Recommended Posts

Let me see if I understand the LDS beliefs on this topic correctly:

Human beings were born in heaven as the son or daughter of a god and goddess before they were born physically here on earth.

Being born into this life here on earth is something that we agreed to in heaven. This life serves as a test and a means of obtaining exaltation one day to godhood.

One achieves exaltation by living a life of obedience to Mormon teaching and practices. Those exalted to godhood will inhabit a planet and procreate spirit children.

A supporting quote from Brigham Young would be this: "the Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like himself...We are created to become Gods like unto our Father in heaven.” (Journal of Discourses, 3:93)

So, having that all being said (and if I'm wrong, please correct me), how does the Mormon Church interpret Isaiah 43:10?

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 212
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm doing some research on this. But in part of Isaiah chapter 43, the people were being chastized for worshipping idols. They were being asked to repent and return to the Lord. Part of what was being explained was the Lord reminding the people that HE is the one God...not the idols they were worshipping.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm doing some research on this. But in part of Isaiah chapter 43, the people were being chastized for worshipping idols. They were being asked to repent and return to the Lord. Part of what was being explained was the Lord reminding the people that HE is the one God...not the idols they were worshipping.

Yes, that's part of the context. But the other half is God's statement: There has been no God before Him, and niether will there be after Him.

Let's say I got in a line to buy lunch for myself. If I was the only one in line, and also somehow the only customer the restaurant had all day, that would make me both the first customer and the last customer for that day, right?

Well, rather than using a time segment of a day, God declares He is the first and the last for all eternity (Isaiah 44:6). The first and the last what? The first and the last God. He even adds (in that verse reference I just put) that besides Him there is no other God. He has been the first for the entire infinite duration that He has been in existence, and because He is the only God, He will also be the last for the entire infinite duration that He will continue to exist in.

It may sound a little silly, but if we go back to my analogy, this would be the equivalent of me saying "I am the first and the last customer today, and besides me there is no other customer today."

Edited by PassionForHisWord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just really quick compare to Psalms 82:6 and John 10: 34-35

I touched upon this in another thread, which you might have read:

http://www.lds.net/forums/learn-about-mormon-church/14485-one-god-2.html#post263047

"The context of this passage reveals that Christ had just pronounces Himself one with the Father saying, "I and My Father are one" (10:30). The Jews wanted to stone Him because they thought Christ was blaspheming since He was making Himself out to be equal with God (vv. 31-33).

Jesus responded by quoting Psalm 82:6 which says, "I said, you are gods." This psalm addresses judges who are judging unjustly [Psalm 82:2]. The title of "gods" is not addressed to everyone, but only to these judges about whom Jesus said are those to "whom the word of God came" (v. 35). Jesus was showing that if the OT Scriptures could give some divine status to divinely appointed judges, why should they find it incredible that He should call Himself the Son of God? Thus, Jesus was giving a defense for His own deity, not for the deification of man." (Geisler/Howe 417 The Big Book of Bible Difficulties)

That's the best response I can come up with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I look at it this way. There's a line of people and they're all trying to imagine what the lunch lady looks like or maybe there are more than one. Or maybe it's not a lunch lady but some other kind of lunch server, etc. They come up with descriptions, using their imagination to create images in anticipation of what the lunch lady has to offer them. From around the corner, one or maybe a few, who have seen the lunch lady have declared that there is only one lunch lady and try to send the message back to those who have not yet seen her. But as far as the people in that line are concerned, the lunch lady has declared that she is the only one who has the food and will serve them lunch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me see if I understand the LDS beliefs on this topic correctly:

The things of God can only be understood by the power of the Holy Spirit. Revelations, visions and restored doctrines are all part of the Restored Church of Christ and additional light regarding the eternal nature of God and his relationship with his children is one of the great blessings of that restored truth.

Human beings were born in heaven as the son or daughter of a god and goddess before they were born physically here on earth.

We....that is you and I and everyone of us that have been born on this fallen sphere are literally sons and daughters of a loving Father in Heaven. And a Heavenly Mother? " man is the offspring of celestial parentage.......and all men and women are in the similitude of the universal Father and Mother and are literally the sons and daughters of deity." - Joseph F. Smith.....Prophet.

Being born into this life here on earth is something that we agreed to in heaven. This life serves as a test and a means of obtaining exaltation one day to godhood.

Yes. Our time here in mortality is set apart as a time of probation and of testing. It is our opportunity to learn and gain experience and perfect our faith and to attain the attributes of Christ....which are the attributes of the Father. Exaltation.........salvation is available to everyone who has ever lived or will ever live. Everyone will have the opportunity to hear and accept the Gospel of Jesus Christ....repent and return to the Father. Will everyone accept?

One achieves exaltation by living a life of obedience to Mormon teaching and practices. Those exalted to godhood will inhabit a planet and procreate spirit children.

Eternal life is available to all mankind. Everyone who has ever lived or will ever live will have the opportunity to hear and accept the Gospel.....whether in this life or in the spirit world. All mankind must come to salvation in exactly the same way. Faith in Jesus Christ, repentance , baptism by proper Priesthood Authority, receipt of the gift of the Holy Ghost...again by those having authority, as well as entering into the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage in the House of the Lord and enduring to the end.....endeavoring to live a Christ like life...repenting along the way is what is required to recieve Eternal life...exaltation.

A supporting quote from Brigham Young would be this: "the Lord created you and me for the purpose of becoming Gods like himself...We are created to become Gods like unto our Father in heaven.” (Journal of Discourses, 3:93)

Yes....."Godhood is to have the character, possess the attributes and enjoy the perfections which the Father has. It is to do what he does, have the powers resident in him and live as he lives...having eternal increase....it is to become joint heirs with Christ....inheriting with him all that the Father hath."

So, having that all being said (and if I'm wrong, please correct me), how does the Mormon Church interpret Isaiah 43:10?

Further light and knowledge and clarification of biblical scripture.........revelation and additional and open canon. My interpretation....he is saying that he is our God and Savior and that we have no other..as in verse 11. And just for clarification........it is the Church of Jesus Christ... not the Mormon Church.

Edited by bytor2112
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"The context of this passage reveals that Christ had just pronounces Himself one with the Father saying, "I and My Father are one" (10:30). The Jews wanted to stone Him because they thought Christ was blaspheming since He was making Himself out to be equal with God (vv. 31-33).

Jesus responded by quoting Psalm 82:6 which says, "I said, you are gods." This psalm addresses judges who are judging unjustly [Psalm 82:2]. The title of "gods" is not addressed to everyone, but only to these judges about whom Jesus said are those to "whom the word of God came" (v. 35). Jesus was showing that if the OT Scriptures could give some divine status to divinely appointed judges, why should they find it incredible that He should call Himself the Son of God? Thus, Jesus was giving a defense for His own deity, not for the deification of man." (Geisler/Howe 417 The Big Book of Bible Difficulties)

That's the best response I can come up with.

This Psalm has fascinated me mainly because of a constant reference to it from people outside traditional orthodoxy and Judaism. I respectfully, and humbly (since they are much smarter than me), disagree with Geisler and Howe on this one (I'm protestant, btw).

Here's my take on Psalm 82.

I think it's used as a polemic tactic against the gods of the nations. The Psalm does not address explicitly whether or not those gods are real or fake idols. It does seem to assume they are real in some sense, otherwise who is it God is judging? The Psalm carries with it a strong Canaanite theme to it:

82:1 Elohim stands in the assembly of El;

in the midst of the elohim he renders judgment.

The "assembly of El" is a phrase only used here in the entire bible. There is another possible reference to it in Isaiah 14 where it says, "stars of El". I see only 2 real possibilities here. (1) vs. 1 is a polemic tactic against the Canaanite high god El. Israel's God stands in El's assembly and just begins to run the show thereby showing the impotence of El to do anything about it. (2) El is refering Israel's God Himself and the one taking a stand in His assembly is a plenipotentiary agent.

I think (2) is more likely since at the end of the Psalm the standing elohim that has been rendering judgment calls on Elohim to stand and render judgment. The picture is that the El in vs. 1 is seated as judge and at the end of the Psalm the Elohim that has been rendering judgment on the gods of the nations calls on the seated One to stand and execute judgment on the nations themselves.

The other "elohim" (gods) mentioned in the passage are the gods of the nations. But they are not god in the same sense as either El that is seated or the Elohim that is standing. They are in fact incapable of executing justice properly as they make unjust decisions according to vs. 2. These gods don't even "know or understand" and they stumble around in darkness. In fact, they will die "like men" and fall like any other ruler. There is a distinction drawn between the elohim and men. The elohim here are not men. But they are not elohim in the same sense as the standing one or the seated one are because they are being judged by these other 2 and can't do anything about it.

The standing Elohim would be a plenipotentiary of the seated El since it seems that the execution of the verdict depends solely on the seated El.

Now, since I am Christian, I must also be able to cohere this understanding with the way Jesus is using it in John 10 or I must find another way to explain it.

10:31 The Jewish leaders picked up rocks again to stone him to death. 10:32 Jesus said to them,“I have shown you many good deeds from the Father. For which one of them are you going to stone me?” 10:33 The Jewish leaders replied, “We are not going to stone you for a good deed but for blasphemy because you, a man, are claiming to be God.” 10:34 Jesus answered, “Is it not written in your law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 10:35 If those people to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’ (and the scripture cannot be broken), 10:36 do you say about the one whom the Father set apart and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’? 10:37 If I do not perform the deeds of my Father, do not believe me. 10:38 But if I do them, even if you do not believe me, believe the deeds, so that you may come to know and understand that I am in the Father and the Father is in me.” 10:39 Then they attempted again to seize him, but he escaped their clutches.

In the conext of the passage, Jesus is defending His unique relationship to the Father. And He does this by appealing to Psalm 82.

The first thing to note is that He says "Is it not written in your law". This is interesting because this is a Psalm and is not located in the Torah. What is Jesus talking about? Does Jesus not understand what the Torah is? Of course he understands, and I think this shows a high degree of understanding of Torah. I think He is talking about the "Oral Torah" which many Jews adhered to, and Jews today adhere to. This was a Pharisee belief that God had delivered a written Torah and an oral Torah to Moses on Sinai. Lucky for us, the Rabbi's eventually wrote down the oral Torah. So, what does the Oral Torah say about Psalm 82?

Mishnah Avot:

7. Rabbi Chalafta ben Dosa of Kefar Chanania used to say: If ten men sit together and occupy themselves with the Torah, the Divine Presence rests among them as it is written (Psalm 82:1) "God has taken his place in the divine council." And from where do we learn that this applies even to five? Because it is written (Amos 9:6) "And founds his vault upon the earth." And how do we learn that this applies even to three? Because it is written (Psalm 82:1) "In the midst of the gods he holds judgment." And from where can it be shown that the same applies even to two? Because it is written (Malachi 3:16)"Then those who revered the Lord spoke with one another. The Lord took note and listened." And from where even of one? Because it is written (Exodus 20:24) "In every place where I cause my name to be remembered I will come to you and bless you

And also in the Targum, an interesting version of Psalm 82 shows up:

1. A hymn composed by Asaph. God, his presence abides in the assembly of the righteous who are strong in Torah; he will give judgment in the midst of the righteous judges.

5. They do not know how to do good, and they do not understand the Torah, they walk in darkness; because of this, the pillars of the earth’s foundations shake.

This is the mindset Jesus is addressing. In Hebrew, "elohim" doesn't always refer to deity, and that reading was how the Jewish people were reading the Psalm ("rulers" or "judges"). The people he was addressing thought that Psalm 82 was talking about rulers/judges of Israel who God gave the Torah to on Sinai. In John 10, Jesus is using this and turning it in on them and this is evident in the passage:

10:35 If those people to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’ (and the scripture cannot be broken),

and he was doing this while defending His unique relationship to the Father. He is not affirming that they are indeed gods. He is using the Psalm with the same intent that the original author did - polemic. If they had applied the entire Psalm to themselves they would have seen that the "gods" there do not "know or understand", a phrase Jesus picks on in John 10 also:

10:38b so that you may come to know and understand that I am in the Father and the Father is in me.”

and they would have been aware that these gods in the Psalm are killed. Not really someone you want to identify with huh? I think Jesus is also identifying Himself with the elohim that is standing in Psalm 82 and rendering judgment since the context is Jesus defending His unique relationship with the Father and since Jesus says, "I said you are gods". I think Jesus is identifying Himself as the One that is rendering judgment. In Psalm 82 the judgment is rendered on the gods of the nations. In John 10 the judgment is rendered on the Jewish leaders, who identify themselves as the "gods" in the Psalm.

Jesus is not affirming they are gods; that grossly takes the passage out of context. He's, if anything, doing the opposite by rendering judgment on them, but I think affirming or denying their deity is not involved in the passage or a concern of the passage at all, especially since Jews didn't consider themselves to be divine.

He is not affirming that their understanding of Psalm 82, "rulers" or "judges" of the Torah, is correct either since there is a remark to "your law" that seems to draw a distinction between what Jesus was affirming and what they affirmed (kind of like, "your law, not mine").

The original context of Psalm 82 is judgment on the gods of the nations. If anything, the the oral law has misapplied that Psalm and Jesus exploits the opprotunity to defend His unique relationship to the Father and their subordination to Him. Just as Psalm 82 was a polemic against the gods of the nations, Jesus uses Psalm 82 as a polemic against those standing there due to their understanding of Psalm 82.

Hope that helps.

Edited by Yekcidmij
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

May I ask you a question?

Why differentiate between God and god? Why not say, "There are no gods formed after me rather than Gods?"

Well, when the Bible says "gods", with the lower case "g", it's referring to idols, which are in reality demons posing to be "gods".

They sacrificed unto demons who are not God; To gods whom they knew not, To new ones, who came newly up, Whom your fathers revered not. - Deuteronomy 32:17

The Old Testament Hebrew original languages usually uses the word "elohei" for them rather than "el, ela, or elohim".

So if you're saying "Gods" with an upper case "G", you're suggesting there is more than one all-powerful, transcendent, and sovereign Being.

Edited by PassionForHisWord
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This Psalm has fascinated me mainly because of a constant reference to it from people outside traditional orthodoxy and Judaism. I respectfully, and humbly (since they are much smarter than me), disagree with Geisler and Howe on this one (I'm protestant, btw).

Here's my take on Psalm 82.

I think it's used as a polemic tactic against the gods of the nations. The Psalm does not address explicitly whether or not those gods are real or fake idols. It does seem to assume they are real in some sense, otherwise who is it God is judging? The Psalm carries with it a strong Canaanite theme to it:

82:1 Elohim stands in the assembly of El;

in the midst of the elohim he renders judgment.

The "assembly of El" is a phrase only used here in the entire bible. There is another possible reference to it in Isaiah 14 where it says, "stars of El". I see only 2 real possibilities here. (1) vs. 1 is a polemic tactic against the Canaanite high god El. Israel's God stands in El's assembly and just begins to run the show thereby showing the impotence of El to do anything about it. (2) El is refering Israel's God Himself and the one taking a stand in His assembly is a plenipotentiary agent.

I think (2) is more likely since at the end of the Psalm the standing elohim that has been rendering judgment calls on Elohim to stand and render judgment. The picture is that the El in vs. 1 is seated as judge and at the end of the Psalm the Elohim that has been rendering judgment on the gods of the nations calls on the seated One to stand and execute judgment on the nations themselves.

The other "elohim" (gods) mentioned in the passage are the gods of the nations. But they are not god in the same sense as either El that is seated or the Elohim that is standing. They are in fact incapable of executing justice properly as they make unjust decisions according to vs. 2. These gods don't even "know or understand" and they stumble around in darkness. In fact, they will die "like men" and fall like any other ruler. There is a distinction drawn between the elohim and men. The elohim here are not men. But they are not elohim in the same sense as the standing one or the seated one are because they are being judged by these other 2 and can't do anything about it.

The standing Elohim would be a plenipotentiary of the seated El since it seems that the execution of the verdict depends solely on the seated El.

Now, since I am Christian, I must also be able to cohere this understanding with the way Jesus is using it in John 10 or I must find another way to explain it.

In the conext of the passage, Jesus is defending His unique relationship to the Father. And He does this by appealing to Psalm 82.

The first thing to note is that He says "Is it not written in your law". This is interesting because this is a Psalm and is not located in the Torah. What is Jesus talking about? Does Jesus not understand what the Torah is? Of course he understands, and I think this shows a high degree of understanding of Torah. I think He is talking about the "Oral Torah" which many Jews adhered to, and Jews today adhere to. This was a Pharisee belief that God had delivered a written Torah and an oral Torah to Moses on Sinai. Lucky for us, the Rabbi's eventually wrote down the oral Torah. So, what does the Oral Torah say about Psalm 82?

Mishnah Avot:

And also in the Targum, an interesting version of Psalm 82 shows up:

This is the mindset Jesus is addressing. In Hebrew, "elohim" doesn't always refer to deity, and that reading was how the Jewish people were reading the Psalm ("rulers" or "judges"). The people he was addressing thought that Psalm 82 was talking about rulers/judges of Israel who God gave the Torah to on Sinai. In John 10, Jesus is using this and turning it in on them and this is evident in the passage:

10:35 If those people to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’ (and the scripture cannot be broken),

and he was doing this while defending His unique relationship to the Father. He is not affirming that they are indeed gods. He is using the Psalm with the same intent that the original author did - polemic. If they had applied the entire Psalm to themselves they would have seen that the "gods" there do not "know are understand", a phrase Jesus picks on in John 10 also:

10:38b so that you may come to know and understand that I am in the Father and the Father is in me.”

and they would have been aware that these gods in the Psalm are killed. Not really someone you want to identify with huh? I think Jesus is also identifying Himself with the elohim that is standing in Psalm 82 and rendering judgment since the context is Jesus defending His unique relationship with the Father and since Jesus says, "I said you are gods". I think Jesus is identifying Himself as the One that is rendering judgment. In Psalm 82 the judgment is rendered on the gods of the nations. In John 10 the judgment is rendered on the Jewish leaders, who identify themselves as the "gods" in the Psalm.

Jesus is not affirming they are gods; that grossly takes the passage out of context. He's, if anything, doing the opposite by rendering judgment on them, but I think affirming or denying their deity is not involved in the passage or a concern of the passage at all, especially since Jews didn't consider themselves to be divine.

He is not affirming that their understanding of Psalm 82, "rulers" or "judges" of the Torah, is correct either since there is a remark to "your law" that seems to draw a distinction between what Jesus was affirming and what they affirmed (kind of like, "your law, not mine").

The original context of Psalm 82 is judgment on the gods of the nations. If anything, the the oral law has misapplied that Psalm and Jesus exploits the opprotunity to defend His unique relationship to the Father and their subordination to Him. Just as Psalm 82 was a polemic against the gods of the nations, Jesus uses Psalm 82 as a polemic against those standing there due to their understanding of Psalm 82.

Hope that helps.

That is a very helpful response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to ponder out loud here. It seems to me that there are three types of Gods, if you will:

1) True Gods (IE. God the Father, Jesus Christ, Holy Ghost). These are eternal and perfect in nature, power, knowledge, action and purpose. (some may understand God honestly but differently)

2) Posers or false gods or false christs who may or may not exist and who do not have the truth but who have an agenda to distort the truth or lead followers aways from the truth. This may include idols or materialism or even in some ways of looking at it....arm of the flesh. (satan is the author and influencer of all to deceive and corrupt the children of men and the designs of God)

3) Children of God, who have great potential who are literally the offspring of God but who are human and flawed and need help to attain perfection thru the sacrifice of a Savior and a loving and perfect Father. These include all the human family. Those who obey the eternal commandments and laws that lead to perfection, will be given all the Father has and become joint heirs with Christ. But, these children cannot obtain this glory by themselves but must be given these blessings thru the combination of Atonement, covenant, and obedience.

The way I see it, I can become a god or a spiritual adult. But I am not perfect as the Father is and can only become perfect because of help or grace. The only thing I really know about become this type of god is that eternal progression becomes available. The D&C says they are called gods "...because they go on".

Edited by Misshalfway
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, that's part of the context. But the other half is God's statement: There has been no God before Him, and niether will there be after Him.

Let's say I got in a line to buy lunch for myself. If I was the only one in line, and also somehow the only customer the restaurant had all day, that would make me both the first customer and the last customer for that day, right?

Well, rather than using a time segment of a day, God declares He is the first and the last for all eternity (Isaiah 44:6). The first and the last what? The first and the last God. He even adds (in that verse reference I just put) that besides Him there is no other God. He has been the first for the entire infinite duration that He has been in existence, and because He is the only God, He will also be the last for the entire infinite duration that He will continue to exist in.

It may sound a little silly, but if we go back to my analogy, this would be the equivalent of me saying "I am the first and the last customer today, and besides me there is no other customer today."

Much of the problem you have to do with the doctrine is that you employ logic intent on finding fault. This is the same problem the Pharisees and Scribes had in opposing Jesus. So I am not sure where to begin. Let us start with Genesis. Note that prior to the fall of man all references to G-d or g-d are plural. Note that after the fall of man all references to G-d are singular. Failure to engage this fact is a great flaw of traditional Trinitarian Christians. It fails to recognize the very core and basis of the fall and the only means for fallen man to return to the Kingdom of Heaven.

In the most simple of terms if man deals with the exact same single G-d before and after the fall then there was in truth no fall. We learn from scripture that Jesus is the “only” mediator G-d with the Father. With this understanding of Jesus everything in ancient scripture makes sense. For example; as the “mediator G-d” for fallen man there are no other G-ds for consideration. All of the ancient references to G-d in Biblical scripture parallel the ancient covenants concerning Kingdoms and Suzerain rule as directed toward subjects of that kingdom. It would be most foolish to think that the ancient Egyptians thought Pharaoh was indeed the only Suzerain on earth – even though every ancient Egyptian manuscript referencing Pharaoh says exactly that.

The LDS doctrine is that G-d the Father is the Suzerain of the Kingdom of heaven and that Jesus Christ his “begotten” Son is his servant vassal. We call the Father our father because he is the father of our spirits. LDS doctrine also teaches that the destiny of man is to evolve and become like G-d. To say this is impossible it to limit G-d and say he has no such power to do any such thing. Which in my mind is rather foolish since G-d gave all living creatures power to reproduce after their own “kind” and then to imply that G-d has no such power himself.

I also submit that there is no character or attribute of G-d that is not worthy of man’s emulation. In every way G-d intended for man to be like him. To claim and pronounce otherwise is in my mind the worst kind heresy and makes G-d a creation of man and his logic rather than man the very intended image and likeness of that G-d that created him.

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am going to ponder out loud here. It seems to me that there are three types of Gods, if you will:

I think that the bible speaks of 2 kinds of what the old testament calls "elohim" (gods). Both uses can be seen in Psalm 82. First, the very word "elohim" is not a proper name, but is a generic title that usually refers more to a plane of existence. There are a few instances when it is used to talk about human judges (Ex 21:6; 22:8-9), and I think it's used to denote the function as an elohim rather than being, in the present tense, an elohim. The elohim are in heaven, men are on earth. I think this has carried over to our language today to what we call "angels" and "demons". Angels and demons are elohim (and yes I have verses).

Then there is a unique use of the of the title elohim when it refers to Israel's God. He is THE Elohim, Ha'elohim. He is utterly unique from everything else and is incomparable to anything else. He is the One and only Creator of everything, including all other elohim. Nothing is, was, or will be like Him. YHWH (Jehovah) is Elohim and no ther elohim is YHWH.

Deut 6:4:

Shema Yisrael,.. YHWH.........Eloheinu,. YHWH....... Ehud.

Hear O, Israel, Jehovah [is] our God, Jehovah [is] One.

Failure to engage this fact is a great flaw of traditional Trinitarian Christians.

Until now.

Edited by Yekcidmij
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the bible speaks of 2 kinds of what the old testament calls "elohim" (gods). Both uses can be seen in Psalm 82. First, the very word "elohim" is not a proper name, but is a generic title that usually refers more to a plane of existence. There are a few instances when it is used to talk about human judges (Ex 21:6; 22:8-9), and I think it's used to denote the function as an elohim rather than being, in the present tense, an elohim. The elohim are in heaven, men are on earth. I think this has carried over to our language today to what we call "angels" and "demons". Angels and demons are elohim (and yes I have verses).

Then there is a unique use of the of the title elohim when it refers to Israel's God. He is THE Elohim, Ha'elohim. He is utterly unique from everything else and is incomparable to anything else. He is the One and only Creator of everything, including all other elohim. Nothing is, was, or will be like Him. YHWH (Jehovah) is Elohim and no ther elohim is YHWH.

Deut 6:4:

Shema Yisrael,.. YHWH.........Eloheinu,. YHWH....... Ehud.

Hear O, Israel, Jehovah [is] our God, Jehovah [is] One.

Until now.

The Shema actually screams the doctrine of the trinity. As I think many of us know, the word "Elohim" denotes three or more figures. And the word used for "one" in the passage is "echad", which describes a compound unity among 2 or more figures (the same word is used when the Bible describes marriage as becoming one flesh in Genesis 2:24).

So what the Shema is saying about YHWH is that He is three or more figures united as one Being.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think that the bible speaks of 2 kinds of what the old testament calls "elohim" (gods). Both uses can be seen in Psalm 82. First, the very word "elohim" is not a proper name, but is a generic title that usually refers more to a plane of existence. There are a few instances when it is used to talk about human judges (Ex 21:6; 22:8-9), and I think it's used to denote the function as an elohim rather than being, in the present tense, an elohim. The elohim are in heaven, men are on earth. I think this has carried over to our language today to what we call "angels" and "demons". Angels and demons are elohim (and yes I have verses).

Then there is a unique use of the of the title elohim when it refers to Israel's God. He is THE Elohim, Ha'elohim. He is utterly unique from everything else and is incomparable to anything else. He is the One and only Creator of everything, including all other elohim. Nothing is, was, or will be like Him. YHWH (Jehovah) is Elohim and no ther elohim is YHWH.

Deut 6:4:

Shema Yisrael,.. YHWH.........Eloheinu,. YHWH....... Ehud.

Hear O, Israel, Jehovah [is] our God, Jehovah [is] One.

Failure to engage this fact is a great flaw of traditional Trinitarian Christians.

Until now.

I am not sure how you have engaged the great flaw of traditional Trinitarian Christians. In every case you have used "one" to reference G-d from Biblical scripture the reference is the ancient Hebrew "Ehad" - yet you are using it as though it was "Yhead". The singularity of "ehad" excludes the differentiation of both a Father and a Son. Ehad implies a unity as a man and woman becoming "one" in marriage. A single individual would have been yhead.

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two ways to view this passage in Isaiah. First, it is considered a part of Deutero-Isaiah, which was probably written during the exile. The post-First Temple Deuteronomists rewrote portions of the bible and introduced their religious views to excise the ancient First Temple beliefs.

Margaret Barker and other biblical scholars show that in the First Temple period, the Jews DID believe in multiple gods. There was a divine council, led by El Elyon/Elohim. He had several divine sons, the foremost being Yahweh/Jehovah. He divided the nations amongst them, and they spent the centuries attempting to overthrow other divine sons.

So, in Job 1, we see Satan and the sons of God going to heaven to test Jehovah for preeminence. Job believed in the divine council, but his friends viewed things from a monotheistic/Deuteronomist way, and challenged him, believing he had fallen and deserved to die.

The martyr Stephen on his death was filled with the Spirit and stated seeing Christ, the son of God standing on the right hand of God. Margaret Barker teaches that the concept of a divine council was reinstituted by early Christians who understood and followed the First Temple beliefs, but was later rejected in the Nicene Creed.

The other concept to consider is that Jehovah was the God in Israel during Isaiah's reign. Of the divine sons reigning over other nations there were always overthrows and intrigue (as we see in Job 1). The original Canaanite god was overthrown by Baal. In this instance, we can now understand why Jehovah would state that there was no other God of Israel before or after him, as in other nations.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In every case you have used "one" to reference G-d from Biblical scripture the reference is the ancient Hebrew "Ehad" - yet you are using it as though it was "Yhead". The singularity of "ehad" excludes the differentiation of both a Father and a Son. Ehad implies a unity as a man and woman becoming "one" in marriage. A single individual would have been yhead.

The Traveler

I was using Deut 6:4 in terms of the context it occurs in. It refers to the uniqueness of Israel's God and that He is the sole object of their worship. It is not an analysis of the inner being, contrary to what PassionForHisWord says. It has nothing to do with unity either. Neither of those are the appropriate context of Deuteronomy. It has to do with uniquness and devotion.

The Shema actually screams the doctrine of the trinity.

I happen to affirm the Nicene Creed, but I'm afraid it's not entailed in Deut 6:4.

As I think many of us know, the word "Elohim" denotes three or more figures.

Not always. It can be used to refer to 1 figurel, such as Gen 1:27, or it can be used to refer to an unspecified many figures, such as Psalm 82.

And the word used for "one" in the passage is "echad", which describes a compound unity among 2 or more figures (the same word is used when the Bible describes marriage as becoming one flesh in Genesis 2:24).

Gen 1:27 and Psalm 82:1 use 'elohim' in the sense of 1 figure since the helping verbs and pronouns denote 1 figure.

So what the Shema is saying about YHWH is that He is three or more figures united as one Being.

Not really.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are two ways to view this passage in Isaiah. First, it is considered a part of Deutero-Isaiah, which was probably written during the exile. The post-First Temple Deuteronomists rewrote portions of the bible and introduced their religious views to excise the ancient First Temple beliefs.

I don't even know that we need to discuss a Deutero-Isaiah theory. I don't have much of a problem with it and do find the subject interesting. Barkers theory is somewhat like a Deutero Isaiah theory, but a little different.

In any case, if you want to accept biblical criticism, and remain consistent and rational in your thinking, you must reject 1 Nephi 20-21, 2 Nephi 6-8, 3 Nephi 20 & 22, Mosiah 12, and Mosiah 14. Those chapters all quote from what would then be considered the corrupted deutero-Isaiah and would also be terribly anachronistic. You would probably also have to reject 2 Nephi 12-24, 27, 30 since those chapters represent an inappropriate division in the text of 1st Isaiah.

Not that I reject the deutero-Isaiah (or even tritero-Isaiah, since there is no consensus among scholars on the composition of the book) theory, but I just want to point out the logical conclusion of its acceptance by LDS. The logical conclusion would be that Joseph Smith was not a true prophet.

Now I personally lean toward a unity in Isaiah rather than multiple authors to the book. So those entire chapters in the Book of Mormon contain very little for me to object about.

Edited by Yekcidmij
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many Early Christian Fathes interpreted Psalms 82:6 to mean the deification of man.

Deification of man - FAIRMormon

I said " you are gods, all of you sons of the most high.’ let Eunomius hear this, let

Arius, who say that the son of God is son in the same way we are. That we are gods is not so by

nature, but by grace. "but to as many as receive Him he gave power to becoming sons of God" I

made man for that purpose, that from men they may become gods. We are called gods and

sons!...(Christ said) "all of you sons of the Most High," it is not possible to be the son of the

Most High, unless He Himself is the Most High. I said that all of you would be exalted as I am

exalted. (Jerome (340 A.D.-420 A.D.) the homilies of Saint Jerome pg. 106-107)

Mark Nispel has recently studied the extensive use of Psalm 82.6 (ye are gods) in early Christological contexts, and has suggested that this may be the origin of the idea of deification. The evidence of the Latin authors, who know of becoming god only in the context of the Christological argument of Psalm 82 indicates that the theology of Christian deification, while drawing upon Hellenistic ideas, arose chiefly out of the exegetical debate over Psalm 82.6 (Mark D. Nispel, Christian Deification and the Early Testimonia, Vigiliae Christianae 53 (1999): 302).

Arthur Darby Nock writes that the concept of deification admitted of a wide range of variations and was often expressed with a boldness which surprises moderns who have been brought up to think of the category of >divinity as infinitely remote. It had its roots in Gen. 1.26 and Psalm > 82.6 (A. D. Nock, review article, Journal of Religion 31 (1951): 214-6).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many Early Christian Fathes interpreted Psalms 82:6 to mean the deification of man.

Quoting the church fathers is fine, but if they think Psalm 82 is refering to deification of man, they are simply wrong. The "gods" in Psalm 82 are killed according to the Psalm. That's the extreme opposite of deification. If Jerome misread it that bad, well I'm sorry for Jerome. If Jerome wants to talk to me about it, that's fine too.

I also unfortunately don't have access to the entire work by Jerome so I can't read the snippet in it's context. Since you are quoting the work, what is the context of the quote? Surely you check sources, right?

Church fathers aren't scripture and I laid out my take on Psalm 82, and it's relation to John 10, so quoting church fathers is nothing more than an interesting footnote, and calling it "interesting" is a formality of respect.

Edited by Yekcidmij
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't even know that we need to discuss a Deutero-Isaiah theory. I don't have much of a problem with it and do find the subject interesting. Barkers theory is somewhat like a Deutero Isaiah theory, but a little different.

In any case, if you want to accept biblical criticism, and remain consistent and rational in your thinking, you must reject 1 Nephi 20-21, 2 Nephi 6-8, 3 Nephi 20 & 22, Mosiah 12, and Mosiah 14. Those chapters all quote from what would then be considered the corrupted deutero-Isaiah and would also be terribly anachronistic. You would probably also have to reject 2 Nephi 12-24, 27, 30 since those chapters represent an inappropriate division in the text of 1st Isaiah.

Not that I reject the deutero-Isaiah (or even tritero-Isaiah, since there is no consensus among scholars on the composition of the book) theory, but I just want to point out the logical conclusion of its acceptance by LDS. The logical conclusion would be that Joseph Smith was not a true prophet.

Now I personally lean toward a unity in Isaiah rather than multiple authors to the book. So those entire chapters in the Book of Mormon contain very little for me to object about.

We do need to discuss 2nd Isaiah. For two reasons. First, the portions quoted in the Book of Mormon are actually among a key section in dispute. Word Print study was done on Isaiah, showing there probably was a Deutero-Isaiah, but did not include the chapters included in the Book of Mormon (Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, ed Parry/Welch). Also, of the disputed chapters from Deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, it only includes the chapters that do not make Yahweh and Elohim one being: one of the clear points of the Deuteronomist view.

The Book of Mormon supports the concept of two deities, Father and Son, El and Yahweh. And shows it in the Isaiah chapters. Either Joseph Smith was an amazing genius in choosing which chapters to use, or he was inspired to translate an actual ancient document.

A very good article by Kevin Christensen discusses some of the points in this thread, including points from Margaret Barker is found at this link.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One other thing, Nephi would have quoted Isaiah from the Brass Plates of Laban. Given Nephi was a descendant of Manasseh and Joseph (of Egypt), the Brass Plates would have been an article of the Northern Kingdom, probably carried to Jerusalem just before or immediately after Israel was carried of by Assyria.

The Northern Kingdom was attached to the "E" version of the Biblical text, which focused on Elohim, the Abrahamic covenant, wandering in the wilderness, wilderness altars, etc. These are things that disappeared or were lessened in importance post-Diaspora, as Yahweh absorbed Elohim, the focus turned to the Mosaic law and the Levite priests, and centralizing worship in the Temple of Jerusalem.

In the writings of Moses, for example, there are two trips by the wandering Israelites to Meribah. Both instances tell of Moses hitting a rock with his staff and bringing forth water. The E version has the Angel of the Lord's Presence stand on the rock directing Moses (Exodus 17). The other version lessens Moses' authority, having him mess up and losing his chance to enter into the Promised Land (Numbers 20). It should be noted that the Book of Mormon mentions the E version of the story (1 Ne 17:29).

It has been suggested by John Sorensen (IIRC) that the Brass Plates may be the source for E. Brought to Jerusalem by Laban's family after the Northern Kingdom was destroyed, then integrated into the writings already extant in Jerusalem. We see in the BoM how these records were important enough that the elders of Jerusalem would have Laban bring them to consult (even at night, as Laban's servant Zoram didn't seem it strange to follow the disguised Nephi through the streets of Jerusalem and outside its walls late at night).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share