Assuming that there is a creator....

[Dio]

1. God is. (given)

 

2. God created all things and causes all things to be. (by definition)

 

3. Christianity is. (self-evident)

 

4. Christianity is the dominant religious system on earth.

 

5. God created Christianity (#3) and made it or allowed it to be the dominant religious system (#4).

 

6. God is either the Christian God or God is represented by a lesser religious system or no existing system and God made or allowed the false religion of Christianity to exist and multitudes of followers of that system to be deceived.

 

I know this is full of holes and doesn't constitute proof of any sort. But does it suggest any probability?

 

In any case, I don't accept premise #1 above, so it doesn't really matter to me.

Whatever...

[Mythra]

Mythra, do you think the reason may be is because of the command not to even inquire about other gods that they're not prepared with a mountain of defense??

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Good one, Dio. That's about the extent of the probability argument.

 

Thankful, yeah, makes you wonder. Why would I want to believe in a god if his followers can't even present a case for his PROBABILITY?

 

I think I know why. Cause they know that Improbability Mountain is a whole lot bigger. And they know that we know.

[Mythra]

Please Invictus. Please. It's just a little innocent discussion.

 

Come on in. We'll be gentle. We promise.

 

Although gentleness and tact are not my strong suits. We'll try to play nice.

 

If you don't like it here, you can take your ball and go home.

[Tyson]

Speaking of gods, consider this. The King James Version of the Bible is based on the MSS or Masoretic Text or the Hebrew Old Testament that stood as the standard until the Dead Sea Scrolls were found in the 1940s. The Dead Sea Scrolls date back about 1,000 years BEFORE the Masoretic Text which means the MSS has to give way to the much older Dead Sea Scrolls. The modern Bible translation that tries to remain faithful to the Dead Sea Scrolls in its translation would be the Revised Standard Version (RSV).

 

Now that we have that out of the way, consider these two passages:

 

 

"When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the LORD's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance."

 

- Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (King James Version)

 

 

"When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God. For the LORD's portion is his people, Jacob his allotted heritage."

 

- Deuteronomy 32:8-9 (Revised Standard Version as per the Dead Sea Scrolls)

 

Do you notice the subtle difference? The King James Version (using the MSS as it's source) attempts to show that God divided the nations using the children of Israel as his standard while the Revised Standard Version states that they were divided according to the 'sons of God.' The King James Version has some 'splainin to do because the nation of Israel was nowhere around when the nations were divided according to Genesis 10 (or is it 11?). Furthermore, the reading of the verse becomes bumbled because it has the Most High (biblegod, as per Christian understanding) inheriting Israel from himself. Last time I checked one inherits something from another.

 

In the Revised Standard Version, the passage makes far more sense because what it states is that some Great God (the Most High) divided the nations amongst his sons ('sons of God') AND Israel fell to the Lord (YWH) as his inheritance or allotment. This idea remains consistent with the belief of the era and region in which El (the great god), fathered 70 sons (two of them being Baal and YWH or Yahweh) and it is interesting to note that according to the book of Genesis, the nations were divided into a group of 70.

 

This of course presented the unthinkable to later Jews who had become strict monotheists so dabbling with the passage became necessary as to remove ANY trace that YWH was just another god amongst many and to keep it in line with the contemporary theological belief of 9th century A.D Judaism when the Masoretic Text first appeared. Interestingly enough, in 1927 a French team excavated the ancient Canaanite town of Ugarit (Ras Shamra) in modern Syria and dug up some tablets that were contemporary to about the time the Israelites supposedly came into the land of Canaan. On one of the tablets written in a language similar to Hebrew this is what is written:

 

 

sm . bny . yw . ilt - KTU 1.1 IV 14

 

“The name of the son of god, Yahweh.”

 

 

By the way, I'm the new guy around here.

[Japedo]

Does anyone, Christian or not, know where in the Old Testament it was prophesied that God would be coming in flesh as the Messiah?  That's a pretty big issue and seems it would have made Judaism more accepting of Christianity.

 

Anyone????

 

I have never run across it in a whole 30 years of being a christian.

 

 

The Jewish Idea of a Jewish messiah is just a man, A great man like Moses but just a Man. It is said that every generation that exists there is a person who has potential to be the messiah.

 

Christianity adopted the Jewish prophecy of Isaiah and twisted it to it being a god-man from their old pagan worship. The idea of God coming in human form is a foreign idea to Jews they never did at anytime believe that.

[Mythra]

Now that would be interesting. Support for Marcion who may have been the original gospel writer, who rejected the OT YHWH god as a lesser god, and believed that he was not the creator god nor the father of jesus.

[Tyson]

Welcome, Tyson.

 

Wo! Isn't Yahweh/YHWH, the name Jews give creator god?  So this is saying that one of the sons of god is YHWH, but not the creator?  Let me know if I'm understanding right

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Yes Thankful. You have it right. When you consider it, it confirms a few things that peep through on the pages of the Bible and Christians wish they never see. Just read Psalm 82 where yahweh stands in the council of God (note the distinctions) and condemns the other gods to mortality. This was an attempt by the Jews to prove and justify the elevation of Yahweh from tribal god to king of the gods BEFORE completely eliminating all other gods in favor of making Yahweh the ONLY god around the time of the Babylonian exile.

 

Take a peep at Judges 11 (notably verses 23 and 24) and read how the early Israelites admitted and acknowledged that the Lord (Yahweh) gave them their land and Chemosh (God of the Moabites/Ammonites) gave those people their land. This came up because of land squabble.

[chefranden]

oooh, this is tougher than the last one. I guess you would have to prove that all the other gods were false, that would mean comparing dates of manuscripts, numbers of manuscripts, age of belief, how many seperate writings there are about the god or gods etc. You'd never prove anything definitely, you never really can with historical criticism. I guess numbers of adherents could be used too. But it would have to be in a number of parts, you can't disprove one thing and conclude the whole religion is bunk.

 

It is not tough at all. You don't need to worry about the other gods. All you need to do is see if your own is falsifiable. If it is falsifiable then you have answered the question.

 

Since ChristianGod by the problem of evil is logically impossible (like a square circle) it is not the Creator if a Creator exists. As you see there is no need to disprove all the gods, to see if your god is left over. However, you may still want to make the effort to see if the Creator really cares if you worship it or not.

[Guest Rufus]

fascinating stuff, there is a lot of cross over from mythology isn't there? Or should I say other mythologies? Anyway, I checked out Psalm 82 and didn't find a translation that said Yahweh stands in the council of God, but that God is standing in judgement of the rulers of earth whom he had appointed. Now I don't read Hebrew so I'm taking this from the peeps who do. I think to take that Psalm as proof as other gods is not a strong stance.

I think it is a tougher question than the last one posted, it's probably easier to prove that there is a creator God than to prove it is on ein particular. Within the limits of this question we are assuming that there is acreator, so if you could disprove all but one the one that is left would be the creator. This is assuming, as the thread says, that there is a creator.

[Ouroboros]

I think to take that Psalm as proof as other gods is not a strong stance.

I think it is a tougher question than the last one posted, it's probably easier to prove that there is a creator God than to prove it is on ein particular. Within the limits of this question we are assuming that there is acreator, so if you could disprove all but one the one that is left would be the creator. This is assuming, as the thread says, that there is a creator.

To prove there is one God compared to prove if there are one or many Gods, is just an order of magnitude, but unfortunately the first order, to prove if there is anything divine at all has proven to be impossible.

 

Put it this way, if we accept the impossible task of moving outside the universe.

 

Outside our universe, the current universal physical laws will not apply anymore.

It will be super-physical laws. And unfortunately our eyes, ears and brain are depending on the laws in this universe. So whatever we see or hear will be interpreted according to our limited abilities.

 

I’m thinking about a book I have about “flatlanders”, were they show how it could be possible that one creature in 4D-world shows up to us as two creatures, and those creatures always comes in pairs. It happens to be the feet of the one 4D-creature.

 

So what does it leads us? Our senses will fool us regardless of what we can find outside the universe; we can’t trust ourselves to understand what we feel or see. So we can’t know.

 

This topic is targeting the question not only to if it’s possible to prove monotheism vs. polytheism, but also if monotheism automatically leads to Judeo/Christian version of God, and not Zoroastrianism or Islam. So does it?

[Tyson]

fascinating stuff, there is a lot of cross over from mythology isn't there? Or should I say other mythologies? Anyway, I checked out Psalm 82 and didn't find a translation that said Yahweh stands in the council of God, but that God is standing in judgement of the rulers of earth whom he had appointed. Now I don't read Hebrew so I'm taking this from the peeps who do. I think to take that Psalm as proof as other gods is not a strong stance.

I think it is a tougher question than the last one posted, it's probably easier to prove that there is a creator God than to prove it is on ein particular. Within the limits of this question we are assuming that there is acreator, so if you could disprove all but one the one that is left would be the creator. This is assuming, as the thread says, that there is a creator.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Rufus the passage is rather clear that such is the case. God stands in the council of the elohim (gods) and judges them accordingly. It would NOT surprise me that Jews of later generations could not and would not accept the idea that there were other gods and imparted a different interpretation by stating that the mention of gods in the passsge was just a glorified title referring to earthly judges/rulers. In the New Testament we have Jesus' biographers claiming that when the passage says "ye are gods," it is a reference to earthly judges. How we can tell that there is something amiss with this interpretation is by noticing that he curses them with something human - mortality. It would make NO sense whatsover to tell humans you are going to consign them to a life of humanity which culminates in death. That's redundant and goes without saying.

 

This goes back to Deuteronomy 32 and the regional myths of the time where El divides the nations amongst his sons and it was their responsibility to govern them properly. At this session of the divine council, the other gods apparently failed to do their duties and are thus fired. What the Jews attempted to do is to associate the great God (El Elyon) with their tribal god (Yahweh) as being the one who presides over the assembly thus ensuring Yahweh's supremacy over all other gods. Later generations would eliminate all other gods completely and present Yahweh as being the same God of creation who is without equal.

 

Interestingly enough, this Psalm is essentially the same as a regional myth found in the Ugaritic texts of Ras Shamra where El summons the lesser deites (his sons)and is roused to stand up and dispense justice they failed to carry out. This Psalm and other passages or verses like it goes a long way to proving the point that the early Hebrews were eseentially henotheistic, a term coined by a German orientalist which bascially means the belief in one god while NOT ruling out the existence of other gods. Some also call it monolatry which is the belief in one god that you serve who is supreme over the other gods.

 

If one compares Psalm 29:1 to Psalm 96:7, you notice also, a subtle change in wording which might reflect a change in concept in an attempt to cover over the obvious. The verses are supposed to be identical, but in the earlier Psalm it is 'divine beings' (Revised Standard Version) or 'ye mighty' (King James Version) who are asked to ascribe glory to God, but in the later Psalm, divine beings is changed to families or kindreds of earth.

 

Finally, in the book of Daniel, a book heavily influenced by Persian eschatology, we read of a Prince (divine being) who governs Persia and Michael who watches over and protects Israel. By this time the Jews were moving beyond the idea that their god had equals, but was now the only God there was and is and his court consisted only of angels whom he created to do his bidding. Persian angeology was then filtered back into the Jewish scriptures.

[chefranden]

Kings were considered gods, like the Pharoah, in many places which adds to the confusion.

[Amanda]

Rufus...Psalm 82:1 [[A Psalm of Asaph.]] God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

 

gods -Elohiym- strongs #2040

 

1) (plural)

a) rulers, judges

divine ones

c) angels

d) gods

 

2) (plural intensive - singular meaning)

a) god, goddess

godlike one

c) works or special possessions of God

d) the (true) God

e) God

 

So, yes, it does say that he is judging among the gods.  I showed you with other scripture where "God" judged the "gods" but you choose to ignore it.  Your problem is that if you accept the bible "as is" then that means you have to accept Zeus, Mithra, Zoroaster, Apollo, Aphrodite, Baal, as real beings too.  Just the god that you choose is YHWH.  It's not sin to believe in other gods but it is to worship them. ;-)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thankful, I truly like the way you think! Further, I do think that there is a recognition and acceptance of other gods in the bible!

 

Perhaps, this particular passage, though, could be referring to the judges and rulers, people who consider themselves godlike... and the God (plural expression) of love and compassion, sitting 'within' the hearts of this congregation, admonishing their ways filled with lack of compassion in the way they have asserted their power. This, to me, seems more evident after reading the latter part of Psalms 81.

 

I still agree that there are MANY references, often hidden, that justify what you are saying! It is interesting that during my times in research, as you have done, I have found many references to Apollo, Zeus, and others! I don't remember the specific passages, unfortunately did not reference them, yet have wondered exactly what was that all about! I did not pursue it at the time as it was not the 'thread' I was seeking.

 

I too would like to know more... from ANY resource. I bet Lokmer would probably know.

[Cerise]

Thankful, I truly like the way you think! Further, I do think that there is a recognition and acceptance of other gods in the bible!

 

Perhaps, this particular passage, though, could be referring to the judges and rulers, people who consider themselves godlike... and the God (plural expression) of love and compassion, sitting 'within' the hearts of this congregation, admonishing their ways filled with lack of compassion in the way they have asserted their power. This, to me, seems more evident after reading the latter part of Psalms 81.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Or perhaps it could be referring to the new meal deal at Burger King! Why not, since we're doing whatever interpretation we want!

 

I posit that with these passages God is telling us that he gets to wear the paper crown.