re: Interesting how "Evangelicals" are separating themselves from "Protestants".

quote:

---

Questions for the "polytheism" crew

---

Good questions

quote:

---

1. What's the difference between dalliances in idol worship and polytheism?

---

Probably not much. It’s important to understand that the Israelite religion is simply an evolved Canaanite religion which was polytheistic and used idols in worship, so I don’t think it’s fair to use the term “dalliance”. Polytheism is at the root of Judaism. The Israelites and Judahites themselves used idols in their worship of Yahweh - sometimes as golden bulls and sometimes as standing stones and the ark of the covenant. An idol wasn’t a god but a representation of the deity that the deity would inhabit when humans would invoke the deity by praising and singing or an incantation.

The Bible acknowledges may deities and even Yahweh’s peers as truly existing though Yahweh is the one who is supposed to be woeshipped exclusively and so this really isn’t even monotheism but monolatry.

quote:

---

2. If, even as late as the 1st temple period, Jews were "polytheistic" why does the Bible record prophets who proclaimed the immorality of idol worship?

---

The people who were in charge of managing the scriptures didn’t want people worshipping other gods at other temples or even simply just worshipping Yahweh at other temples - other than the one in Jerusalem. The temple itself was well funded off of the donations/sacrifices of the people. The more people worshipped Yahweh at the single temple in Jerusalem, the richer the priests and scribes got. Those scribes wanted a means to justify their preferred religious sacrificial system, so they simply “recorded” their old prophets as saying whatever they wanted them to say.

Understand that many prophetic works were very old, some dating to the 9th century BC. But the versions we have now were edited, appended, and redacted well into the Persian and even Greek periods. There is textual evidence all over the place to this practice. Even in the book of Isaiah, modern scholars divide this into Isaiah, Deutero-Isaiah, and Trito-Isaiah. There are clearly three sections of Isaiah written by three different authors as evidenced by the language used, vocabulary, syntax, etc. and there are experts on ancient writing that have made it their life’s work to figure this stuff out. Even on top of the three Isaiah sections, there is evidence of additions and editing and redactions all through the entire work. All the Hebrew Bible was in flux until about the time the Septuagint was produced.

quote:

---

3. If earlier Jews were polytheistic, why is Islam, an abrahamic religion, strictly monotheistic with no signs of any polytheistic origins or history?

---

Islam isn’t monotheistic either. They believe in many deities - that would be called “Elohim” in the OT - normally translated as “gods” in English. Muslims believe in an assortment of angels, demons, etc. that are divine, are spiritual, live in heaven, can come to earth, are visible, and have (some/limited) supernatural powers in heaven and on earth, but aren’t as powerful as the supreme God who is the only deity they believe is worthy of worship and that’s who they call Allah.

Here’s basically how it happened. First temple Judaism was pure polytheism. The upper crust of society was exiled to Babylon and then returned with Persian gold to rebuild. The peasantry continued with their polytheism. The returning exiles with their newly constructed temple wanted to centralize the financial offerings into one god and one temple with one priesthood. These sects of Jews had different beliefs - the peasant class (we shall call them Enochic/Messianic Jews) considered the returning exiles apostates. The Jerusalem upper class (we’ll call them Pharisees - that word derived from Parsi - meaning Persian) considered the Enochic Jews to be illegitimate and called them “Canaanites” as a performative. Both groups over a few hundred years were influenced by the Persian religion of Ahura Mazda and then both were influenced by Greek religion and philosophy though neither would like to admit it.

The Pharisees became the rabbinic Jews and the Enochic Jews became the Christians. But there was much diversity among Christianity. Some believed a celestial Jesus died in heaven (like Paul). When the gospel stories myths were fabricated, some Christians began to believe Jesus had been and died on earth. That really drove the diversity into overdrive so that at one end you had Christians who believed Jesus was purely divine and spirit and was a literal son of God (and hence worshipped two gods, one subservient to the other), and on the other end you had Christians who believed Jesus was purely a man and was a figurative son of God in the adoptive sense (they worshipped only the single God the father). The latter group tended to also believe the Torah must be followed down to the letter of all tbe dietary restrictions. That group became the Muslims.

Then some guy on the Muslim end conjured the figure of Mohammed and wrote a long story of Mohammed including justification for their beliefs and way of life and the Islamic conquest of the Middle East and North Africa and that work of fiction became the Quran.

quote:

---

4. Why haven't any polytheistic texts of worship been discovered? Not just mention of other gods or the presence of foreign idols? Full blown worship or devotion or praxis aimed at a pantheon?

---

They were pretty good at burning parchment, papyrus, scrolls, and books they didn’t like. But we have some polytheistic texts actually. Check out the elephantine papyrii. They were Jews living in Egypt in the 400s BC and they were communicating with the Jerusalem temple priests for funding and they had their own sacrificial altar (weren’t aware of our version of Deuteronomy) and they worshipped what they believed was Yahweh’s wife Anat, complete with documents and records and figurines and inscriptions. And the Jerusalem temple was cool with it and funded the rebuilding of their temple in Egypt.

quote:

---

First, no Catholic has yet to provide a quote from our lord and savior from outside of scripture that would serve as the origination of anything Catholic. Not even a quote from an Apostle. That's called positive evidence. You have none.

---

I’m not Roman. So I’m not biased. Or, I hope not.

The Romans propose that the Communion bread becomes Christ’s body, his flesh, and the wine, his blood.

They base this, among other things, on the sixth chapter of St. John’s gospel, Jesus’s own words at the institution of Holy Communion in multiple gospels, and St. Paul’s instructions concerning Holy Communion.

By count, that’s Jesus himself and five Apostles; John, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and Paul.

The Romans have the better argument based solely on Holy Scripture.

In my opinion their flaw is insisting on Transubstantiation as the dogmatic explanation for something that is a profound mystery rivaling the Trinity.

Do I believe in the Real Presence? Yes. Just quit pestering me with RCC dogma. I believe it because Jesus said it. He wasn’t speaking allegorically or metaphorically.

Protestants who rely on Holy Scripture as infallible objective truth seemingly refuse to even consider this as a reasonable scriptural doctrine.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Also the first temple cult was just evolved Canaanite mythology

---

Again, laughable. Here's a question, why did the Jews hate the Samaritans?

---

Laughing at the consensus of unbiased biblical scholars and ancient near east archaeologists shows your close-mindedness and lack of critical thinking.

Some Jews hated Samaritans for several reasons.
1. They were bastard half breeds of Israelite origin mixed with Assyrian ancestry. They weren’t “pure” ethnically.
2. They rejected the authority of the priestly class in Jersusalem and rejected that temple. I should have made this #1.
3. They rejected many of the “historical” books - air quotes because they recognized them as a false history - due to books like kings and chronicles heavily favoring Judah over Israel, and they rejected all the prophetic books for similar reasons, only keeping the Torah (5 books of “Moses”).
4. The Samaritan Torah or Pentateuch was “altered” so that it wasn’t Mt Zion that was the home of Yahweh but Mt Gerizim. In reality we don’t know which one of either were original. The Dead Sea scrolls group in Qumran, though historically considered to be located in Judah, considered themselves Israelites. They had copies of the Torah with both versions.
5. Samaria and Israel in general had been more prosperous than Judah because Samaria had a better climate, more fertile land, and was easier to farm and grow crops there. So there was some jealousy on the part of the Judahites.

So despite being basically the same as the Jews, they hated the Samaritans because they felt like they had bastardized their religion and culture, got the better end of the deal on the land they inhabited, altered their scripture, and worst of all claimed authority that their version was the correct version of Judaism.

quote:

---

Aaaand doesn't answer the question.

Of course it doesn't. It denies the diety of Christ and refuses to ask Jesus Christ to save it.

It is therefore destined for hell. A garden variety nonbeliever, a spiritual thing cast adrift, bereft of any spiritual guidance or intuition. It is enslaved to demons.

Which is why it isn't worthy of engagement.

---

Are you Sméagol or something? Are you always in the habit of referring to other individuals as “it”? Also, i don’t think that you have the authority to condemn someone to hell, but your righteous anger and contempt are noted.

quote:

---

Faith Alone/Bible Alone are totally absent in Jesus's answer to the direct question - How can I be Saved?

---

This is a disingenuous take. Jesus told the rich man to give everything away, meaning divest yourself of whatever worldly things you have (Sacred Tradition, Magisterium, Apostolic succession, sacramentalism, mariolatry, icons, etc) and rely solely on God's provision for you. Remove whatever is between you and God, such as institutional hierarchy or saints or money. The man was sad because he could not live on faith alone.

quote:

---

Faith Alone doesn't pass hard analytical scrutiny

---

Other than it being recorded in the word of God multiple times said by Jesus and the Apostles. John 3:16, romans 10:9, Acts 16:30-31

quote:

---

The only way to make it work is to ignore significant parts of the Bible and to use very incoherent logic to explain away other parts of the Bible

---

? So all of the brightest theologians and pastors have somehow overlooked this patently obvious and elementary hermeneutical observation? That is ridiculous. What other passages are you talking about?

quote:

---

you've got to find short quotes in various places in the NT and then pour a huge amount of inference into your interpretation of the quote

---

No, they're self explanatory.

quote:

---

Add to that the fact that it was Martin Luther who added the word "alone" in his translation of the Bible into German

---

It's from scripture. He didn't make up sola fide. He coined a term from God's word

quote:

---

Then how do you explain people having different interpretations of what the “Word of God” says?

---

It's true people will never agree on everything 100%. What's your point?

quote:

---

What's your point?

---

Oh good lord.

quote:

---

Nope. Still as false as when we discussed this before. I asked numerous questions about this half baked nonsense. Let's see if someone can man up

---

Stop lying. Seriously. It’s a bad look. You’re absolutely ignoring the historical and linguistic record because it somehow offends your religious beliefs. It’s pathetic.

quote:

---

I am very well satisfied with the results of my debates with you.

---

OK.

quote:

---

IMHO, I have convinced some fellow RCC church goers that their side is not the evil that other Religions would make it out to be.

---

OK.

quote:

---

You have spent decades on Political Talk to Preach your religion. You never talk politics.

---

Just because I tend to focus on the morality and ethics side of politics and cultural discussions doesn't mean I never talk politics. Just the other day, I made a short comment that had nothing to do with religion.

And just to repeat myself, since you don't seem to respond when I defend myself on this issue, I'm not obligated to only talk about politics here, or just the political side of discussions. I don't start these threads and I'm free to respond in them as long as I adhere to the rules of the board, which I strive to do; I don't get little messages warning me to cool it or watch what I say or anything like that.

I'm here to provide a (Reformed) Christian worldview in response to the issues discussed on this board, and that's what I do. If you haven't noticed, I share the gospel regularly and call attention to the need for Christ. Apparently that is offensive to you. Perhaps you should examine yourself, if that is the case.

quote:

---

I'm glad that I am here to present an opposing view to your denomination.

---

I usually enjoy our discussions and I'm not opposed to your presentations of an opposing view. I don't hop into threads asking them to be shut down or call you or others to stop talking about certain subjects. I believe the truth should be stated and defended.

quote:

---

Almost 100% of all scholars from all time nerd

---

Liar.

quote:

---

No it is not, DAN, and I challenge you to prove it. Let's see your list with academic citations. Where do you get this idiotic notion? That stupid Mark Smith book?

---

For Christ’s sake. Stop lying. And lol at some hick Baptist retard calling a book written by a professor at the Princeton Theological Seminary who has actually studied these languages “stupid”. Just frick off already.