Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion

This is for Robert, who complains that I haven't been active enough in posting my little fascinating Bible tidbits.

In Psalm 82, God is presiding over the heavenly council of gods. In that day, it was believed that each nation had its own ruling god. But God, capital G, asserts his authority, claiming that the other gods are mere mortals.

Switch gears now to New Testament times. In John chapter 10, the Jews are ready to stone Jesus because he claimed to be “one with God.” In reply, Jesus refers to this psalm, with the following argument: God was speaking to those who would die like mortals, and calling them gods … children of the Most High. How, then, can they stone Jesus for claiming to be the Son of God, though he be mortal?

Question: What does this argument say about Jesus's--and our own--divinity?

Lee - what is this, Mt. Olympus? Christians don't have a heavenly council of gods - we have one tripartite God. Ancient Hebrews believed in elohim (mighty ones) and conferred to them supernatural powers. It is not an uncommon tendency historically to bestow on a nation's "king", so I'd place that in the category of predictable superstition but, due to their capacity to do good or make mischief in a small world, in antiquity God probably did confer with the rulers, unlike today. Jesus became mortal only to speechify, fortify his position with miracles, and open the pathway for all individuals, not just Jews, to join the Kingdom. His sovereignty was sealed by death and resurrection - it was ordained far in advance of the actual event. Divine fiat trumps mortal argument or action. Given that scenario, Jews were powerless NOT to want to stone him, but were goaded on further since He lead no nation. His reply merely turned their Scripture back against them, but Jesus knew their enmity was preordained. Nice tidbit, though, Lee; Brent still believes in Elohim - I think most Fundies do. Speaking of Mt. Olympus (you were speaking of that weren't you, Lee?), I rather like the idea of the Fates independent of the whims of the gods. We should have something like that in Christianity.

Robert, I confess I have little interest in current-day religion or current-day beliefs. I AM interested in the transformation from early Hebrew beliefs (where many of the Bible writers clearly DID believe in polytheism) to early Christian beliefs (where Jesus was fast becoming recognized in some circles as the only God).

Our conversations would be more interesting to me if you would stick to the Bible.

I took a quick internet peek at classical Greek mythology. It does appear to have developed concurrent with the dating of the earliest psalms. However, I just don't see early Judaism as being strongly influenced by Greek thought until Hellenism. I don't think we should read about the heavenly council in psalm 82 with Mt. Olympus in mind.

Any religion scholars know differently?

Gosh, Lee, and I thought a liberal education was a well-rounded one - my apologies.

haha...someday, Robert, I'll get through to you on what "liberal Christian" means.

Lee - when you actually figure out if this polyglot actually has meaning, I want to be the first you tell! I'm fairly falling off my chair in anticipation.

In Semitic mythology, the mount of assembly was Zaphon, usually translated as "the north" in the Bible. It shows up in Isaiah 14:13 and Ezekiel 28:14 (without being named) -two passages that have traditionally been read as poetic/allegorical references to Satan's fall. Zion was often used instead of Zaphon in Hebrew religion. In Hebrew the difference between the two words is the difference between one letter: a peh and a yod.

In Phoenician/Canaanite religion, El was always seen as being supreme over the other two primary deities Baal and Dagon. The Ugaritic tablets give a lot of insight into Semitic myth and religion. Technically, even Phoenician religion was mainly henotheistic, not polytheistic. There's no evidence that Hebrew religion was ever polytheistic. Like other Semitic religions, it carried certain stock traditions that could be called mythological (e.g. behemoth and leviathan), but that doesn't logically imply that it was ever polytheistic.
I have no issue with the idea that mythology is in the Bible because I appreciate the importance of allegory when dealing with Spiritual concepts. The difference between me and Lee is that he believes all of that is in a simply human context. I believe these have a Spiritual context primarily, a human one secondarily.

Interesting take, Eric - I believe, too, that ancient mythologies had a primarily Spiritual context. We have mythologies today though, that are strictlly human contextually: liberalism, capitalism, Marxism, etc. Because Lee has no faith in anything, the new myths are the only ones he can get his brain around.

Robert wrote: "Interesting take, Eric - I believe, too, that ancient mythologies had a primarily Spiritual context. We have mythologies today though, that are strictlly human contextually: liberalism, capitalism,..."

Haha. True. But I use the term myth without meaning falsehood here. I disagree strongly with Lee's take on Christianity. He has shown the ability to be personable (I have not encountered the same with everyone on here), so I have no issue with him as a person. I just question whether the term "Christian" can be used with such a complete disregard for what it has meant historically. People like Bart Ehrman have created a new cult religion; pseudo-religionists who claim they have the de facto interpretation of the bible. All under the leadership of Ehrman. In my book, Ehrman and his trite theories are no better than any other cultic take on the Bible, such as JWs and Christian Scientists. All of them had one person leading with a claim to authoritative interpretation.

Erick - I wasn't talking falsehood - capitalism works; it just has a lot of warts. Lee merely wishes to focus on the compassion of Jesus - that's a little one-dimensional for most of us who attempt (largely unsuccessfully, I fear) to grasp the totality of the Gospels. Even then you have peaceniks (David); hell, fire, and brimstoners (me); literalists right down to the comma (Brent); him against the worlders (Rod); and really confused pastor wannabes (Phil). Peter's the only one who can't resist jumping inadvisedly into precarious arguments and has the good sense to choose his fights. Oh, I forgot Heather - I think she's emminently sensible, but seems to think the Arts by themselves are sufficient to carry a discussion.

Erick, to say "there is no evidence that Hebrew religion was ever polytheistic" is a very bold claim, particularly when I provide a clear Biblical example of belief in multiple gods. Would you like more examples? The evidence is actually very strong.

http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2011/1...

http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2012/0...

http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2012/0...

http://www.dubiousdisciple.com/2013/0...

Now, anyone who argues that the Bible is the inerrant Word of a single God must of course deny any interpretation of these examples in a polytheistic way, but it's inappropriate to say "no evidence exists" when clearly much evidence DOES exist. That's like saying a partial fingerprint in a crime file doesn't exist when you really mean that the fingerprint merely isn't (in your opinion) strong enough evidence to identify a suspect.

Robert wrote: "Because Lee has no faith in anything, the new myths are the only ones he can get his brain around. "

You lost me on that one. It is the old myths, particularly those in the Bible, that most fascinate me.

No, Lee, they don't fascinate you. They're merely useful in your neverending crusade to demonstrate errancy in Scripture.

Except among the naive or brainwashed, scripture's own back-and-forth arguments allude to its own errancy. The multiple opinions contained therein can't possibly all be true.

So, yes, scripture became alive to me once I finally gave up trying to read it like a history book. Why else would I participate here? How incredibly fascinating it finally is, when we can finally open our eyes to see the evolution of beliefs therein.

Robert wrote: "Erick - I wasn't talking falsehood - capitalism works; it just has a lot of warts."

There are elements of each that are indeed false. Myth often carries the meaning of symbolism without historical referent. These systems consist of faulty theory made apparent when applied. The faultiness of the theories is made evident when they are put into action.

Robert wrote: Lee merely wishes to focus on the compassion of Jesus - that's a little one-dimensional for most of us who attempt..."

I'm acquainted with what Lee believes. He also puts everything in a purely human context. There's nothing here that would make an atheist wince. It's the kind of post-modern ambivalent attempt to claim theism in theory and deny it in fact i.e. in application (see example above for an interesting analogue). The irony is that the same people that do this accept scholarly theories as facts. Amusing to say the least.

Lee, try looking up the meaning of the word henotheism. Evidence is often tainted by a biased outlook when it is presented. That is the issue that is often found when someone wants to present something as being irrefutable evidence of their position without really looking at the different ways of approaching what is there. To claim that only one approach is possible when in fact there are more is a logical fallacy. Would you like me to provide more examples of logical fallacy Lee?

Erick, do you prefer the word henotheism to polytheism? That's fine, it's more descriptive of the early Hebrew stance, glad we came to an agreement.

How do I deny theism in application? I merely do not know how to best apply it. I would love to participate in an honest search for God.

The irony is that the same people who speak of "different ways of approach" stubbornly treat their own favorite myths as facts. Amusing to say the least.

As a scientistic, I wince when I hear logic applied to theology. Sure, Judeochristianity has to be reasonable on several levels or any belief in it's tenets would be considered blind faith. But, without faith the whole Father, Son, and Holy Ghost business considered by pure reason alone is no more logical than any Grimm's Fairy Tale with it's fanciful characters. I'm not even sure what my reward is for adhering to the moral: Do I get the beautiful Princess in the end or just a room in a Mansion? Because I've owned mansions in my lifetime, the latter doesn't seem so grand, especially if I get any of you boors as a housemate!

Lee wrote: "Erick, do you prefer the word henotheism to polytheism? That's fine, it's more descriptive of the early Hebrew stance, glad we came to an agreement."

We would only be in agreement if I misused words the same way you do. Polytheism often carries the added meaning of animism and pantheism. It also by it's very etymology puts all the deities on the same level. There is no evidence that Hebrew religion put all members of the divine council on the same level; and plenty to suggest otherwise; namely, that there was always one that they answered to. Lee you misuse language for rhetorical purposes. I had to check you on it. Try not to get offended. It had to be done. You seem to function on faulty suppositions that you treat as fact.

Lee wrote: How do I deny theism in application? I merely do not know how to best apply it. I would love to participate in an honest search for God.

You answered your own question. Ironic.

Lee wrote: The irony is that the same people who speak of "different ways of approach" stubbornly treat their own favorite myths as facts. Amusing to say the least.

Yeah. And Ehrmanism is absolutely factual. Please. There can be no discourse on the same plain when theories are treated as facts and revelation as fancy. Lee I wish you could see this from my perspective, but I seriously doubt that will ever happen.

Robert wrote: "As a scientistic, I wince when I hear logic applied to theology. Sure, Judeochristianity has to be reasonable on several levels or any belief in it's tenets would be considered blind faith. But, wi..."

I am aware of all of that, but I am also not dealing with a Christian; or at least not one who has any room for faith, revelation and mystery. To use that language would be, in Solomon's words, chasing after wind. I must tailor my approach for who I am addressing. If I didn't, no common ground would be possible.

Henotheism is a form of polytheism, Erick. The definition of polytheism is merely belief in multiple gods; no more or less, and it's certainly a loooong ways from pantheism.

I, too, wish I could comprehend your perspective. Granted, I'm more comfortable with research and logic than revelation, but it's more than that. When people of different religions have contradictory revelations, and I myself have none at all, the best I can do is pretty much to throw revelation out the window as mysterious and unreliable. Also, I ran out of mushrooms many years ago.

Erick - are you saying capitalism, when put into action, fails? Surely not, please clarify.

Lee wrote: "Henotheism is a form of polytheism, Erick. The definition of polytheism is merely belief in multiple gods; no more or less, and it's certainly a loooong ways from pantheism."

I see. No regard for etymology, definition and use of words. I don't know why the word henotheism ever came into existence. They should have checked with you. They do indeed mean something distinct. Like I said, you misuse language rhetorically. Better appreciation for words and the meaning they carry is in order, but I am afraid that your real interest is mainly a rhetorical one. Pantheism isn't found among strict monotheism, so please explain what other brand of theism employs it other than polytheism.

Lee wrote: Granted, I'm more comfortable with research and logic than revelation...

I know, that's why I am giving it to you, but it's still not cutting through false presuppositions. It's simply because you have a religious dedication to your position. This is ironically a debate between two religious perspectives; one that knows he has one; and the other which claims he has none but does indeed have one but fails to see it. Most bias is an affliction of the will, not the reason.

Robert wrote: "Erick - are you saying capitalism, when put into action, fails? Surely not, please clarify."

Probably not the most apropos place for this, but capitalism, at least in practice in this country, functioned under the misguided notion that unchecked free enterprise will provide it's own check through competition. If you don't see the problem with this logic, I don't know what to say.

I think you have to understand Lee's position. He's up to his neck in Gays either in his household or at his workplace. Therefore, he can no longer take a firm Biblical stance. His resulting theology is merely an accomodation to his environmental circumstances.

Sigh. Erick, pick up a dictionary sometime and read the definition of polytheism, hedonism and pantheism. If I use the words differently than you, it is apparently because you use them differently than the norm.

Where do you see my religious perspective? I have a CHRISTIAN perspective, but I do not confuse my Christian practice with my agnosticism. I suspect there is more to life than stardust, but I am incapable of merely "believing" something into existence, or trusting the revelation of another. My search for God must begin on much more solid ground than that. The errancy of the Bible is pretty doggone solid, so that's a good starting point for an honest search.

Erick - you're right, you don't know what to say. No one was naive enough to think that business could run unbridled into sensitive areas. Regulation was a given - just how much, what kind, when and where were the operatives. As a wealth generator, thus nation builder, it is unmatched and really doesn't even have a viable economic competitor.

Lee wrote: Sigh. Erick, pick up a dictionary sometime and read the definition of polytheism, hedonism and pantheism. If I use the words differently than you, it is apparently because you use them differently than the norm."

Yeah, ok. I said it carries the added meaning by tradition, not that it means the same thing. Still, you don't find it in strict monotheism; it is tied to polytheism; and that was the point. By saying that Judaism was polytheistic, you mean to suggest that it had many gods without distinction and was allied to other polytheistic notions. Indeed, you never stated otherwise. Leaving it open for your audience, quite intentionally on your part, to come to false conclusions based on your rhetoric. You misrepresent Judaism for rhetorical purposes as I said. You are perturbed because I've upset your apple cart. Deal with it friend. I am not using religious language with you, even though you keep intimating that I am. I know full well that it is a waste of time to do so. Ironically, you misrepresent me just as you do Judaism. You are committing logical fallacies.

Robert wrote: "I think you have to understand Lee's position. He's up to his neck in Gays either in his household or at his workplace. Therefore, he can no longer take a firm Biblical stance. His resulting theolo..."

Yeah. Sounds like he has some influences, but not being a Calvinist, I believe Lee has freewill. He can come to his own conclusions; and he does but they are in large part faulty.

Good grief, Erick. When I use the word "polytheism", I mean they believed in multiple gods. That's the definition of the word. If you think polytheism implies that they worshiped these other gods, or put them on the same level as Yahweh, well, that contradicts the examples I listed. So don't say I "left it open". I used the word accurately, gave examples, and when you suggested the more precise word "henotheism," I welcomed it.

So get off your high horse and learn to communicate normally instead of thinking everyone has a rhetorical agenda.

Ha!Ha! Erick, I think in Lee's case it would be better to be Calvinist, then when he grumped at all the disgusting Gays he could say it was preordained.

Robert wrote: "Erick - you're right, you don't know what to say. No one was naive enough to think that business could run unbridled into sensitive areas. Regulation was a given - just how much, what kind, when an..."

Yes, it was faulty. Appreciation for the activity of big business at the time would have been enough to show it was. Even then, banking institutions could be shown to have had a parasitic affect on Europe. Here it was obvious early on that they were having the same affect. It was faulty to begin with.

Erick - I think you'd better stick to word play with Lee; international commerce would not appear to be something you can put in perspective.

Lee wrote: "Good grief, Erick. When I use the word "polytheism", I mean they believed in multiple gods. That's the definition of the word. If you think polytheism implies that they worshiped these other gods, or put them on the same level as Yahweh, well, that contradicts the examples I listed."

One example you mean? You said this: "In Psalm 82, God is presiding over the heavenly council of gods. In that day, it was believed that each nation had its own ruling god. But God, capital G, asserts his authority, claiming that the other gods are mere mortals."

So if the "gods" were mere mortals in the example you gave, where is the polytheism there? Sounds like a contradiction. Seems to me you had something else in mind. You really need to be more consistent.

Lee wrote: "So get off your high horse and learn to communicate normally instead of thinking everyone has a rhetorical agenda. "

Get off it Lee. I call a spade a spade. If you want to accuse me of being arrogant simply because I do so, I care little. The ambivalence and inconsistency of your points, indicate that I am correct in my appraisal. I am not too sure what Ehrmanism and the kind of discourse found in like sources has to do with Christian apologetics as it stands. Seems to me it is usually used in the opposite context. Maybe unapologetics is what you are attempting here.

Robert wrote: "Erick - I think you'd better stick to word play with Lee; international commerce would not appear to be something you can put in perspective."

Haha. Thanks Robert. Maybe you should do some digging in history. It supports what I am saying.

Erick, the examples I provided are in post #12. I'm not attempting any apologetics, and I'm not terribly fond of Ehrman's research. I'm merely asking a question in the OP which, so far, no one has dared to answer.

I thought Robert got to the point of it in Post #2.

But if Lee says No One has Dared... then here goes. (Just for my own study.)

Psalm 82.
6I said, “You are gods,
sons of the Most High, all of you;
7nevertheless, like men you shall die,
and fall like any prince.”

Is that really about gods? No. Sounds like men to me - men who THINK they are gods...but die like normal men.

John 10
33The Jews answered him, “It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.” 34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35If he called them gods to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be broken— 36do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

Again, this is not about gods. It's about men judging as IF they were gods.

therefore, Jesus is a man and not a god?

Do you come to that conclusion Lee? Did Jesus say that?

yes, if your interpretation is to be understood. You seem to be saying that Jesus argued that God was calling men gods, so what's the big deal if somebody calls Jesus a son of god? Regular men can be called gods, too.

Yes, I could call myself God's gift to this board, but it might be met with peals of laughter or outbursts of dismay. Until the Bible unequivocably says it's so, man's pronouncements are purely whimsy.

Lee are you not seeing the humor and irony in those verses??? God is pointing out their error in justice and behavior.

And when a GOD does come and stand before them: They NOW do the opposite.

Pure comic Gold.

Robert i'm laughing WITH you. Seldom at you. Although Buddhists believe in Demi-gods - you can declare yourself ONE OF THOSE (get it put onto a t-shirt too!) Maybe Lee will give you a fair liberal hearing. Find a way to add you into the Bible.

Rod - rest assured I'd absolutely howl with delight if it even crossed my mind I'm God's gift to anything. I only hope some of my pitiful attempts to pass along His Word result in glory to His name. Mortality gives me the great opportunity to make colossal mistakes; suffer the consequences; pray, repent, and renew; and set forth again on a new path which, thanks to Christ's forgiveness and grace, may or may not result in a favorable outcome for the Kingdom, but at least is negotiated with increased wisdom. Haven't mastered being the Lord's servant, don't witness very well, not much into phony bonhomie with game-playing churchgoers, and certainly am not on-board with today's squishy definitions of "love" or " the poor". At least the Lord seems to find it useful that I'm totally unfazed by culture. HIS universal, never-changing edicts are all that matter. From this perspective, I read, gaze upon, and listen to, artistic endeavors, but don't believe much as they're merely emotional string pullers for the tender-hearted and weak minded. Hard-hitting, fact oriented science is my only pathway toward God aside from simply reflecting on the Scriptures.

Robert how do your science and ALL of the miracles in Christianity work together?
Personally I think science is doing a lazy job and keeps putting together ONLY the simple puzzle pieces. (they aren't even getting the corners right!)

I've been trying to put this together in my head for a week or so: How does science lead someone to the truth of Christianity? I'm very sure it does as well. Hard-hitting, and fact oriented as you say.

The problem is - atheists claim exactly the OPPOSITE through science.
How do we proceed Robert? Can logic lead someone to God? Yes and No.
The heart gets in the way.

Just for comedies sake:

I have watched numerous debates between Christian scientists and atheist scientists. Almost universally each group declares themselves a winner after listening to the information presented. I have even heard atheists outright LIE and still get full approval from their troops.
(I've also heard the occasional bonehead Christian argument. I do try not to be biased.) But when science WORKS - it's an amazing thing that should guide us to God's truth.

Science and logic lead directly to God. How could they not? But it may not be quite the God we imagine.

Interesting comment Lee. Hopefully God is better than we can imagine.

It is fun to read the Quran, Bible, Book of Mormon: and see how these 3 deities are NOT the same.

Oops! Rod - I gave you an inadvertently wrong answer when you referred to Christian scientists a few posts ago. I though you were talking about those of the Mary Baker Eddy variety so I dashed off that "they start from a faulty premise." Naturally, scientists who happen to be Christians don't deserve that kind of brushing off. I agree with Lee that science and logic lead to God. I'm afraid we're still missing a few crucial pieces of the puzzle, though. I know some popular scientists round off the edges and I deplore their sloppiness but, it's like any other detailed research - it takes perseverance, a realization most proclamations are just noise, and perhaps a little luck to find the gold nugget.

Rod - God is outside of mortal understanding, scientific or otherwise. Miracles wouldn't be miraculous if we could repeat them in the lab (Lee's water to wine example takes time and a few added ingredients, it's hardly instantaneous). I believe scientific advances point to a Divine Creator. I'm not sure anything other than eyewitnesses point to Jesus - He's mostly a leap of Faith.