What and who is God referring to in Genesis 1:26?

[Shermana]

Eusebius WAS exiled.

Constantine later on revoked the ban on Arius and his teachings at the Synod of Tyre, and gave Athanasius the proverbial finger. Strange thing to do to the leader of the majority position if he was looking for a majority consensus.

Interestingly, the Imperial Family converted to Arianism despite the fact that this was the minority position of the Empire. How strange, perhaps they were onto the fact that the Trinitarian majority were talking crazy talk.

 

[Shiranui117]

Eusebius WAS exiled.

Constantine later on revoked the ban on Arius and his teachings at the Synod of Tyre, and gave Athanasius the proverbial finger. Strange thing to do to the leader of the majority position if he was looking for a majority consensus.

Interestingly, the Imperial Family converted to Arianism despite the fact that this was the minority position of the Empire. How strange, perhaps they were onto the fact that the Trinitarian majority were talking crazy talk.

Or maybe there were political benefits to being Arian, such as the fact that many hierarchs in the Eastern Church were still Arians and Arian sympathizers, as were many higher-ups in the Imperial government. So it would have been better for Constantine to go with the position that held more sway in the Empire, in order to ensure that no one had a reason to challenge his rule.

So no, even after Nicaea, the Arians still had a VERY strong hold. It would be a while before the true, Trinitarian faith won out.

 

[outhouse]

He may have commissioned Bibles, but the canon hadn't officially been closed yet. Codex Vaticanus is a notable example; it includes several books in its New Testament that we don't have in our New Testament of today.


Even if he did force unification, he didn't care HOW the Church was unified. He didn't care which doctrine won out, nor, as Wiki says, did he really know enough to be able to care.

Also, it seems that Constantine did an about-face; he took counsel from Eusebius of Nicomedia, who was an Arian. If Constantine really exiled EVERY Arian, then he would have exiled Eusebius and not taken counsel from him. Constantine was even baptized on his deathbed by Arians.

I agree he didn't care. My point was just that there was a division of belief on Jesus divinity.

I would think he knew very well what was going on. This is one case I can almost prove wiki wrong. You do know he sat in and judged a previous Christian issue in the Empire don't you?

You also know he had a certain amount of faith in Jesus after winning his battle.

Constantine was a very well educated and knowledgeable person, I hardly think he was ignorant on the topic.

With his mom being Christian, his Christian education really shouldn't be to much in question.


And as far as him doing a flip flop, its natural. The trinity dogma is very hard to rationalize. its exactly why I'm not a Christian after being raised in a private Lutheran church school. What do you mean he is not the son of god? he's the same person? well then he isn't the son then is he? he is? That's where I drew the line.

 

[Shermana]

Or maybe there were political benefits to being Arian, such as the fact that many hierarchs in the Eastern Church were still Arians and Arian sympathizers, as were many higher-ups in the Imperial government. So it would have been better for Constantine to go with the position that held more sway in the Empire, in order to ensure that no one had a reason to challenge his rule.

So no, even after Nicaea, the Arians still had a VERY strong hold. It would be a while before the true, Trinitarian faith won out.

That just further plays into the point, why would the Hierarchs be so into Arianism if this was against the majority position of the empire? It wasn't just Constantine's decision. The idea that Constantine (and those who supported and influenced his decisions) would nonetheless repudiate the Heresiarch Athanasius at the Synod of Tyre and risk alienating the grand majority of his Christian subjects defies logic if it was simply to go with what was most secure to his power. If it was all about power, the Nobility would realize the threat to their holdings by going against the majority position. So it may have been all about power politics at Nicea, but later on, probably not so much.

So at first, the true and Arian doctrine of Christology was attempted to be stamped out to placate the masses and forge unity. I don't think Constantine just woke up and said "Hey, my royal officer and family are more important than the beliefs of the grand majority of my empire in terms of staying power", or any of the other emperors afterwards. To throw Athanasius under the bus like that could have been far more politically suicidal than throwing the Arian royalty under the bus. Indeed, the Arian position did hold sway with the Royals, but this begs a key question: Was it now because of their personal beliefs and not so much for political expediency? The Imperial Family would likely recognize that their private, minority beliefs would have to compromise with the Majority, so I highly doubt they were the greater threat to power.

Either way, nonetheless, there's probably a reason why the Aristocracy aligned with the Arian position until much later on, and probably because they realized how much crazy talk the whole wordsmithing Trinitarian position was full of. Exactly as Outhouse says, they probably were wise and educated enough, being Nobles, to realize how irrational the position was and how many holes there were in it. They probably didn't appreciate the official idea of something being "Beyond human understanding" as a substitute for having rationality.

And as far as him doing a flip flop, its natural. The trinity dogma is very hard to rationalize.

As for "winning out", the side that "Won out", won out through the sword. Sad that the Arian Goths had to wage war against the Arian Thracians and weaken the position of the true understanding.

Regardless, most Trinitarian scholars are now abandoning the Genesis 1:26 route, as the article states. Even the NIV hints that the Jewish position of it being the Angels is correct.

And this verse should shed light that the "us" is clearly referring to the "gods". Especially since they would be "as gods". There's no way one can twist "one of us" to mean the Royal We or God talking to Himself in another "person".

Behold, the man has become like one of Us, to know good and evil.

Why would the Serpent say "as gods" if there was no indication of who these "gods" were at the time?

 

[Domenic]

I once knew a man who took years to learn Hebrew. Truly his intention was to get a clear understanding of Gods word. He did learn Hebrew…but found he could still not
understand the meaning of scripture. God does not open the eye of everybody…why do you think that is?

 

[outhouse]

Why would the Serpent say "as gods" if there was no indication of who these "gods" were at the time?

You cannot deny the Canaanite herritage of Israelites.

Isrealites started Polytheistic and worshipped a family of gods.

All the early books were redacted to monotheism after 622 BC. So the redactors would have never mentioned the family of gods when they were pushing the whole nation towards montheism.

 

[outhouse]

I once knew a man who took years to learn Hebrew. Truly his intention was to get a clear understanding of Gods word. He did learn Hebrew…but found he could still not
understand the meaning of scripture. God does not open the eye of everybody…why do you think that is?

Only by study of cultural anthropology, and following scholarships on the OT can one even begin to understand the OT.

If you cannot place the words in context of the time being used, and what the culture was really trying to say, you will be lost.


Its why you go to church and have a preacher or priest trained in biblical studies teach you. [or synagogue]

 

[Shermana]

You cannot deny the Canaanite herritage of Israelites.

Isrealites started Polytheistic and worshipped a family of gods.

All the early books were redacted to monotheism after 622 BC. So the redactors would have never mentioned the family of gods when they were pushing the whole nation towards montheism.

Do I not consistently argue that the Israelites were Henotheistic and that the "Angels" were called "gods"?

 

[outhouse]

Do I not consistently argue that the Israelites were Henotheistic and that the "Angels" were called "gods"?

That does not Address El, Yahweh, Baal and Asherah as a family unit.

It also doesnt address the multicultural nature ofJudaism early on.

 

[Shiranui117]

That just further plays into the point, why would the Hierarchs be so into Arianism if this was against the majority position of the empire? It wasn't just Constantine's decision. The idea that Constantine (and those who supported and influenced his decisions) would nonetheless repudiate the Heresiarch Athanasius at the Synod of Tyre and risk alienating the grand majority of his Christian subjects defies logic if it was simply to go with what was most secure to his power. If it was all about power, the Nobility would realize the threat to their holdings by going against the majority position. So it may have been all about power politics at Nicea, but later on, probably not so much.

Even after the First Council of Constantinople, the Orthodox Christians were still very weak politically. They even still had things to fear from the Jews' level of power, if that gives you any idea of how unsteady their position in society was. The only reason that the Arians concerned Constantine at all was because of the fact that the Arian party consisted of many members of the Imperial hierarchy.

Also, many Christian heresiarchs were iconoclasts and Monophysites and Nestorians. Does this make their teachings true? No. St. Athanasius was correct, because he held to the original, Trinitarian teaching of the Church.

So at first, the true and Arian doctrine of Christology was attempted to be stamped out to placate the masses and forge unity.

Sure, I'll let you go on thinking that.

I don't think Constantine just woke up and said "Hey, my royal officer and family are more important than the beliefs of the grand majority of my empire in terms of staying power",

Where do you get the idea that Christians formed "the grand majority" of the Empire?

To throw Athanasius under the bus like that could have been far more politically suicidal than throwing the Arian royalty under the bus.

Not at all. The Christians were just catching their breath; not twenty years ago, they were being persecuted under Diocletian. A religion whose followers who had come out of the catacombs after living for centuries in fear of the Empire is NOT a religion that's going to be dominating the political scene.

Indeed, the Arian position did hold sway with the Royals, but this begs a key question: Was it now because of their personal beliefs and not so much for political expediency? The Imperial Family would likely recognize that their private, minority beliefs would have to compromise with the Majority, so I highly doubt they were the greater threat to power.

You're assuming that democracy was actually a thing in the Roman Empire. People didn't go around overthrowing governments just because the religion of their leaders was different than their own. It really didn't matter that much; even when the Church was powerful, it STILL got bossed around by the State *cough*Iconoclasm*cough*

Either way, nonetheless, there's probably a reason why the Aristocracy aligned with the Arian position until much later on, and probably because they realized how much crazy talk the whole wordsmithing Trinitarian position was full of.

Your own non-authoritative speculation. Unless you have an actual, scholarly source to support your claim?

Exactly as Outhouse says, they probably were wise and educated enough, being Nobles, to realize how irrational the position was and how many holes there were in it.

That's twisting his words around, don't you think? He just said that it's hard to rationalize, not that wise and educated people reject the Trinity.

Way to be arrogant about it, man.

They probably didn't appreciate the official idea of something being "Beyond human understanding" as a substitute for having rationality.
As for "winning out", the side that "Won out", won out through the sword. Sad that the Arian Goths had to wage war against the Arian Thracians and weaken the position of the true understanding.

Regardless, most Trinitarian scholars are now abandoning the Genesis 1:26 route, as the article states. Even the NIV hints that the Jewish position of it being the Angels is correct.

The NIV's a joke translation, anyway.

And this verse should shed light that the "us" is clearly referring to the "gods". Especially since they would be "as gods". There's no way one can twist "one of us" to mean the Royal We or God talking to Himself in another "person".

ITT: Assuming henotheistic remnants in the Hebrew Bible means that all Jews are henotheists

Why would the Serpent say "as gods" if there was no indication of who these "gods" were at the time?

Funny, all the translations I'm seeing of Genesis 3:5 say "you will be like God".

 

[Shermana]

Even after the First Council of Constantinople, the Orthodox Christians were still very weak politically. They even still had things to fear from the Jews' level of power, if that gives you any idea of how unsteady their position in society was. The only reason that the Arians concerned Constantine at all was because of the fact that the Arian party consisted of many members of the Imperial hierarchy.

Regardless how weak they were, and I don't think they were THAT weak by that time, and I'd love to see a source on how much they had to fear from the Jews' power, I fail to see why they would even convert in the first place if it was so weak, very few argue that the Imperial Family true believed. With that said, a minority position would make their hold even weaker.

Also, many Christian heresiarchs were iconoclasts and Monophysites and Nestorians. Does this make their teachings true? No. St. Athanasius was correct, because he held to the original, Trinitarian teaching of the Church.

Athanasius was only correct in the eyes of Trinitarians, and even then some of his views were considered heretical later by Trinitarians themselves.

Sure, I'll let you go on thinking that.

Sounds good. How would you not let me? Use some new arguments that I haven't gone over before that somehow prove that the "person" and "essence" arguments actually are valid?

Where do you get the idea that Christians formed "the grand majority" of the Empire?

The majority was Pagan. I meant "Grand majority of Christians".

Not at all. The Christians were just catching their breath; not twenty years ago, they were being persecuted under Diocletian. A religion whose followers who had come out of the catacombs after living for centuries in fear of the Empire is NOT a religion that's going to be dominating the political scene.

And yet you think that the conversion of the Imperial Family to Arianism was fully authentic and Constantine would throw the leader of the majority of this movement's leader under the bus under fear of the authentically-believing Arian family?

You're assuming that democracy was actually a thing in the Roman Empire. People didn't go around overthrowing governments just because the religion of their leaders was different than their own. It really didn't matter that much; even when the Church was powerful, it STILL got bossed around by the State *cough*Iconoclasm*cough*

Where did I say anything about democracy? I said the Imperial Family, who may not have been authentically Christian but may have authentically thought the Arian position was the superior one, would probably not want to challenge the majority of the Christians politically.

Your own non-authoritative speculation. Unless you have an actual, scholarly source to support your claim?

Everyone's speculation is non-authoritative. What other reason do you think the Imperial Family chose Arianism? I will try to find some material on the subject later.

That's twisting his words around, don't you think? He just said that it's hard to rationalize, not that wise and educated people reject the Trinity.

I'll have to ask Outhouse what exactly he meant by the "hard to rationalize" thing.

Way to be arrogant about it, man.

Simply a countermeasure to assertions that the Trinity is true.

The NIV's a joke translation, anyway.

I agree, but I fail to see what that has to do with how most Trinitarian scholars abandoning the Genesis 1:26 route. Calling it a "joke" translation in any event is being arrogant as a means of handwaving and brushing aside something. Especially when you talk of non-authoritative speculation. As much as I dislike the NIV, I would at least offer countering scholarly views on a particular point of contention.

ITT: Assuming henotheistic remnants in the Hebrew Bible means that all Jews are henotheists

We see evidence in the Masoretic such as the change in Deuteroomy 32:8 that there was indeed a shift away towards what they considered pure "Monotheism", possibly an overzealous reaction to what they perceived as Hellenism. Either way, we see in Josephus that this belief was still present before the Masoretic age.

Funny, all the translations I'm seeing of Genesis 3:5 say "you will be like God"

All the translations you don't regard as jokes?

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Daniel Wallace's translation works too. Divine beings.

NET Bible (©2006)
for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will open and you will be like divine beings who know good and evil.

Douay-Rheims Bible
For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil.

Webster's Bible Translation
For God doth know, that in the day ye eat of it, then your eyes shall be opened: and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

 

[Shiranui117]

Regardless how weak they were, and I don't think they were THAT weak by that time, and I'd love to see a source on how much they had to fear from the Jews' power, I fail to see why they would even convert in the first place if it was so weak, very few argue that the Imperial Family true believed. With that said, a minority position would make their hold even weaker.

I'm not sure why the other higher-ups in the Imperial government converted; they most likely found value in the steadfast faith of Christians.

As to your question about the Christians' fear of the Jews...


"The purpose of these attacks [in St. John Chrysostom's Adversus Judaeos] was to prevent Christians from joining with Jewish customs, and thus prevent the erosion of Chrysostom's flock. Robert L. Wilken contends that applying the modern label of Anti-Semitism onto St. John Chrysostom is anachronistic. He particularly focuses on the rhetorical genre that St. John employed in these homilies, and points out that St. John was using the genre of psogos (or invective):

"The psogos was supposed to present unrelieved denigration of the subject. As one ancient teacher of rhetoric put it, the psogos is "only condemnation" and sets forth only the "bad things about someone" (Aphthonius Rhet. Graeci 2.40).... In psogos, the rhetor used omission to hide the subject's good traits or amplification to exaggerate his worsts features, and the cardinal rule was never to say anything positive about the subject. Even "when good things are done they are proclaimed in the worst light" (Aristides Rhet. Graeci 2.506). In an encomium, one passes over a man's faults in order to praise him, and in a psogos, one passed over his virtues to defame him. Such principles are explicit in the handbooks of the rhetors, but an interesting passage from the church historian Socrates, writing in the mid fifth century, shows that the rules for invective were simply taken for granted by men and women of the late Roman world. In discussing Libanius's [St. John's Pagan instructor in Rhetoric] orations in praise of the emperor Julian [the Apostate], Socrates explains that Libanius magnifies and exaggerates Julian's virtues because he is an "outstanding sophist" (Hist. eccl. 3.23). The point is that one should not expect a fair presentation in a psagos, for that is not its purpose. The psogos is designed to attack someone, says Socrates, and is taught by the sophist in the schools as one of the rudiments of their skills.... Echoing the same rhetorical background, Augustine said that, in preparing an encomium on the emperor, he intended "that it should include a great many lies," and that the audience would know "how far from the truth they were" (Conf. 6.6)." (p. 112).[2]
​

Another important point of context that Wilkens highlights is the reign of Julian the Apostate, and the way he used the Jews (and was used by them) to undercut Christianity. Julian had even planned to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, primarily because he believed it would refute Christ's prophesies about the destruction of the Temple. This happened when St. John was a young man, and so Christians at this time had no reason to believe that they had a firm position in society that could not be overturned in a short period of time. Thus polemics against the Jews were not the polemics of a group with a firm grip on power, but the polemics of a group that had reason to fear what the future might bring.

"The Roman Empire in the fourth century was not the world of Byzantium or medieval Europe. The institutions of traditional Hellenic culture and society were still very much alive in John Chrysostom's day. The Jews were a vital and visible presence in Antioch and elsewhere in the Roman Empire, and they continued to be a formidable rival to the Christians. Judaizing Christians were widespread. Christianity was still in the process of establishing its place within the society and was undermined by internal strife and apathetic adherents. Without an appreciation of this setting, we cannot understand why John preached the homilies and why he responds to the Judaizers with such passion and fervor. The medieval image of the Jew should not be imposed on antiquity. Every act of historical understanding is an act of empathy. When I began to study John Chrysostom's writings on the Jews, I was inclined to judge what he said in light of the unhappy history of Jewish-Christian relations and the sad events in Jewish history in modern times. As much as I feel a deep sense of moral responsibility for the attitudes and actions of Christians toward the Jews, I am no longer ready to project these later attitudes unto the events of the fourth century. No matter how outraged Christians feel over the Christian record of dealing with the Jews, we have no license to judge the distant past on the basis of our present perceptions of events of more recent times' [3] -Source
​

Athanasius was only correct in the eyes of Trinitarians, and even then some of his views were considered heretical later by Trinitarians themselves.

Such as? The so-called "Athanasian Creed" wasn't written by him, so if that's what you were gonna say, you'll need to find something else.

Sounds good. How would you not let me? Use some new arguments that I haven't gone over before that somehow prove that the "person" and "essence" arguments actually are valid?

Right now we're talking history. You wouldn't change your mind about the Trinity even if I did give you convincing proof.

The majority was Pagan. I meant "Grand majority of Christians".

K then.

And yet you think that the conversion of the Imperial Family to Arianism was fully authentic and Constantine would throw the leader of the majority of this movement's leader under the bus under fear of the authentically-believing Arian family?

Where did I say anything about democracy? I said the Imperial Family, who may not have been authentically Christian but may have authentically thought the Arian position was the superior one, would probably not want to challenge the majority of the Christians politically.

What reason would they have to challenge the Christians politically? As long as they paid their taxes, didn't start riots and generally followed the law, what did the Imperial family and Eastern court care?

Everyone's speculation is non-authoritative. What other reason do you think the Imperial Family chose Arianism? I will try to find some material on the subject later.

Because a lot of members in the Eastern court of the Empire were already Arians.

Constantine was baptised into Christianity just before his death in May 337 by his distant relative Arianian Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia. During Eusebius of Nicomedia's time in the Imperial court, the Eastern court and the major positions in the Eastern Church were held by Arians or Arian sympathizers. -Source
​

I agree, but I fail to see what that has to do with how most Trinitarian scholars abandoning the Genesis 1:26 route. Calling it a "joke" translation in any event is being arrogant as a means of handwaving and brushing aside something. Especially when you talk of non-authoritative speculation. As much as I dislike the NIV, I would at least offer countering scholarly views on a particular point of contention.

I'm too lazy to offer scholarly sources on the obvious.

We see evidence in the Masoretic such as the change in Deuteroomy 32:8 that there was indeed a shift away towards what they considered pure "Monotheism", possibly an overzealous reaction to what they perceived as Hellenism. Either way, we see in Josephus that this belief was still present before the Masoretic age.

What evidence do you have that the Israelite religion was henotheistic after the Babylonian Captivity?

All the translations you don't regard as jokes?

King James Bible (Cambridge Ed.)
For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Daniel Wallace's translation works too. Divine beings.

NET Bible (©2006)
for God knows that when you eat from it your eyes will open and you will be like divine beings who know good and evil.

Douay-Rheims Bible
For God doth know that in what day soever you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened: and you shall be as Gods, knowing good and evil.

Webster's Bible Translation
For God doth know, that in the day ye eat of it, then your eyes shall be opened: and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

Even this doesn't imply that there are other gods besides YHWH in Genesis. It just states that Adam and Eve would become like gods themselves. Now if it was as THE gods, you'd have something.

 

[Shermana]

I'm not sure why the other higher-ups in the Imperial government converted; they most likely found value in the steadfast faith of Christians.

The question is, whether that value was authentic religious value.

"The purpose of these attacks [in St. John Chrysostom's Adversus Judaeos] was to prevent Christians from joining with Jewish customs, and thus prevent the erosion of Chrysostom's flock. Robert L. Wilken contends that applying the modern label of Anti-Semitism onto St. John Chrysostom is anachronistic. He particularly focuses on the rhetorical genre that St. John employed in these homilies, and points out that St. John was using the genre of psogos (or invective):

"​

[/quote]

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the Jews' power other than the claim that Christians were following Jewish customs, but this brings up an excellent point, Socrates did mention that even until the 5th century, most Christians outside of Rome and Alexandria were following Sabbath, and that the Church actively tried to stamp this out by force later on. So if you're saying the "Fear of the Jews" had to do with the efforts to Dejudaize the Christian movement, then I can see what you're talking about, there was still a lot of residue of Jewish Christianity in the church which was forcefully snuffed out by the anti-Judaizers, seeing as it posed a threat to their antinomian policies.
​

Such as? The so-called "Athanasian Creed" wasn't written by him, so if that's what you were gonna say, you'll need to find something else.

Athanasius the Heretic « Lehi's Library

’m adding this to the blog because it is an interesting footnote of history, and one that I think could be useful. The hero of many Trinitarians turns out to be a bit of heretic himself. This is from Evangelical scholar Roger Olson in his book “The Story of Christian Theology.” I’ve kept the same footnote numbers he used, and I added my note own at the end:

He is truly one of the great heroes of the faith, and yet, like Origen before him, he left a troubling legacy. Unlike Origen, Athanasius’s reputation is unsullied in all major branches of Christendom. Although some of his opinions turned out to be heretical by later standards of orthodoxy, he was never condemned or even harshly criticized. (pg 162)
Here it will be beneficial to quote at some length from Athanasius’s great classic text On the Incarnation of the Word in order to illustrate his vision of the connection between salvation and incarnation:
He [the Logos] took pity on our race, and had mercy on our infirmity, and condescended to our corruption, and, unable to bear that death should have the mastery—lest the creature should perish, and His Father’s handiwork in men be spent for nought—He takes unto Himself a body, and that of no different sort from ours…And thus taking from our bodies one of like nature, because all were under penalty of the corruption of death He gave it over to death in the stead of all, and offered it to the Father—doing this, moreover, of His loving-kindness, to the end that, firstly, all being held to have died in Him, the law involving the ruin of men might be undone (inasmuch as its power was fully spent in the Lord’s body, and had no longer holding-ground against men, his peers), and that, secondly, whereas men had turned toward corruption, He migh turn them again towards incorruption, and quicken them from death by the appropriation of His body and by the grace of the Resurrection, banishing death from them like straw from the fire.
On the one hand, this beautiful theological description of Christ’s work on our behalf well illustrates why Athanasius considered it so essential that he be divine as well as human. If he were something less than truly God, his life could hardly banish death from mortal bodies. On the other hand, the statement also illustrates a problem in Athanasius’s Christology. It leaves unanswered a question, and therein lies the “troubling legacy” Athanasius left behind for later theologians to wrestle with. The question is how Jesus Christ could accomplish the work of salvation if only his body or flesh was truly human and the divine Logos—the Son of God—remained immutable and impassible and even outside of the body throughout Jesus’ life and death? Is this then a real incarnation? Did the Son of God actualy experience birth, suffering, and death? Athanasius’s answer is that he only experienced such creaturely things through the human body that he took on. The Son of God was himself in no way limited or diminished or hindered or caused to change or suffer through the incarnation. 15
What kind of “incarnation” is that? one may fairly ask. Even during Athanasius’s own lifetime another theologian named Apollinarius taught a view of the person of Jesus Christ nearly identitical to Athanasius, and it was declared heretical at the Council of Constantinople in 381. It appears that Athanasius, as great as he was, was an “Apollinarian before Apollinarius.”16 * (pg. 170-171)
15. Athanasius On the Incarnation of the Word, 8.2 and 4.
16. Young, From Nicea to Chalcedon, pp. 74-75
​

Right now we're talking history. You wouldn't change your mind about the Trinity even if I did give you convincing proof.

You wouldn't change yours even if I gave you "convincing proof". The question remains of what is "Convincing proof". It seems every argument and translation used by Trinitarians that they consider "Convincing proof" isn't exactly all that convincing except to themselves, and has many counterviews, often even by Trinitarians themselves. But if we're talking about history, let's stop insisting which view if "true" as part of our argument.

What reason would they have to challenge the Christians politically? As long as they paid their taxes, didn't start riots and generally followed the law, what did the Imperial family and Eastern court care?

So then why would Constantine be so worried about his Arian family court if it wasn't politically motivated, and why would the imperial family even turn to Arianism if they didn't feel that the arguments of the Trinitarian were shoddy?

Because a lot of members in the Eastern court of the Empire were already Arians.

Constantine was baptised into Christianity just before his death in May 337 by his distant relative Arianian Bishop Eusebius of Nicomedia. During Eusebius of Nicomedia's time in the Imperial court, the Eastern court and the major positions in the Eastern Church were held by Arians or Arian sympathizers. -Source​

Right, we've established that, but in relation to your argument, what made them decide to be Arian if you disagree with my claim that they probably found the Trinitarian doctrines and wordsmithing to be "crazy talk", and why would they care what Constantine did? Why would Constantine wait so long to reinstate Arius and why would they demand him to kick Athanasius to the curb? If Christianity was so important to them now all of the sudden, then they either authentically viewed Arianism as correct, or they saw some political benefit in remaining Arian, but I doubt Constantine would make the Synod of Tyre solely to placate them out of fear of losing power from them.

I'm too lazy to offer scholarly sources on the obvious.

Uh huh. Well it's obvious that most Trinitarian scholars, regardless of the NIV, are abandoning the Genesis 1:26 route and are agreeing that is in fact, as the Jews say, the Angels.

What evidence do you have that the Israelite religion was henotheistic after the Babylonian Captivity?

Josephus as I've pointed out here and in other threads, where I had to explain to you that the Sybilline Oracles in question were not pagan at all, not to mention Philo depending on how you interpret him. And the Septuagint of Deuteronomy 32:8 of course. I could even use the Hebrews translation of Psalm 8:5 for gods as "Angels". What evidence do you have they weren't?

Even this doesn't imply that there are other gods besides YHWH in Genesis. It just states that Adam and Eve would become like gods themselves. Now if it was as THE gods, you'd have something.

So about the "like one of us" part...And then there's Deuteronomy 10:17, when it says "god of the gods", it's referring to live beings they thought actually existed just like "lord of the lords" implies real lords. Furthermore, it doesn't need "the gods" to understand that they would have known what "gods" means in such usage. Such articulation is not necessary to convey that they would have understood the concept of "gods".

 

[Poisonshady313]

Here's a midrashic explanation.

(If you don't know what a midrash is, google it.)

"When Moses transcribed the Torah and came to the verse ‘let US make man' (which is written in the plural and implies that there is more than one Creator), Moses said: ‘Master of the Universe! Why do you thus furnish a pretext for heretics to maintain that there is a plurality of divinities' ‘Write!' The Lord replied. ‘Whoever wishes to err will err ... instead, let them learn from their Creator, Who after creating all, took counsel with the ministering angels to create Man.'
​

 

[Shiranui117]

The question is, whether that value was authentic religious value.

Not quite sure what you're getting at here.

I'm not sure what any of that has to do with the Jews' power other than the claim that Christians were following Jewish customs,

Of course you read only the first part about the Judaizing heresy and nothing else. Let's try this again, this time with the other section that you conveniently skipped over:

Another important point of context that Wilkens highlights is the reign of Julian the Apostate, and the way he used the Jews (and was used by them) to undercut Christianity. Julian had even planned to rebuild the Temple in Jerusalem, primarily because he believed it would refute Christ's prophesies about the destruction of the Temple. This happened when St. John was a young man, and so Christians at this time had no reason to believe that they had a firm position in society that could not be overturned in a short period of time. Thus polemics against the Jews were not the polemics of a group with a firm grip on power, but the polemics of a group that had reason to fear what the future might bring.

"The Roman Empire in the fourth century was not the world of Byzantium or medieval Europe. The institutions of traditional Hellenic culture and society were still very much alive in John Chrysostom's day. The Jews were a vital and visible presence in Antioch and elsewhere in the Roman Empire, and they continued to be a formidable rival to the Christians. Judaizing Christians were widespread. Christianity was still in the process of establishing its place within the society and was undermined by internal strife and apathetic adherents. Without an appreciation of this setting, we cannot understand why John preached the homilies and why he responds to the Judaizers with such passion and fervor. The medieval image of the Jew should not be imposed on antiquity. Every act of historical understanding is an act of empathy. When I began to study John Chrysostom's writings on the Jews, I was inclined to judge what he said in light of the unhappy history of Jewish-Christian relations and the sad events in Jewish history in modern times. As much as I feel a deep sense of moral responsibility for the attitudes and actions of Christians toward the Jews, I am no longer ready to project these later attitudes unto the events of the fourth century. No matter how outraged Christians feel over the Christian record of dealing with the Jews, we have no license to judge the distant past on the basis of our present perceptions of events of more recent times' [3]​

Athanasius the Heretic « Lehi's Library

That's a stretch, and not proof that Athanasius was Apollinarian. The Apollinarian heresy was that the Logos had a human body, but absolutely fo sho did not have a human soul. I don't see any evidence that Athanasius thought the same.

So then why would Constantine be so worried about his Arian family court if it wasn't politically motivated, and why would the imperial family even turn to Arianism if they didn't feel that the arguments of the Trinitarian were shoddy?

Because many members of the Imperial court could have been converted by Arians first, and because one of the Emperor's relatives, Eusebius, was Arian himself? Not all religious conversions are based on logic or reason or disagreement with the other guy's doctrine.

Right, we've established that, but in relation to your argument, what made them decide to be Arian if you disagree with my claim that they probably found the Trinitarian doctrines and wordsmithing to be "crazy talk", and why would they care what Constantine did? Why would Constantine wait so long to reinstate Arius and why would they demand him to kick Athanasius to the curb?

Because it took a bit for Eusebius to get his relative's ear. At first, Constantine wanted to keep the Christian church unified. But family bonds are strong.

If Christianity was so important to them now all of the sudden, then they either authentically viewed Arianism as correct, or they saw some political benefit in remaining Arian, but I doubt Constantine would make the Synod of Tyre solely to placate them out of fear of losing power from them.

Family and politics often force proper religion to take a backseat.

What evidence do you have they weren't?

According to Jewish Encyclopedia, monotheism definitively took hold at the time of Jeremiah and Isaiah.

MONOTHEISM - JewishEncyclopedia.com

From Wikipedia: The Babylonian captivity had a number of consequences for Judaism and the Jewish culture, including changes to the Hebrew alphabet and changes in the fundamental practices and customs of the Jewish religion. Many suggest that during the First Temple period, the people of Israel were henotheists, that is, they believed that each nation had its own god, but that their god was superior to other gods.[3][4] Many suggest that during the First Temple period, the people of Israel, and Judah were polytheists,[5] citing for example the presence, for a long period of time, of an asherah in the Temple.[6] Some suggest that strict monotheism developed during the Babylonian Exile, perhaps in reaction to Zoroastrian dualism.[7]

From elsewhere on Wiki: Philo of Alexandria was an important apologete of Judaism, presenting it as a tradition of venerable antiquity that, far from being a barbarian cult of an oriental nomadic tribe, with its doctrine of monotheism had anticipated tenets of Hellenistic philosophy. Philo could draw on Jewish tradition to use customs which Greeks thought as primitive or exotic as the basis for metaphors: such as "circumcision of the heart" in the pursuit of virtue.[5] Consequently, Hellenistic Judaism emphasized monotheistic doctrine (heis theos), and represented reason (logos) and wisdom (sophia) as emanations from God.

So about the "like one of us" part...And then there's Deuteronomy 10:17, when it says "god of the gods", it's referring to live beings they thought actually existed just like "lord of the lords" implies real lords.

By the end of the Babylonian captivity of Judah in the Tanakh, Judaism is strictly monotheistic. There are nonetheless seeming elements of "polytheism" in certain biblical books, such as in Daniel's frequent use of the honorific "God of gods" and especially in the Psalms. Jewish scholars were aware of this, and expressed the opinion that although the verse can be understood wrongly, God was not afraid to write it in the Torah. However, the word God in Hebrew (Elohim) is also a plural, meaning "powerful ones" or "rulers". This is true in Hebrew as well as other related Canaanite languages. So "Elohim" could refer to any number of "rulers", such as angels, false gods (as defined by Torah), or even human holders of power including rulers or judges within Israel, as described in Exodus 21:6; 22:8, without violating the parameters of monotheism. Some scholars[who?] believe that Exodus 3:13-15 describes the moment when YHWH first tells Moses that he is the same god as El, the supreme being. This could be the recounting, in mythical form, of Israel's conversion to monotheism.[citation needed]

 

[Shermana]

Not quite sure what you're getting at here.

Of course you read only the first part about the Judaizing heresy and nothing else. Let's try this again, this time with the other section that you conveniently skipped over:

I still don't understand what your point was about the rhetoric of smearing people has to do with anything. If I didn't read anything else, I wouldn't have said "I'm not sure what that has to do", and rather than explaining, you repeat it. And Judaizing was not a heresy. It was the anti-judaizing that was the heresy.

That's a stretch, and not proof that Athanasius was Apollinarian. The Apollinarian heresy was that the Logos had a human body, but absolutely fo sho did not have a human soul. I don't see any evidence that Athanasius thought the same

If it's a stretch, tell that to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01615b.htm

The author of this theory, Apollinaris (Apolinarios) the Younger, Bishop of Laodicea, flourished in the latter half of the fourth century and was at first highly esteemed by men like St. Athanasius, St. Basil, and St. Jerome for his classical culture, his Biblical learning, his defence of Christianity and his loyalty to the Nicene faith.

. What do the Polemics of Jews and the Temple have anything to do with what you're saying? Please explain how that quote you posted in any way demonstrates their "Fear of the Jews". The threat to build the Temple and disprove a Prophecy of Christ? I think that would have been fear of Christianity more so than fear of Jews.

Because many members of the Imperial court could have been converted by Arians first, and because one of the Emperor's relatives, Eusebius, was Arian himself? Not all religious conversions are based on logic or reason or disagreement with the other guy's doctrine.

So you're saying that whoever got to them first is all that matters? So if a Trinitarian beat them to the punch, they would have been Trinitarian? I doubt that. I'm pretty sure they had time to hear the arguments of both sides, and logic and reason was in fact a decisive factor.

Because it took a bit for Eusebius to get his relative's ear. At first, Constantine wanted to keep the Christian church unified. But family bonds are strong.

My position is that Constantine would have been more concerned about Church unity than about catering to his family bonds. He THREW ATHANASIUS UNDER THE BUS. You're trying to say he would totally agitate the majority of Christians just for the sake of his family? I think he got fed up with Athanasius's attitude let alone beliefs.

Family and politics often force proper religion to take a backseat.

Yes politics due often make "proper" religion take a backseat, which is why he initially tried to stamp out Arianism to unify the Church for his own political reasons. I doubt the family influence played much of a role however in stamping out Athanasius. I think he legitimately got sick of him.

According to Jewish Encyclopedia, monotheism definitively took hold at the time of Jeremiah and Isaiah.

MONOTHEISM - JewishEncyclopedia.com

From Wikipedia: The Babylonian captivity had a number of consequences for Judaism and the Jewish culture, including changes to the Hebrew alphabet and changes in the fundamental practices and customs of the Jewish religion. Many suggest that during the First Temple period, the people of Israel were henotheists, that is, they believed that each nation had its own god, but that their god was superior to other gods.[3][4] Many suggest that during the First Temple period, the people of Israel, and Judah were polytheists,[5] citing for example the presence, for a long period of time, of an asherah in the Temple.[6] Some suggest that strict monotheism developed during the Babylonian Exile, perhaps in reaction to Zoroastrian dualism.[7]

What part about "Some suggest" make you think that this is the "definite", official position?

From elsewhere on Wiki: Philo of Alexandria was an important apologete of Judaism, presenting it as a tradition of venerable antiquity that, far from being a barbarian cult of an oriental nomadic tribe, with its doctrine of monotheism had anticipated tenets of Hellenistic philosophy. Philo could draw on Jewish tradition to use customs which Greeks thought as primitive or exotic as the basis for metaphors: such as "circumcision of the heart" in the pursuit of virtue.[5] Consequently, Hellenistic Judaism emphasized monotheistic doctrine (heis theos), and represented reason (logos) and wisdom (sophia) as emanations from God.

Okay and? Philo still addresed the "Logos" as a sort of separate deity fully under the command of God. You're avoiding the issue of the Septuagint. In this case on Wikipedia, I think the author doesn't quite understand what "Heis Theos" and "emanations" imply in terms of the murky Semantic debate of what exactly constitutes "Henotheism". When it comes to these subjects on Wikipedia regarding ancient Israelite beliefs, you're lucky if they're not written by Karen Armstrong types, so let's look at another source here. It's not exactly clear cut.

http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/ngier/henotheism.htm

By the end of the Babylonian captivity of Judah in the Tanakh, Judaism is strictly monotheistic. There are nonetheless seeming elements of "polytheism" in certain biblical books, such as in Daniel's frequent use of the honorific "God of gods" and especially in the Psalms. Jewish scholars were aware of this, and expressed the opinion that although the verse can be understood wrongly, God was not afraid to write it in the Torah. However, the word God in Hebrew (Elohim) is also a plural, meaning "powerful ones" or "rulers". This is true in Hebrew as well as other related Canaanite languages. So "Elohim" could refer to any number of "rulers", such as angels, false gods (as defined by Torah), or even human holders of power including rulers or judges within Israel, as described in Exodus 21:6; 22:8, without violating the parameters of monotheism. Some scholars[who?] believe that Exodus 3:13-15 describes the moment when YHWH first tells Moses that he is the same god as El, the supreme being. This could be the recounting, in mythical form, of Israel's conversion to monotheism.[citation needed]

[/quote]

That in no way demonstrates that it was an official position, if anything the reference to Daniel further cements my position that "god of the gods" meant actual beings He was God over, the Jewish scholars in question are LATER scholars who tried to put a total "Monotheistic" spin on the situation. Of course the verse can be "understood wrongly" in their views. The fact remains, the word "Elohim" translates to "Angels" in the Greek even by this time. There's a reason why THE God is called THE god. Basically implies there is no other THE God, not that there are not other beings called "Elohim". Even Tektonics understands this! The problem is that few seem to understand the word 'Elohim" refers more to "Divine beings" than 'gods" in the first place even if it can be translated as "gods" in Greek and English. And that begets a question of what "gods" means in the first place.

Would you like to actually address the issue of the Septuagint of Psalm 8:5 and Deuteronomy 32:8 this time?

 

[Shermana]

Here's a midrashic explanation.

(If you don't know what a midrash is, google it.)

"When Moses transcribed the Torah and came to the verse ‘let US make man' (which is written in the plural and implies that there is more than one Creator), Moses said: ‘Master of the Universe! Why do you thus furnish a pretext for heretics to maintain that there is a plurality of divinities' ‘Write!' The Lord replied. ‘Whoever wishes to err will err ... instead, let them learn from their Creator, Who after creating all, took counsel with the ministering angels to create Man.'
​

Yes, it's the Angels. Thank you.

 

[Shiranui117]

I still don't understand what your point was about the rhetoric of smearing people has to do with anything. If I didn't read anything else, I wouldn't have said "I'm not sure what that has to do", and rather than explaining, you repeat it. And Judaizing was not a heresy. It was the anti-judaizing that was the heresy.

If it's a stretch, tell that to the Catholic Encyclopedia.

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Apollinarianism

I don't have to; Catholic Encyclopedia agrees with me, and lists Athanasius as an OPPONENT of Appolinaris's heresy.

Moreover, the Fathers of the Church who wrote in defence of orthodoxy, e.g., Athanasius, in two books against Apollinaris; Gregory Nazianzen, in several letters; Gregory of Nyssa in his Antirretikos; Theodoret, in his Haereticae Fabulae and Dialogues, etc., incidentally give us ample information on the real system of the Laodicean.

. . . Up to 376, either because of his covert attitude or of the respect in which he was held, Apollinaris's name was never mentioned by his opponents, i.e. by individuals like Athanasius and Pope Damasus, or by councils like the Alexandrian (362), and the Roman (376).

What do the Polemics of Jews and the Temple have anything to do with what you're saying? Please explain how that quote you posted in any way demonstrates their "Fear of the Jews". The threat to build the Temple and disprove a Prophecy of Christ? I think that would have been fear of Christianity more so than fear of Jews.

The threat of the Christians being overthrown in favor of the Jews. But you're right; my original premise may have been off. It would be better to say that the Christians still had a reason to fear the Jews' gaining support against the Christians.

So you're saying that whoever got to them first is all that matters? So if a Trinitarian beat them to the punch, they would have been Trinitarian? I doubt that. I'm pretty sure they had time to hear the arguments of both sides, and logic and reason was in fact a decisive factor.

"I'm pretty sure" doesn't cut it.

My position is that Constantine would have been more concerned about Church unity than about catering to his family bonds. He THREW ATHANASIUS UNDER THE BUS.

First, you say that Constantine would have been more concerned about Church unity than about catering to his family bonds.

Then, you say that he threw Athanasius under the bus.

If Constantine was concerned about Church unity, he would have let the rulings of Nicaea stand and not recalled Arius and his relative Eusebius from exile.

You contradicted yourself pretty hard there, not gonna lie.

You're trying to say he would totally agitate the majority of Christians just for the sake of his family? I think he got fed up with Athanasius's attitude let alone beliefs.

"I think" is not an authoritative source.

Yes politics due often make "proper" religion take a backseat, which is why he initially tried to stamp out Arianism to unify the Church for his own political reasons. I doubt the family influence played much of a role however in stamping out Athanasius. I think he legitimately got sick of him.

Do you have a shred of proof of this? He let the Church herself make her decision at Nicaea. The Holy Spirit guided the Fathers to uphold the true Trinitarian teaching. Constantine accepted the decision of the Council. Then he turned around and felt bad for his kinsman Eusebius.

 

[Shiranui117]

What part about "Some suggest" make you think that this is the "definite", official position of Jewish Encyclopedia?

I guess you didn't know that I'd linked to Jewish Encyclopedia. Lemme quote the relevant part of the article that I linked you to.

The modern view of the development of religious thought in Israel is that the conception of pure monotheism was reached through three channels—through the recognition of God in nature and in history, and through the belief in the ethical character or holiness of God. When Yhwh was recognized as the Creator of heaven and earth and all that in them is (comp. Amos v. 8, ix. 6), when the appellation "the Lord of the heavenly hosts" was given Him (Amos iv. 13, v. 27, Hebr.), when the whole earth was spoken of as being full of His glory (Isa. vi. 3), then there was room for no other god; for the conception of God as the Lord and Creator of nature carried with it, as a necessary corollary, the belief that there was no god beside Him (Jer. x. 11). The great conceptions of the Prophets that Yhwh punishes wrong-doing not only in Israel but in other nations (Amos i.-ii.), that He is the arbiter of the destinies of such other nations (ib. ix. 7), that He uses heathen kings as instruments of punishment or salvation, as when Isaiah speaks of the Assyrian monarch as "the rod of God's anger," when Jeremiah points to the Babylonian king as the instrument whereby God will punish Jerusalem, and when deutero-Isaiah refers to Cyrus as God's anointed—all this involves the conclusion that there was no god but Yhwh, for His dominion extended not only over Israel, but over the nations of the earth also, and His guiding hand directed the course of kings and peoples in the working out of their history.
But the conception of the holiness of Yhwh (Isa. v. 16, vi. 3; Hab. ii. 3), the recognition of His ethical character, led more than anything else to monotheism, as Kuenen has pointed out ("Hibbert Lectures,"1882, p. 127). As long as Yhwh was looked upon as only the national God, it was a question of the supremacy of the strongest as between Him and the national gods of other peoples. But when God was presented primarily in His ethical character and worshiped as the God of holiness, there was no longer any measure of comparison. If Yhwh was the holy God, then the other gods were not. Here was an entirely new element; Yhwh as the moral governor of men and nations was absolutely unique; the gods of the nations were "elilim" (= "nothings"; Isa. ii. 8, 18, 20; x. 10-11; xix. 1, 3; xxxi. 7; Hab. ii. 18; Ezek. xxx. 13), "vanity" (Jer. ii. 5, viii. 19, x. 15, xvi. 19, xviii. 15; Isa. xliv. 9, lix. 4), "lies" (Amos ii. 4; Hab. ii. 18; Jer. xxix. 31), "abomination" (Hos. ix. 10; Jer. iv. 1, vii. 30, xiii. 27, xxxii. 34; Ezek. v. 11; vii. 20; xx. 7-8, 30; Isa. xliv. 19).
Culmination in Isaiah. The doctrine of absolute monotheism is preached in the most emphatic manner by Jeremiah (x. 10; xiv. 22; xxiii. 36; xxxii. 18, 27) and the Deuteronomist(iv. 35, 39), but the Biblical teaching on the subject may be said to have culminated in Isaiah of Babylon. Yhwh, though in a peculiar sense the God of Israel, is still the God of all the world. This prophet's standpoint is uncompromising: "I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no savior" (xliii. 11); "I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God" (xliv. 6, xlviii. 12); "that they may know from the rising of the sun to the setting thereof that there is none besides me; I am God and there is none else" (xlv. 6, Hebr.). In the post-exilic psalms and such other portions of the Bible as were produced during the second commonwealth—Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Daniel—the belief in the one God and in Him alone is positively assured. Not only in Palestine was monotheism now the sure possession of the Jewish people, but it may be said that the Judaism of the Diaspora is conscious of itself as the bearer of the monotheistic doctrine and as being therein distinguished from all its surroundings (comp. Friedländer, "Gesch. der Jüdischen Apologetik," p. 217). In proof of this latter statement many passages can be cited from the apocryphal and the pseudepigraphical writings. "Let them [the nations] know thee, as we also have known thee, that there is no God but only thou, O God" (Ecclus. xxxvi. 5; comp. also xliii. 28); "neither is there any God besides thee, that careth for all" (Wisdom of Solomon xii. 13); "O Lord, Lord God, the Creator of all things, . . . who alone art King and gracious, who alone suppliest every need, who alone art righteous and almighty and eternal" (II Macc. i. 24-25; comp. Ep. Jer. 5, in Kautzsch, "Apokryphen," i. 226; Aristeas Letter, 134: ib. ii. 16; Sibyllines, Proem, 7, 15, 54; iii. 584 et seq., v. 76 et seq.: ib. i. 184, 196, 207; comp. also Josephus, "Ant." iv. 8, § 5).
​

Okay and? Philo still addresed the "Logos" as a sort of separate deity fully under the command of God.

Where? Everything I've read mentions that the Logos is at best an emanation of God, not a separate deity.

You're avoiding the issue of the Septuagint. In this case on Wikipedia, I think the author doesn't quite understand what "Heis Theos" and "emanations" imply in terms of the murky Semantic debate of what exactly constitutes "Henotheism". When it comes to these subjects on Wikipedia regarding ancient Israelite beliefs, you're lucky if they're not written by Karen Armstrong types, so let's look at another source here. It's not exactly clear cut.

Hebrew Henotheism

Yes, the Hebrews were at one point polytheist, and then henotheist, and traces of this can still be seen in the Tanakh. You STILL haven't proven that henotheism was the official Jewish position of the Second Temple Period.

That in no way demonstrates that it was an official position, if anything the reference to Daniel further cements my position that "god of the gods" meant actual beings He was God over, the Jewish scholars in question are LATER scholars who tried to put a total "Monotheistic" spin on the situation. Of course the verse can be "understood wrongly" in their views. The fact remains, the word "Elohim" translates to "Angels" in the Greek even by this time. There's a reason why THE God is called THE god. Basically implies there is no other THE God, not that there are not other beings called "Elohim". Even Tektonics understands this! The problem is that few seem to understand the word 'Elohim" refers more to "Divine beings" than 'gods" in the first place even if it can be translated as "gods" in Greek and English. And that begets a question of what "gods" means in the first place.

Apparently Jewish Encyclopedia doesn't understand this either.

Would you like to actually address the issue of the Septuagint of Psalm 8:5 and Deuteronomy 32:8 this time?

Keeping in mind that "Elohim" apparently doesn't always refer to "gods," but can also refer even to human rulers, what more is there to address?

 

[Shermana]

I guess you didn't know that I'd linked to Jewish Encyclopedia. Lemme quote the relevant part of the article that I linked you to.

I did know you linked to Jewish Encyclopedia. I guess you didn't want to actually respond to my response? Or about the murky Semantics and exact meaning of Henotheism and Monotheism and Elohim and its relation to Angels to begin with?

The modern view of the development of religious thought in Israel is that the conception of pure monotheism was reached through three channels—through the recognition of God in nature and in history, and through the belief in the ethical character or holiness of God. When Yhwh was recognized as the Creator of heaven and earth and all that in them is (comp. Amos v. 8, ix. 6), when the appellation "the Lord of the heavenly hosts" was given Him (Amos iv. 13, v. 27, Hebr.), when the whole earth was spoken of as being full of His glory (Isa. vi. 3), then there was room for no other god; for the conception of God as the Lord and Creator of nature carried with it, as a necessary corollary, the belief that there was no god beside Him (Jer. x. 11). The great conceptions of the Prophets that Yhwh punishes wrong-doing not only in Israel but in other nations (Amos i.-ii.), that He is the arbiter of the destinies of such other nations (ib. ix. 7), that He uses heathen kings as instruments of punishment or salvation, as when Isaiah speaks of the Assyrian monarch as "the rod of God's anger," when Jeremiah points to the Babylonian king as the instrument whereby God will punish Jerusalem, and when deutero-Isaiah refers to Cyrus as God's anointed—all this involves the conclusion that there was no god but Yhwh, for His dominion extended not only over Israel, but over the nations of the earth also, and His guiding hand directed the course of kings and peoples in the working out of their history.
But the conception of the holiness of Yhwh (Isa. v. 16, vi. 3; Hab. ii. 3), the recognition of His ethical character, led more than anything else to monotheism, as Kuenen has pointed out ("Hibbert Lectures,"1882, p. 127). As long as Yhwh was looked upon as only the national God, it was a question of the supremacy of the strongest as between Him and the national gods of other peoples. But when God was presented primarily in His ethical character and worshiped as the God of holiness, there was no longer any measure of comparison. If Yhwh was the holy God, then the other gods were not. Here was an entirely new element; Yhwh as the moral governor of men and nations was absolutely unique; the gods of the nations were "elilim" (= "nothings"; Isa. ii. 8, 18, 20; x. 10-11; xix. 1, 3; xxxi. 7; Hab. ii. 18; Ezek. xxx. 13), "vanity" (Jer. ii. 5, viii. 19, x. 15, xvi. 19, xviii. 15; Isa. xliv. 9, lix. 4), "lies" (Amos ii. 4; Hab. ii. 18; Jer. xxix. 31), "abomination" (Hos. ix. 10; Jer. iv. 1, vii. 30, xiii. 27, xxxii. 34; Ezek. v. 11; vii. 20; xx. 7-8, 30; Isa. xliv. 19).

Before I discuss this, did you even bother reading what I said about how the word 'Monotheism" is murky and that "Elohim" may not exactly mean "gods" as much as "Divine beings" and how the word "God" is articulated for a reason when addressing the Most High? Do you think that Hebrew Theology completely changes as the Tanakh goes on? Did Moses and Daniel mean one thing and Isaiah mean another? Were they inconsistent? It all just relates to misunderstandings of what they were trying to say. There is only one THE god. There are in fact other "gods" who are nonetheless called "angels". But there's only one "god of the gods". When it says "God of the gods", it's not referring to god of the imaginary false beings. There are "Sons of god" who are in fact considered "gods". We have in the book of Job references to Divine beings who are called "gods" who are nonetheless unable to take on Leviathan. So you're stuck either with a total inconsistency, or you need to step back and acknowledge that there are Semantic issues and difficulties at play. Why would "The most high god" be called "Ascending god" if there were no other "gods" to ascend? Why don't you tell us your take on the Deuteronomy 32:8 issue.

Culmination in Isaiah. The doctrine of absolute monotheism is preached in the most emphatic manner by Jeremiah (x. 10; xiv. 22; xxiii. 36; xxxii. 18, 27) and the Deuteronomist(iv. 35, 39), but the Biblical teaching on the subject may be said to have culminated in Isaiah of Babylon. Yhwh, though in a peculiar sense the God of Israel, is still the God of all the world. This prophet's standpoint is uncompromising: "I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no savior" (xliii. 11); "I am the first, and I am the last; and besides me there is no God" (xliv. 6, xlviii. 12); "that they may know from the rising of the sun to the setting thereof that there is none besides me; I am God and there is none else" (xlv. 6, Hebr.). In the post-exilic psalms and such other portions of the Bible as were produced during the second commonwealth—Proverbs, Job, Song of Songs, Ecclesiastes, Daniel—the belief in the one God and in Him alone is positively assured. Not only in Palestine was monotheism now the sure possession of the Jewish people, but it may be said that the Judaism of the Diaspora is conscious of itself as the bearer of the monotheistic doctrine and as being therein distinguished from all its surroundings (comp. Friedländer, "Gesch. der Jüdischen Apologetik," p. 217). In proof of this latter statement many passages can be cited from the apocryphal and the pseudepigraphical writings. "Let them [the nations] know thee, as we also have known thee, that there is no God but only thou, O God" (Ecclus. xxxvi. 5; comp. also xliii. 28); "neither is there any God besides thee, that careth for all" (Wisdom of Solomon xii. 13); "O Lord, Lord God, the Creator of all things, . . . who alone art King and gracious, who alone suppliest every need, who alone art righteous and almighty and eternal" (II Macc. i. 24-25; comp. Ep. Jer. 5, in Kautzsch, "Apokryphen," i. 226; Aristeas Letter, 134: ib. ii. 16; Sibyllines, Proem, 7, 15, 54; iii. 584 et seq., v. 76 et seq.: ib. i. 184, 196, 207; comp. also Josephus, "Ant." iv. 8, § 5).

Same thing. All this does is prove my case that they implied there's no other chief god. It doesn't change the fact that Angels are called "Elohim". Again, you have completely dodged the question about why the Septuagint (And Hebrews) translates Elohim as Angels. Or the issue of Deuteronomy 32:8.

Where? Everything I've read mentions that the Logos is at best an emanation of God, not a separate deity.

Well then that goes back to what exactly is an "Emanation" let alone what is a "deity", since Angels are in fact called "Elohim".
​

Yes, the Hebrews were at one point polytheist, and then henotheist, and traces of this can still be seen in the Tanakh. You STILL haven't proven that henotheism was the official Jewish position of the Second Temple Period.

I don't have to prove it. All I have to do is prove that the word "Monotheism" is a completely modern concept, and looking at the Torah through MODERN scholarly eyes, it's considered a murky semantic issue, and that Elohim was used to describe what we now call 'Angels". Legionotonomoi (sp) had a great thread about how the word "Angel" became embedded to mean a translation for "gods" in the Greek. So again, instead of avoiding the issue that the Septuagint itself, AND the book of Hebrews translates the "Elohim" of Psalm 8:5 as "Angels", try explaining why Genesis 1:26 can't be referring to the Angels or you're up a creek. And I also brought up Josephus who cites the non-Pagan-totally-Jewish Sibylline Oracles. And of course, when Paul said that Satan was "the god of this world", he probably was demonstrating that at that time, such beings were still known as "gods".

Perhaps I should make a whole thread on this Semantic issue.

Apparently Jewish Encyclopedia doesn't understand this either.

It's not that they don't understand, it's that they are explaining modern scholarly addressing that is nonetheless challenged by other scholars, though they don't seem to be up to speed on the countering views on the article.

Keeping in mind that "Elohim" apparently doesn't always refer to "gods," but can also refer even to human rulers, what more is there to address?

The issue of whether it can mean human rulers is shaky, some people feel it means "judges" in Deuteronomy because it says "You shall bring them before Elohim", but then they don't seem to mind that it in fact means "You shall bring them before God" in other places, not exactly a demonstration of consistency on their part, probably due to the KJV standard. What it more likely means in terms of humans is referring to Spirits and souls like when Samuels' "Elohim" was conjured. The best you may have is Psalm 82:6 with "Ye are gods" but unless you take the Spirits issue, you're gonna run into some problems with how Jesus uses it in John 10:34.

With that said, your whole issue is against me saying that Angels are in fact referred to as "gods". That's the whole reason you went off on this tangent. Perhaps the word "god" shouldn't even be what Elohim is translated to, as Tektonics implies, at least in its nominative form.

Now as we have seen in the Midrash Poisonshady kindly provided, the standard Jewish view is that Genesis 1:26 is referring to the Angels.