Eternal Progression- Another Perspective


Larry Cotrell
 Share

Recommended Posts

There has been a lot of discussion about eternal progression lately and I wanted to add my thoughts in the proper place.

Here's John 10:34 "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"

In this passage Jesus is quoting Psalms 82:6 "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." Psalm 82 is really about earthly rulers acting with justice. They are "gods" among the people but are being reminded that they will still have to face judgement from the one true God. In this passage, the Hebrew word Elohim is used to mean rulers as it is in Exodus 22:8,9, and 28. When Jesus uses the word "gods" in John 10 we know that he is referring to earthly leaders when we look at in the context of Psalm 82. In no way does this verse support eternal progression unless you look at it by itself.

Here's what I believe:

Psalm 90:2 "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."

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."

Edited by Larry Cotrell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll start with the good point you made at the end.

17 hours ago, Larry Cotrell said:

Here's what I believe:

Psalm 90:2 "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."

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."

That is a good response.  This at least is consistent.  I don't agree with the interpretation, obviously.  But it stands up to academic scrutiny.

The rest doesn't.

17 hours ago, Larry Cotrell said:

Here's John 10:34 "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"

In this passage Jesus is quoting Psalms 82:6 ... Psalm 82 is really about earthly rulers acting with justice...

I'd question the accuracy of your interpretation in Psalm 82.  True it is that the word can be used for either meaning.  But it depends on context.  And this particular passage has ambiguity to it.  Insufficient context to declare that this was the intended meaning.  I also agree that if you are to interpret this to mean "earthly rulers" then we must also take it to mean that Jesus was speaking of earthly rulers in John 10, as you indicate.  

The problem then becomes the consistency of meaning in John 10.  If He was only talking of earthly rulers, then He was stating that He Himself was just an earthly ruler.  But that couldn't be since the entire point was to verify that He and His Father were one.  That's why the Jews wanted to stone Him in that chapter -- for blasphemy.  Even after this explanation, they still wanted to stone Him.  So, apparently, the Jews of the time took his words to mean divinity.

So, either He was saying both we and He were GODS or that both we and He were earthly rulers and that Him being one with the Father has nothing to do with divinity.  Consistency must be carried through with the interpretation.

17 hours ago, Larry Cotrell said:

In this passage, the Hebrew word Elohim is used to mean rulers as it is in Exodus 22:8,9, and 28.

The translation of that single word is most likely about earthly rulers.  But they were specifically earthly ecclesiastical leaders.  That's why it is translated as "Judges" which were judges authorized by the Law of Moses (an ecclesiastical law which had governmental powers of the earth as well).  Other translations say "bring him near unto the house of God", or similar wording.  So, it is definitely a reference to divinity.

I wouldn't expect you to accept the doctrine of Eternal Progression because of this.  But for the sake of academic discussion, I think we need some more support for the interpretation you offer.  What I see in your arguments is assumed meanings rather than contextual meanings.  And it all depends on context which isn't clearly in your favor.  I don't see it standing up to scrutiny.  And since I'm just a Mormon saying this, at least accept someone else's interpretation of John 10 -- which emphasizes that the reference to us being gods indicates some sort of reward from the Father.

Quote

Matthew Henry Commentary
10:31-38 Christ's works of power and mercy proclaim him to be over all, God blessed for evermore, that all may know and believe He is in the Father, and the Father in Him. Whom the Father sends, he sanctifies. The holy God will reward, and therefore will employ, none but such as he makes holy. The Father was in the Son, so that by Divine power he wrought his miracles; the Son was so in the Father, that he knew the whole of His mind. This we cannot by searching find out to perfection, but we may know and believe these declarations of Christ. (Emphasis added).

 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

That is a good response.  This at least is consistent.  I don't agree with the interpretation, obviously.  But it stands up to academic scrutiny.

The rest doesn't.

How do you (or LDS people in general) interpret verses like Psalm 90:2 and Isaiah 43:10? 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Larry Cotrell said:

How do you (or LDS people in general) interpret verses like Psalm 90:2 and Isaiah 43:10? 

I'm not certain if there is an official position on such.  But what I've taken it to mean is that there is this "framework" called "time".  And those verses are an accurate description for that framework within which we are familiar.  There was none formed within that framework called time.  And within that same framework, there will not be any other formed.

But once we enter a state of being where time is a completely different concept, then different things happen.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Larry Cotrell said:

How do you (or LDS people in general) interpret verses like Psalm 90:2 and Isaiah 43:10? 

 

LDS do believe in ONE God.  This ONE God is made up of multiple persons.  In this regard we are similar to Trinitarians, the difference is in how they are one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Jane_Doe said:

LDS do believe in ONE God.  This ONE God is made up of multiple persons.  In this regard we are similar to Trinitarians, the difference is in how they are one.

I don't think that actually addresses the verse Larry quoted.  He presented them as a counter argument to the doctrine of eternal progression of man.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'm not certain if there is an official position on such.  But what I've taken it to mean is that there is this "framework" called "time".  And those verses are an accurate description for that framework within which we are familiar.  There was none formed within that framework called time.  And within that same framework, there will not be any other formed.

So are you saying that eternity is not endless? That it is only for a certain undefined period of time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Psalm 90:2 - God can be God regardless of how many others have obtained the same glory (aka inherited all God has).  (See Philippians 2:6, speaking of Christ, it says: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"  If you believe as we do that they are distinct beings with their own wills (which they choose to unite), then this clearly teaches that two can attain godhood without altering or diminishing the status of God the Father.)

Isaiah 43:10 is addressed to Israel.  For Israel (and all of God's children, including Jesus Christ), there is no other God, neither shall there be, ever, worlds without end, no matter what glory those children may obtain in the eternities to come, God will always be their God.

IMO, neither of those verses need to be interpreted differently whether you believe that current mortals can attain to godhood or not.  Either way, the verses mean what they say.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, Larry Cotrell said:

So are you saying that eternity is not endless? That it is only for a certain undefined period of time?

Not at all.  I look at eternity (in the context of time) much the same way as I look at infinity and numbers.  There is the Aleph-null set, the Aleph-one set, etc.  Within the Aleph-null set, there is infinity and there are orders of infinity.

As I've said before (these are known and accepted mathematical practices with infinity):

infinity + infinity = infinity

infinity x infinity = infinity^2.  This is obviously greater.  But they're still infinity.

There are infinite numbers between 0 and 1.  But there are infinite numbers between each whole number.  There are an infinite number of whole numbers.

We have an infinity of even numbers; we have an infinity of odd numbers; we have an infinity of rational numbers, irrational numbers, real numbers, imaginary numbers, positive numbers, negative numbers, etc.

The quantity of numbers expressed in the binary system is infinite.  But the same number of digits using decimal expresses a number much greater, and hexidecimal is greater still.  What if we used a base infinity system?  Yet we have no better way of discussing them than calling them all "infinity".

When we're talking about eternity and time, I am not so quick to believe I understand much about it.  Nor can I be certain about the realities of how we fit into it, much less God.

 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, zil said:

Psalm 90:2 - God can be God regardless of how many others have obtained the same glory (aka inherited all God has).  (See Philippians 2:6, speaking of Christ, it says: "Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:"  If you believe as we do that they are distinct beings with their own wills (which they choose to unite), then this clearly teaches that two can attain godhood without altering or diminishing the status of God the Father.)

My purpose of bringing up this verse was to show that God has always been God. If this is the case (as the Bible says) God could have never been a man because he has always been God. It's as simple as that.

9 minutes ago, zil said:

Isaiah 43:10 is addressed to Israel. For Israel (and all of God's children, including Jesus Christ), there is no other God, neither shall there be, ever, worlds without end, no matter what glory those children may obtain in the eternities to come, God will always be their God.

All that is being said is that a god has never formed and a god will never form. The rest you are adding and is not in the text. God is the only God, has always been the only God, and will always be the only God. 

Isaiah 44:6 "Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Larry Cotrell said:

My purpose of bringing up this verse was to show that God has always been God. If this is the case (as the Bible says) God could have never been a man because he has always been God. It's as simple as that.

All that is being said is that a god has never formed and a god will never form. The rest you are adding and is not in the text. God is the only God, has always been the only God, and will always be the only God. 

Isaiah 44:6 "Thus saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.

And what is your definition of "God" when He says, "beside me there is no God."  ?

When I say God (capital "G") that refers to the person (I know there was someone saying it was a "position" or "station" or whatever -- that seems like a bunch of semantics).  But if it simply refers to the person, then of course there is none other.  He's it.  The fact that we come to inherit all that He has, doesn't change that fact.

If you say that it refers to His state of being, what is it?  The fact is that we don't know.  We know it's higher than we are.  That has always been and will always be.  We know it is more holy and pure.  That has always been and always will be.

But we don't really know apart from these abstractions, what it actually means.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Carborendum said:

And what is your definition of "God" when He says, "beside me there is no God."  ?

That's a good question.  The discussion cannot make sense without each understanding the other's definition of "God".  (And I'd hope we all know already that we're never going to agree on a single interpretation.  At best, we will understand each others' interpretations.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

And what is your definition of "God" when He says, "beside me there is no God."  ?

Here's verse 8 of the same chapter: "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." 

There is no precise definition of Elohim. I see it as a being who is eternally omniscient and omnipotent. However, my exact definition of "God" in this verse is irrelevant. The important part is that whatever the qualifications are for being a "god," there is only one who meets them, and that is the God of the Bible (even the demons agree with me on that James 2:19) none other comes close.

Isaiah 46:9 "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,"

 

 

Edited by Larry Cotrell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Larry Cotrell said:

Here's verse 8 of the same chapter: "Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any." 

There is no precise definition of Elohim. I see it as a being who is eternally omniscient and omnipotent. However, my exact definition of "God" in this verse is irrelevant. The important part is that whatever the qualifications are for being a "god," there is only one who meets them, and that is the God of the Bible (even the demons agree with me on that James 2:19) none other comes close.

Isaiah 46:9 "Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,"

 

 

My point is that without that certain, clear, exact definition, the discussion we're having is unresolvable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with God is akin to infinity. If a person becomes God, it's just infinity + 1.  There is still only one God.  But I do think that when speaking in scripture, He is referring to God the Father, a specific individual whom they relate.  When He says there are no other gods, He isn't referring to exalted perfected persons who are one with God.  He is referring to Ra, Isis, Odin, and Zeus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
On 1/10/2017 at 3:41 PM, zil said:

IMO, neither of those verses need to be interpreted differently whether you believe that current mortals can attain to godhood or not.  Either way, the verses mean what they say.

I think many people extrapolate the doctrine of eternal progression beyond what we understand it to be (even within the church).  Let's consider the following from the King Follett Sermon (where all of this got started :-)

Quote

"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 . . .

. . . it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how He came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see.

These ideas are incomprehensible to some, but they are simple. It is the first principle of the gospel to know for a certainty the character of God, and to know that we may converse with Him as one man converses with another, and that He was once a man like us; yea, that God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth, the same as Jesus Christ Himself did. . ."

Now let us once again consider the verses in question (with a little extra):

Quote

Isaiah 23:10 - 11
"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.  I, even I, am the Lord; and beside me there is no saviour."

Psalm 90:2
"Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."

I really don't see anything contradictory when comparing the verses, especially in the context of the LDS scriptures.  Even if taken literally let us consider an LDS doctrine that further addresses this:

Quote

D&C 93:29
"Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be."

Now lets take all that and put it back into the context of the original verses:

Quote

Psalms 82:6
"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."

John 10:34 - 36
"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?  If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;  Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?"

Here are some conclusions that I personally accept in relation to these verses and quotes:

Intelligence (including Man's intelligence) was not created and can not be created, it has always existed, and there never was a time in which it did not exist.  This means that I, Person0 (how ironic :lol:) have existed from 'the beginning', from eternity to eternity, everlasting to everlasting, not equal to God, but at least in co-existence with him.  This is extra important because most, if not all, non-LDS dogmas accept creation ex-nihilo, which we do not accept and which is actually a key factor in being able to accept the doctrine of eternal progression as we see it.

If I was in 'the beginning' with God then statements like '. . .before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. . .' remain true regardless of the context.

Christ's words in John 10:34-36 @Carborendum had the right idea when he said that you must remain consistent.  It is very clear that Christ is using this verse to correlate to the fact that He Himself is deity, descended from deity.  Put all of this in the context of the King Follett discourse, as well as in the context of Romans 8:17 (Joint-Heirs with Christ), and we could include other verses, but it all kind of wraps up pretty well.

To extrapolate much beyond the basic subset of doctrines establishing the plan of Eternal Progression moves into the realm of speculation (although possibly accurate) is not necessarily official doctrine of the church.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not really getting into LDS doctrine on this post, but addressing the Psalm itself.  PC take on it is a little different than many.  Let's view the psalm itself in the NIV version

Quote

God presides in the great assembly;
    he renders judgment among the “gods”:

“How long will you[a] defend the unjust
    and show partiality to the wicked?[b]
Defend the weak and the fatherless;
    uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
    deliver them from the hand of the wicked.

“The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.
    They walk about in darkness;
    all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

“I said, ‘You are “gods”;
    you are all sons of the Most High.’
But you will die like mere mortals;
    you will fall like every other ruler.”

Rise up, O God, judge the earth,
    for all the nations are your inheritance.

As you can see there are some very distinct differences between the NIV version and the KJV version, though both are saying the same thing.

Non-LDS interpretations that I've heard still state that these are deities that are being referred to in this verse.  It is stating that the Lord is above any of the Pagan deities.  The Catholics may not say deities, but define it as divine beings that the Lord had delegated authority too.  However the Lord is over all of them.  This is a rebuke to them for not helping the poor and protecting them from evil and danger.  Their blindness to the needs of those they should protect have made the Lord toss them down, now as mortal.  The Lord rules over all of them and all nations.  It could be referring to the false idols of other nations, or it could be referring to angels or other heavenly beings.  Irregardless, it is referring them to being his sons, but due to their wickedness, they will die like men do and fall like all other rulers do except for the Lord.

A Non-Christian take would be as follows, but still using the deity idea.  In Ancient society each city or state had it's own deity.  AS one nation or state conquered another, they would add that pantheon to their portfolio.  Typically, the diety of the nation that was the winning side would have their deity as the dominant deity, with the conquered nations deity being the one that fell in a inferior position in the spectrum.  The most powerful of these in Southern Europe was Zeus or Jupiter, who also was the deity of the Roman Empire. 

David was a conqueror of other nations as were his sons in their various empire.  This would be showing that the Deity over Israel had dominance over the deity of any of those that they ruled, that those other deities would die off and only their deity, the Lord of Israel would rule.

The only place I see that one could surmise he is referring to mortal Kings would be from the KJV listed which states

Quote

7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

Even there, it doesn't say they are Mortal Kings or princes, but shall DIE like them, as in a metaphor or similar fashion.  One could surmise this, but I think from a Non-LDS view it would be more addressing the pagan deities of others and their inferiority to the Lord.

I think the normal Christian view is that this is referring to Idolatry of other nations and kingdoms, and the false Deities they worshipped.  It is noting how they have no power to do anything that a real deity should, and that it is the LORD who is the true Deity, as these deities have no ability, power, or any way to do the things attributed to them or a true Deity.

Catholics have a similar idea as well, but rather puzzling to me as if they are actually acknowledging the real existence of fake deities.  Their page

Catholic Bishops Psalm 82

in the footnotes has some puzzling items.

Quote

* [Psalm 82] As in Ps 58, the pagan gods are seen as subordinate divine beings to whom Israel’s God had delegated oversight of the foreign countries in the beginning (Dt 32:89). Now God arises in the heavenly assembly (Ps 82:1) to rebuke the unjust “gods” (Ps 82:24), who are stripped of divine status and reduced in rank to mortals (Ps 82:57). They are accused of misruling the earth by not upholding the poor. A short prayer for universal justice concludes the Psalm (Ps 82:8).

* [82:5] The gods are blind and unable to declare what is right. Their misrule shakes earth’s foundations (cf. Ps 11:3; 75:4), which God made firm in creation (Ps 96:10).

* [82:6] I declare: “Gods though you be”: in Jn 10:34 Jesus uses the verse to prove that those to whom the word of God is addressed can fittingly be called “gods.”

* [82:8] Judge the earth: according to Dt 32:89, Israel’s God had originally assigned jurisdiction over the foreign nations to the subordinate deities, keeping Israel as a personal possession. Now God will directly take over the rulership of the whole world.

However, as you can see, they also have what I would say is a prevailing idea that this is referring to the false deities of other nations and how the Lord is who rules over all rather than they do, instead of merely referring to mortal kings (unless that King is also considered a deity such as...maybe...pharaoh or the like).

Taking a more LDS slant, I could see how it may be referring to mortal kings, but then those kings would be being chastised in this psalm, but at the same time it would also be calling the Sons of God, but showing how they would be more fallen because of their lacking the duties which they were assigned.  However, I would think that is more a distinctly LDS idea that the majority of Christians, but, obviously I am mistaken a lot about things so may be mistaken on this as well.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now for a different slant.  Sometimes after looking at Psalm 82, many look at John 10:34 and revert that to try to indicate that it is talking about earthly judges and magistrates.

This IS a COMMON acceptance of John 10:34.  You have explained it well.  However, does it make sense in the context of John 10 and Psalm 82?

Instead of one verse, let's look at the context of the scripture

Quote

30 I and my Father are one.

31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?

33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

37 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

38 But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

39 Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand,

I would say, though it is a popular Christian explanation, in light of the Psalm itself, there is an alternate explanation that could also be used.

Once again, I think the NIV illustrates an alternate Christian viewpoint much better then the KJV does.

Quote

25Jesus answered, “I did tell you, but you do not believe. The works I do in my Father’s name testify about me, 26but you do not believe because you are not my sheep. 27My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. 28I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. 29My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than allc ; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. 30I and the Father are one.”

31Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, 32but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?”

33“We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.”

34Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods” ’d ? 35If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? 37Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

So, here you see what he is stating...he has just stated that he, himself, is the Father.  This was considered Blasphemy and the Jews are about to stone him.  In his defense he states he has done good works and asks which of those they are stoning him for.  This is stating that these works can ONLY be done by the power of the LORD.  However, the crowd does not get the hint, or purposefully ignores it.  They state they are NOT stoning him for that, but for blasphemy.

In response, the Lord points out Psalm 82.  Why would he state this in that context defending himself.  These are NOT rulers, they are NOT judges, and they are NOT magistrates.  These are the Jews.  However, let's say they were the judges at that point, that the Jews were not going to simply lynch him, but had bound him and taken him before a judge.

In this context he isn't defending himself, he's doubling down if one goes that he's talking about the Psalm stating he is over Judges and Magistrates.  To double down and not defend himself seems to go against what he does in relation to other judgments when he allows the rulers themselves to state who he was and merely states that the rulers are the ones stating it, not himself.  It seems against his character, either here, or when he is before the ruler of Israel at his trial before the crucifixion. 

It would seem more that he is referring to this scripture in regards to what was actually stated.  The Psalm calls false idols Deities.  If a false idol can be considered that, then how is it a sin for one whom has shown the power of the Lord to also call himself in a similar fashion.  If they feel he is also a false deity, and those deities were also called as such in Psalms, then it cannot be a sin.  If he shows that he has the power of the Lord through his works or miracles and power, then that itself is self-evident that he is telling the truth, as he pointed out to them at first.

I think in both the Lord is referring to false idols, one in showing that he is superior to them and the True Lord, and the other showing that they were referred to such titles as false idols, and thus if they feel he is false, they should still find him innocent due to the same terminology and idea.  However, he also points out at the first, and the latter that his works speak as too whom he is.

The LDS take on both scriptures is far different though, but I think most here have already delved into that idea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

 

Catholics have a similar idea as well, but rather puzzling to me as if they are actually acknowledging the real existence of fake deities. 

No, it is acknowledging that the Hebrews of the time, still struggled with following other so-called gods. THEY viewed them as real and their view of foreign gods as real is reflected in the language of the Psalms.

It is the constant struggle, in the OT, until the Exile, at which point the People of Israel finally understand where God has been leading them...to Himself. And they finally speak in terms of One God, and no other...the old pagan gods become not-real to them. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Now for a different slant.  Sometimes after looking at Psalm 82, many look at John 10:34 and revert that to try to indicate that it is talking about earthly judges and magistrates.

This IS a COMMON acceptance of John 10:34.  You have explained it well.  However, does it make sense in the context of John 10 and Psalm 82?

Instead of one verse, let's look at the context of the scripture

I would say, though it is a popular Christian explanation, in light of the Psalm itself, there is an alternate explanation that could also be used.

Once again, I think the NIV illustrates an alternate Christian viewpoint much better then the KJV does.

So, here you see what he is stating...he has just stated that he, himself, is the Father.  This was considered Blasphemy and the Jews are about to stone him.  In his defense he states he has done good works and asks which of those they are stoning him for.  This is stating that these works can ONLY be done by the power of the LORD.  However, the crowd does not get the hint, or purposefully ignores it.  They state they are NOT stoning him for that, but for blasphemy.

In response, the Lord points out Psalm 82.  Why would he state this in that context defending himself.  These are NOT rulers, they are NOT judges, and they are NOT magistrates.  These are the Jews.  However, let's say they were the judges at that point, that the Jews were not going to simply lynch him, but had bound him and taken him before a judge.

In this context he isn't defending himself, he's doubling down if one goes that he's talking about the Psalm stating he is over Judges and Magistrates.  To double down and not defend himself seems to go against what he does in relation to other judgments when he allows the rulers themselves to state who he was and merely states that the rulers are the ones stating it, not himself.  It seems against his character, either here, or when he is before the ruler of Israel at his trial before the crucifixion. 

It would seem more that he is referring to this scripture in regards to what was actually stated.  The Psalm calls false idols Deities.  If a false idol can be considered that, then how is it a sin for one whom has shown the power of the Lord to also call himself in a similar fashion.  If they feel he is also a false deity, and those deities were also called as such in Psalms, then it cannot be a sin.  If he shows that he has the power of the Lord through his works or miracles and power, then that itself is self-evident that he is telling the truth, as he pointed out to them at first.

I think in both the Lord is referring to false idols, one in showing that he is superior to them and the True Lord, and the other showing that they were referred to such titles as false idols, and thus if they feel he is false, they should still find him innocent due to the same terminology and idea.  However, he also points out at the first, and the latter that his works speak as too whom he is.

The LDS take on both scriptures is far different though, but I think most here have already delved into that idea.

Christian view is, that Jesus is stating that He is God, not that He is stating that He is the Father....that is, Trinitarian doctrines are revealed here.

In addition to these verses, at verse 25 Jesus says "I told you"...where and when did he tell them and what did he tell them? The understanding is in John 8:25-30 where Jesus names Himself "I AM", which, is the Name Of God given to Moses. Blasphemy, indeed, to a disciple of Moses.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Blueskye2 said:

Christian view is, that Jesus is stating that He is God, not that He is stating that He is the Father....that is, Trinitarian doctrines are revealed here.

In addition to these verses, at verse 25 Jesus says "I told you"...where and when did he tell them and what did he tell them? The understanding is in John 8:25-30 where Jesus names Himself "I AM", which, is the Name Of God given to Moses. Blasphemy, indeed, to a disciple of Moses.

 

Absolutely, we are in complete agreement in that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 10 months later...

A good topic of discussion.  This is an LDS doctrine that I, as a former evangelical, have had trouble wrapping my head around.  From my background it was my understanding that when we got to heaven that we would be made perfect in the sense that Adam was perfect before the fall.  

But then there is the LDS doctrine of eternal progression which takes this matter to another level.  

After all, when the scriptures says, "we shall be like him for we shall see him as he his,"  what does that mean in it's deepest sense (1 John 3:2)?  I wish I could grab the Apostle John and pick his brain.

For me, to be perfectly honest, I could not find a satisfactory answer, so at the advice of a friend I put it to the side and rest in the understanding that on that day all things will be revealed to me.  Until then....  Until then it really doesn't affect how I live my life or worry me one bit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...
On 1/9/2017 at 8:27 PM, Larry Cotrell said:

There has been a lot of discussion about eternal progression lately and I wanted to add my thoughts in the proper place.

Here's John 10:34 "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?"

In this passage Jesus is quoting Psalms 82:6 "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High." Psalm 82 is really about earthly rulers acting with justice. They are "gods" among the people but are being reminded that they will still have to face judgement from the one true God. In this passage, the Hebrew word Elohim is used to mean rulers as it is in Exodus 22:8,9, and 28. When Jesus uses the word "gods" in John 10 we know that he is referring to earthly leaders when we look at in the context of Psalm 82. In no way does this verse support eternal progression unless you look at it by itself.

Here's what I believe:

Psalm 90:2 "Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God."

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."

On the other hand.......  perhaps we non-LDS can learn something from these verses:

For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to beconformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the firstborn among many brethren.

 

God has not cast away His people whom He foreknew. Or do you not know what the Scripture says of Elijah, how he pleads with God against Israel, saying,
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you;
Before you were born I sanctified you;
I ordained you a prophet to the nations.”

 

just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love,

And perhaps the disciples were NOT asking such a foolish question here:

And His disciples asked Him, saying, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I don't know if this revelation is true or not...... but it is an exceptionally good theory and could explain many, many challenging verses in both the Jewish as well as the Christian scriptures if indeed it turns out to be correct.... when we leave this world and will finally know such things with certainty.

https://www.lds.org/manual/gospel-principles/chapter-6-the-fall-of-adam-and-eve?lang=eng

Quote

Adam and Eve were among our Father’s noblest children. In the spirit world Adam was called Michael the archangel (see D&C 27:11; Jude 1:9). He was chosen by our Heavenly Father to lead the righteous in the battle against Satan (see Revelation 12:7–9). Adam and Eve were foreordained to become our first parents. The Lord promised Adam great blessings: “I have set thee to be at the head; a multitude of nations shall come of thee, and thou art a prince over them forever” (D&C 107:55).

 

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