- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
2
Posted on 11/28/22 at 5:12 pm to Squirrelmeister
Years ago, I read an interesting alt-history story, posited on the notion that Jesus was never born, so the Roman Empire never fell (the cause/effect details were interesting, but irrelevant here).
The Jewish Diaspora followed the Roman Empire around the globe, but the relevant point here is that all Jewish settlements had a Temple in which Yahweh was the PRIMARY god (and the only one the Jews worshipped), but ALSO had niches in the walls for dozens of OTHER gods that Roman law dictated must also be "honored."
I did not think about it at the time, but the willingness to accept the EXISTENCE of other gods (as required by the Romans) MIGHT indicate that the Second Temple Jews from this timeline WERE still monolatrists rather than true monotheists. At a minimum, they were willing to accept monolatrism at the insistence of the Romans.
At least in OUR timeline, I am pretty certain that the Jews were firmly monotheistic by Jesus' time.
The Jewish Diaspora followed the Roman Empire around the globe, but the relevant point here is that all Jewish settlements had a Temple in which Yahweh was the PRIMARY god (and the only one the Jews worshipped), but ALSO had niches in the walls for dozens of OTHER gods that Roman law dictated must also be "honored."
I did not think about it at the time, but the willingness to accept the EXISTENCE of other gods (as required by the Romans) MIGHT indicate that the Second Temple Jews from this timeline WERE still monolatrists rather than true monotheists. At a minimum, they were willing to accept monolatrism at the insistence of the Romans.
At least in OUR timeline, I am pretty certain that the Jews were firmly monotheistic by Jesus' time.
This post was edited on 11/28/22 at 5:40 pm
Posted on 11/28/22 at 5:13 pm to ruffleforeskin
Some people get it wrong. There’s 3 parts of 1 God. There are not 3 separate God’s.
LINK
The term Godhead is found three times in the King James Version: Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; and Colossians 2:9. In each of the three verses, a slightly different Greek word is used, but the definition of each is the same: “deity” or “divine nature.” The word Godhead is used to refer to God’s essential nature. We’ll take a look at each of these passages and what they mean.
In Acts 17, Paul is speaking on Mars Hill to the philosophers of Athens. As he argues against idolatry, Paul says, “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device” (Acts 17:29, KJV). Here, the word Godhead is the translation of the Greek theion, a word used by the Greeks to denote “God” in general, with no reference to a particular deity. Paul, speaking to Greeks, used the term in reference to the only true God.
In Romans 1, Paul begins to make the case that all humanity stands guilty before God. In verse 20 he says, “The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (KJV). Here, Godhead is theiotés. Paul’s argument is that all of creation virtually shouts the existence of God; we can “clearly” see God’s eternal power, as well as His “Godhead” in what He has made. “The heavens declare the glory of God; / the skies proclaim the work of his hands” (Psalm 19:1). The natural world makes manifest the divine nature of God.
Colossians 2:9 is one of the clearest statements of the deity of Christ anywhere in the Bible: “In him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” The word for “Godhead” here is theotés. According to this verse, Jesus Christ is God Incarnate. He embodies all (“the fulness”) of God (translated “the Deity” in the NIV). This truth aligns perfectly with Colossians 1:19, “God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him [Christ].”
Because the Godhead dwells bodily in Christ, Jesus could rightly claim that He and the Father are “one” (John 10:30). Because the fullness of God’s divine essence is present in the Son of God, Jesus could say to Philip, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).
In summary, the Godhead is the essence of the Divine Being; the Godhead is the one and only Deity. Jesus, the incarnate Godhead, entered our world and showed us exactly who God is: “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known” (John 1:18; cf. Hebrews 1:3).
LINK
The term Godhead is found three times in the King James Version: Acts 17:29; Romans 1:20; and Colossians 2:9. In each of the three verses, a slightly different Greek word is used, but the definition of each is the same: “deity” or “divine nature.” The word Godhead is used to refer to God’s essential nature. We’ll take a look at each of these passages and what they mean.
In Acts 17, Paul is speaking on Mars Hill to the philosophers of Athens. As he argues against idolatry, Paul says, “Forasmuch then as we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Godhead is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by art and man’s device” (Acts 17:29, KJV). Here, the word Godhead is the translation of the Greek theion, a word used by the Greeks to denote “God” in general, with no reference to a particular deity. Paul, speaking to Greeks, used the term in reference to the only true God.
In Romans 1, Paul begins to make the case that all humanity stands guilty before God. In verse 20 he says, “The invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse” (KJV). Here, Godhead is theiotés. Paul’s argument is that all of creation virtually shouts the existence of God; we can “clearly” see God’s eternal power, as well as His “Godhead” in what He has made. “The heavens declare the glory of God; / the skies proclaim the work of his hands” (Psalm 19:1). The natural world makes manifest the divine nature of God.
Colossians 2:9 is one of the clearest statements of the deity of Christ anywhere in the Bible: “In him [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.” The word for “Godhead” here is theotés. According to this verse, Jesus Christ is God Incarnate. He embodies all (“the fulness”) of God (translated “the Deity” in the NIV). This truth aligns perfectly with Colossians 1:19, “God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him [Christ].”
Because the Godhead dwells bodily in Christ, Jesus could rightly claim that He and the Father are “one” (John 10:30). Because the fullness of God’s divine essence is present in the Son of God, Jesus could say to Philip, “Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father” (John 14:9).
In summary, the Godhead is the essence of the Divine Being; the Godhead is the one and only Deity. Jesus, the incarnate Godhead, entered our world and showed us exactly who God is: “No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known” (John 1:18; cf. Hebrews 1:3).
Posted on 11/28/22 at 5:17 pm to RollTide1987
quote:I have always thought that Arianism makes FAR more sense than does Trinitarianism.
There are also many Protestants and poorly Catechized Catholics who don’t even know they are Arians
This post was edited on 11/28/22 at 5:20 pm
Posted on 11/28/22 at 5:37 pm to Squirrelmeister
quote:You reference the theory that the Torah is a composite of three separate (but related) traditions: Yahwist, Deuteronomist and Priestly? And that they were edited into a single volume either during the Exile or early in the Hellenistic period?
Any attempt to merge two traditions is going to produce some of that.quote:
Someone’s there’s more than just two traditions that were written and later merged.
This post was edited on 11/28/22 at 5:46 pm
Posted on 11/28/22 at 6:10 pm to AggieHank86
quote:I've always read that it was 4 sources (JEPD), including the Elohist source
You reference the theory that the Torah is a composite of three separate (but related) traditions: Yahwist, Deuteronomist and Priestly? And that they were edited into a single volume either during the Exile or early in the Hellenistic period?
Posted on 11/28/22 at 6:26 pm to L.A.
quote:Crap. Forgot that one. It is supposed to be the earliest source, correct?
I've always read that it was 4 sources (JEPD), including the Elohist source
This post was edited on 11/28/22 at 6:36 pm
Posted on 11/28/22 at 6:30 pm to AggieHank86
doctrine,
Posted on 11/28/22 at 6:31 pm to the808bass
quote:
Yes.
I don’t take the histo-crits dating discussions all that seriously as they bring too much baggage to the discussion. If you presuppose John is written by notJohn and thus had to develop through multiple editors over time to get an advanced Christology because an advanced Christology couldn’t actually be proposed by the author of the Gospel, then you end up with dates that are decades later simply because of your suppositions about the formation of the text.
First, as someone who isn't a biblical scholar, this is one of the more interesting threads I've seen on the PT. Kudos for most everyone keeping it civil.
Second, as an ignoramus on the issue, why is the dating given so much weight? It was my understanding that early Christians were heavily prosecuted and largely uneducated. Not exactly the best conditions for promulgating your belief system, at least through text.
TIA
Posted on 11/28/22 at 6:42 pm to Snazzmeister
quote:a lot of what we are discussing relates to authorship of the Old Testament, which predates Christianity by at least 500 years.
as an ignoramus on the issue, why is the dating given so much weight? It was my understanding that early Christians were heavily prosecuted and largely uneducated. Not exactly the best conditions for promulgating your belief system, at least through text.
As far as the New Testament discussion goes, the premise is that anything drafted earlier is more likely to be actually reflective of what took place… Whereas later authorship may include embellishments.
If you read the four Gospels with this thought in mind, you will see that Jesus is presented as being the least “supernatural“ in the Gospel of Mark, gaining more and more supernatural attributes until you arrive at the Gospel of John.
For instance, the gospel of mark would be argued to be more likely to accurately, reflect the things that Jesus said, and did, than the gospel of John, which is clearly the last of the four gospels drafted.
This post was edited on 11/28/22 at 8:13 pm
Posted on 11/28/22 at 6:50 pm to AggieHank86
When did the bible stop saying Holy Ghost and replacing it with Holy Spirit? Seems like the use of Ghost makes it clear that it's the breath of the one true God which is baptism by fire and allowed entrance into heaven. I think Spirit just convolutes things.
Posted on 11/28/22 at 6:50 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Oui
It is supposed to be the earliest source, correct?
Posted on 11/28/22 at 7:02 pm to Tomatocantender
quote:Depends upon which translation you are using. The term “ghost” seems to have started with King James.
When did the bible stop saying Holy Ghost and replacing it with Holy Spirit? Seems like the use of Ghost makes it clear that it's the breath of the one true God which is baptism by fire and
quote:It looks like the King James translators just needed a decent editor to check their work.
Of the modern English translations of the Bible, it is only the King James Version of the Bible which uses the term “Holy Ghost.” It occurs 90 times in the KJV. The term “Holy Spirit” occurs 7 times in the KJV. There is no clear reason as to why the KJV translators used Ghost in most places and then Spirit in a few. The exact same Greek and Hebrew words are translated "ghost" and "spirit" in the KJV in different occurrences of the words. By "ghost," the KJV translators did not intend to communicate the idea of "the spirit of a deceased person." In 1611, when the KJV was originally translated, the word "ghost" primarily referred to "an immaterial being."
With recent Scripture translations, "Spirit" has replaced "Ghost" in most instances. Some of this came about because words don’t always hold their meanings.
This post was edited on 11/28/22 at 7:22 pm
Posted on 11/28/22 at 7:09 pm to L.A.
quote:I would think that that one would be easy to remember, since it is the theory which explains the plural/singular argument on God’s name. Since the word was plural in Canaanite, and became singular in Hebrew.
It is supposed to be the earliest source, correct?quote:
Oui
Obviously, I do not speak ancient Canaanite, but I have to wonder whether the word actually might’ve meant something like “pantheon,“ rather than “gods.“
This post was edited on 11/28/22 at 7:19 pm
Posted on 11/28/22 at 7:13 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
For instance, the gospel of mark would be argued to be more likely to accurately, reflect the things that Jesus said,
yes. big supporter of Markan priority.
quote:
reflect the things that Jesus said, and did, than the gospel of John, which is clearly the last of the four gospels drafted.
John had a different audience/point of view to get across. Definitely a more developed view.
All of the synoptics had a different target audience in mind upon their writing.
ETA: if you understand that all of these stories were written down after a gap of only oral tradition. it all kind of makes sense.
common oral traditions were spoken of, then written down based on the target audience of the gospel.
This post was edited on 11/28/22 at 7:17 pm
Posted on 11/28/22 at 7:25 pm to AggieHank86
quote:Yep. Btw, I'm reading William Dever's "Who Were the Early Israelites and Where Did They Come From" right now. I got intrigued by the subject after reading Israel Finkelstein's "The Bible Unearthed" earlier in the year. The consensus of scholarship in this field is that the early Israelites were Canaanites who moved from the coastal regions of Canaan and into the less populated inner areas. They developed a new society over belief in monotheism and a shared ethical/moral POV. Given that there is absolutely zero archeological evidence for the Exodus, and zero historical evidence for the existence of the Patriarchs like Moses, Abraham, etc the theory seems entirely plausible
I would think that that one would be easy to remember, since it is the theory which explains the plural/singular argument on God’s name. Since the word was plural in Canaanite, and became singular in Hebrew
Posted on 11/28/22 at 7:25 pm to gaetti15
quote:You could say that it is “more developed,” or you could say that it is further afield from anything that Jesus ever actually did or actually taught. Who knows?
John had a different audience/point of view to get across. Definitely a more developed view.
Posted on 11/28/22 at 7:28 pm to L.A.
quote:This aligns with my interpretation as well, except for the part about the monotheism.
The consensus of scholarship in this field is that the early Israelites were Canaanites who moved from the coastal regions of Canaan and into the less populated inner areas. They developed a new society over belief in monotheism and a shared ethical/moral POV. Given that there is absolutely zero archeological evidence for the Exodus, and zero historical evidence for the existence of the Patriarchs like Moses, Abraham, etc the theory seems entirely plausible
As I interpret the data, I think that monolatrism (and later monotheism) developed after the schism, rather than being a reason for the schism. Different Canaanite areas came to identify more closely with different gods of the Canaanite pantheon, with the proto-Jews focusing upon El … who eventually became Yahweh and was finally promoted from “chief local god“ to “the only God.”
It’s fascinating to think about the influence, the people of that small area had upon the development of modern civilization
As just another example, the Phoenicians were Canaanites. Carthage was a Phoenician colony, and there was probably no bigger influence on early Rome than Carthage.
This post was edited on 11/28/22 at 7:35 pm
Posted on 11/28/22 at 7:40 pm to AggieHank86
quote:
Have you ever read any of the scholarship regarding the book? Something that was not produced from a religious source?
It's fine to read anything you want. But the Bible is divine. These books by scholars is not.
Posted on 11/28/22 at 7:40 pm to AggieHank86
quote:I may have overstated that. It was a commitment to the worship of Yahweh, who may have originally been the Midianite god according to some scholars. And Midian, interestingly, plays a significant role in some of the Exodus stories, especially those related to Moses. One possible true story is that a small group of Midianites actually WERE slaves in Egypt and escaped to Canaan. They arrived with their stories of slavery and escape, which may have been the origin of the exodus story
except for the part about the monotheism.
Page 11 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News