Proof Jesus is God.

Exploring the details of Christianity

Moderator: Moderators

Benson
Banned
Banned
Posts: 252
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2017 8:30 pm
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Proof Jesus is God.

Post #1

Post by Benson »

The question here to consider is this: Is Isaiah 9:6 correct?

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace."

Jesus clearly is God.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3246 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Proof Jesus is God.

Post #31

Post by Difflugia »

tam wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:48 pmI think you're missing the point.
So I keep getting told.
tam wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:48 pmThey would not pronounce the name of God (going so far as to create substitutions and use them like names). But they had no problem pronouncing and using the word El. Therefore, that can not be the name of God. Though it may have been used like a name, and perhaps that accounts for the grammar you are seeing.
The argument you're making is that Hebrew allows something that is not a name to be used like a name in this case, but in only this case. That's possible. It's entirely speculative and lacking in any evidentiary power, but it's possible. If that's what you need to preserve your theology, then fine, but recognize that you and onewithhim are creating new rules for Hebrew to justify your theology.
tam wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:48 pmSame as we - in English - use God (capital G) when referring to the Creator, the God of Abraham, the God and Father of Christ. We don't say 'the God'. We simply state 'God'. EVEN THOUGH that is not His name.
Your analogy is invalid because the rules for Hebrew are different than those for English
tam wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:48 pmAnd we use god (little g) when referring to any other being that is a god or can be called a god (angels/immortals, including Satan, even people who will be called gods).
Hebrew doesn't.
tam wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:48 pmWe make a distinction (capital G or lower case g), but neither is the name of God.
We sure do. We speak English, though.
tam wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:48 pmCan you see that people could have used a word like a name, even though that word is NOT the name of God?
They could have (in the "anything's possible" sense), but neither you nor onewithhim has offered any reason beyond your theology to think that they did. Using a title grammatically as a personal name is a feature of English, but it's not a feature of Hebrew. If you can find examples in Hebrew of titles being used without some grammatical means of making them definite, like "the king" or "my lord," then you will have made a point. Until then, all you're saying is that maybe Hebrew is different than people think it is because what it says doesn't match what you think it should say.
tam wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:48 pmThe link that I provided made it clear that Israel used substitutions for the name of God (YHWH) <-again clearly acknowledging [YHWH] as the name of God. But there are no substitutions required or used for EL. Does that not tell you something?
We already know that El and Yahweh were originally different gods that merged around the time of the United Monarchy, so it's not a surprise that different traditions were attached to different names. This is particularly evident in texts that combine sources from multiple time periods, like the Decalogue sections appear to. From Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan by John Day, p. 15:
Since Yahweh and El were originally separate deities, the question is raised where Yahweh originated. Yahweh himself does not appear to have been a Canaanite god in origin: for example, he does not appear in the Ugaritic pantheon lists. Most scholars who have written on the subject during recent decades support the idea that Yahweh had his origins outside the land of Israel to the south, in the area of Midian (cf. Judg. 5.4-5; Deut. 33.2; Hab. 3.3, 7)
This kind of scholarship, however, has little place in TD&D where the Bible in its current form is considered authoritative, but one must still somehow deal with the Bible's historical and redactional seams. If the names El and Yahweh are treated differently because they were originally different gods with different traditions regarding worship, then none of your objections raises any difficulty. To square this with a theology admitting of only a single god, however, requires one to assert, with no linguistic evidence, that Hebrew doesn't follow one of its own rules. The fact is that when a noun appears indefinite, but must be definite, it is a personal name. In the Hebrew Bible, this is true in every case except, perhaps, the one you assert is different. The only evidence that you have for this one case being different is that you find it theologically challenging.
tam wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:48 pmI don't think this matters at this point, but just in case, are you suggesting that the same reasoning does not apply to any of the other translations regarding El? Only just this one?
What I think appears to you as "different reasoning" is addressing the different evidentiary burdens that you and onewithhim have with your separate arguments. In essence, onewithhim is arguing that el gibbor can only refer to "a god" and not God. Since it doesn't have to, that argument fails. Just because it can, doesn't mean that it must.

Your argument is that there can be no case where el (or any appellation other than Yahweh) must be treated as a proper name. Since there are cases where it must, your argument also fails. Just because sometimes it's ambiguous, doesn't mean that it always is. The argument onewithhim was making depended specifically on el rather than elohim, so my discussion with her focused on el alone, but yours also fails if elohim ever appears as a proper name, which it does all the time starting in Genesis 1:1. Since your last response and to be complete, however, I found a verse where el is specifically a name and can't be read as being a title, a part of a construct, or anything else. Numbers 23:8 refers to God by name as both El and Yahweh in poetic doublet:
How shall I curse whom El has not cursed?
How shall I defy whom Yahweh has not defied?
Numbers 23:19 doesn't include both names, but is just as unambiguous:
El is not a man, that he should lie,
nor a son of man, that he should repent.
Has he said, and he won’t do it?
Or has he spoken, and he won’t make it good?
Broadly again, God is referred to by several El epithets throughout the Old Testament. Because of the way that personal names work in Hebrew, it's sometimes difficult to tell the difference between an indefinite phrase ("a mighty god") and a definite name ("El Gibbor"). El Shaddai and El Elyon, for example, are used in ways that must be names so often that when it's ambiguous, they probably mean names then, too. Several other El names appear less often and could reasonably be interpreted to mean "a whatever god." There are also cases where "El whatever" can be read as a construct, that is, "god of whatever" ("children of Israel" meaning Israelites, "son of man" meaning human being, or "son of God" meaning a deity or angel). Many of the el epithets can be read that way, in fact, but not all of them. Both Shaddai and Elyon, for example, are occasionally used as proper names for God without the El. If El Shaddai were a construct, then, it would have to mean something like "Shaddai's god." Genesis 49:25, for example, uses Shaddai as a name in poetic doublet with "your father's god." Amusingly, el here is used as the generic word for "god," rather than a name:
even by the god [el] of your father, who will help you,
by Shaddai, who will bless you,
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

Revelations won
Sage
Posts: 830
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 10:13 pm
Has thanked: 3 times
Been thanked: 27 times

Re: Proof Jesus is God.

Post #32

Post by Revelations won »

The OP asked the following question:

“The question here to consider is this: Is Isaiah 9:6 correct?

"For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counselor, The Mighty God, The Everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.”

I find a tendency for many of us to lose focus on the topic of the OP.

Is Isaiah 9:6 referred to in the OP question correct or is it not correct?

Regardless of ones answer, the respondent should give scriptural evidence to support their respective position.

Are private interpretations of scripture really very helpful?

Kind regards,
RW

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3246 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Proof Jesus is God.

Post #33

Post by Difflugia »

I guess as a footnote to the conversations with onewithhim and tam, this is from the entry "El" from A Handbook of Gods and Goddesses of the Ancient Near East (Frayne and Stuckey, 2021):
In the Hebrew Bible, El appears 230 times, most of the uses meaning “god.” However, passages in Genesis especially make clear that some instances of the word were naming a god. Thus, as Mark Smith says, the “original god of Israel was El” (1990: 7). Further, the word Israel is theophoric, for it contains El’s name. It was he who was the god Elohim (plural of Eloah) of Genesis 1–3. Other names that attest to his worship include El-‘Olam “God the Eternal,” Elyon “God Most High," and El-Šaddai “God of the Mountain.” Over time, El became identified with YHWH, who then took over most of El’s traits and titles, for instance Elberīt(h). He also seems to have taken over El’s consort Asherah. By the tenth century BCE, the identification of El and YHWH seems to have been almost complete.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 8904
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 1217 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: Proof Jesus is God.

Post #34

Post by onewithhim »

Difflugia wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 8:10 am I guess as a footnote to the conversations with onewithhim and tam, this is from the entry "El" from A Handbook of Gods and Goddesses of the Ancient Near East (Frayne and Stuckey, 2021):
In the Hebrew Bible, El appears 230 times, most of the uses meaning “god.” However, passages in Genesis especially make clear that some instances of the word were naming a god. Thus, as Mark Smith says, the “original god of Israel was El” (1990: 7). Further, the word Israel is theophoric, for it contains El’s name. It was he who was the god Elohim (plural of Eloah) of Genesis 1–3. Other names that attest to his worship include El-‘Olam “God the Eternal,” Elyon “God Most High," and El-Šaddai “God of the Mountain.” Over time, El became identified with YHWH, who then took over most of El’s traits and titles, for instance Elberīt(h). He also seems to have taken over El’s consort Asherah. By the tenth century BCE, the identification of El and YHWH seems to have been almost complete.
"El" has been identified with THE God, YHWH, over time, because He IS "El" the Almighty. There are, though, OTHER "el"s, because, as was said, "el" simply means "god." There are many references to pagan dieties as "el." Shall I name some?

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 8904
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 1217 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: Proof Jesus is God.

Post #35

Post by onewithhim »

tigger 2 wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 3:01 pm Is. 9:6 is usually translated in trinitarian-translated Bibles as:

“For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; and the government will rest on His shoulders; and His name shall be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace.” - NASB.

Even most trinitarians do not confuse the two separate persons of the Father and the Son. They do not say the Son is the Father. They say the Father and the Son are two separate individual persons who are equally “God”!

Therefore, since we obviously cannot take “Eternal Father” in the literal sense to mean that Jesus is the Father or may be called the Father (Matt. 23:9; John 17:3), we cannot take the rest of that same name (esp. ‘Mighty God’) in its literal highest sense and say that Jesus is Mighty God, etc., either.
...........................
So what is really intended at Is. 9:6?

First, the WT has given one probable answer: the words are to be taken in their secondary sense (e.g., 'a mighty god' rather than 'the mighty God').

Another probable answer is that the name, like so many personal names of Israelites, was intended as a praise or description of the Father, God Almighty, the only true God, Jehovah.
One interesting fact is that the meaning of many personal names of Israelites were meant as a praise or description of God alone - not a description of themselves.

For example,
“JEHU - ‘Jehovah is he.’
(1.) The son of Obed, and father of Azariah (1 Chronicles 2:38).
(2.) One of the Benjamite slingers that joined David at Ziklag (1 Chronicles 12:3).
(3.) The son of Hanani, a prophet of Judah (1 Kings 16:1, 7; 2 Chronicles 19:2; 20:34), who pronounced the sentence of God against Baasha, the king of Israel.
(4.) King of Israel, the son of Jehoshaphat (2 Kings 9:2), and grandson of Nimshi.” - Easton’s Bible Dictionary, ‘Jehu,’ from Illustrated Bible Dictionary, Thomas Nelson Publ. (Also p. 331, Today’s Dictionary of the Bible, Bethany House, 1982.)

So four different men, worshipers of the one true God, Jehovah, were named ‘He is Jehovah’ in the Holy Scriptures! This popular Israelite name obviously was not intended to describe the person who bore it!

“Now Malchiel means ‘God is king,’ ... Gedaliah ‘Jehovah is great,’ Zerahiah ‘Jehovah hath risen in splendor,’ Jehozadak ‘Jehovah is righteous,’ and Joel, if a compound name, ‘Jehovah is God.’ A moment’s reflection makes clear that these names do not describe the persons who bear them, but in every case speak of God. ....

"[Early in the 9th century B.C.] .... it was conventional for the king of Judah to have for his name a sentence with Jehovah as its subject. .... During the five centuries and a half, beginning near the close of Solomon’s reign and extending to the end of Nehemiah’s administration, 22 high priests held office, so far as their names have been preserved in the records. Of these pontiffs 17 bear names which are sentences with Jehovah as subject, and another is a sentence with El [God] as subject. .... evidently the priests of Jehovah’s temple at Jerusalem not only recognized the appropriateness for themselves and their families of names possessing a general religious character, but came to favor such as expressly mentioned God, especially those which mentioned God by His name of Jehovah.” - p. 2115, Vol. 3, The International Standard Bible Encyclopaedia, Eerdmans, 1984 printing.


Another important detail about personal names is that those names composed of more than one Hebrew word (e.g., Immanuel; Isaiah; Michael; Jehoshabeath; etc.) is that minor words such as prepositions ('of',' 'in,' 'with', 'on,' etc.) and some verbs such as 'is,' 'are,' etc. are omitted in the scriptures.

For instance, two of the best-known Bible concordances (Young’s and Strong’s) and a popular trinitarian Bible dictionary (Today’s Dictionary of the Bible) differ on the exact meaning of many Biblical personal names because of those “minor” words which must be added to bring out the intended meaning.

Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance, for example, says the name “Elimelech” (which is literally just “God King”) means “God of (the) King.” Young’s Analytical Concordance says it means “God is King.” Today’s Dictionary of the Bible says it means “ God his King” - p. 206, Bethany House Publ., 1982.

I haven’t found any scholar/translator who says the name of Elimelech should be translated with its literal meaning of “God King.” And no scholar ever claims that it means that Elimelech himself was "God King."

Those missing minor words that the translator must supply at his own discretion can often make a vital difference! - For example, the footnote for Gen. 17:5 in The NIV Study Bible: The name ‘Abram’ “means ‘Exalted Father,’ probably in reference to God (i.e., ‘[God is the] Exalted Father’).” - bracketed information is in the original.

But perhaps most instructive of all is the compound name given to the prophet’s child in Isaiah 8:3 shortly before his giving the name found in Is. 9:6.

Is. 8:3
Maher-shalal-hash-baz: Literally, “spoil speeds prey hastes” or “swift booty speedy prey.” Translated by various Bible scholars as: “In making speed to the spoil he hasteneth the prey” - - “swift [is] booty, speedy [is] prey” - - “the spoil speeded, the prey hasteth” - - “Speeding for spoil, hastening for plunder” - - “There will soon be looting and stealing”- - “Speeding is the spoil, Hastening is the prey” - - “The Looting Will Come Quickly; the Prey Will Be Easy” - - “Take sway the spoils with speed, quickly take the prey” - - “Swift is the booty, speedy is the prey” - - “Swift the Spoils of War and Speedy Comes the Attacker” - - “Make haste to plunder! Hurry to the spoil!” - - “Make haste to the spoil; fall upon the prey.” - - “Your enemies will soon be destroyed.’” - TLB. - - “They hurry to get what they can. They run to pick up what is left.” - NLV.

And trinitarian John Gill wrote:
“‘hasten to seize the prey, and to take away the spoil.’ Some translate it, ‘in hastening the prey, the spoiler hastens’; perhaps it may be better rendered, ‘hasten to the spoil, hasten to the prey.’”

Therefore, the personal name at Is. 9:6 has been honestly translated in the footnote as:
“And his name is called: Wonderful in counsel IS God the Mighty, the Everlasting Father, the Ruler of Peace” - The Holy Scriptures, JPS Version (Margolis, ed.)
to show that it is intended to praise the God of the Messiah who performs great things through the Messiah.

The Leeser Bible also translates it:
“Wonderful, counsellor of the mighty God, of the everlasting Father, the prince of peace”

Also, An American Translation (by trinitarians Smith & Goodspeed) says:
“Wonderful Counselor IS God Almighty, Father forever, Prince of Peace.”

From the Is. 9:6 footnote in the trinity-supporting NET Bible:
".... some have suggested that one to three of the titles that follow ['called'] refer to God, not the king. For example, the traditional punctuation of the Hebrew text suggests the translation, 'and the Extraordinary Strategist, the Mighty God calls his name, "Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace."'"

Of course it could also be honestly translated:
“The Wonderful Counselor and Mighty God Is the Eternal Father of the Prince of Peace.”

And the Tanakh by the JPS, 1985, translates it:
[1] “The Mighty God is planning grace;
[2] The Eternal Father [is] a peaceable ruler.”

This latter translation seems particularly appropriate since it is in the form of a parallelism. Not only was the previous symbolic personal name introduced by Isaiah at Is. 8:1 a parallelism (“Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz” means [a.]“quick to the plunder; [b.] swift to the spoil” - NIV footnote) but the very introduction to this Messianic name at Is. 9:6 is itself a parallelism: [a.]“For unto us a child is born; [b.] unto us a son is given.” It would, therefore, be appropriate to find that this name, too, was in the form of a parallelism as translated by the Tanakh above.

So it is clear, even to a few trinitarian scholars, that Is. 9:6 does not necessarily imply that Jesus is Jehovah God.
Could someone tell me just how this reply fails? Could someone take each part of it and state what is erroneous about it?

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3246 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Proof Jesus is God.

Post #36

Post by Difflugia »

onewithhim wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 12:27 pm"El" has been identified with THE God, YHWH, over time, because He IS "El" the Almighty.
Though it hardly matters, at least some scholars think it went in the other direction (proper name El to generic noun el):
Eventually, of course, the name El simply became a general word for 'God' in the Old Testament, and so it is found many times.—Yahweh and the Gods and Goddesses of Canaan by John Day, p. 24
The reason that it hardly matters, though, is that in TD&D, the Bible is authoritative. The Bible refers to Yahweh by the proper name El at least once (Num 23:8 above, for example, or Job 36:26), ergo Yah and El are both proper names for the same deity.
onewithhim wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 12:27 pmThere are, though, OTHER "el"s, because, as was said, "el" simply means "god." There are many references to pagan dieties as "el." Shall I name some?
You can if you like, but it won't affect your argument. Your claim is that Isaiah 9:6 cannot refer to the proper name El. Claiming that it can mean something else doesn't support that. If El ever appears anywhere in the Bible as a proper name (and it does), then you have to find some other supporting reason that Isaiah 9:6 specifically cannot be referring to Yahweh by the name El. Demonstrating that Isaiah 9:6 may be read as referring to a generic god does nothing to show that it must be read that way. That is what you continue to assert, however.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3246 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Proof Jesus is God.

Post #37

Post by Difflugia »

onewithhim wrote: Mon Mar 15, 2021 12:38 pmCould someone tell me just how this reply fails? Could someone take each part of it and state what is erroneous about it?
Sure. The part that's erroneous is the use of the word "cannot:"
tigger 2 wrote: Wed Feb 10, 2021 3:01 pmEven most trinitarians do not confuse the two separate persons of the Father and the Son. They do not say the Son is the Father. They say the Father and the Son are two separate individual persons who are equally “God”!

Therefore, since we obviously cannot take “Eternal Father” in the literal sense to mean that Jesus is the Father or may be called the Father (Matt. 23:9; John 17:3), we cannot take the rest of that same name (esp. ‘Mighty God’) in its literal highest sense and say that Jesus is Mighty God, etc., either.
That's a theological argument that not all Christians would agree with. It's a plausible way to understand the relationship between the Father and Son, but it's no more or less contradictory than other understandings of the Godhead.

There's nothing erroneous about the second part it if it's understood to be an argument for a merely plausible reading rather than for a necessary one. In fact, I think it's quite clever.
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
tam
Savant
Posts: 6443
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2015 4:59 pm
Has thanked: 353 times
Been thanked: 324 times
Contact:

Re: Proof Jesus is God.

Post #38

Post by tam »

Peace to you, and sorry for the delayed response!
Difflugia wrote: Fri Mar 12, 2021 1:20 pm
tam wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:48 pmThey would not pronounce the name of God (going so far as to create substitutions and use them like names). But they had no problem pronouncing and using the word El. Therefore, that can not be the name of God. Though it may have been used like a name and perhaps that accounts for the grammar you are seeing.
The argument you're making...
The argument I am making is not a grammatical argument (that is your argument). The argument I am making is a reasoning argument, based upon content (and example from the people themselves), as well as from what God said Himself about His name.

Israel feared misusing the name of God. Hence, they stopped pronouncing the name of God: [YHWH] was no longer pronounced. They had no problem pronouncing and using the word EL.

"... is that Hebrew allows something that is not a name to be used like a name in this case, but in only this case. That's possible. It's entirely speculative and lacking in any evidentiary power, but it's possible. If that's what you need to preserve your theology, then fine, but recognize that you and onewithhim are creating new rules for Hebrew to justify your theology.
The problem with basing a theology entirely upon grammar is that there is much room for error:

1 - despite the possibility of 'special pleading' it only takes a single error at the start for that error to be copied throughout an entire work (the error could be grammatical OR theological).

2 - if the people had a tradition (similar to the modern manner of calling God, "God"), then it might be treated as a name, even though it is not a name. In this case, the grammar argument is dependent upon the understanding of the people (or later scribes) as being correct.



I'm just going to go with what God has said of His name.

tam wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:48 pmCan you see that people could have used a word like a name, even though that word is NOT the name of God?
They could have (in the "anything's possible" sense), but neither you nor onewithhim has offered any reason beyond your theology to think that they did.


What about the idea that they did not know the name of God until God revealed His name to Moses?

I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name [YHWH] I did not make myself known to them.

tam wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:48 pmThe link that I provided made it clear that Israel used substitutions for the name of God (YHWH) <-again clearly acknowledging [YHWH] as the name of God. But there are no substitutions required or used for EL. Does that not tell you something?
We already know that El and Yahweh were originally different gods that merged around the time of the United Monarchy,
We don't know that.

Some scholars suggest this based upon how they have interpreted the evidence (that they have found). But this is not hard science, and there is so much room for error simply on the basis of not having all the evidence. Not to mention the fact that even if (some) people believe something (and leave evidence as to their beliefs), that does not mean their belief is correct.

It is also not surprising God Most High (God Almighty) was known (or known of) in multiple cultures (considering Abraham came out from his father's people in the east, etc, considering also Noah from long before even Abraham).

And see the scripture above from Exodus 6:3.

tam wrote: Thu Mar 11, 2021 8:48 pmI don't think this matters at this point, but just in case, are you suggesting that the same reasoning does not apply to any of the other translations regarding El? Only just this one?
What I think appears to you as "different reasoning" is addressing the different evidentiary burdens that you and onewithhim have with your separate arguments. In essence, onewithhim is arguing that el gibbor can only refer to "a god" and not God. Since it doesn't have to, that argument fails. Just because it can, doesn't mean that it must.
Agreed, if that was the extent of the argument.
Your argument is that there can be no case where el (or any appellation other than Yahweh) must be treated as a proper name. Since there are cases where it must, your argument also fails. Just because sometimes it's ambiguous, doesn't mean that it always is.
Actually, I thought your argument was that EL must be a proper name. But if there are other possibilities, then that argument fails as well. Does it not?



Peace again to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

User avatar
Difflugia
Prodigy
Posts: 3016
Joined: Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:25 am
Location: Michigan
Has thanked: 3246 times
Been thanked: 1997 times

Re: Proof Jesus is God.

Post #39

Post by Difflugia »

tam wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:35 pmThe argument I am making is not a grammatical argument (that is your argument). The argument I am making is a reasoning argument, based upon content (and example from the people themselves), as well as from what God said Himself about His name.
Then your argument is mere theological speculation and you're in the same boat as onewithhim. Your conclusion is perhaps a reasonable one to draw, but you're left in the position of having to argue away textual contradictions to your theological conclusion. You might be right, but then patterns that otherwise hold in the text must have very narrow exceptions that just happen to match your desired theology. It can't be disproven in the same sense as invisible, incorporeal unicorns can't be disproven, but it has no evidentiary power, either.
tam wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:35 pmIsrael feared misusing the name of God. Hence, they stopped pronouncing the name of God: [YHWH] was no longer pronounced. They had no problem pronouncing and using the word EL.
The commandment specifically calls out the name "Yahweh" rather than any of His other names. The practice of the Pharisees to "build a wall around the Torah" generally ensured that nobody would inadvertantly break one of the commandments, but saying the name "El," even "in vain," wasn't prohibited by the commandments. The Pharisees were nothing if not literalistic. There would have been no reason to extend the practice to not saying "El," even as one of Yahweh's names, because that specific name wasn't prohibited. You may draw whatever theological conclusions you wish, but you still can't logically infer that first-century, Pharisaic tradition somehow disproves one of Yahweh's names that, according to the Bible, dates to the time of Abraham.
tam wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:35 pmThe problem with basing a theology entirely upon grammar is that there is much room for error:
That's a straw man. I never suggested basing your theology entirely on grammar. Grammar, particularly of the Bible, should inform your theology, however.
tam wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:35 pm1 - despite the possibility of 'special pleading' it only takes a single error at the start for that error to be copied throughout an entire work (the error could be grammatical OR theological).
If you're suggesting that each use of "El" as a name is an error, then perhaps this conversation belongs somewhere other than TD&D.
tam wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:35 pm2 - if the people had a tradition (similar to the modern manner of calling God, "God"), then it might be treated as a name, even though it is not a name. In this case, the grammar argument is dependent upon the understanding of the people (or later scribes) as being correct.
Sure, but that's just saying that maybe they acted differently than the evidence would suggest. You're just saying that anything is possible.
tam wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:35 pmI'm just going to go with what God has said of His name.
That's a fine theological conclusion, even though it's contradicted by other parts of the text.
tam wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:35 pmWhat about the idea that they did not know the name of God until God revealed His name to Moses?
I appeared to Abraham, to Isaac and to Jacob as God Almighty, but by my name [YHWH] I did not make myself known to them.
What about it? Even the text you quoted doesn't imply that El Shaddai isn't also His name, only that they didn't know HIm as Yahweh.
tam wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:35 pm
We already know that El and Yahweh were originally different gods that merged around the time of the United Monarchy,
We don't know that.

Some scholars suggest this based upon how they have interpreted the evidence (that they have found). But this is not hard science, and there is so much room for error simply on the basis of not having all the evidence. Not to mention the fact that even if (some) people believe something (and leave evidence as to their beliefs), that does not mean their belief is correct.
I suppose that's true as far as it goes, but realize that you are now explicitly contrasting your own arguments based purely on theologically-based speculation with scholarly conclusions based on textual, archaeological, and cultural evidence. Your argument is now very firmly that, despite all of the evidence, they might be wrong and you might be right.
tam wrote: Tue Mar 16, 2021 5:35 pmActually, I thought your argument was that EL must be a proper name. But if there are other possibilities, then that argument fails as well. Does it not?
My argument is that there are cases where God is referred to unambiguously by the name "El." Some uses of "el" can only mean "a god," some can mean either "a god" or "El" as a name, and some can only mean the name "El."
My pronouns are he, him, and his.

User avatar
onewithhim
Savant
Posts: 8904
Joined: Sat Oct 31, 2015 7:56 pm
Location: Norwich, CT
Has thanked: 1217 times
Been thanked: 305 times

Re: Proof Jesus is God.

Post #40

Post by onewithhim »

[Replying to Difflugia in post #40]

Our conclusions CAN be shown to be true. Merely because you don't agree doesn't make our arguments spurious. Anyone who cares to read what we have said can see that the weight of evidence is for our arguments.

Post Reply