Isaiah 43:10 Refutes That Men Can Become Gods?

[Holly3278]

Hi everyone. Someone told me that Isaiah 43:10 refutes that man can become gods. Is this true?

Isa 43:10 KJV 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.

[Doctor Steuss]

Hi everyone. Someone told me that Isaiah 43:10 refutes that man can become gods. Is this true?

Isa 43:10 KJV 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.

Theosis (or deification) is a well attested doctrine of Christianity.

A few things to keep in mind while reading Isaiah (IMO) is audience, and context. Who was Isaiah (and the Lord) speaking to? And in what context?

This is YHWH speaking (or in the LDS paradigm, the pre-incarnate Christ, aka Jehovah). And he is speaking to Israel. His use of “formed” (i.e. Hebrew yatsar) tends to make me think He is speaking of the human tendency to “form” (or “create”) gods/Gods. Also, if you think in an eternal scheme, those who are gods/Gods were most likely pre-ordained as such since the eternities (and if one takes the LDS concept of eternal “intelligences” and Christ being the “greatest,” then it is conceivable that no gods/Gods will ever be “created” as they have always existed… albeit some “in embryo.”

Also, if one takes into account the next chapter of Isaiah (which also has two verses that are used as proof-texts) we can find the context of YHWH’s statements. Verses 9-21 (of chapter 44) make it pretty evident that YHWH is speaking of graven and false gods, and not those divine entities which exist[ed] in the Divine Council (and elsewhere) which was an ancient Jewish (and Christian) belief.

There are hundreds of proof-texts to disprove just about any Judeo-Christian (for lack of a better term) religion. Such activities are nothing more than focusing on motes...

[snipe123]

Hi everyone. Someone told me that Isaiah 43:10 refutes that man can become gods. Is this true?

Isa 43:10 KJV 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.

Here is a very short basic answer:

For Israel to whom these words are directed these words are absolutely true. It is a plea to abandon idolotry which they were often guilty of...Israel has never had another God and they will never have another...the same is true for us...God does not cease to be our God simply because we become exaulted...just like a father does not lose his status as a father because his son has kids...Christ himself is an heir of God and we are joint heirs with him as he says:

Rom. 8: 17

And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

The earliest Christians also believed this...

[Doctor Steuss]

PaladinGirl02,

“Someone” gave you one scripture that attempts to refute the concept of theosis. Although I could give a wealth (and I do mean wealth) of instances where early Christians taught this doctrine, I will stick with scripture:

Romans 8:16-17

Luke 6:40

Hebrews 12:23

Galatians 4:7

Matthew 5:48

Psalm 82:5-6

Revelation 3:21

2 Peter 1:4

2 Corinthians 3:18

Acts 17:29

1 Peter 3:7

[Dr T]

I take that to mean there is no other God at all. Like I've said again and again on this site, there is only one true God and all the other god references in the Bile are false gods. Like Jesus calls Satan a god but that does not mean that he is a god that can rival the true god or the title god used for the judges or idols. They are all false except for the one true God shown to us in the Bible. Also "the only God that we have anything to do with" does not explain away the use and belief in any other Gods.

[CrimsonKairos]

Dr. T, there is no Biblical injunction against believing in the existence of more than one God (if there were, we couldn't embrace all three God-members of the Godhead).

Now the Bible does forbid the worship of more than one God, and LDS follow this commandment. We only worship God the Father, in the name of the Son, by the power of the Spirit.

You keep confusing believing in more than one God, with worshipping more than one God. There's a difference.

[prisonchaplain]

Dr. T, there is no Biblical injunction against believing in the existence of more than one God (if there were, we couldn't embrace all three God-members of the Godhead).

Trinitarians do not believe in three gods. And, we do argue that there is only one true God in existence.

Now the Bible does forbid the worship of more than one God, and LDS follow this commandment. We only worship God the Father, in the name of the Son, by the power of the Spirit.

Since there is only one God, and since Jesus receives worship, Trinitarians have no difficulty worshiping the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

You keep confusing believing in more than one God, with worshipping more than one God. There's a difference.

Since trinitarians actually only believe that one God exists, there is no difference for us. There are godlike beings (powerful, awesome-in-appearance), but we believe there is only one God in existence.

[Dr T]

Hi CK,

Long time no see. I hope you are doing good.

Dr. T, there is no Biblical injunction against believing in the existence of more than one God (if there were, we couldn't embrace all three God-members of the Godhead).

I'm just saying that all the other references to god except for the one true God are false. I believe that God, is an all powerful, omni-X (fill in the X) being and that God is made up of The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit as one God. That is one important place we differ in our belief about God. To think that there is another being out there that possesses all those traits or can become like that is not what I've read in the Bible. We are to become godly but that is not a God in my opinion. Good to see you brother.

[Old Tex]

Hi everyone. Someone told me that Isaiah 43:10 refutes that man can become gods. Is this true?

Isa 43:10 KJV 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.

This scripture is used many times by those who believe in the Trinity to show that there is only "one God". What they ignore is that Jesus Christ and His Father existed long before this earth was created. Christ was chosen by His Father to be the Redeemer of this earth.

It was Christ who delt with Adam and Eve after their fall and when they were cast into this fallen world. It was Christ, in His body of spirit, who called and instructed all of the prophets of the "Old Testament". It was Christ who made a covenant with Abraham, and it was Christ who gave Moses the Law. It has always been Christ. Christ was the God of the Old Testament and was known as Jehovah.

There was no God formed before Him that could redeem them and save them and there would be none after Him. He was their only Savior and Redeemer, just as He is our only Savior and Redeemer.

I think you may be paying too much attention to those who do not know or understand LDS teaching or doctrine. If you want to increase your knowledge beyond what is taught in your Sunday School and Relief Society lesson manuals, I can suggest a couple of books. One is "A Marvelous Work and a Wonder" by Legrand Richards, and another is "Jesus the Christ" by James E. Talmadge. There is a possibility that you can check them out of your ward library, or they can tell you where you can get them.

[a-train]

'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. 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?' (John 10:33-36)

Not only does the Scripture tell those unto whom the word of God is given that they are gods (Psalm 82:6), but Jesus himself has said of it: 'the scripture cannot be broken.'

Some emphasize the verse following in Psalms that says: 'But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.' (Psalm 82:7), however it is difficult to demonstrate that this would make us any less than gods, and the children of the Most High. Indeed, we will all die, as did Jesus the Son of God, but death doesn't change our heritage or identity as it didn't change Christ's.

-a-train

[Dr T]

The Son was God from the beginning and took on humanity to himself. We were created and therefore creatures while He is the creator. We cannot become God because there are no other Gods.

[a-train]

We cannot become God because there are no other Gods.

How is it then that 'he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken'?

-a-train

[Dr T]

Jesus is basically proclaiming his unity with the Father. This is a great verse about Jesus’ deity and the nature of the godhead. This shows “I and My Father” so there is no confusion about him being bother the Father and the Son. I’ve read that the Judges being talked about in the Psalm passage were given their title “god” because of their office. I’m not a theologian but I think we are generalizing that phrase to all of humanity and that is out of context. I think Jesus was exposing their inconsistencies in why they were angry at him while accepting the title that they are arguing against (but really it was not the same as they were accusing him because Jesus really was God not god).

[AnthonyB]

PC:

Running through trinitarian thought.

There is one God. Father, Son and Holy Spirit is God. The Father is not the Son or the Spirit. The Son is not the Father or the Spirit. The Spirit is not the Father or the Son

The one God is three persons. There is three persons in one God.

Three persons of God, who can exist in different places with differing tasks but share the one essence. But each of them is God and each is a person.

So would you be happy with:

There are three God persons.

Or..There are three God persons who make one God.

Taking one step further...

There are three Gods who make one God. (Since each of the God persons are seperately God and if there three of them, then the plural seems to be required. And I think with a little but of fudging, you're almost at the LDS idea. (Not saying I'm buying it, just flying some thoughts.))

[prisonchaplain]

PC:

Running through trinitarian thought.

There is one God. Father, Son and Holy Spirit is God. The Father is not the Son or the Spirit. The Son is not the Father or the Spirit. The Spirit is not the Father or the Son

The one God is three persons. There is three persons in one God.

Three persons of God, who can exist in different places with differing tasks but share the one essence. But each of them is God and each is a person.

So would you be happy with:

There are three God persons.

Or..There are three God persons who make one God.

The latter, which I've boldfaced.

Taking one step further...

There are three Gods who make one God.

No. There is only one God. There are not three Gods/gods. The Father, Son, and Spirit are co-eternal and are of one essence. So, it is not appropriate to say there are three Gods/gods in one.

(Since each of the God persons are seperately God and if there three of them, then the plural seems to be required. And I think with a little but of fudging, you're almost at the LDS idea. (Not saying I'm buying it, just flying some thoughts.))

There are ways of describing the two that would make them seem very similar. But, when put together with the doctrine of humanity (finite, created out of nothing vs. eternal premortal existence, with the potential to become Gods), the difference is there.

There's no doubting the beauty of LDS teaching...but trinitarian it is not.

[Traveler]

<div class='quotemain'>

Dr. T, there is no Biblical injunction against believing in the existence of more than one God (if there were, we couldn't embrace all three God-members of the Godhead).

Trinitarians do not believe in three gods. And, we do argue that there is only one true God in existence.

Now the Bible does forbid the worship of more than one God, and LDS follow this commandment. We only worship God the Father, in the name of the Son, by the power of the Spirit.

Since there is only one God, and since Jesus receives worship, Trinitarians have no difficulty worshiping the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

You keep confusing believing in more than one God, with worshipping more than one God. There's a difference.

Since trinitarians actually only believe that one God exists, there is no difference for us. There are godlike beings (powerful, awesome-in-appearance), but we believe there is only one God in existence.

I am always confused by Trinitarians and their definitions and interpretation of scripture. For example the ancient concept and definition of “ehad” to mean one in counting singularity meant something different than one does in our modern time. In math the word “one” has specific meaning if we are talking about the counting or integer number “one” as opposed to the rational or complex number one.

In ancient times if we intend the word “ehad” to mean the singular one, then this means that such a particular “one” cannot be divided or differentiated into parts. Since the scriptures clearly give differentiation of The Father, The Son and the Holy Ghost it is very misleading and creates much confusion to imply singularity in one breath and to embrace differentiation in the next.

One of my many objections to the concept of the Trinity is the President Bill Clinton approach to adultery. It appears to me that Trinitarians use one definition when it comes to blaming others and then another very different definition to justify themselves. Saying the Father, Son and Holy Ghost are one G-d of singularity does nothing but convince me that somebody really does not understand what they are saying and defining.

If there is one G-d of singularity then the scriptures are false and misleading to imply any kind of differentiation. The fact that the scriptures give a recognizable differentiation is clear indication that the ancient singular concept of “yhead” as applied to G-d is both false and never used in scripture. The oneness of G-d is united in the oneness of the king in a kingdom.

Let me give a simple example of the utter stupidity of the Trinity. Remember at the trial of Jesus when the question of Jesus being the king of the Jews came up and the Jews responded that they have no king but Cesar? Then who is Herod? The Trinity answer seems to be. Well, Cesar and Herod are one King. When the King is in Rome or doing Rome stuff we refer to him as Cesar. When in Jerusalem or doing Jerusalem stuff we call that same King Herod. They are not two kings but one king. Beside the one true king there is no other true king.

Please – I am not stupid. There are two kings – one acting under the authority of the other, thus the authority of king is the authority of one king but there are two kings. And there are 3 G-ds, two of which act under the authority of the Father. Jesus went tried so hard to make this point, that he did not act on his own authority but the authority of his Father.

And that is why we should differentiate the 3 G-ds that are united by covenant (like marriage) in one purpose

The Traveler

[Dr T]

Traveler,

Again, you are the confused one about the Trinity. Your example of Herod and Caesar is a perfect example of you not understanding but claiming to have it all understood. It's OK. God must not have shown you the reality of who He is and you have clouded your understanding with extrabiblical texts. You can try as hard as you can to show how dumb people like me are for my knowledge of God but I'm only saddened by your misunderstanding. Brother, I hope you come to an understanding before it's too late. My prayers for you sir.

[AnthonyB]

Traveler,

Some history, I know it is being pedantic, please forgive my pendantry.

Herod Antipas was the ruler of Galilee, a client state of Rome's but not during the period of Jesus cruxifiction part of the Roman empire. Antipas made his own coins, had his own military and except for external military alliances ran his own region. (I think Eastern Europe under the Soviets is a reasonable approximation.)

Pilate was the Roman Prefect of Judea, basically military leader of a Roman province. Jesus as a Galilean, was not a direct subject of the Roman empire. Which is why Pliate sent him to Antipas. Antipas declined to get involved and passed him back to the authority of the territory who originally arrested him.(ie Pilate).

Would the following veiw be fair represntation of LDS veiw. A kingdom where the monarchy has held by three persons. Each of them individually was the embodiement of the monarchy and all had equal rights and perogatives. Each one is the monarch but all together they are only one monarchy. One supreme ruler in three persons.

[Outshined]

Would the following veiw be fair represntation of LDS veiw. A kingdom where the monarchy has held by three persons. Each of them individually was the embodiement of the monarchy and all had equal rights and perogatives. Each one is the monarch but all together they are only one monarchy. One supreme ruler in three persons.

Yes; that is a closer analogy. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate, but are one God. That's why Christ told us to "be one, even as my father and I are one." He meant united, not literally the same being.

[Old Tex]

<div class='quotemain'>

Would the following veiw be fair represntation of LDS veiw. A kingdom where the monarchy has held by three persons. Each of them individually was the embodiement of the monarchy and all had equal rights and perogatives. Each one is the monarch but all together they are only one monarchy. One supreme ruler in three persons.

Yes; that is a closer analogy. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate, but are one God. That's why Christ told us to "be one, even as my father and I are one." He meant united, not literally the same being.

It is this "one God" that I think is the problem when trying to understand this. (bold is mine) Just what does a person mean when saying that the three are "one God"? Give a description of this "one God". Is it a specific personage, or is it a simular to a three person corporation where the corporation is called "God"?

[Outshined]

Here are some links that may clear up the confusion (and calm some of the tension that's been rising )...

http://www.lightplanet.com/mormons/basic/godhead/index.htm

http://fairwiki.org/Godhead_and_the_Trinity

Link

http://www.fairlds.org/apol/ai040.html

[a-train]

I’ve read that the Judges being talked about in the Psalm passage were given their title “god” because of their office.

Hmmm.. So you ARE saying that there DOES exist a SCRIPTURAL case wherein a MAN other than Jesus can be called 'god'...

-a-train

[Dr T]

Yes sir; but god ought not be mistaken for God.

[Doctor Steuss]

Reconsidering Psalms 82:6 -- Judges or Gods? A Proposal. This is from FAIR (so be forewarned that it's apologetic drivel and propaganda ). However, those who know Ben McGuire and have had dealings with him know that his logic is usually quite sound and he is a thorough (and respectable) researcher. This isn’t the best treatment of the topic from an LDS perspective; David Bokovoy’s recent publication while dialoguing with Dr. Heiser is fairly in-depth, and to date, Dr. Daniel Peterson’s treatment of Psalm 82 is probably the most thorough and thought-provoking.

Or, for those who are looking for a (highly respected) non-LDS perspective: Here is an article by Dr. Heiser.

As for men becoming gods... I'll simply leave that to the wealth of early Christian writings on the topic, as well as the wealth of scholarly publications that have been published, and continue to be published. LDS may take it a bit further than most, but in my (limited) research, I have never found anything from early Christian writings (nor scripture) that places limitations upon it.

LDS are often maligned for limited the powers of G-d through various doctrines (no creation ex nihilo, etc.). But I ask, what greater power can an "all-powerful" G-d have than to make gods of men?

[prisonchaplain]

Yes; that is a closer analogy. Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are separate, but are one God. That's why Christ told us to "be one, even as my father and I are one." He meant united, not literally the same being.

In the context that Jesus said, "be one as my Father and I are one," he did indeed mean unity. However, to insist that that phrase also describes his nature and his essence vis a vis the Father might be overreaching.