We can become gods?

[Hemidakota]

Anthony, I highly doubt that was a idiom here but a simple observation of what was seen. Even within Genesis when the creation the missing plurality on the usage GOD versus GODS created man. Even Jospeh Smith noticed this when he was correcting the Bible mistakes.

I shall comment on the very first Hebrew word in the Bible; I will make a comment on the very first sentence of the history of creation in the Bible -- Berosheit. I want to analyze the word. Baith -- in, by, through, and everything else. Rosh -- the head. Sheit -- grammatical termination. When the inspired man wrote it, he did not put the baith there. An old Jew without any authority added the word; he thought it too bad to begin to talk about the head! It read first, "The head one of the Gods brought forth the Gods." That is the true meaning of the words. Baurau signifies to bring forth. ... Thus the head God brought forth the Gods in the grand council.

I will transpose and simplify it in the English language. ... The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The grand councilors sat at the head in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the world, which were created at the time. (TPJS, pp. 348-49.)

The plural pronouns in this indicate very clearly that God was talking to someone else:

"Let us make man in our image." The question has been asked, "To whom was God speaking on this occasion?" The answer has been provided by God to Moses in another scroll:

"And I, God, said unto mine Only Begotten, which was with me from the beginning: Let us make man in our image, after our likeness." (Moses 2:26.)

The "Only Begotten" of God was the pre-earthly Jehovah, who came to earth as Jesus Christ. Thus, God the Father was speaking to Jesus Christ on that occasion.

Genesis 1:26-27

The terms "in our image" and "after our likeness" indicate that God had bodily parts just as man does. This truth has been taught by many other righteous Christians (meaning the followers of Christ).

The Church believes that “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens! That is the great secret. ... If you were to see him today, you would see him like a man in form -- like yourselves in all the person, image, and very form as a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion, image and likeness of God, and received instruction from, and walked, talked and conversed with him, as one man talks and communes with another.” (TPJS, p. 345.)

[Interested]

Adam was created in the image of God. We were not.

[AnthonyB]

Hemi,

I'd probably agree that Stephen quite likely saw Jesus in a position of power at the right hand side of God. (It is even possible that Stephen perceived God in human form as well). But the point of seeing him on the right hand side IMHO was to ascribe His position in the universe not to describe the seating arrangements in heaven.

As I have said a number of times I don't have a problem with the persons of God talking to each other. I actually view that they would have had a discussion about the creation. In that respects there was a council in heaven before creation occurred. At which the plan of redemption was shared amongst the persons of God.

In whose image was man created in? My personal answer is Jesus Christ but that takes an understanding of eternity and time. When the ressurected Jesus entered eternity he became outside/beyond our time dimension. At that moment in eternity (if one can use a time oriented word like moment about eternity) He existed throughout our time continuum as the ressurected Jesus.

Edited December 3, 2008 by AnthonyB
Clarifiction -"about eternity" for "of eternity"

[Hemidakota]

Hmm....interesting personal observation.

[Traveler]

G-d cannot be omnipresent and omniscient and omnipotent and be the only one of his "kind". The flaw of the Traditional Trinitarian (monotheistic) G-d is that he can only deal with that which is inferior and flawed and G-d therefore, lacks the power, intelligence, grace and everything else needed to deal with another being like himself - yet he demands that all his creation do this very thing that he cannot.

There can be only one Omnipotent in the universe.

Edit - What if the god's will contradict's eachother?

Interesting use of the word "one" - then nothing can be "one" with the "only one Omnipotent in the universe". Again this contradicts scripture and the notion that Jesus is "one" with the Father.

The Traveler

[Interested]

Not necessarily. Jesus has always existed eternally with the Father. Jesus and the Father are I AM. Not "One".

[Hemidakota]

So as everyone else on this planet existed as Alpha and Omega or as "I AM" [intelligence]. :)

[Interested]

What support for everyone's pre-existence does the scripture support?

[rameumptom]

There are a few, such as Jeremiah 1:6. However, most of the concept of a premortal existence comes from early Christian writings. And, of course, modern prophets like Joseph Smith.

Here is a good link from the FAIR wiki on premortal existence.

Make sure and check the internal and external links at the site, as well.

[Interested]

I find Orthodox Christianity's answer about the blind man certainly more satisfying that a karmic one.

[Traveler]

I find Orthodox Christianity's answer about the blind man certainly more satisfying that a karmic one.

I find Dogbert in the Dilbert comic strip interesting in the discussion of Karma. Dogbert says something like he believes in Karma. So that when he treats someone badly he is satisified that they diserved it.

The Traveler

[Hemidakota]

If not then the Book of Abraham, Genesis, Book of Moses....and so on. A few scriptures in the OT and NT has it also.

[Hemidakota]

I find Orthodox Christianity's answer about the blind man certainly more satisfying that a karmic one.

Perhaps! Their manmade opinion then yes but visual or firsthand witnessing it then no.

[rameumptom]

I find Orthodox Christianity's answer about the blind man certainly more satisfying that a karmic one.

Would you please expound? Your statement says nothing and adds nothing to the discussion.

It is just as useless as saying, I am more satisfied with Billy Graham than with Oral Roberts.

It is a nice sentiment, but without any context is just a sentiment.

Second, are you sure that Orthodox Christianity has only one single answer concerning the blind man's circumstances?

[Interested]

Yes, I can expound. I think its more likely the man was blinded so the people could see God having victory over evil than to think the man was blinded because billions or how many years ago he sinned in a previous life.

Edit- By the way, I do believe in pre-existence, I just don't see any scriptural evidence for it.

Edited December 4, 2008 by Interested

[Hemidakota]

Even the Jews of that time period when Christ walked among the people of Israel, believe in the pre-exsistment and also felt born into sin and handicap was GOD punishment to that being. If not, why would they questioned him on the blindman being healed.? However, we do know, they were valiant spirits and were allowed to be used to glorify GOD.

Not to side-tracked this thread, something that is warranted to bring into the fray here but if you look closely at the different miracles, you find some interesting tidbit on what is required to do those miracles by our Savior:

Miracles in Which Direr Physical Contact Is So Stated

1. Peter's mother-in-law healed of a fever. (Matt. 8:14-15; Mark 1:30-31; Luke 4.)

2. A leper healed. (Matt. 8:1-4.)

3. Two blind men healed. (Matt. 9:27-31.)

4. Deafness and speech impediment healed. (Mark 7:32-37.)

5. Blindness healed. (Mark 8:22-26.)

6. A demoniac child healed. (Matt. 17:14-21; Mark 9:14-29; Luke 7:1-10.)

7. Woman healed of issue of blood. (Compare Matt. 9:20-22; Mark 5:25-34; Luke 8:4548.)

8. Jairus's daughter raised. (Matt. 9:18-25; Mark 5:38-42; Luke 8:35-42.)

9. Walking on the sea. (Matt. 14:25-33; Mark 6:47-51; John 6:16-21.)

10. Healing of man born blind. (John 9:1-7.)

11. Healing of woman with infirmity of 18 yearn (Luke 13:10-13.)

12. Blind man healed. (Matt. 9:27-31; 20:29)

13. Feeding five thousand. (Matt. 14:14-21; Mark 6:33-44; Luke 9:11-17; John 6:1-14.)

14. Feeding four thousand. (Matt. 15:29-38; Mark 8:1-9.)

15. Malchus's ear healed. (Luke 22:50-51.) See also Mark 3:9-10

Miracles in Which Direct Physical Contact Is Possible but Is not Expressly So Stated

1. Water into wine. (John 2:1-11.)

2. Passing unseen through a crowd. (Luke 4:28-30. See also John 8:59.)

3. Draught of fishes. (Luke 5:1-11.)

4. An unclean spirit cast out. (Mark 1:21-28; Luke 4:31-37.)

5. Palsy healed. (Matt. 9:2-8.)

6. Healing at pool of Bethesda. (John 5:1-9.)

7. Withered hand healed. (Luke 6:6-11.)

8. One blind and dumb healed. (Matt. 12:22-23.)

9. Restoring life to widow's son at Nain. (Luke 7:11-17.)

10. Casting devils out of Gadarene demoniac. (Matt. 8:28-34; Mark 5:1-20; Luke 8:6-29.)

11. Casting out a devil. (Luke 11:14.)

12. Man with dropsy healed. (Luke 14:1-6.)

13. Lazarus raised from the dead. (John 11:43-44.)

14. Ten lepers healed. (Luke 17:11-19.)

15. Blind Bartimaeus healed. (Mark 10:46-52; Luke 18:35-43.)

16. Withering curse on the fig true. (MAR. 21:18-19; Mark 11:12-14, 20.) See also Matt. 8:16; Mark 1:32-34

Miracles at a Distance Precluding Jesus' Physical Contact

1. Greek woman's daughter healed. (Matt. 15:22-28; Mark 7:25-30.)

2. Money in fish's mouth. (Matt. 17:24-27.)

3. Great haul of fishes. (John 21:1-8.)

4. Calming the storm (Matt. 8:23-27; Mark 4:3-41; Luke 8:22-25.)

5. Healing the Nobleman's son. (John 4:46-54.)

6. Healing centurion's servant of palsy. (Matt. 8:5-13; Luke 9:37-43.)

[rameumptom]

Hemi is right. Whether you agree with the concept of premortal existence or not, this passage shows that Jews of Christ's time did believe in it. Otherwise the question would have been a stupid one to ask, with no meaning.

Christ explained that people are not cursed prior to entering this life in birth. You'll note that Jesus did not refute the concept of premortal existence, but rather explained (as LDS believe) that disabilities are given as a way to demonstrate God's power through the weaknesses of mankind.

[Old Tex]

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?

I marvel at how far some folks go in taking a verse out of context in an effort to obscure one of the most beautiful teachings to come out of the bible. And in this case it is compounded because it's an old "standard" anti-mormon charge rather than being original with the one who posted it.

Old Tex

Edited December 16, 2008 by Old Tex

[chriscb]

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 was awesome!

[chriscb]

Scripture often has both an earthly meaning and a heavenly/spiritual one. We see it here, as well.

They are talking about the divine council here. These are sons of El that are each given an earthly kingdom to rule over. Yahweh received the greatest prize: Israel. Many of them squandered their divine inheritance, using intrigue to steal the portions of others. Job 1 tells about Satan and the sons of El going to challenge Yahweh to a dual over his son, Job! This is exactly what Psalms 82 is directly going after. They were to deal well with their earthly children over whom they'd been given authority. Instead, they squandered their opportunity and many fell from their divine place. Some suggest that Isaiah 14:12-20 tells of the Babylonian king representing one of these divine sons falling from heaven as he sought to overthrow God. LDS doctrine teaches it was none other than Satan (Moses 1:4, Abraham 3:24-28). Both in the ancient writings of the divine council and in LDS scripture, we read of challenges being made to God and Jesus' role as Savior.

Funny how a young farm boy from the Northeast could figure that out when it has taken biblical scholars up until the last 25 years to begin to understand this!

How old was Joseph Smith Jr. when he "figured that out"? Joseph Smith was 24 years old when the Book of Mormon was first published. I don't think he even touched on the subject of a plurality of gods until March 20, 1839 (the early Nauvoo, Illinois period). So, I'm curious to know why you would mis-characterize JS as "a young farm boy" when clearly this is not the case.

[chriscb]

Ah, I think it's a common misconception that it's refering to earthly, human judges. That is what the Jews thought (cf: m. avot and Targum Isaiah), but that's definitely not what the passage is talking about. The passage talks about divine elohim in an assembly.

Psalm 82 says: "How long will you judge unjustly, and show partiality to the wicked? Selah

3 Defend the poor and fatherless;

Do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4 Deliver the poor and needy;

Free them from the hand of the wicked."

If God is not speaking to earthly judges, then to whom is He speaking? Angels? Why on earth would Angels be concerned with the poor and orphans? More so than a human judge?

7 But you shall die like men,

And fall like one of the princes.”

8 Arise, O God, judge the earth;

For You shall inherit all nations.

If these unjust "gods" are not human judges, then why does it say in verse 8 "Arise, O God, judge the earth;" Why judge the earth for something done in heaven?

I asked a friend of mine who speaks Hebrew (his first language) and the phrase in verse 7 is better translated "you shall die just like other men, . . ." IOW, these unjust judges, these mortal men will die like any other mortal man.

Are you familiar with James E. Talmage? In his book, Jesus the Christ, he says the same thing.

8. Divinely Appointed Judges Called "gods."—In Psalm 82:6, judges invested by divine appointment are called "gods." To this scripture the Savior referred in His reply to the Jews in Solomon's Porch. Judges so authorized officiated as the representatives of God and are honored by the exalted title "gods." Compare the similar appellation applied to Moses (Exo. 4:16; 7:1). Jesus Christ possessed divine authorization, not through the word of God transmitted to Him by man, but as an inherent attribute. The inconsistency of calling human judges "gods," and of ascribing blasphemy to the Christ who called Himself the Son of God, would have been apparent to the Jews but for their sin-darkened minds.

Edited December 18, 2008 by chriscb

[teddyk]

You are asking from a human perspective. The definition of God in our church does not mean proud. An omnipotent God wants to have other literal gods around him, because they are all his family.

Question: Do this family of Gods whorship their God dad ?

Please be kind to me here, I have never written or spoken the term " God dad " before, an it is real awkward.

[chriscb]

Question: Do this family of Gods whorship their God dad ?

Please be kind to me here, I have never written or spoken the term " God dad " before, an it is real awkward.

How about Abba Father?

[john doe]

How about we worship the God designated for this earth, whom we are commanded to worship, and worry about the rest later. It's mostly speculation anyway.

[teddyk]

How about Abba Father?

Do the family of Gods whorship their " Abba Father" (explain Abba)? plzz :)