I started responding to this, but I had to go out and it seems there was a powercut while I was away, so here it comes:
EmperorSolo51 wrote:Rye wrote:
So? He was a first century jew, of course he's going to view it like that. Even Asherah worship has gone out of style centuries before he was even born; he will reflect the judaism of the time, not the past. He's not an automatic authority on scripture just because you think he's God, to anyone else, he's a first century jew, nothing more.
However, Christ's interpretation sims to fit the bill as famed Calvinist Theologian John Gill notes in his Bible Exposistion:
Ver. 1. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty,.... The Syriac version renders it, "in the congregation of angels"; they are mighty, and excel in strength, and there is a large company of them, even an innumerable one, and who surround the throne of the Majesty on high. Christ, who is God over all, was among those on Mount Sinai, and when he ascended to heaven; and with these he will descend when he comes a second time, Ps 68:17. The Targum interprets it of the righteous thus,
"God, whose majesty (or Shechinah) dwells in the congregation of the righteous that are strong in the law.''
It may be better understood of such as are strong in the Lord, in the grace that is in Christ, and in the exercise of grace upon him; who are gathered out of the world unto him, and unto distinct societies and congregations; in the midst of which God is, where he grants his presence, bestows the blessings of his grace, and affords his divine aid and protection; and where Christ the Son of God is, and will be to the end of the world. The words may be rendered, "God standeth in the congregation of God" {a}: that is, in his own congregation, his church and people; but it seems best of all to understand the words of rulers and civil magistrates, of the cabinet councils of princes, of benches of judges, and courts of judicature; in all which God is present, and observes what is said and done; perhaps reference may be had to the Jewish sanhedrim, the chief court of judicature with the Jews, consisting of seventy one persons; in the midst of which Christ, God manifest in the flesh, God in our nature, stood, and was ill used, and most unjustly judged by them, of whose unjust judgment complaint is made in the next verse:
he judgeth among the gods: which the Syriac version renders "angels" again; and so Aben Ezra interprets it of them, who are so called, Ps 8:5, but rather civil magistrates are meant, the rulers and judges of the people, who go by this name of "elohim", or gods, in
Ex 21:6, and are so called because they are the powers ordained of God, are representatives of him, are his vicegerents and deputies under him; should act in his name, according to his law, and for his glory, and are clothed with great power and authority from and under him; and therefore are before styled the "mighty". Among these Christ, the Son of God, judges, to whom all judgment is committed; he qualifies these for the discharge of their office, he directs them how to judge, and all the right judgment they make and do is from him, "by" whom "kings"
Here's the thing, even if it's a metaphor for god judging humans, like a moral story to remind people to do good in all walks of life, that still shows that there are leftovers from the canaanite tradition (Mt Zaphon, leader god El, punishment for lesser gods that had dominion over the various tribes that included being made mortal and dying) and metaphors in use that are pretty clearly not antagonistic to multiple gods. The context of the psalm (many of which already existed, along with variants of Job and Daniel in canaanite literature) makes sense and gains context with knowledge of canaanite religion.
Other canaanite religious leftovers appear with this theme, notably in Deuteronomy 32:8 "When the Most High(El Elyon) gave the nations their inheritance,when he divided up mankind, he set the boundaries of the peoples, according to the number of the heavenly assembly.32:9 For the Lord's(Yhwh's) allotment is his people, Jacob is his special possession." Lots of biblical aspects like this make sense if we know the cultural background, otherwise you just get some cheap-assed modern dogmatic stances and miss nuances.
The same concepts are being used again and we know the same concepts existed among the canaanites. Jesus' "explanation" that those other than gods can be considered gods is irrelevent as to how monotheistic the early jews were, which wasn't very monotheistic at all. That's why Baal gets such a bad rap; because the jews kept worshipping him as well as YHVH, and the aforementioned Asherah.
The burden of proof is on you to show that the author of these passages was as explicitly monotheistic as Jesus.
The problem as again, you are taking a look at the olympus courts of greek mythology and apply it your esigisis here to fit your preconcieved interpretartion.
No, you are starting with a conclusion and are ignoring history to make it work. My olympus comparison was justified, since the canaanites believed in a mountain that the gods lived on the top of, lead by a patriarch called El. These same people had YHVH on their pottery and literature that would later have variants in the bible. I have no agenda to force polytheism where none existed, it's a simple fact that early jews were polytheistic, and their theism descended from the canaanites.
The fact that God here is lamenting on the gods who are judging pretty much tells me just who the gods are in psalm 82 and they are indeed the evil Judges and people who hand out evil judgements.
That still appears to be nothing more than starting with post-Jesus dogma and reading what you want into it, rather than the mythological and historical context behind it.
I don't think the uscbb has an agenda to read polytheism in where none exists, I see no reason to dismiss their commentaries.
And yeah, Exodus (12) has God saying he'll judge the other gods and numbers (33) confirms it.
Judging as in telling the People Of Israel the are indeed false because they did not stop God from executing the plagues on Egypt. Once again a literal interpretation does not work here as it comes into conflict with God saying he is the only God.
I'm sure I responded to this already, but if I didn't, you're treating the whole bible as one text rather than a product of the various times it was written in. A later theological ruling doesn't overrule historical context, sorry.
I have my own problems with the NAB and its commentaries as promoted by the USCCB. But the New Jerusalem Bible pretty much what I said above and it has a Nihil Obstat Imprimateur.
That's cool, having important-sounding dead language tacked on makes it more trustworthy!
82 a . A warning to the wicked rulers and judges in an eschatological setting. v 1,5,8
b. Indictment frequent in the prophets Is 1:17sq.: Jr 5:28; 21:12; 22:3, EZK 2:27,9; Mi :1-11; Ze 7:7-9,1; See Jb 29:12, P 18:5; 24:1-12
C. The ruers and judges are reckoned withth 'sons of the Most Hight' members of he havenly court, see Jb 16f
None of which really refutes what I was saying.
Uhhh, do you have evidence for this, at all beyond backward reading? The reading of Exodus 12:12 "I will pass through the land of Egypt in the same night, and I will kill all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both of humans and of animals, and on all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment. I am the Lord." seems to imply they're as real as animals or humans.
Again, if we interpret that the gods spoken of in Exodus are real then the Bible is in massive contradiction as God says that there are No other Gods, he is the True God, Was the only one here at the creation of the world, etc. We must take this part of exedus to refers to the the judgement of God on the false gods. Since these "gods" did nothing to oppose the plaugues of egypt, (In fact pharoah goes to Moses repeatedly to ask God to stop these plagues.) God is passing judgement down by leading the israelites out of egypt.
That's agenda reading, not critical reading. You are attempting to shoehorn your view onto their view when they clash. Apologetics do not make for good historical inquiry.
Meaning that as said above God has jusdged them to be false.
You just don't get this "evidence" thing, do you? It's not enough to disagree with a conclusion just because your beliefs are different.
If you want to claim the authors of those segments didn't consider other gods real, please present the evidence for it, rather than dishonestly attempting to take the entire bible as one text with one author, rationalising contradictions by means of more recent theology, rather than historical context.
That's the whole point of the field Harmeunetics and Exegesis to find what the Bible really says rather than to take things literally. What you are doing is taking a literal interpretation of the events in sacred scripture like the fundamentalist do, then when I present an alternative interpretation of scripture, you don't like it.
Your "alternative" version is merely the christian apologetic version, not the historical explanation for the text. THAT is why I don't like it, because it has a complete absence of explanation regarding the origins of the themes and theological significance to the author, preferring instead to dismiss it because "it doesn't make sense if God says he is the only one." To put it another way, if God says one thing in one book of the bible, and something contrary in another part, we can explain both in the context of the author, we are not duty bound to rationalise the conflict to "help faith" or any such bullshit.
An example is the judges 1:15 part about God and the men of Judah not being able to drive out the inhabitants of the valley because they had iron chariots. It makes sense if it's an apologetic on behalf of the author explaining why there are still foreign people in a land apparently given to them in a perfect war with god on their side. It doesn't make sense if we think God said he could destroy anyone he wanted.
You see the difference?
Atheists and Christian fundies are really in the same boat as thier interpretations are indeed flawed?
I actually supported my interpretation with historical references, though, you supported yours with "but God said something different elsewhere in the bible."
Gee, which one sounds more like a fundamentalist?
The Ancient Israelites may have belived and indeed worshipped false Gods, as they did in the Exodus in the Golden Calf. But that does not mean that one who wrote the scripture is saying that there were literal demi-gods running around recieving worship as I noted earlier with John Gill's Bible exposostion on this matter.
Given the people of the time were known to be accepting other gods, "have no other gods before me" and the verses I posted do make fine historical sense. Again, if you want to claim the authors of these various parts were explicitly montheistic, you have to provide the evidence.
How far back do you want to go? I can go as far back as St. Jeromes Commentary around 400 AD, Howabout Justin Martyr's writings, his was about 180 AD, or how about Jewish sources and thier interpretation of scripture. Or how about some Bible Commentaries from Luther, Calvin, and John Gill. Athanasius? Cyprian? Basil and Cyril? Or How about the Greek Orthodox's interpretation on this matter?
Modern historians = better than old guys with agendas. Modern historians are compelled to know the context historically of the writings, as well as the writings themselves. They put forth arguments based on evidence, not a view they want to confirm.
-- Asuka
Lucifer, Roman God of Venus? Romans had a deity for Venus. You can tell, it was her name.
