RESPONDING TO CFDs : On The Plurality Of Deities
This Thursday, I recently came across sa isang blog article ng Catholic Apologetic site na "Splendor Of The Church" na naglalaman ng ilang attacks against sa restored church na kung saan ang mga laman ay absurd at masyadong dishonest. this is what we got sa mga ilang Catholics na mga wannabe apologist, na kung minsan ay nagiging dishonest sa kanilang statements about other religions and theological views. We have here ay isang article ng isang author na si Alicia Kotoor Dela Riva, about sa Latter Day Saint doctrine of the Plurality of gods, i.e ang divine council. Let us first read ang nilalaman ng kanilang article. It reads :
"There are several authoritative Church of Latter Day Saints (LDS) sources that teach Mormons believe in a multiplicity of gods.
For example, the Book of Abraham, which is a part of the LDS scriptures called The Pearl of Great Price, ascribes the act of creation to multiple gods: “And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth” (4:1).
The multiplicity of gods is further supported by the Mormon belief that men who faithfully follow LDS teaching will themselves become gods (called “eternal progression”). As the fifth LDS president, Lorenzo Snow, put it: “As man now is, God once was; As God now is, man may be” (Eliza Snow, Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow, 46). Joseph Smith taught in his King Follett sermon (a funeral talk he gave in 1844) that men must “learn how to be gods…the same as all gods have done before” them. Smith’s successor, Brigham Young, followed suit: “The Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like Himself” (Journal of Discourses, vol. 3, 93)." (Alicia Kotoor Dela Riva)
It first makes citations mula sa ilang writings ng church leaders at ng Latter Day Scriptures regarding sa plurality ng gods at ng Theosis. however, this starts by a complete misunderstanding of the Bible itself. like sa Hebrew word/title na אֱלֹהִים (elohim) na kung saan ay ginagamit sa Tanakh in many ways depending in the context, at sa verb na nacouple sa particular na word na ito whether if it's in plural form or in singular form. the word was used sa Gen. 1:1 na kung saan ito ay used in the context of being singular. In other places sa Hebrew bible kagaya ng Gen. 20:13 at sa Ps. 82 (i.e about sa divine council) is in plural. The BDB shows a list ng passages that contains of the usage of the word in plural form which reads :
Dr. Daniel McClellan writes :
" ‘Elohim (אלהים) is morphologically plural, but as everyone knows, it’s frequently used in reference to singular subjects (primarily the God of Israel). The Bible is not the only place this happens, though. The Akkadian word for “gods,” ilanu, frequently occured in reference to singular subjects in the Amarna Letters (almost always in correspondences written by Syro-Palestinians to Egyptians), in Akkadian texts from Ugarit, and at Taanach and Qatna. The Phoenician ‘lm is used the exact same way. This usage predates the appearance of this phenomenon in Biblical Hebrew and is no doubt at the root of it. The distribution of this kind of usage moves from the coast to the valleys and then to the highlands.
We know from patterns in the languages in which this phenomenon occurs that it most likely derives from the abstract plural. This is the expression of an abstraction through the plural form of the noun or adjective. We see this in Hebrew with ‘abot, “fatherhood,” the plural of ‘ab, “father,” and zequnim, “old age,” the plural of zaqen, “old,” among many others. Some of these terms were used in reference to an individual entity or object that exemplified the quality of the abstraction. For instance, in Dan 9:23 Gabriel tells Daniel that he is a hamudot, which, as an abstract plural, means “desirableness,” or “preciousness.” In this instance, the abstract should be concretized in reference to Daniel. He is not “desirableness,” but one who exemplifies that quality. He is highly esteemed. Joel Burnett suggests “concretized abstract plural” as a designation for this usage. The word ‘elohim still retains its other uses (the simple plural, etc.), but can be used to refer to singular subject. ‘Elohim, then, means “divinity,” or “deity.” The God of Israel exemplifies divinity."
At they got the point right sa Theosis and plurality of gods but will miss the point regarding sa Theism ng Latter Day Saints. no doubt na ang Theosis ay present throughout the Bible at sa Patristics —Acts 17:28-29; Rom. 8:16-17; Gal. 4:7; Phil. 3:20-21; Heb. 12:9-10; 2 Pt. 1:4; 1 Jn. 3:2-3; Rev. 3:21, 21:7.
And then the author gives her "proof textes" against the Plurality of gods at ilalagay natin together with Exegetical explanations.
Deuteronomy 4:39
Dt. 4:39 — “Know therefore this day, and lay it to your heart, that the LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other.”
Of course, in context ay isa itong reminder ni Yahweh sa mga Israelites na huwag sila magserve sa idols. one can compare this sa Shema at sa second commandment which reads sa isang article ko months ago :
שְׁמַ֖ע יִשְׂרָאֵ֑ל יְהוָ֥ה אֱלֹהֵ֖ינוּ יְהוָ֥ה׀ אֶחָֽד
"HEAR, O ISRAEL: THE LORD OUR GOD, THE LORD IS ONE." (Dt. 6:4) JPS Tanakh
Strict Monotheism?
Ang Shema (Shema Israel, Yahweh Eloheinu, Yahweh Echad) ay ang prayer ng Ancient Israel na which is similarly Isang confession of Faith ng Judaism na naging integral part ng services ng mga Israelites both morning to evening (cf. Num. 15:37-41; Mt. 22:38; Mk. 12:29; 12:30). Ang passage na Ito ay commonly na sinisitas as a 'proof text' ng strict monotheism (and Trinitarianism, Modalism and Unitarianism) which is falsely understood as referring to the number of God daw.
However, ang Hebrew ng Shema (יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוְּ יְהוָה אֶחָדֲ) can be translated in many ways, like the following :
1. Yahweh, our God, is one Yahweh
2. Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one
3. Yahweh is our God, Yahweh only
Ang Shema doesn't tell us about sa "number" ni Yahweh pero sinasabi nito na tanging si Yahweh lamang Ang Dios na kung saan ay nakipagtipan Ang Israel—As agreed by modern bible scholars. Yahweh is a jealous God (Ex. 20:1-5; 34:14; Dt. 4:24; Josh. 24:19; Nahum 1:2) and doesn't want any other gods before Him. cross referencing to the Shema, sinasabi ng Exodus 20:3 :
"“You shall have no other gods before Me." (Ex. 20:3) NKJV
This is where ininclude Ang commandment na Ito sa ibinigay na 10 commandments sa Mount Sinai. In this verse (Ex. 20:3; cf. Dt. 5:8-9), is a commandment wherein ay pinagbawal ni Lord ang mga Israelites from making and worshipping Idols. For Yahweh is a jealous God at ayaw Niya na may ibang god (lalo na at false god) silang sinasamba—dahil Siya ang God na nagligtas sa kanila at nagmahal sa kanila.
Ang covenant ng Israel kay Yahweh is compared sa faithfulness ng isang wife sa kanyang husband. Si Yahweh ay isang selosong husband (Ex. 34:14) at every time na kapag sinusuway ng Israel ang commandment na Ito ay palaging prinoprovoke ng mga Prophets ang methapor ng marital at political Fidelity (Ezek. 16:23-24; 23:2-12; Jer. 2:23-25; 3:1-10). Ang verse talks about sa faithfulness ng Israel kay Yahweh and talks about His greatness as ang God ng Israel who is over other gods in the divine council (cf. Dt. 10:17; Josh. 22:22; Ps. 136:2; Dan. 2:47; 11:36) in which here, God is placed above all other inferior gods". Yahweh is given supremacy over other gods and no god is greater than Him (Isa. 41:29; 42:8; 43:10-24; 44:8-19; 45:9-22). This passage instead gives evidence for the ontological existence of other gods (the divine council) instead of strict monotheism. The Jewish Study Bible, scholarly comments :
" Many modern readers regard the Shema as an assertion of monotheism, a view that is anachronistic. In the context of ancient Israelite religion, it served as a public proclamation of exclusive loyalty to YHWH as the sole Lord of Israel . . . the v. makes not a quantitative argument (about the number of deities) but a qualitative one, about the nature of the relationship between God and Israel. Almost certainly, the original force of the v., as the medieval Jewish exegetes [noted], was to demand that Israel show exclusive loyalty to our God, YHWH--but not thereby to deny the existence of other gods. In this way, it assumes the same perspective as the first commandment of the Decalogue, which, by prohibiting the worship of other gods, presupposes their existence." (The Jewish Study Bible [2d ed.; New York: Oxford University Press, 2014], 361)
Isaiah 44:8; 44:24; 45:5
Isa. 44:8—“Before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.”
Isa. 44:24—“I am the LORD, who made all things, who stretched out the heavens alone, who spread out the earth—Who was with me?”
Isa. 45:5—“I am the LORD, and there is no other, besides me there is no God.”
In read again sa context ang mga Deutero-Isaiah passages na ito, it says nothing against sa ontological existence ng ibang deities but sa idolatry ng mga neighboring nations ng Israel. isa itong rant ni Yahweh against sa idolatry. the same Hebrew words na ginamit sa context is also used to describe ang Israel over neighboring nations. if we use this eisegetical argument, ang Israel lang ba ang tanging existing nation?
Furthermore, Latter Day Saint bible scholar, Daniel O. McLellan writes :
Other Gods in the Hebrew Bible
This topic has come up a number of times in the past, but it is enlightening every time it comes up. The question is whether the authors of the Bible, in general, acknowledged or denied the existence of other gods. By gods I mean ontological deities. I do not mean humans metaphorically called gods, I mean real divine beings. I also am not concerned with whether or not there are other gods that are as powerful or more powerful than God, or that “are gods in the same sense that God is God.” I’m only concerned with whether or not the Bible acknowledges the existence of other gods. I contend that it does, and I give my argument in following. I will first point to many places where the gods are explicitly acknowledged. I will then address the scriptures that are always brought forth in an effort to establish a rubric that precludes the possibility of reading the former texts to indicate the other gods were thought to exist. I will show that a sound and thorough analysis of their grammatical and literary contexts actually shows the texts are not at all intended to deny the existence of the other gods. I will also explain the fallacious presupposition that inevitably forms the basis of all efforts to contradict these readings.
One of the first indications that multiple gods are acknowledged in the Bible is the cohortative “let us make man in our image” from Gen 1:26. God is clearly talking to someone else. Some have come up with different creative ways to explain this away, such as suggesting he is referring to another member of the Trinity, but this usage is far too rare and the context is far from supportive of such a reading. There’s also no actual reference to another member of the Trinity anywhere in the Hebrew Bible. Every one of the few instances where another member of the Trinity is suggested as the object are instances where we are simply not given any indication whatsoever of whom is being addressed. When the serpent later tempts Eve (Gen 3:5), he states that if they eat the fruit they will be “as gods, knowing good and evil.” This phrase is a merism, meaning it is intended to indicate everything between the two poles represented by “good” and “evil.” In other words, they will have all knowledge. Gods are those who know all. People often insist that Satan here is lying, but Gen 3:22 makes it clear his assertion was, according to the narrative, true. In that verse, God states that “the man has become as one of us, to know good and evil.” In Satan’s phrasing the participle “knowing” is in the plural, so it means “gods” and manifestly not “God.”
Psalm 82 is another place where a variation on this “sons of God” theme occurs (they are found in Gen 6:2, 4; Deut 32:8; Ps 29:1; 89:7; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7). There they are called “sons of Elyon,” or “the Most High.” In v. 1 Yahweh is said to judge among the gods, who are neglecting their stewardships over the nations. In v. 6 God says to the gods, “I have said, you are gods, and every one of you sons of Elyon; however, you shall die as do men, and fall as any prince.” The beginnings of vv. 6 and 7 contain a construction (the combination of amarti and aken) that points to an unexpected contrast. In this case the contrast is between the divine nature of the gods and their loss of immortality. Their deaths are entirely unexpected, but God decrees it as a result of their negligence. The gods of v. 6 cannot be humans, as that would completely undo the tension of the contrast. Some people have pointed to Exodus 21 and 22 to insist that the word elohim can refer to human beings, like judges. This reading first arose in the rabbinic period, however, and has nothing to do with the original context of the verses. As numerous authors have shown since the beginning of the twentieth century, elohim does not mean judges, and Exod 21 and 22 refer either to the practice of bringing the accused before domestic images of the deities (or teraphim) to swear an oath, or the practice of bringing the accused before the main deity in the temple to do the same. The verses should be translated with “gods” or “God.” Judges is simply not supported by anything. I discuss this issue further here.
Other rhetoric is aimed at marginalizing the gods of the nations. For instance, 1 Chr 16:26 and Ps 96:5 state that the gods of the nations are elilim. This is usually translated “idols,” but it fundamentally means “worthless things” (cf. the adjective in Job 13:4; Zech 11:17). These two texts are not saying that the gods are actually just pieces of wood and stone, they’re saying that the gods are insignificant and worthless. This is comparable to numerous other texts that say that the nations and people who fight against Israel are “nothing,” “less than nothing,” and “vanity” (Isa 40:17, 23; 41:11, 12; 44:9). Compare these to Isa 41:21, which is addressed to the gods: “you are nothing, and your works less than nothing.” The rhetoric is identical. It’s not meant to deny their existence, but their relevance and potency.
Another statements from Deutero-Isaiah also merits mention, namely Isa 43:10. There the author has Yahweh say, “before me no god was formed, nor shall there be any after me.” Readers almost always read too quickly over this verse and don’t realize that if we understand it literally then it only speaks of the situation before and after Yahweh’s reign. It makes no statement about the creation or existence of gods during Yahweh’s reign. This fits easily into rhetoric elsewhere that insists Yahweh is the creator of all the other gods (Neh 9:6, for instance, says Yahweh created the hosts of the heavens, another epithet of the gods).
As has been shown, a thorough and objective analysis of the literary contexts of the rhetoric aimed at the gods of the nations shows their existence is never denied. Rather, their relevance and potency is marginalized in exilic and post-exilic literature using hyperbolic rhetoric. That rhetoric is also used in reference to other entities, like the nations or people who craft idols. The sense is not at all that they don’t actually exist, but only that they’re irrelevant and impotent. The numerous places where the gods are acknowledged further support this reading. There is nothing in the Bible that substantiates the notion that no other gods exist. Any religious tradition that accepts the existence of angels, demons, cherubim, etc., accepts the existence of numerous gods. The notion that they’re not “gods” in the same sense that God is God actually supports my point. That would mean there are other gods, they’re just not on the same level as God, and that completely and totally contradicts the notion of monotheism (it’s more akin to monarchism or monolatry). It is equivocation to insist that there are gods and there is God, and never the twain shall meet. These are just two different ways to spell in English the exact same Hebrew word (and that word means absolutely the exact same thing, whether the god of Israel is the referent or any other god).
Finally, these are all the verses that use the word "god" and mention deities other than Yhwh:
At of course, ang Trinitarianism ng Catholic church is not consistent with their own strict Monotheism. A fellow Latter Day Saint apologist Robert Boylan writes :
Consider the following, which are accepted by the Trinitarians:
Jesus = God
Father = God
Spirit = God
Jesus is not the person of the Father; the Father is not the person of the Spirit; the Spirit is not the person of the Son
Numerically, there is only one God
God = Father, Son, and Spirit
To put it the above in another way, to help people understand the illogical nature of creedal Trinitarianism (with "x" representing "God"):
Jesus = x
Father = x
Spirit = x
Numerically, there is only one x
God (x) = Father (x) plus Son (x), plus Spirit (x)
Only by using one definition of "God" when speaking of the tri-une "being" of God and another definition of "God" when predicated upon the persons of the Trinity can one get away from a logical/mathematical impossibility (3 "x"'s equalling 1 "x") or a form of Modalism, where the Father, Son, and Spirit are the same person. The latter is condemned (rightfully) as heresy and antithetical to the biblical texts by Trinitarianism; the former, however, is not allowed, as the various person are said to be numerically identical to the "One God." This is not a "mystery" (something that cannot be understood perfectly, like the atonement of Jesus Christ), but a logical, mathematical, and I argue, a biblical-exegetical impossibility. Only by engaging in logically and linguistically fallacious claims (e.g., the claim that אֶחָד echad "one" in Hebrew means "compound one" discussed above) can one try (desperately) to get around these and many other problems.
That concludes our repsonse to Alicia Kotoor Dela Riva at sa mga kasamahan nila na CFDs. their article is absurd at maging ang kanilang ibang articles na susulatan ko ng response later. Godbless.
