&#1497;
NAS: For You formed my inward parts;
KJV: For thou hast possessed my reins:
INT: for You formed my inward wove


One more time for good measure.

Psalm 139:13
BIB: &#1499;&#1460;&#1468;&#1469;&#1497;&#1470; &#1488;&#1463;&#1453;&#1514;&#1464;&#1468;&#1492; &#1511;&#1464;&#1504;&#1460;&#1443;&#1497;&#1514;&#1464; &#1499;&#1460;&#1500;&#1456;&#1497;&#1465;&#1514;&#1464;&#1425;&#1497; &#1514;&#1456;&#1468;&#1437;&#1505;&#1467;&#1499;&#1461;&#1468;&#1431;&#1504;&#1460;&#1497;
NAS: For You formed my inward parts;
KJV: For thou hast possessed my reins:
INT: for You formed my inward wove


FORMED. Posessed in this case easily means "Formed".

End of story.

 

[Shiranui117]

Why not? I think it can be easily proven in all cases.

How so?

I guess you don't think any Liberal scholars are scholarly.

When liberal "scholars" try claiming that Jesus was a Jihadist like in that article, no, I don't think it's scholarly.

There's no "so-called" in the text.

And that's where you're wrong.
For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,

&#954;&#945;&#8054; &#947;&#8048;&#961; &#949;&#7988;&#960;&#949;&#961; &#949;&#7984;&#963;&#8054;&#957; &#955;&#949;&#947;&#8057;&#956;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#953; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#8054; &#949;&#7988;&#964;&#949; &#7952;&#957; &#959;&#8016;&#961;&#945;&#957;&#8183; &#949;&#7988;&#964;&#949; &#7952;&#960;&#8054; &#947;&#8134;&#962;, &#8037;&#963;&#960;&#949;&#961; &#949;&#7984;&#963;&#8054;&#957; &#952;&#949;&#959;&#8054; &#960;&#959;&#955;&#955;&#959;&#8054; &#954;&#945;&#8054; &#954;&#8059;&#961;&#953;&#959;&#953; &#960;&#959;&#955;&#955;&#959;&#8055;,

Yeah, sorry, there is definitely a "so-called" in the text.

Verse 7 does not clarify that at all. The complete opposite. The translations have to add "So-called" to make it say this.

See above. There is most definitely a "so-called" in the original Greek. Sorry man, but you're fresh outta luck.

So only your religion was guided and everyone else's wasn't. I see. I mean, that's my belief too, but I'm not using it as some kind of weight.

I'm not using it as an argument, I'm just saying that, even if Judaism came under foreign influence, that this doesn't illegitimize monotheistic Judaism.

See above. This only works if you go with "so-called". Paul is clearly saying they do in fact exist. And I think your'e deliberately ignoring what I said that acknowledging the existence of gods is not the same as having them as your god.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm pointing out that Paul was a monotheist. There's absolutely no reason to believe otherwise, given his religious background, and Christian theology.

So if you agree with me on that you should drop this whole thing and accept what I say that it originally implied they were gods and that they later overzealously redacted this.

Well, it looks like we both had the same point from the start. Glad we got an agreement established.

It's completely in context. With things like this, we'll get nowhere. You insist on your translation, I insist on mine, you dismiss my argument, I dismiss yours, but how are we to resolve this pickle?

I'm sorry, but doesn't "we know . . . there is no God but one" make it pretty clear that Paul's a monotheist? Maybe you missed it. Here it is again:

Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.

And one more for good measure:

Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.

Get it now?

No, I'm saying that the redaction obviously doesn't reflect the original belief, and I'm saying Pharisaic and Sadducee ideas don't necessarily reflect what the Qumran communities may have believed. I think we need a whole new 1x1 on this since this is the source of our contention.

Pharisaic and Sadducaic ideas certainly were widespread though, considering that the Pharisees and the Sadducees composed all the higher-ups of the Jewish religious hierarchy, and given the fact that they were the ones running the Temple.

We don't know if the Essenes believed it, I don't understand your contention by saying Pharisees were mainstream. They were still redactionist.

See above.

We haven't established that the sects adopted this, and there may be some DSS that equates "elohim" with angels which I will go check, but your stance involves that the Jews completely changed their beliefs of Cosmology and Deity, which they did, which would fly in the face of Christian Theology.

Why would it fly in the face of Christian Theology?

How on Earth did you derive that I got that?

I thought we agreed that the Logos was God's wisdom and word? How can God's wisdom be truly separate from God Himself?

It's not interchangable whatsoever. Through and by are not the same. By means originated. Through means the mechanism and process.

Not in all cases. Man, calm down. It's alright to admit that "dia" can both be translated into English as "through" and, in certain contexts, "by."

You're now on a completely different page, using English definitions for a Greek word. The word "Dia" always means "Through", the word By CAN mean Through, like "I went to Mexico by the San Diego freeway". That doesn't mean that Mexico was created by the San Diego freeway. If I said "I went to Paris by plane", the Plane is the MEANS I got there.

I'm saying that "by" can be a perfectly legit translation for the word "dia" in the proper context.

Huh? Where did I change translations? You're the one who made that claim!!!

Weren't you using the NASB earlier? If I have that wrong, my apologies.

At this point you're not even on the same page, I'm really getting frustrated dealing with your misunderstandings.

What am I misunderstanding? The fact that only the New Living Translation and the New International Version translate Proverbs 8:22 as "Brought me forth as the first of his works"? I'm sorry you're getting frustrated. Help me out here, I want you to have fun with this debate, too.

You're the one who went with that definition!

What definition? Take it easy, bro. Just a friendly, fun debate, no need to get hot under the collar.

You're right, it says Posessed in most translations. The word is Qanah. Which can mean a few things:

Strong's Hebrew: 7069. ????? (qanah) -- to get, acquire

Including..........................
formed (1), and "acquired" as in a new child.

So, in other words, "acquired" can be like "begetting," right? If so, HOLD ONTO THAT THOUGHT

Now if God possesses something, that makes it DIFFERENT THAN GOD HIMSELF. God does not possess something that is already Him.

So what, is my spleen different from me because I possess it? This is a non-sequitur argument.

Now on the next post I will show the Wisdom of Solomon reference that clearly refers to it as being created.

I'm looking forward to it.

But guess what, here's the big needle for your balloon:

Psalm 139:13
BIB: &#1499;&#1460;&#1468;&#1469;&#1497;&#1470; &#1488;&#1463;&#1453;&#1514;&#1464;&#1468;&#1492; &#1511;&#1464;&#1504;&#1460;&#1443;&#1497;&#1514;&#1464; &#1499;&#1460;&#1500;&#1456;&#1497;&#1465;&#1514;&#1464;&#1425;&#1497; &#1514;&#1456;&#1468;&#1437;&#1505;&#1467;&#1499;&#1461;&#1468;&#1431;&#1504;&#1460;&#1497;
NAS: For You formed my inward parts;
KJV: For thou hast possessed my reins:
INT: for You formed my inward wove

FORMED. Posessed in this case easily means "Formed".

End of story.

And it's used to mean "formed", what? Once out of 82 occurrences in the entire OT? And in a completely different context? Does God create His own wisdom? Does that make sense in the context of Proverbs 8:22-31?

 

[Shermana]

First off I apologize for my frustrated tone.

How so?

In every event that there's an Angel, there's no reason to believe its God but simply a messenger bearing His words, it's really an issue we have no way of proving one way or another I guess, but I'd say going by the Scripture alone, it never really implies God Himself comes down except WITH Angels/gods.

When liberal "scholars" try claiming that Jesus was a Jihadist like in that article, no, I don't think it's scholarly.

I don't agree with the entire article, just the part that makes my point.

And that's where you're wrong.

Nuh uh.

Yeah, sorry, there is definitely a "so-called" in the text.

No, Called and so-called are not the same. And Paul says

Young's Literal Translation
for even if there are those called gods, whether in heaven, whether upon earth -- as there are gods many and lords many --

The bolded is Paul's way of saying "Yes there are indeed many gods and many lords". And it's his way of saying that the "beings in Heaven" are in fact "called gods". So if they are "called gods", that's what matters. The "Divine beings" are thus, gods and is indicating that there was a tradition of calling such divine beings "gods".

See above. There is most definitely a "so-called" in the original Greek. Sorry man, but you're fresh outta luck.

Again, Nope, YOU are out of luck. Called is not so-called, and Paul is saying they do in fact exist, quite plainly in the second part.

I'm not using it as an argument, I'm just saying that, even if Judaism came under foreign influence, that this doesn't illegitimize monotheistic Judaism.

Sure it does, it proves that their new beliefs were different from the old.

I'm not ignoring it, I'm pointing out that Paul was a monotheist. There's absolutely no reason to believe otherwise, given his religious background, and Christian theology.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on issues like this and the "so-called".

Well, it looks like we both had the same point from the start. Glad we got an agreement established.

Okay, so if I understand correctly, you agree that the ORIGINAL belief included the acceptance of other beings "called" gods who were in fact "Divine beings".

I'm sorry, but doesn't "we know . . . there is no God but one" make it pretty clear that Paul's a monotheist? Maybe you missed it. Here it is again:

He says "FOR US" there is no God but one later. It relates to Psalms 136:2 which calls the Father the "god of the gods".

Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no such thing as an idol in the world, and that there is no God but one.

Same.

Get it now?

I got the idea the first time I heard a Trinitarian ever use Paul's epistles for the Trinity. The idea is that there is only one "god of the gods". There are indeed many gods and many lords, but only one God above all is the point. That's why he insists "As there are many gods and many lords" as if they are real.

Pharisaic and Sadducaic ideas certainly were widespread though, considering that the Pharisees and the Sadducees composed all the higher-ups of the Jewish religious hierarchy, and given the fact that they were the ones running the Temple.

And according to Jesus they were wrong on a wide range of things just on the Law alone.

Why would it fly in the face of Christian Theology?

It would involve the Ancient Israelites having a whole different Cosmology than the Later ones. It would mean the whole OT changes its theological basis.

I thought we agreed that the Logos was God's wisdom and word? How can God's wisdom be truly separate from God Himself?

The idea is that Wisdom is a personified being to represent God's Wisdom.

Not in all cases. Man, calm down. It's alright to admit that "dia" can both be translated into English as "through" and, in certain contexts, "by."

My frustrations from other threads are carrying through. But I don't see anywhere that Dia can mean "by" as in "originated". It always ever means the context of "through", even if the word "by" can be used.

I'm saying that "by" can be a perfectly legit translation for the word "dia" in the proper context.

Yes, as long as you get the right meaning of BY?

Weren't you using the NASB earlier? If I have that wrong, my apologies.

Whatever, I don't remember.

What am I misunderstanding? The fact that only the New Living Translation and the New International Version translate Proverbs 8:22 as "Brought me forth as the first of his works"? I'm sorry you're getting frustrated. Help me out here, I want you to have fun with this debate, too.

Sometimes I take debates way too seriously. My apologies.

What definition? Take it easy, bro. Just a friendly, fun debate, no need to get hot under the collar.

Other threads and a few things in real Life have gotten my neck really red hot today, again my apologies.

So, in other words, "acquired" can be like "begetting," right? If so, HOLD ONTO THAT THOUGHT

Holding.

So what, is my spleen different from me because I possess it? This is a non-sequitur argument.

No, God formed your spleen, that's the connotation. He doesn't just possess it, he MADE it.

Now on the next post I will show the Wisdom of Solomon reference that clearly refers to it as being created.

And it's used to mean "formed", what? Once out of 82 occurrences in the entire OT? And in a completely different context? Does God create His own wisdom? Does that make sense in the context of Proverbs 8:22-31?

Once is all you need to establish what a term can mean. The idea is that He created the personification of Wisdom. This is why I brought up the similarity to the Gnostic Creation myth which may have in fact developed from ancient Jewish theology.

Again, my apologies. I was worrying this would turn into like the last 1x1 when we run into such seemingly unresolvable snags.

 

[Shiranui117]

Now on the next post I will show the Wisdom of Solomon reference that clearly refers to it as being created.

Alright, please do so. Don't worry about addressing this post until you've given that reference; you've been meaning to give it for a while, so the rest of this post can wait until you've got that Wisdom of Solomon citation taken care of.

First off I apologize for my frustrated tone.

It's alright. I apologize if I contributed to it.

In every event that there's an Angel, there's no reason to believe its God but simply a messenger bearing His words, it's really an issue we have no way of proving one way or another I guess, but I'd say going by the Scripture alone, it never really implies God Himself comes down except WITH Angels/gods.

Alright. If we reach an un-bridgable impasse, I think it would be smart to just leave it at that, and turn to more productive areas where we can still reach an agreement or make progress. Agreed?

I don't agree with the entire article, just the part that makes my point.

I know, I was just pointing out some of the terrible stuff in that article.

No, Called and so-called are not the same. And Paul says

for even if there are those called gods, whether in heaven, whether upon earth -- as there are gods many and lords many --

The bolded is Paul's way of saying "Yes there are indeed many gods and many lords". And it's his way of saying that the "beings in Heaven" are in fact "called gods". So if they are "called gods", that's what matters. The "Divine beings" are thus, gods and is indicating that there was a tradition of calling such divine beings "gods".

Again, Nope, YOU are out of luck. Called is not so-called,

How is so-called different from how "called" can be used in certain contexts?

and Paul is saying they do in fact exist, quite plainly in the second part.

I have already explained this. Again, I bring up verse 7:

However not all men have this knowledge ; but some, being accustomed to the idol until now, eat food as if it were sacrificed to an idol ; and their conscience being weak is defiled.

In other words, Paul is talking about how the pagans THINK they are offering sacrifices to the idols. The pagans THINK the idols are gods. This is made clear in Romans 1:

21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

So in other words, God is true, and any other idol or "god" is a falsehood, a lie and nothing but self-deceit.. Anything being worshipped by man other than God is a mere created being. Again, I bring up that any god that is a created being is not really a god at all.

Sure it does, it proves that their new beliefs were different from the old.

Does it mean that the Israelites had it right before, but once they went monotheistic, they were all of a sudden wrong?

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on issues like this and the "so-called".

If this does become insurmountable, we may have to.

Okay, so if I understand correctly, you agree that the ORIGINAL belief included the acceptance of other beings "called" gods who were in fact "Divine beings".

Yep. However, you could argue that polytheistic Israelite is a different religion from monotheistic Judaism.

He says "FOR US" there is no God but one later. It relates to Psalms 136:2 which calls the Father the "god of the gods".

How do you explain that? Paul does not say that "For us there is no God but one TO WORSHIP." Rather, he says, "For us, there is no God but one." This would seem to indicate that Paul is not just saying "We only WORSHIP one God," but is actually saying, "We only RECOGNIZE one God."

I got the idea the first time I heard a Trinitarian ever use Paul's epistles for the Trinity. The idea is that there is only one "god of the gods". There are indeed many gods and many lords, but only one God above all is the point. That's why he insists "As there are many gods and many lords" as if they are real.

They are real in the eyes of those who worship them. In light of Romans 1, this is how I interpret Paul's words: "For us Christians, we only have one God. The other people worship all the things they call gods, but for us, we worship the one true God. All their other 'gods' are just created beings, either created by God, or their own imaginations."

And according to Jesus they were wrong on a wide range of things just on the Law alone.

Just on their interpretation of how to practice the Law. Jesus never said any of the Pharisees' THEOLOGY was wrong.

It would involve the Ancient Israelites having a whole different Cosmology than the Later ones. It would mean the whole OT changes its theological basis.

Pretty much, yeah.

The idea is that Wisdom is a personified being to represent God's Wisdom.

Yep.

But I don't see anywhere that Dia can mean "by" as in "originated". It always ever means the context of "through", even if the word "by" can be used.

Which is what I've been saying all along.

Yes, as long as you get the right meaning of BY?

Precisely.

Sometimes I take debates way too seriously. My apologies.

It's all good. My biggest vice while debating is pride, personally.

Other threads and a few things in real Life have gotten my neck really red hot today, again my apologies.

Ahh, I'm sorry to hear that. I hope tomorrow goes better for you.

Holding.

If Logos/Wisdom was begotten of God, yet, as Philo argued, is still a part of God (for how can God's wisdom be separate from Himself?), and if Logos/Wisdom is personified, and somehow distinct from God, then you have exactly what Christians say of Jesus: An only-begotten Son of God, Who is His own Person, yet is still part of God.

No, God formed your spleen, that's the connotation. He doesn't just possess it, he MADE it.

For the sake of argument, let's leave out the fact that God made my spleen. Now, you said the following:

Now if God possesses something, that makes it DIFFERENT THAN GOD HIMSELF. God does not possess something that is already Him.

Let's apply that same logic to the relationship between me and my spleen. Now. by your logic, if I possess my spleen, then my spleen is therefore not a part of me. Yet my spleen is inside of my body, connected to it, and has all the same DNA as the rest of my body, and always has been a part of me and my body, and is therefore a part of me and is just as much "me" as my left index finger, or my soul. How do you explain this, in light of your above statement? Would you say that God's wisdom is something detached from God Himself, or is it truly a part of Him?

Once is all you need to establish what a term can mean. The idea is that He created the personification of Wisdom. This is why I brought up the similarity to the Gnostic Creation myth which may have in fact developed from ancient Jewish theology.

Yet, according to Philo, the Logos is God's own wisdom, and God's own word?

Again, my apologies. I was worrying this would turn into like the last 1x1 when we run into such seemingly unresolvable snags.

Ahh, no worries. I tend to point out when we reach an impasse. As I said before, I know you have more arguments against the Trinity that we can have a look at, so this debate doesn't need to grind to a halt as long as we still have new arguments to make.