1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerOf course it does. It's meaningless to say your God is more powerful than a non-existent thing; it would be like the Bible saying God is stronger than Superman or smarter than Barney. Is that your "argument"?
I have no inclination to separate out all the "God's" vs. "gods". You made an assertion, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate it. I'm not going to do your work for you.
The example you gave simply isn't as clear as you claim. "My God's more powerful than your gods" does not imply "your gods exist". Understand?
And what your first sentence means is you're too lazy to do basic research into your own Holy Book. How intellectually dishonest!
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe first article you cite has a problem in that it shifts between "royal we" as just speaking of the first person in the plural and "royal we" as the application of such speech in specific situations involving kings and royalty. If it makes disambiguation any easier, we could just call it the "Elohistic we" (see vistesd's post as well) where a singular God still refers to Himself in the plural.
The "royal we" argument has its holes. For example, historically, it was not used by the Jews until after the Old Testament was written.
http://www.bible.ca/trinity/trinity-oneness-unity-plural-of-majesty-pluralis-majestaticus-royal-we.htm
Of course this guy is arguing about something else, but the "royal we" argument is still shot to ribbons.
...[text shortened]... l that must be finished in human choices and in the human response to God. "
The second article is interesting, but it seems to be a modern midrash. Good reading though!
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo, I'm reading directly in context. Jesus is saying that only God knows when the events he is describing will happen. How exactly is that reading the verse "out of context"? You parrot that phrase whenever the most obvious interpretation clashes with what you have been told but it is clearly a red herring here.
If you read just that one verse, completely out of context, it would be the "most obvious interpretation".
Put in context with other things Jesus said, however, about his relationship with the Father and what the Father knows vs. what he knows; it's not that obvious.
Originally posted by no1marauderMy first sentence simply means that I will not do your spadework for you. If you have an assertion to make, provide the evidence as well. Trying to shift the burden of evidence on to me is more intellectually dishonest as I see it.
Of course it does. It's meaningless to say your God is more powerful than a non-existent thing; it would be like the Bible saying God is stronger than Superman or smarter than Barney. Is that your "argument"?
And what your first sentence means is you're too lazy to do basic research into your own Holy Book. How intellectually dishonest!
It's meaningless to say your God is more powerful than a non-existent thing; it would be like the Bible saying God is stronger than Superman or smarter than Barney.
No it isn't. Without getting into Kantian objections to ontological proofs, it was long considered a valid argument to say that something that exists is more powerful (or greater) than something that doesn't.
3 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerBaloney. The Bible is chock full of passages referring to other gods. Remember this one: Exodus 20: 2-3
My first sentence simply means that I will not do your spadework for you. If you have an assertion to make, provide the evidence as well. Trying to shift the burden of evidence on to me is more intellectually dishonest as I see it.
[b/]It's meaningless to say your God is more powerful than a non-existent thing; it would be like the Bible saying God ...[text shortened]... to say that something that exists is more powerful (or greater) than something that doesn't.
2 I am Jehovah thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
However, no matter what passage I use, you will simply stick to your preprogrammed answer. But since it is YOU who are claiming that the words used convey something rather than their obvious meaning, YOU should have to support this claim with SOMETHING rather than merely a "holding my breath till I turn blue" defense.
The "I'm sooooooooooo smart" crap again. Pretentious fraud. When talking to a bunch of semi-savages, I doubt the authors of the OT were interested in Kantian ontological proofs. When they were telling them that their God was stronger than other Gods, they meant just that i.e. that both existed. That is clearly what both the speaker and the listener would have understood.
EDIT: In LucifershammerWorld this isn't an assertion (if he makes it that is):
Sorry Ex 18:11 only refers to them as [conceptual] objects of worship and not as existent beings.
Originally posted by lucifershammerMy problem is that, although I find historical criticism and form critcism useful and entirely valid, they are not where my personal interest lies. My interest is midrash. Therefore, I don’t care much where henotheism was replaced by monotheism, or where the first hints of monism (or at least panentheism) are—nor whether the “oral Torah” was given at Sinai or has roots that go back only to the first century BCE. All valid questions, of course...
The first article you cite has a problem in that it shifts between "royal we" as just speaking of the first person in the plural and "royal we" as the application of such speech in specific situations involving kings and royalty. If it makes disambiguation any easier, we could just call it the "Elohistic we" (see vistesd's post as well) where a singul ...[text shortened]... second article is interesting, but it seems to be a modern midrash. Good reading though!
I don’t object to Christians doing “midrash” with the Hebrew scriptures, either.
Originally posted by no1marauderNo, it's 'out of context' because you're simply reading that one verse and interpreting it without considering it in relation to other verses around it and the general message of the book as a whole.
No, I'm reading directly in context. Jesus is saying that only God knows when the events he is describing will happen. How exactly is that reading the verse "out of context"? You parrot that phrase whenever the most obvious interpretation clashes with what you have been told but it is clearly a red herring here.
For instance, just two verses earlier Jesus implies that he knows when the hour and day are (he does something similar in 9:1). In fact, the whole chapter is a rendering of signs about the time of his return.
1 edit
Originally posted by lucifershammerHe "implies" no such thing. In the Bible, knowledge of future events (i.e. prophecy) does not imply divinity; there's any number of prophets in the OT. But the passage given clearly states that there is a difference between God's knowledge and Jesus', which is incompatible with the Trinity doctrine.
No, it's 'out of context' because you're simply reading that one verse and interpreting it without considering it in relation to other verses around it and the general message of the book as a whole.
For instance, just two verses earlier Jesus implies that he knows when the hour and day are (he does something similar in 9:1). In fact, the whole chapter is a rendering of signs about the time of his return.
Originally posted by no1marauderEx 20:2-3 is the clearest example of the distinction between "gods" as "objects of worship" and "existent beings" that I have been making all along.
Baloney. The Bible is chock full of passages referring to other gods. Remember this one: Exodus 20: 2-3
2 I am Jehovah thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
However, no matter what passage I use, you will simply stick to your preprogrammed answer. Bu ...[text shortened]... x 18:11 only refers to them as [conceptual] objects of worship and not as existent beings.
Why don't you just give a clear one like "God said, 'Baal lied to you last Tuesday'" or "God spoke to Baal" etc.?
When talking to a bunch of semi-savages, I doubt the authors of the OT were interested in Kantian ontological proofs. When they were telling them that their God was stronger than other Gods, they meant just that i.e. that both existed. That is clearly what both the speaker and the listener would have understood.
Who is the speaker and listener here? Jethro and God? Or the author of Exodus and the reader?
In LucifershammerWorld this isn't an assertion ...
It is, but the evidence has been provided in advance -- by you.
Originally posted by no1marauderI wasn't using Jesus's knowledge of future events in v.30 to prove his divinity, but to show that he did know (at least vaguely) the day of his return. In fact, the entire chapter would be meaningless if he didn't know the day of his return. That's why you need to look at what v.32 means in context.
He "implies" no such thing. In the Bible, knowledge of future events (i.e. prophecy) does not imply divinity; there's any number of prophets in the OT. But the passage given clearly states that there is a difference between God's knowledge and Jesus', which is incompatible with the Trinity doctrine.
Originally posted by lucifershammerNo, LH, you are simply reading your own preconceptions into it. And doing so without offerring a shred of evidence that it should be read in the manner you assert.
Ex 20:2-3 is the clearest example of the distinction between "gods" as "objects of worship" and "existent beings" that I have been making all along.
Why don't you just give a clear one like "God said, 'Baal lied to you last Tuesday'" or "God spoke to Baal" etc.?
[b]When talking to a bunch of semi-savages, I doubt the authors of the OT were inte ...[text shortened]... sertion ...
It is, but the evidence has been provided in advance -- by you.[/b]
Originally posted by no1marauderI don't know what your point is in saying that other gods are mentioned in the Bible. The real issue is WHAT is mentioned about these other gods.
Baloney. The Bible is chock full of passages referring to other gods. Remember this one: Exodus 20: 2-3
2 I am Jehovah thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage.
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
However, no matter what passage I use, you will simply stick to your preprogrammed answer. Bu ...[text shortened]... both existed. That is clearly what both the speaker and the listener would have understood.
"I am Jehovah and there is no one else; Besides Me there is no God ..." (Isaiah 45😛5)
That should clue you that other gods mentioned in the Bible are either vanities or delusions or masquerading evil spirits pretending to be gods.
"For I am God and there is no one else ..." (Isa. 45:22)
That should clue you that there is no "god" who can compete with Jehovah God.
"I am the First and I am the Last, And apart from Me there is no God." (Isa. 44:6)
These utterances should let you know that the God speaking is unique. Just saying that other gods are mentioned in the Bible is just to mention that there are idols and distractions in people's hearts vying for the deceived devotion of people from the true God.
"Remember the former things of old, That I am God and there is no one like Me ..." (Isa, 46:9)
You may mention that the Bible speaks of other gods. It speaks of no other gods like God.
He says that the stubburn turning away of Israel to thank other gods is there deceived turning away to false idols - "Because I knew that you were obstinate. And your kneck is an iron sinew, and your forehead brass. Therefore I declare them to you long ago; Before things came to pass I let hyou hear; Lest you should say, My idol has done them, amd mu grave4n image and mu molten image commanded them." (Isa. 48:4-6)
There is no other God who is a savior - "I, even I am the Lord; and besides me there is no savior" (Isa. 43:11 KJV)
God also says that He Himself knows of no other God (or Rock of salvation) besides Himself:
"And you are My witnesses. Is there a God besides Me? Or is there any other ROck? I do not know of any." (Isa. 44:8)
So the Apostle Paul is quite correct to relate that to the Christian there in only one God - "Therefore concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that there is no God nut one." (1 Cor. 8:4)
The other gods behind the idols are called "so-called gods" (1 Cor. 8:5) These "so-called" gods are your many gods and your many lords:
"For even if there are so-called gods, either in heaven or on earth, even as there are many gods and many lords ..."
Paul is clear that for the Christian disciples the so called gods are not God Who is the one and only:
"Yet to us there is one God, the Father, our from whom are all things, ..." (1 Cor. 8:6a)
The question is are you one of the "us"? Or are you one of those refering to many so-called gods and many lords?
Originally posted by lucifershammerSo what? I am looking at it "in context" and the context says that Jesus is prophesying like the OT prophets. And trying to read something so that it flatly contradicts the express wording of a document is acceptable only in LucifershammerWorld.
I wasn't using Jesus's knowledge of future events in v.30 to prove his divinity, but to show that he did know (at least vaguely) the day of his return. In fact, the entire chapter would be meaningless if he didn't know the day of his return. That's why you need to look at what v.32 means in context.
Originally posted by no1marauderI'm just simply reading it as it's presented to me. Jethro isn't presenting a treatise on inter-deity politics; he's presenting things as seen from the perspective of a worshipper of alternative objects. As such he's talking about "objects of worship" and not "existent beings".
No, LH, you are simply reading your own preconceptions into it. And doing so without offerring a shred of evidence that it should be read in the manner you assert.
Originally posted by no1marauderThe context says not merely that Jesus is prophesying like the OT prophets but also that he knows specific details about the timing of the events he is prophesying.
So what? I am looking at it "in context" and the context says that Jesus is prophesying like the OT prophets..
And trying to read something so that it flatly contradicts the express wording of a document is acceptable only in LucifershammerWorld
Trying to read historical documents (fragments from documents, actually) in foreign languages as though they were written in 21st century English is acceptable only in no1Land.