Monolatry - Existence of other gods

[Ron Beron]

http://www.mormonapo...-the-beginning/

Thanks...I'll read it today.

[Ron Beron]

zerinus, I would appreciate a response to my post, and I would appreciate it if you actually engaged my argument this time.

:::Joining Mudcat with the popcorn...I'll bring the MilkDuds!:::

[zerinus]

zerinus, I would appreciate a response to my post, and I would appreciate it if you actually engaged my argument this time.

Here we go!

Your translation is incorrect. It says he stands in the congregation of El, not "the mighty."

Okay, we will amend Psalm 88:1 to

[David Bokovoy]

I

[maklelan]

Here we go!

Okay, we will amend Psalm 88:1 to

[Mudcat]

Yes they do. Psalm 82:6 calls them

[maklelan]

IMO, the Psalm 82:6 reference was satirical hyperbole in its reference to "gods". These were unrighteous judges. Psalm 58 carries a similar theme.

I don't see any reference to gods in Psalm 58, and I think Ps 82:1 and 6-7 preclude the notion that they are to be understood as human judges. The term "council of El" refers to a very specific ancient Near Eastern literary convention that did not include humans within the actual council. (In Mesopotamia humans were said to overhear the council of the gods, and in later prophetic literature biblical prophets are said to passively witness it. In no place do humans constitute the council, however.)

Also IMO, Christ uses this hyperbole from Psalm 82 to rebuff his opponents. Perhaps his audience did not see the satire in that moment, but I certainly do as I reflect upon it.

I think the author of John was simply appealing to a contemporary proto-rabbinic interpretation of Psalm 82 as referring to Israel at Sinai.

[volgadon]

Have you therefore ever stopped to consider how Joseph and his peers in the 19th century understood the term "translation"?

He ignored the extracts from the 1828 Webster I posted.

[Vance]

Have you therefore ever stopped to consider how Joseph and his peers in the 19th century understood the term "translation"?

The word "translate" can ONLY mean what the anti-Mormons say is means. And Joseph COULD NOT HAVE used it in any other way.

Just ask Rob.

I mean in the very language diverse back country of 19th century New England, "translating" from one language to another was ubiquitous.

[Mudcat]

I don't see any reference to gods in Psalm 58, and I think Ps 82:1 and 6-7 preclude the notion that they are to be understood as human judges. The term "council of El" refers to a very specific ancient Near Eastern literary convention that did not include humans within the actual council. (In Mesopotamia humans were said to overhear the council of the gods, and in later prophetic literature biblical prophets are said to passively witness it. In no place do humans constitute the council, however.)

Some translations (ESV and NASB) render 52:1 with a reference to "gods". I am no Hebrew expert, but it seems that some (certainly not all) who do this sort of stuff think that is the best way to translate.

I suppose the notion that these "gods" will die.. implies mortality to me. If the "council of El" was understood as a group of deities, then I would have to conclude that the author thought that deities were mortal. This doesn't really make sense to me.

I think the author of John was simply appealing to a contemporary proto-rabbinic interpretation of Psalm 82 as referring to Israel at Sinai.

You lost me at proto-rabbinic, but I'll try to look that up soon.

As always appreciate your thoughts Mak.

Regards,

Mudcat

[volgadon]

You lost me at proto-rabbinic, but I'll try to look that up soon.

Broadly speaking, proto-rabbinic is anything pre-Jamnieh.

[maklelan]

Some translations (ESV and NASB) render 52:1 with a reference to "gods". I am no Hebrew expert, but it seems that some (certainly not all) who do this sort of stuff think that is the best way to translate.

I see where the idea comes from, and if that is the best reading it certainly doesn't demand being read as a reference to humans.

I suppose the notion that these "gods" will die.. implies mortality to me.

But gods die all the time in the ancient Near East. Jesus died. Tiamat died. Kingu died. Baal died. Additionally, their deaths in the same manner as human death is presented as an unexpected contrast to their ontology. This is not how humans are referenced anywhere in the Bible or in any Near Eastern literature.

If the "council of El" was understood as a group of deities, then I would have to conclude that the author thought that deities were mortal. This doesn't really make sense to me.

But their death in the manner of humanity is not a perpetual condition. Their unrighteousness has brought upon them that condemnation. They are made to die as a result of their wickedness. They are not represented as always mortal.

You lost me at proto-rabbinic, but I'll try to look that up soon.

As always appreciate your thoughts Mak.

Hey, I appreciate the thoughtful comments.

[zerinus]

IMO, the Psalm 82:6 reference was satirical hyperbole in its reference to "gods". These were unrighteous judges. Psalm 58 carries a similar theme.

Also IMO, Christ uses this hyperbole from Psalm 82 to rebuff his opponents. Perhaps his audience did not see the satire in that moment, but I certainly do as I reflect upon it.

That argument simply don't add up. The Key to the correct interpretation of Psalm 82 is provided by Jesus in John 10:33

[volgadon]

The Key to the correct interpretation of Psalm 82 is provided by Jesus in John 10:33

[maklelan]

That argument simply don't add up. The Key to the correct interpretation of Psalm 82 is provided by Jesus in John 10:33

[Mortal Man]

[zerinus]

No, the key to the correct interpretation is understanding the literary and socio- and politico-religious context of the chapter. Imagining that a text from six centuries later and a completely distinct worldview holds the key presupposes a univocal text, and if the Bible is anything it is inconsistent.

That is nonsense. When Jesus has spoken, He has spoken.

No, he told him he had made him a God in Pharaoh's eyes. "God" (?????) simply does not mean "judge," "ruler," "mighty one," or anything like it.

Since when did "judges" and "rulers" have "prophets"? I think you are just contradicting me for its own sake, which makes your posts undeserving of a serious reply.

[maklelan]

"Learned man of God = Simeon ben Yochai"

Please forgive the lengthy cut and paste.

I hope you don't mind if I skip the lengthy cut and paste (in this case about 200 pages worth) and just link to this article and this article. Certainly you've read these articles. Why not mention that the points you're making have been quite thoroughly responded to already?

[maklelan]

That is nonsense. When Jesus has spoken, He has spoken.

And what leads you to conclude that in this specific verse we have the pure and unadulterated verbatim word of Jesus? Please be specific.

Since when did "judges" and "rulers" have "prophets"?

I have no idea what you're talking about.

I think you are just contradicting me for its own sake, which makes your posts undeserving of a serious reply.

Again you've failed to respond and hurled an utterly asinine excuse at me. I'll be reporting this post.

[sobeit]

The Bible makes reference to a number of gods and goddesses of ancient peoples.

I think it has been established here that the Jews believed in worship of the Only true God as Jesus spoke of at John 17:3. The Jews were commanded not to worship other gods.

Exodus 20:3 "You must not have any other gods against my face."

Who were these gods?

1 Corinthians 10:20 tells us "No; but I say that the things which the nations sacrifice they sacrifice to demons, and not to God; and I do not want YOU to become sharers with the demons."

What does this mean?

The Bible

[mapman]

No one here is saying that the Jews worshiped other gods and we are not talking about the gods of other religions.

[Mortal Man]

I hope you don't mind if I skip the lengthy cut and paste (in this case about 200 pages worth) and just link to this article and this article. Certainly you've read these articles. Why not mention that the points you're making have been quite thoroughly responded to already?

I was about to respond to your post when I read this.

I'll be reporting this post.

As a result of my recent suspensions, I am no longer willing to participate in threads where my posts will likely be reported. Especially since you're asking me to respond to a well-protected member of this board. If you want to take this discussion "outside" (i.e., MDB) then I'll be happy to explain why Alexander Neibaur is responsible for much of the BoA and KFD.

[maklelan]

I was about to respond to your post when I read this.

As a result of my recent suspensions, I am no longer willing to participate in threads where my posts will likely be reported. Especially since you're asking me to respond to a well-protected member of this board. If you want to take this discussion "outside" (i.e., MDB) then I'll be happy to explain why Alexander Neibaur is responsible for much of the BoA and KFD.

I reported his post because he has repeatedly demanded evidence and has repeatedly barked that it doesn't deserve a response once it's been presented. That's cowardly and dishonest, and that's not what I get on this board to do. A long as you don't appeal to kindergarten methodologies then you have nothing to worry about. If you've got a case then make it.

[Chronos]

Zenrius, if you don't think a point of view is valid, you have to present a decent reason as to why, not just redundant questions. Clean it up or you don't get to post.

Mortal Man, you are more than welcome to respond to anyone, we just step in when it gets disrespectful. If you have valid arguments to present that are not full of slander (not accusing you in particular, experience has taught I just have to say it every time), then they are welcome here.

~Chronos

[David Bokovoy]

Zenrius, if you don't think a point of view is valid, you have to present a decent reason as to why, not just redundant questions. Clean it up or you don't get to post.

Mortal Man, you are more than welcome to respond to anyone, we just step in when it gets disrespectful. If you have valid arguments to present that are not full of slander (not accusing you in particular, experience has taught I just have to say it every time), then they are welcome here.

~Chronos

Indeed, I always enjoy reading what Mortal Man has to say and hope he will provide a substantial response.