 |
| 
Christian
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 78
| Posted 6/12/2003 7:57 PM (GMT -6) |   | Can anyone explain what G. Boyd means with this quote: “the birth and rapid growth of Christianity on Jewish soil becomes intelligible only
when we free ourselves from the standard caricature of ‘pure monotheism’ as entailing the belief that no other gods exist. That Jesus could from the start be portrayed in terms of deity and worshiped in some sense alongside God the Father demonstrates how flexible the Jewish monotheism of the time was.” (from God at War, [pg 121)
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 6/13/2003 4:55 AM (GMT -6) | | I'll admit I haven't read this - but that's not my understanding of Judaism. They are strictly monotheistic, and always have been - in fact that's one reason they reject Jesus- b/c they (mistakenly) make him out to be another "God" besides God that Christians worship polytheistically.
Of course, Christians are also strictly monotheistic, so I don't get what he is driving at. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 6/13/2003 6:01 AM (GMT -6) | | Christian: my own take on this (and I don't claim to "speak" for Doctor Boyd) was that in building his warfare theodicy, Doctor Boyd was trying to show that the "gods" of the Old Testament were actual beings (I believe fallen angels) that had a certain amount of power within a structure that God had set up. Using texts such as the one in Daniel where the angel tells Daniel that he was held up and another angel had to come and up him, Doctor Body shows that their is a structure of both good and bad angels and that these are the "gods" of the Old Testament. I found this part of his book, simply because he admits that God is more powerful than any of these beings and is supreme and uncreated. So I can understand his thesis but I would simply continue to refer to them as fallen angels or angels whose allegience is to God. I just thought it was more confusing than need be. I hope this helps...
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Laplace
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138
| Posted 6/13/2003 6:09 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm not entirely sure myself either, but I'd like to comment on Jewish thought. Some might be speculation, but I think it's fairly accurate.
RD is correct that many Jews adopt a very strict interpretation of ONE God. The Trinity concept is not something easily swallowed. However, it is strange in a way since their word for God (Elohim) is a plural term. In addition, the OT itself refers to the fact that "one" can be more than one ("two becoming one flesh", Genesis 2:24).
To borrow words from C.S. Lewis, I don't think there was any doubt among the Jews what Jesus claimed to be.
"Then comes the real shock. Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He has always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world as the end of time. Now let us get this clear. Among pantheists, like the Indians, anyone might say that he was a part of God, or one with God: there would be nothing very odd about it. But this man since He was a Jew, could not mean that kind of God. God, in their language, meant the being outside the world Who had made it and was infinitely different from anything else. And when you have grasped that, you will see that what this man said was quite simply, the most shocking thing that has been uttered by human lips. " - C.S. Lewis, Mere Christianity
This is echoed in the Gospels. They knew that only God can judge, know the hearts of men, forgive sins, etc.
Perhaps you are asking though how a Jew who has been inbred with the Deuteronomy 6:4 concept can accept Jesus as God. Perhaps the words Paul wrote in I Corinthians can help explain this:
"yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live"
At first glance it seems to confirm that the Father is God and the Son is not, but looking in context, there were TWO words used in the OT for God. Jaweh (LORD) and Elohim (GOD). It's why you often see the words "The LORD your GOD". They are equal. And given exact repetition of words that Paul used to describe each in the abovementioned verse, he seems to have made that "jump" to accepting Jesus as both the Jaweh and Elohim of the OT.
As to why most Jews do not accept Jesus as God or even as the Messiah, I think partially that since they thought they "knew" God for so long, they could guess how He would bring His plan to fruition. Also, I think it was part of God's plan for the fulfilment of the prophesy that the entire world would be blessed through the Jews, with their rejection.
"Balance in all things" - Dak'kon, Planescape Torment | | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 6/13/2003 6:58 AM (GMT -6) | | The OT Jews certainly accepted some sense of plurality in God in that "Sophia" or "Wisdom" (Prov. 8 and elsewhere) is understood to be God, and even has a hand in creation. "Let us create human beings in our image" also implies some plurality (unless one takes the "royal plural" route). These are just a couple of items that are relevant here...there is more...
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Modes of Thought
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817
| Posted 6/13/2003 7:02 AM (GMT -6) | | Let me continue by saying that there seems to be a pattern. When the threat is poly theism (as was surely the case in much of the OT) then the response is to emphasize the "oneness" of God. but when that threat subsides, the emphasis subsides as well. Regardless, there is only One God in three persons, but the three persons are not fully manifest until the NT (and even there the true "fullness" is of course yet to be seen).
The point is, the absolute simplicity of God is an overstatement. Neither testament coherently paints this portrait. There is indeed dynamic plurality within God eternally (including both testaments  ).
"I don't feel a real urgent burden to get all the details of my ethics worked out until I've got the profundity of my love worked out in a Christ-like way." --doc
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/13/2003 8:01 AM (GMT -6) | | From quite a siplistic approach . . .
The gods are created.
They are not to be worshiped.
They are, however, to be respected and feared, for they either serve the purposes of God or of Satan (a god).
Were we perhaps to see into the spirit world, we might have become more apt to use "god" language in reference to these beings. I mean, hey, one angel wipes out almost 200,000 Assyrians all by his lonesome (in the OT). I'm not going to worship this angel, but such godlike displays of power (though in the negative) raises the ante just a tad above the human bet.
It's a term, god is. But it's meant to convey something of "that" world in which "those" beings exists. Beings that are quite powerful.
Just my take on the subject.
Starkman
Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown | | Back to Top | | |
|
Christian
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 78
| Posted 6/13/2003 10:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Am I correct then in saying that Boyd, and it sounds to me like Starkman, believe there are more gods other than God? Starkman, you said, "The gods are created." I know of no other gods other than God (Jesus, Holy Spirit). Are you referring to "fallen angels?" Could anyone refer me to verses where fallen angels are called "gods." I would like to read it. How do angels equate to being gods though? When I read that quote by G. Boyd, I get the impression that he is saying that we need to "free ourselves" from this belief of "monotheism." In other words, there is not monotheism. He seems to be alluding to a polytheism. Perhaps I should not have added the last sentence of the quote. I'm not as much wondering about the Jewish beliefs but rather the comment about freeing ourselves from believing in one God. In essence, it sounds to me that he is saying there are other gods. This blows me away to be honest, but I can't imagine he possbibly believes there are other gods. I am not comfortable with referring to angels, or demons, as gods. I guess I would agree with you on that one Honorman, that I'd prefer to call them angels. Your comments helped clarify although I still, like RD, don't quite know what G. Boyd is driving at here.
Edited by - Christian on 06/13/2003 3:18:21 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laplace
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138
| Posted 6/13/2003 10:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Christian,
I don't believe that Gregboyd denies the Trinity doctrine, or is either a pantheist, henotheist, or kathenotheist. He is not calling these other beings equal to the one and only God.
Sometimes, the Bible uses the term "gods" meaning beings that are lesser, but for some reason or another, hold some authority or power (Saying Satan is the "god" of this world). Take a look at the following Psalm:
Psalm 82
1 God presides in the great assembly;
he gives judgment among the "gods":
2 "How long will you defend the unjust
and show partiality to the wicked?
Selah
3 Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless;
maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed.
4 Rescue the weak and needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
5 "They know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
6 "I said, 'You are "gods";
you are all sons of the Most High.'
7 But you will die like mere men;
you will fall like every other ruler."
8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
for all the nations are your inheritance.
Now, this is quoted later in John, when Jesus was accused for blasphemy
Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?"
"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."
Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I have said you are gods'? If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God came--and the Scripture cannot be broken-- what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'? Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."
Jesus used this rather unusual quote as part of an argument to reveal the hypocrisy of His enemies. They didn't protest the statement by Asaph (Psalm 82) that referred to human judges as "gods," yet they denounced this Sinless One when He claimed the title "Son of God".
And finally, when God says in His Commandment we are to have no other gods before Him, doesn't mean that there are others like Him, but simply we are not to place our faith/devotion/etc. to anything else but Him because He's the only one worthy of worship and adoration (Duet 6:13-15).
Hope this helps clears the confusion.
"Balance in all things" - Dak'kon, Planescape Torment
Edited by - Laplace on 06/13/2003 3:44:34 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/13/2003 11:47 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Laplace
Sometimes, the Bible uses the term "gods" meaning beings that are lesser...
I read a book on the early formations (Pre-NT) of what ended up being able to be articulated as the Trinity. God used lots of cultures to bring together the ideas and words with which his spirit-moved prophets and Evangelists (Mt/Mk/Lk/Jn) could say what needed saying.
INTERMISSION: Don't let Boyd's book off the hook--keep after it; but listen to what I'm saying and Laplace too!
The "ideas" of the Spirit of God were very vague when the earlies portions of Scripture were being written. (In fact, the parts that some people like to "proof-text" in favor of the OV are really just from that period.) Sayings like the Spirit of God causing distruction are abstractions for saying what no one had any other way of saying at the time and in that culture. "Wisdom" and "Spirit" were not attached to the idea of God -- they were associated, but they were not identified as the God-head/Trinity. Bigger issues were being worked out. God had to wean whole civilizations off of thinking that the Sky-god was too distant, or that the vegitation-god was too capricious. (So, before we think that God should have acted differently in history, a little historical focus might being us a measure of humility. It was "hard" for mankind to work its way--with God's help--to Bethlehem.) Fast forward: Zarethustra in Iran and the Qumran "Dead Sea Scroll guys helped in the formation of the idea and terminology (not the revelation) of the Divine Logos. All that, from the very earliest days to the penning of the language of John 1:1 ("In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God...") took time.
But what Boyd was saying in what this thread quoted, I haven't a clue.
Keep asking!
PoW
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 06/13/2003 4:50:08 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 6/13/2003 12:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Laplace,
Nicely said!
Starkman
Am I right? I say, am I right?
Charlie Brown | | Back to Top | | |
|
Christian
Registered Member
Date Joined May 2003
Total Posts : 78
| Posted 6/14/2003 9:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Your comments have helped shed some light. I suppose only G. Boyd could clarify exactly what he means with this particular quote. It still stumps me as to exactly what he is getting at but I appreciate the attempts to explain. God bless.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 6/14/2003 11:28 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Your comments have helped shed some light. I suppose only G. Boyd could clarify exactly what he means with this particular quote. It still stumps me as to exactly what he is getting at but I appreciate the attempts to explain. God bless.
Care to SCAN a page or two for context, and see if that helpe anyone more familiar with the book. (I've only read his "Letters to a S.") | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 6/16/2003 4:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Joshua 24:14,15
“Now therefore fear the Lord, serve Him in sincerity and in truth, and put away the gods which your fathers served on the other side of the River and in Egypt. Serve the Lord! And if it seems evil to you to serve the Lord, choose for yourselves this day whom you will serve, whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the River, or the gods of the Amorites in whose land you dwell. But as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord”
Perhaps Boyd is referring to the idea that the Jews knew there was only one God yet referred to the idols worshipped by other nations as gods as well. These other gods weren't believed to be true gods but were seen as spiritual agents at war with the only true God. It's semantics. God often portrayed the fight as Him against other gods.
I detect a bit of sarcasm from God when He portrays it that way.
If one were to say, "some people have money as their god", we don't think they're advocating that there actually is more than one God.
Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through?
Edited by - Laika on 06/16/2003 09:25:04 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laplace
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 138
| Posted 6/16/2003 5:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika,
That is probably not the case. It most likely is the case that most the Israelites thought that there WERE other gods along with Jaweh. Perhaps their perception of which was more powerful varied, but it's clear that they believed these other gods to exist.
The evidence for this position stems from the fact that before they left enslavement in Egypt, the Hebrews lived among a pagan society for over 400 years. During that time, they were indoctrinated with the philosophy of polytheism. They were taught that there were many gods, so naturally they adopted this philosophy.
When Jaweh revealed Himself to them, they acknowledged He was a god, but that He was just one many other gods. They really did not have the concept of monotheism until much much later. This is shown that once they entered the promised land, because they did not annihilate all the Canaanites as instructed, they were once again tainted with bad theology and worshiped other gods, even sacrificing their children to them. Again, during the time of the Judges it was the same way. And during the time of the Kings, even in the temple Solomon built there were holy artifacts and rooms dedicated to the Baal's and other gods.
But this does not contradict the Biblical interpretation of the word "gods" in Scripture. For some, it did literally mean polytheism as indicated above. For others like ourselves who are strictly monotheistic, might consider the term meaning lesser beings than dieties, or symbolic for "idolistic worship" like money.
"Balance in all things" - Dak'kon, Planescape Torment | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 6/16/2003 5:21 AM (GMT -6) | | Good stuff, Laplace. I see your point. But at some time God finally got through to the Jews that there was only one God because by the time of the New Testament, they were firmly there. So much that they wanted to stone Jesus when He claimed, "before Abraham was, I AM".
Even though the skies are blue, don't they let the sunshine through? | | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 6/16/2003 8:49 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
Ochuk
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 102
| Posted 6/17/2003 11:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Christian:
I just read "God at War" and he has good deal to say about "true monotheism."
He says that God is the supreme creator of all that have power, but there are beings that have power. "gods" is his word for angles (i.e. the heavenly council).
Does that help?
Read my blog at ochuk.gizzar.com | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 4:11 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|