God in mormonism

[Clear]

In contrast to some of the other silly assumptions Kristoffer thought he “learned” from a non-LDS website , I think the description of the just system of reward in varying heavenly ward was fairly accurate.

Kristoffer said : “Mormons believe that there are different levels or kingdoms in the afterlife: the celestial kingdom, the terrestrial kingdom, the telestial kingdom, and outer darkness (Mormon Doctrine, p. 348). Where mankind will end up depends on what they believe and do in this life. “


As an adult convert to restorational theology (i.e. A movement that seeks a return to the earliest and most authentic Christian theology) who has interest in early Judeo-Christian history, I thought I would offer just a bit of information regarding the early judeo-christian belief of differing levels of reward as compared to the “light switch” theology of modern Christian theory where one is consigned to either a blissful heaven or a torturous hell based on arbitrary conditions they often cannot control.

As ancient creation council histories attest, the earth was created for the purpose of populating it with these spirits and mortality serves for education and testing these spirits. Just as in school, one is graded is partly on what one has learned and what one refuses to learn.


The ancient model - Refusal to progress morally

Anciently, Origen taught that “refusal to progress” morally was evil. It was not “failure” to progress, but “refusal” to progress which was evil. If one refused to act in accordance with moral knowledge, THEN one could be justly punished for doing so. If one was an infant, or mentally unable to obtain moral knowledge and make a free choice, then there simply is NO condemnation that could be applied. There must be mechanisms to allow for the learning of moral truth for those who really want it.
In early judeo-christianity, God was seen as completely Just in judgment and did NOT condemn for petty or arbitrary reasons.

I believe the agnostics and other types of theists are justified in their complaints regarding “unjust” Christianity theory that condemns those who have not done wrong (infants, the mentally infirm, and all those who have insufficient knowledge to make adequate choices, etc, etc.). However, they should understand that authentic ancient pre-existentent Christianity neither condemned nor rewarded based on the arbitrary conditions they complain about.

In this early model, the accurate judgment of mankind was partly based on the very moral characteristics which mankind were sent to mortality to learn and which were designed to prepare and enable them to live in a social heaven in joy and harmony.


In this early theological model, though reward was based on obedience in that God “ has prepared thrones and crowns for you in heaven, saying, “Everyone who will obey me will receive thrones and crowns among those who are mine.” (Apocalypse of Elijah 1:8) it was those who have gained moral intelligence and moral wisdom that are to be rewarded based on their relationship to God’s laws for them.

It was through obedience to and the mastering of God’s moral laws that “...there is hope for him whom you created from the dust for the eternal council. The perverse spirit You have cleansed from great transgression, that he might take his stand with the host of the holy ones, and enter together with the congregation of the sons of heaven. And for man, you have allotted an eternal destiny with the spirits of knowledge...” THANKSGIVING PSALMS - (1QH + 4Q432 Frag. 3 Col. 11:19-23)

Regarding the “... glory of those who proved to be righteous on account of [God’s] law”, the Prophet Baruch testified that “... those who possessed intelligence in their life, and those who planted the root of wisdom in their hearts – their splendor will then be glorified by transformations, and the shape of their face will be changed into the light of their beauty so that they may acquire and receive the undying world which is promised to them. “ The apocalypse of Baruch (Baruch 2) 51:2-6;

Conversely, Baruch tells us that individuals are punished based on their relationship towards God’s laws and rejection of wisdom and intelligence : “Therefore, especially they who will then come will be sad, because they despised my Law and stopped their ears lest they hear wisdom and receive intelligence.” And it is partly this realization that they refused knowledge and wisdom which would have caused them to be blessed, that torments them. This is what Origen meant that “refusal” to progress was evil.


Multiple heavens of varying levels described in ancient Judao-Christian textual witnesses.

The ancient model of heavenly reward was not a “light switch” model where one is either in a highest heaven or sent to a darkest hell, but rather it was more just model with varied heavens of differing levels of glory, “Because on the day of the great judgment. Every weight and every measure and every set of scales will be just as they are in the market. That is to say, each will be weighed in the balance, and each will stand in the market, and each will find out his own measure and in accordance with that measurement each shall receive his own reward.” (2nd Enoch 44:5)

Thus Jewish Haggadah tells us that “ Several heavens were created, seven in fact, each to serve a purpose of it own.”. The highest heaven was described as containing “ ...naught but what is good and beautiful: right, justice, and mercy, the storehouses of life, peace, and blessing, the souls of the pious, the souls and spirits of unborn generations...” as well as “ the divine throne, surrounded by the seraphim, [...] and the ministering angels.” (The Haggadah (The alphabet) ch 2)

The early literature is full of references to such references of levels such as “the 3rd heaven” (or more) which is “closed off from this world. And the guards are appointed at the very large gates to the east of the sun, angels of flame, singing victory songs, never silent, rejoicing at the arrival of the righteous. (2nd Enoch 42:4) Enoch speaks of going “up to the highest heaven, [into the highest Jerusalem], into my eternal inheritance.” (2nd Enoch 55:1-2) Thus, the Hebrew word for heaven שָּׁמַיִם IS a plural (dual) and most of the Greek references rendered “heaven” (e.g. ουρανοις) in the New Testament are actually plurals. The English reader is simply unaware of this underlying context as they read their english versions.

In this ancient model, it made perfect sense to the Early Judao-christians to have the angel Michael be commanded regarding Adam, “Take him up into Paradise, to the third heaven, and leave (him) there until that great and fearful day which I am about to establish for the world.” Life of Adam and Eve (apocalypse) 37:3-6

Another angel tells the Prophet Sedrach : “I was sent to you that I may carry you up into heavens. But the angel, having stretched out his wings, took him and went up into the heavens, and took him up as far as the third heaven, and the flame of the divinity stood there.” (The Apocalypse of Sedrach 2:3-5)


The ancient Christian model of varying levels of reward, corresponded to individuals having varying moral characteristics.

This is why Irenaeus, in describing what used to be taught by the “elders” was that “...those who have been deemed worthy of an abode in heaven go there, while others will enjoy the delight of Paradise, and still others will possess the brightness of the city; for in every place the Savior will be seen, to the degree that those who see him are worthy. They say, moreover, that this is the distinction between the dwelling of those who bring forth an hundredfold, and those who bring forth sixty fold, and those who bring forth thirty fold : the first will be taken up into the heavens, and second will dwell in Paradise, and the third will inhabit the city. For this reason, therefore, our Lord has said, “In my Father’s house there are many rooms”; for all things are of God, who gives to all their appropriate dwelling...The elders, the disciples of the apostles, say that this is the order and arrangement of those who are being saved, and that they advance by such steps, and ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father...” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies #5)

Such parallels between the ancient version of this doctrine and it's modern version is obvious to restorationists. The spirits world (“sheol” or “hell”, etc) to whom spirits of the dead go “ will pay back its debt, and the place of perdition will return it’s deposit so that I may render to each according to his works and according to the fruits of his own devices, until I judge between soul and flesh." (Pseudo-Philo 3:10)

The early Judao-Christian description of varying levels of heaven corresponding to varying levels of reward appropriate to the varying characteristics of those being judged had distinct hierarchies. The “higher levels” of heaven and their corresponding glories are honored by the lower levels of heaven.

This sort of hierarchy of respect and glories is described by the Prophet Enoch when he says that “...the angels of the first heaven, when they see their Prince,... fall prostrate. The Prince of the first heaven, when he sees the Prince of the second heaven, he removes the glorious crown from his head and falls prostrate....” and so on.

Higher and more Glorious heavens are honored by the lower heavens. This honor shown by princes is the same as the honor the guardians of the entrances to the various heavens show to the guardians of the higher heavens. “...The guardians of the door of the first palace, when they see the guardians of the door of the second palace, they remove their glorious crowns from their heads and fall prostrate. The guardians of the door of the second palace... “ etc, etc. (3 Enoch18:3)

Restorationists could take the earliest Christian Hymns, their lectionaries, their Diaries, their synagogal Prayers, their early fiction and ascension and descension literatures and use them in their modern sunday school lessons. Most christianities following the later Christian theories and worldviews cannot do this. This realization astounded me when I was first exposed to LDS restorational theology (i.e. a theology which seeks to return to the earliest and most authentic Christian Doctrines).

IF restorational movements are adopting early Christian theological models, then it makes perfect sense that they would adopt the ancient, more easily justified Christian system of levels of reward taught by the early Christian Saints and one would find parallels of this model in the LDS worldviews.

Clear
τωεισιω

 

[BilliardsBall]

BilliardsBall asked “…what are your thoughts about Isaiah 43:10?

"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.”



Hi BilliardsBall, I didn’t want to intercept Katzpur’s response but saw this thread and read a bit of it. Katzpur may have understood your question, when you asked “what are your thoughts about…”. However, "what are your thoughts" was too vague of a question for me to understand what sort of information you were seeking. If katzpur answers “I like Isaiah 43:10”, it may give us her “thoughts” but not answer your actual question. Can you give some specifics?

For example, I can’t tell if you are assuming that the translator is speaking temporally or spatially since you have not given any details. I very much agree with the writer of Isaiah 43:10 and if you also agree with Isaiah, such vague agreements still don’t necessarily place us in agreement on what the writer meant.

For example, beginning where the translator rendered “I am he” , the Hebrew is : כִּי-אֲנִי הוּא--לְפָנַי לֹא-נוֹצַר אֵל, וְאַחֲרַי לֹא יִהְיֶה.

Do you think the readers of Isaiahs time would have thought לְפָנַי (literally “to face”) actually was a temporal reference meaning “before me”? Or do you think that in their historical context, לְפָנַי would have had a different contextual meaning?

As a second question, the later translator rendered the Hebrew “נוֹצַר” as “formed”.

Do you think this is the best contextual rendering for this word that conveys it’s meaning for Isaiah and his readers, or do you think another rendering would better reflect what a hebrew would have understood this word to mean when it was written?

For example, in the historical context of Israels tendency to worship other Gods and the repeated textual witnesses to Jehovahs incomparability to them, do you think this Hebrew root, meaning to “flourish” or “blossom” would have been understood to mean “formed” by the writer?

What do you think the Hebrew actually meant and why do you assign it that meaning?

BilliardsBall, I hope your spiritual journey is Good.


Clear
ειαξτζω

Thank you very much. I should ask more questions. My questions:

Is it necessary to look closely at the Hebrew in this instance? Do not all of us reading this thread recognize that Judaism does not allow people to be gods, so much so that Jesus may be rejected by a Jewish person solely on that assumption - since Judaism IS monotheism in every sense?

And if so, if the Bible teaches one God only, because there are statements re: one God only in both testaments, am I misunderstanding what LDS canon teaches regarding people other than Jesus becoming gods and goddesses?

Thanks!

 

[Katzpur]

Thank you very much. I should ask more questions. My questions:

Is it necessary to look closely at the Hebrew in this instance? Do not all of us reading this thread recognize that Judaism does not allow people to be gods, so much so that Jesus may be rejected by a Jewish person solely on that assumption - since Judaism IS monotheism in every sense?

And if so, if the Bible teaches one God only, because there are statements re: one God only in both testaments, am I misunderstanding what LDS canon teaches regarding people other than Jesus becoming gods and goddesses?

Thanks!

I'm curious about something, BilliardsBall. In Acts 7:55-56, we read the account of an experience Stephen had. It says, "But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God."

What exactly do you believe he saw? He described two beings, one standing on the right hand of the other one. Which one was God? And who was the other one?

 

[Clear]

1) BilliardsBall asked (post #15) “…what are your thoughts about Isaiah 43:10?
"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.”

2) Clear responded (post # 16) Hi BilliardsBall, I didn’t want to intercept Katzpur’s response but saw this thread and read a bit of it. Katzpur may have understood your question, when you asked “what are your thoughts about…”. However, "what are your thoughts" was too vague of a question for me to understand what sort of information you were seeking. If katzpur answers “I like Isaiah 43:10”, it may give us her “thoughts” but not answer your actual question. Can you give some specifics?

For example, I can’t tell if you are assuming that the translator is speaking temporally or spatially since you have not given any details. I very much agree with the writer of Isaiah 43:10 and if you also agree with Isaiah, such vague agreements still don’t necessarily place us in agreement on what the writer meant. For example, beginning where the translator rendered “I am he” , the Hebrew is : כִּי-אֲנִי הוּא--לְפָנַי לֹא-נוֹצַר אֵל, וְאַחֲרַי לֹא יִהְיֶה. Do you think the readers of Isaiahs time would have thought לְפָנַי (literally “to face”) actually was a temporal reference meaning “before me”? Or do you think that in their historical context, לְפָנַי would have had a different contextual meaning?

As a second question, the later translator rendered the Hebrew “נוֹצַר” as “formed”. Do you think this is the best contextual rendering for this word that conveys it’s meaning for Isaiah and his readers, or do you think another rendering would better reflect what a hebrew would have understood this word to mean when it was written?

For example, in the historical context of Israels tendency to worship other Gods and the repeated textual witnesses to Jehovahs incomparability to them, do you think this Hebrew root, meaning to “flourish” or “blossom” would have been understood to mean “formed” by the writer?

What do you think the Hebrew actually meant and why do you assign it that meaning?

3) BilliardsBall responded Post # 22 : “ Is it necessary to look closely at the Hebrew in this instance? Do not all of us reading this thread recognize that Judaism does not allow people to be gods, so much so that Jesus may be rejected by a Jewish person solely on that assumption - since Judaism IS monotheism in every sense?”



Hi BilliardsBall :

Multiple Judaism(s) of varying eras

The concept of understanding early texts and what they meant to their writers and to the early Judeo-Christians who read them is often difficult for non-historians (who often don’t have the faintest idea what the early texts actually said) to appreciate, but instead they are left to read into a translation whatever meaning that comes to their minds. If you neglect considering the historical and linguistic context of the ancient Jews, then your simplistic assumption as to what "Judaism is" and to what "Judaism" believes is going to continue to be historically inaccurate.

In historical discussions, Historians speak of Pre-exilic vs Post-Exilic Judaism as two different categories of beliefs since the current model is that pre-exilic Israel was henotheistic (i.e. believed in multiple Gods of whom ONE was incomparable and worthy of worship). In fact, the prophets often chastise Israel for worshiping other Gods and not being true to Jehovah, their God. I do not expect you to know the entire historical context (who does...?), but mention this point merely to explain that the “Judaism” of historians is very different than your simplistic concept of “judaism”.


Historical religion is not the same as modern religions having the same name

When historians of these eras refer to “gods” and “god-like” beings, the very concept underlying what such beings were, is different than your non-historians concept.

Even the simple phrase “Behold, Adam has become as one of us…” (ιδου αδαμ γεγονεν ως εις εξ ημων... Gen 3:22 LXX) refers to an early conceptual definition of what it meant to be “like” a god (or “god-like), and importantly, it had it's own historical context. For example : Rashi says this verse in the masoretic tells us Adam became “like the Unique One among us” (notice the Hebrew flavors it differently…). The great Rashi rabbi explains that this means that at that point, Man had acquired the ability to discriminate between good and evil; (a characteristic God already had but which Adam had just acquired.)

Thus, when you read the early Judeo-Christian texts describing “god-like” beings, if you do not apply THEIR definition, then you will not understand what the early Judeo-Christians meant when they spoke of those individuals who were “gods” or who were “like-god”. Yes, it matters that you go back to the language and context and meanings that the ancients assign to these things if you want historically accurate discussions and accurate conclusions.

Among the historians, early Judao-Christian religious worldviews continues to be re-contextualized due to the many wonderful sacred textual discoveries of the 19th and 20th centuries. For example, early period historians interested in creation council histories (e.g. Ηeiser, Tigay, F.M. Cross, T. Mullen, Morgenstern, Cyrus Gordon, Prinsloo, C. Seitz, MacDonald, E. Ulrich, Sanders, M. Van Ruiten, Gerald Cook, and others, etc) are trying to generate NEW historical terms to accurately reflect the changing models of early Israels belief (since “mono-theism” no longer accurately reflects current historical models). As I read their various papers on Israel’s henotheism (the recognition of multiple lower divinities but the worship of only ONE Diety at the head of all others divinity), the scholars are all starting to sound like they are Mormons (though I know they aren't).

It was Budge, the Great Egyptologist who first pointed out the principle that Egypt (who had many divine beings the translators called “Gods” – it was the best word we had at the time) was essentially monotheism for most of its history since they had a LORD GOD who was always over all other beings that were called “gods”. He directed others and had no director himself. This distinction is important since it seems to be the distinction that the LDS make. This concept underlies the ancient Judao-Christian texts that speak so often about “Gods” and the “Godlike” and yet still remain essentially monotheistic in their context. (Yet it is a context that is often left out when individuals discuss LDS concepts in order to deceive others.)


Jehovah was "GOD of gods" in henotheism - incomparable and almighty, (they were not)

For example, in the Jewish-Christian Apocalypse of Abraham, when Abraham discovers the true God, he hears the voice of God : Quote: “Abraham, Abraham!” And I said, “Here I am.” And he said, “You are searching for the God of gods, the creator, in the understanding of your heart. I am he. (Apoc of Abr 8:1-4

This principle and language is virtually woven into the language of the Dead Sea Scrolls. For examples : Quote: “You are chief of the gods and king of the Glorious, Lord of every spirit and Ruler of every creature. Apart from you nothing is done, nor is there any knowing without your will. There is no one beside you and no one approaches you in strength. No one can compare to your glory.” (THANKSGIVING PSALMS - 1QH, 1Q35, 4Q 427–432)

Quote: “You have humbled the gods from the foundation” THANKSGIVING PSALMS - 1QH, 1Q35, 4Q 427–432

Quote: “He will send eternal support to the company of his redeemed by the power of the majestic angel of the authority of Michael…to exalt the authority of Michael among the Gods and the dominion of Israel among all flesh. THE WAR SCROLL 1QM, 4Q491-496 )

Such texts speak of men as the “righteous ones among the gods of…in the holy habitation.” (THE WAR SCROLL 1QM, 4Q491-496)

The Henotheism of early Judao-Christianity involved the tradition where many divine beings existed that were like the Lord God despite never equaling the LORD God, who was over all other beings. It is in such a context that the writer of Exodus is able to exclaim : “Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders? Ex 15:11".

The doctrinal language that reflects this belief of God as a “LORD among the gods” is woven throughout much of the early literature. This is an important historical context underlying early Judao-Christian thought which allows ancient texts and principles to make wonderful sense. If I could quote from other Christian and Jewish texts the point becomes more obvious.

For example : Quote: “.... he will magnify the God of all the divine beings who are appointed for righteousness seven times with seven worlds of wondrous exaltation.” (4Q403 frag ` Col.1)

Quote: “Praise the most high God, you who are exalted among all the wise divine beings. Let those who are holy among the godlike sanctify the glorious King, He who sanctifies by His holiness each of His holy ones. You princes of praise among all the godlike, praise the God of majestic praise. Surely the glory of His kingdom resides in praiseworthy splendor; therein are held the praises of all the godlike…Lift his exaltation on high, you godlike among the exalted divine beings -His glorious divinity above all the highest heavens. Surely He is the utterly divine over all the exalted princes, King of kings over all the eternal councils.” (SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE, 4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment)

Quote: “…, you godlike beings of utter holiness; rejoice in his divine kingdom. For He has established utter holiness among the eternally holy, that they might become for Him priests of the inner sanctum in His royal temple, ministers of the Presence in His glorious innermost chamber. In the congregation of all the wise godlike beings, and in the councils of all the divine spirits, He has engraven his precepts to govern all spiritual works and his glorious laws for all the wise divine beings, that sage congregation honored by God, those who draw near to knowledge….eternal, and from the font of holiness to the temple of utter holiness…priests who draw near, ministers of the Presence of the utterly holy King…His glory. Precept by precept they shall grow strong, to be seven eternal councils; for He established them for Himself to be the most holy of those who minister in the Holy of Holies…They shall become mighty thereby in accordance with the council…the Holy of Holies, priests of …these are the princes of …who take their stand in the temples of the king… (4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment)

“The song for the second Sabbath, contains a similar description of Godlike beings worshiping the “King of the godlike beings”, that is, the Lord God. : priestly angels and compare the poor quality of human worship in comparison of that of the angels”) –

Quote: “wonderfully to praise Your glory among the wise divine beings, extolling Your kingdom among the utterly holy. They are honored in all the camps of the godlike beings and feared by those who direct human affairs, wondrous beyond other divine beings and humans alike….They sing wonderful psalms according to their insights throughout the highest heaven, and declare the surpassing glory of the King of the godlike beings in the stations of their habitation….

Quote: “the king of the godlike beings…when they come with the godlike beings of …together for all of their assemblies…their might for all the powerful warriors…for all the rebellious councils.” (THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE, 4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment)

It is apparent from these doctrines that, though multiple beings are "like God" (i.e. “God- like” or "divine"), they are never equals to the Lord God and are always subordinate to him; all of them are at HIS command and none of them have the level of knowledge that he has. The LDS view regarding beings who are, or have become or ever will become “like” god, parallels this ancient view as far as I can tell.

For example : Quote: “Surely the weapons of warfare belong to the God of divine beings…the armies of heaven and the wonder of all the divine spirits shall run at His command… But the victory shall belong to the God of divine beings. To the King of the wise godlike beings belong all matters of knowledge; indeed the God of knowledge causes all that happens forever. ..None of the divine beings understand what he has designed. (THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE, 4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment )

Paul reminds us of this same principle of subordinance : "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (Corinthians 8:5-6). Whether there are many Gods or not, the position of LORD God, the Father of all, is singular.


Regarding the “wise divine beings” it is said that “They neither run from the ‘Way nor reverence any thing not a part of it; they consider themselves neither too exalted for his realm nor too humble for his commissions." (THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE, 4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment). Despite their divinity bestowed upon them and the wisdom they have gained, they are still all subject to the Lord God.

Still, they are honored to the extent that they are Godlike in morals and knowledge and dishonored to the extent that they are like Lucifer.

Quote: “ Bless the God of the godlike beings, you who inhabit the highest heaven…knowledge of the eternal godlike beings“ (THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE, 4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment)

Remember, these were orthodox teachings to the ancients who wrote and used such texts (though the moderns have abandoned such teachings). If the Copper Scroll discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls is authentic, it placed these texts in the very mainstream of Judaic doctrines and underlie the ancient temple orthodoxy.


The divine “God-like” beings were not all simply arch-angels, but according to these ancient doctrines, some of them were the spirits of men. The discourse on the Soul of Man in the Haggadah describes the circumstances of placing the pre-existent spirit of man (or woman) into the embryo (according to their doctrinal understanding). When the spirit is told to enter the sperm or embryo the spirit is reluctant (perhaps scared to continue...) And the pre-mortal spirit then asks : Quote: “Why do you now desire to have me enter this impure sperm, I who am holy and pure, and a part of your glory?” God consoles her : “The world which I shall cause you to enter is better than the world in which you have lived hitherto, and when I created you, it was only for this purpose.” ( The Haggadah -The Soul of Man)

When the soul finally enters against her will (wisdom and souls are expressed as female anciently), “the angel carries her back to the womb of the mother.” where her body is nurtured. However, the pre-birth spirit is shown many things which prepare her for her life. Quote: “In the morning an angel carries her to Paradise, and shows her the righteous, who sit there in their glory, with crowns upon their heads. The angel then says to the soul, “Do you know who these are?” She replies in the negative, and the angel goes on: “These whom you behold here were formed, like you, in the womb of their mother. When they came into the world, they observed God’s Torah and his commandments. Therefore they became the partakers of this bliss which you see them enjoy.....

“ These righteous, glorified individuals with crowns were MEN AND WOMEN who had lived and died PREVIOUSLY.

It is important to note that the spirit is shown those who were, like her, introduced from a pre-mortal sphere into mortality and who were to learn to live gain moral knowledge, learn to live moral law and good lives and then, if successful, returned to live in bliss, having gained knowledge and characteristics they did not have when they left. THESE men and women became “pious ones” who return to God more like him (more God-like) than when they left. Each soul is given the same promise that they are able to become worthy to become one of the "pious ones" themselves.

Quote: “ .... “These whom you behold here were formed, like you, in the womb of their mother. When they came into the world, they observed God’s Torah and his commandments. Therefore they became the partakers of this bliss which you see them enjoy. Know, also, you will one day depart from the world below, and if you will observe God’s Torah, then will you be found worthy of sitting with these pious ones. But if not, you will be doomed to the other place.” (The Haggadah - The Soul of Man)

Thus, if they are successful, they take their place with other pious and Godlike ones. Quote:

“At their wondrous stations are spirits, clothed with embroidery, a sort of woven handiwork, engraven with splendid figures. In the midst of what looks like glorious scarlet and colors of utter holy spiritual light, the spirits take up their holy stand in the presence of the King – splendidly colored spirits surrounded by the appearance of whiteness. This latter glorious spiritual substance is like golden handiwork, shimmering in the light.” (THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE, 4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment)

It is by this process within mortality that “He brings some of the sons of the world near, to be reckoned with him in the council of the gods as a holy congregation, stationed for eternal life and in the lot with His holy ones...” (THE AGES OF THE WORLD 4Q180-181). The ancient doctrine was that man was not destined to simply surround god as cattle, singing praises, but to achieve to a celestial knowledge and character. This is what the psalm-writer also testifies : Quote: “That bodies, covered with worms of the dead, might rise up from the dust to an eternal council; from a perverse spirit to your understanding. That he might take his position before you with the eternal hosts and spirits of truth to be renewed with all that shall be and to rejoice together with those who know.” (THANKSGIVING PSALMS - 1QH, 1Q35, 4Q 427–432)


The thoroughly Christian Abbaton history uses language specific to this context. Jesus tells the apostles : Quote: “He put breath into him in this way; He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life three times, saying, “Live! Live! Live! According to the type of My Divinity.” And the man lived straightway, and became a living soul, according to the image and likeness of God. And when Adam had risen up he cast himself down before [My] father, saying, “My Lord and my God! Thou hast made me to come into being [from a state in which] I did not exist.” (Abbaton)

Adam was not given God’s divinity, but his TYPE of divinity. Adam doesn’t ever expect to become THE God, but rather if he obeys the torah, then he becomes LIKE God (“God-Like”). In this manner, it was taught that man was “created from the dust for the eternal council…- and for man, you have allotted an eternal destiny with the spirits of knowledge…” (THANKSGIVING PSALMS - 1QH, 1Q35, 4Q 427–432)

This doctrinal context underlies early texts.For example, in the early christian text, Testament of Adam, Eve tells her children : Quote: “He spoke to me about this in Paradise after I picked some of the fruit in which death was hiding: ‘Adam, Adam do not fear. You wanted to be a god; I will make you a god, not right now, but after a space of many years. I am consigning you to death, and the maggot and the worm will eat your body.’3...But after a short time there will be mercy on you because you were created in my image, and I will not leave you to waste away in Sheol. For your sake I will be born of the Virgin Mary. For your sake I will taste death and enter the house of the dead....4'And after three days, while I am in the tomb, I will raise up the body I received from you. And I will set you at the right hand of my divinity, and I will make you a god just like you wanted. And I will receive favor from God, and I will restore to you and to your posterity that which is the justice of heaven.” (TESTAMENT OF ADAM 3:2-4)

This context changes the meaning of Jesus’ answer to his detractors when he says “ Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” (Jn 10:34)

In the DDS DISCOURSE ON THE EXODUS AND CONQUEST 4q374 , the ancient Jewish writer refers to Moses as “a god over the mighty” by saying “He planted His chosen in a land desirable above all others, in …He made him as a god over the mighty; as a compass for pharaoh”. The description of Moses as a God, did not make him THE God, but, for the ancient commentarist, it was NOT an inappropriate doctrinal statement. It may have been the most descriptive and most applicable term to use.

This concept of learning to learn moral characteristics which will allow men to become more like god confers upon mortality the purpose of education and testing. This is (I think) why Ignatius tells the Ephesians : “I speak to you as my fellow students. For I need to be trained by you in faith, instruction, endurance, and patience.” Ig-eph 3:1. He knows he will become more like God through a process of Imitation. Thus he taught the saints of ephesus : “Ye are imitators of God, once you took on new life” I-eph 1:1

This was the same theme the angels proclaimed in the Rechabite ascension text : Quote: “To us the holy angels of God announce (both) the incarnation of the Word of God, who (is) from the holy virgin, the mother of God, and all those things which (he) provides and perfects and endures for the sake of the salvation of mortals.....9f Have regard to us in your hidden thoughts, be imitators of our way of life, pursue peace, cherish the love (that is) unchangeable, and love purity and holiness. (HISTORY OF THE RECHABITES 12:9a and 9f)

Among religious HISTORIANS of these period texts, the LDS theology is very popular since there are so many close parallels to early Judao-christian traditions. The fact that “restorationists” (i.e. any Christian movement that is attempting to return to the earliest theological traditions regarding foundational and salvational theological traditions…) are attempting to return to early theological foundations is very, very exciting historically.


I am always intrigued by how provincial and changing certain religious discussions are depending upon the context where they arise. What one tends to experience is the rejection of religionists who have little knowledge of Judao-christianity of the earliest periods. However, even the LDS do not understand how extremely popular LDS theological themes are among the historians of the early Judao-christian periods. While “unorthodox” to modernist Christians who have adopted modern Christian theories, such religious history is quite “orthodox” in those historical discussions and periods.

From the time that I discovered the parallels between the ancient Judao-christian theology and texts and that of LDS theology, it was an exciting discovery since it allows for a modern working model of how such ancient principles affect a living group that believes in them.

There are multiple historical parallels to the ancient texts; the ancient traditions and LDS theology that are quite impressive.

So, the question still stands;

BilliardBalls, Do you think the modern readers such as yourself, actually DO understand these ancient principles in the same way as the ancients understood them? Do you think Isaiah 40:10 reflects an accurate rendering of the original on the two points I asked you about? If you believe so, tell us why.

Clear
τωφυειω

 

[BilliardsBall]

I'm curious about something, BilliardsBall. In Acts 7:55-56, we read the account of an experience Stephen had. It says, "But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God."

What exactly do you believe he saw? He described two beings, one standing on the right hand of the other one. Which one was God? And who was the other one?

How did He see a second being? "No one has seen the Father at any time."

I think He saw Jesus standing on the right hand of the throne I mentioned, in Revelation 3. The throne was surrounded by Spirit and Glory, but not a second anthropomorphic being.

 

[BilliardsBall]

1) BilliardsBall asked (post #15) “…what are your thoughts about Isaiah 43:10?
"You are my witnesses," declares the LORD, "and my servant whom I have chosen, so that you may know and believe me and understand that I am he. Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.”

2) Clear responded (post # 16) Hi BilliardsBall, I didn’t want to intercept Katzpur’s response but saw this thread and read a bit of it. Katzpur may have understood your question, when you asked “what are your thoughts about…”. However, "what are your thoughts" was too vague of a question for me to understand what sort of information you were seeking. If katzpur answers “I like Isaiah 43:10”, it may give us her “thoughts” but not answer your actual question. Can you give some specifics?

For example, I can’t tell if you are assuming that the translator is speaking temporally or spatially since you have not given any details. I very much agree with the writer of Isaiah 43:10 and if you also agree with Isaiah, such vague agreements still don’t necessarily place us in agreement on what the writer meant. For example, beginning where the translator rendered “I am he” , the Hebrew is : כִּי-אֲנִי הוּא--לְפָנַי לֹא-נוֹצַר אֵל, וְאַחֲרַי לֹא יִהְיֶה. Do you think the readers of Isaiahs time would have thought לְפָנַי (literally “to face”) actually was a temporal reference meaning “before me”? Or do you think that in their historical context, לְפָנַי would have had a different contextual meaning?

As a second question, the later translator rendered the Hebrew “נוֹצַר” as “formed”. Do you think this is the best contextual rendering for this word that conveys it’s meaning for Isaiah and his readers, or do you think another rendering would better reflect what a hebrew would have understood this word to mean when it was written?

For example, in the historical context of Israels tendency to worship other Gods and the repeated textual witnesses to Jehovahs incomparability to them, do you think this Hebrew root, meaning to “flourish” or “blossom” would have been understood to mean “formed” by the writer?

What do you think the Hebrew actually meant and why do you assign it that meaning?

3) BilliardsBall responded Post # 22 : “ Is it necessary to look closely at the Hebrew in this instance? Do not all of us reading this thread recognize that Judaism does not allow people to be gods, so much so that Jesus may be rejected by a Jewish person solely on that assumption - since Judaism IS monotheism in every sense?”



Hi BilliardsBall :

Multiple Judaism(s) of varying eras

The concept of understanding early texts and what they meant to their writers and to the early Judeo-Christians who read them is often difficult for non-historians (who often don’t have the faintest idea what the early texts actually said) to appreciate, but instead they are left to read into a translation whatever meaning that comes to their minds. If you neglect considering the historical and linguistic context of the ancient Jews, then your simplistic assumption as to what "Judaism is" and to what "Judaism" believes is going to continue to be historically inaccurate.

In historical discussions, Historians speak of Pre-exilic vs Post-Exilic Judaism as two different categories of beliefs since the current model is that pre-exilic Israel was henotheistic (i.e. believed in multiple Gods of whom ONE was incomparable and worthy of worship). In fact, the prophets often chastise Israel for worshiping other Gods and not being true to Jehovah, their God. I do not expect you to know the entire historical context (who does...?), but mention this point merely to explain that the “Judaism” of historians is very different than your simplistic concept of “judaism”.


Historical religion is not the same as modern religions having the same name

When historians of these eras refer to “gods” and “god-like” beings, the very concept underlying what such beings were, is different than your non-historians concept.

Even the simple phrase “Behold, Adam has become as one of us…” (ιδου αδαμ γεγονεν ως εις εξ ημων... Gen 3:22 LXX) refers to an early conceptual definition of what it meant to be “like” a god (or “god-like), and importantly, it had it's own historical context. For example : Rashi says this verse in the masoretic tells us Adam became “like the Unique One among us” (notice the Hebrew flavors it differently…). The great Rashi rabbi explains that this means that at that point, Man had acquired the ability to discriminate between good and evil; (a characteristic God already had but which Adam had just acquired.)

Thus, when you read the early Judeo-Christian texts describing “god-like” beings, if you do not apply THEIR definition, then you will not understand what the early Judeo-Christians meant when they spoke of those individuals who were “gods” or who were “like-god”. Yes, it matters that you go back to the language and context and meanings that the ancients assign to these things if you want historically accurate discussions and accurate conclusions.

Among the historians, early Judao-Christian religious worldviews continues to be re-contextualized due to the many wonderful sacred textual discoveries of the 19th and 20th centuries. For example, early period historians interested in creation council histories (e.g. Ηeiser, Tigay, F.M. Cross, T. Mullen, Morgenstern, Cyrus Gordon, Prinsloo, C. Seitz, MacDonald, E. Ulrich, Sanders, M. Van Ruiten, Gerald Cook, and others, etc) are trying to generate NEW historical terms to accurately reflect the changing models of early Israels belief (since “mono-theism” no longer accurately reflects current historical models). As I read their various papers on Israel’s henotheism (the recognition of multiple lower divinities but the worship of only ONE Diety at the head of all others divinity), the scholars are all starting to sound like they are Mormons (though I know they aren't).

It was Budge, the Great Egyptologist who first pointed out the principle that Egypt (who had many divine beings the translators called “Gods” – it was the best word we had at the time) was essentially monotheism for most of its history since they had a LORD GOD who was always over all other beings that were called “gods”. He directed others and had no director himself. This distinction is important since it seems to be the distinction that the LDS make. This concept underlies the ancient Judao-Christian texts that speak so often about “Gods” and the “Godlike” and yet still remain essentially monotheistic in their context. (Yet it is a context that is often left out when individuals discuss LDS concepts in order to deceive others.)


Jehovah was "GOD of gods" in henotheism - incomparable and almighty, (they were not)

For example, in the Jewish-Christian Apocalypse of Abraham, when Abraham discovers the true God, he hears the voice of God : Quote: “Abraham, Abraham!” And I said, “Here I am.” And he said, “You are searching for the God of gods, the creator, in the understanding of your heart. I am he. (Apoc of Abr 8:1-4

This principle and language is virtually woven into the language of the Dead Sea Scrolls. For examples : Quote: “You are chief of the gods and king of the Glorious, Lord of every spirit and Ruler of every creature. Apart from you nothing is done, nor is there any knowing without your will. There is no one beside you and no one approaches you in strength. No one can compare to your glory.” (THANKSGIVING PSALMS - 1QH, 1Q35, 4Q 427–432)

Quote: “You have humbled the gods from the foundation” THANKSGIVING PSALMS - 1QH, 1Q35, 4Q 427–432

Quote: “He will send eternal support to the company of his redeemed by the power of the majestic angel of the authority of Michael…to exalt the authority of Michael among the Gods and the dominion of Israel among all flesh. THE WAR SCROLL 1QM, 4Q491-496 )

Such texts speak of men as the “righteous ones among the gods of…in the holy habitation.” (THE WAR SCROLL 1QM, 4Q491-496)

The Henotheism of early Judao-Christianity involved the tradition where many divine beings existed that were like the Lord God despite never equaling the LORD God, who was over all other beings. It is in such a context that the writer of Exodus is able to exclaim : “Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods? who is like thee, glorious in holiness, fearful in praises, doing wonders? Ex 15:11".

The doctrinal language that reflects this belief of God as a “LORD among the gods” is woven throughout much of the early literature. This is an important historical context underlying early Judao-Christian thought which allows ancient texts and principles to make wonderful sense. If I could quote from other Christian and Jewish texts the point becomes more obvious.

For example : Quote: “.... he will magnify the God of all the divine beings who are appointed for righteousness seven times with seven worlds of wondrous exaltation.” (4Q403 frag ` Col.1)

Quote: “Praise the most high God, you who are exalted among all the wise divine beings. Let those who are holy among the godlike sanctify the glorious King, He who sanctifies by His holiness each of His holy ones. You princes of praise among all the godlike, praise the God of majestic praise. Surely the glory of His kingdom resides in praiseworthy splendor; therein are held the praises of all the godlike…Lift his exaltation on high, you godlike among the exalted divine beings -His glorious divinity above all the highest heavens. Surely He is the utterly divine over all the exalted princes, King of kings over all the eternal councils.” (SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE, 4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment)

Quote: “…, you godlike beings of utter holiness; rejoice in his divine kingdom. For He has established utter holiness among the eternally holy, that they might become for Him priests of the inner sanctum in His royal temple, ministers of the Presence in His glorious innermost chamber. In the congregation of all the wise godlike beings, and in the councils of all the divine spirits, He has engraven his precepts to govern all spiritual works and his glorious laws for all the wise divine beings, that sage congregation honored by God, those who draw near to knowledge….eternal, and from the font of holiness to the temple of utter holiness…priests who draw near, ministers of the Presence of the utterly holy King…His glory. Precept by precept they shall grow strong, to be seven eternal councils; for He established them for Himself to be the most holy of those who minister in the Holy of Holies…They shall become mighty thereby in accordance with the council…the Holy of Holies, priests of …these are the princes of …who take their stand in the temples of the king… (4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment)

“The song for the second Sabbath, contains a similar description of Godlike beings worshiping the “King of the godlike beings”, that is, the Lord God. : priestly angels and compare the poor quality of human worship in comparison of that of the angels”) –

Quote: “wonderfully to praise Your glory among the wise divine beings, extolling Your kingdom among the utterly holy. They are honored in all the camps of the godlike beings and feared by those who direct human affairs, wondrous beyond other divine beings and humans alike….They sing wonderful psalms according to their insights throughout the highest heaven, and declare the surpassing glory of the King of the godlike beings in the stations of their habitation….

Quote: “the king of the godlike beings…when they come with the godlike beings of …together for all of their assemblies…their might for all the powerful warriors…for all the rebellious councils.” (THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE, 4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment)

It is apparent from these doctrines that, though multiple beings are "like God" (i.e. “God- like” or "divine"), they are never equals to the Lord God and are always subordinate to him; all of them are at HIS command and none of them have the level of knowledge that he has. The LDS view regarding beings who are, or have become or ever will become “like” god, parallels this ancient view as far as I can tell.

For example : Quote: “Surely the weapons of warfare belong to the God of divine beings…the armies of heaven and the wonder of all the divine spirits shall run at His command… But the victory shall belong to the God of divine beings. To the King of the wise godlike beings belong all matters of knowledge; indeed the God of knowledge causes all that happens forever. ..None of the divine beings understand what he has designed. (THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE, 4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment )

Paul reminds us of this same principle of subordinance : "For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (Corinthians 8:5-6). Whether there are many Gods or not, the position of LORD God, the Father of all, is singular.


Regarding the “wise divine beings” it is said that “They neither run from the ‘Way nor reverence any thing not a part of it; they consider themselves neither too exalted for his realm nor too humble for his commissions." (THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE, 4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment). Despite their divinity bestowed upon them and the wisdom they have gained, they are still all subject to the Lord God.

Still, they are honored to the extent that they are Godlike in morals and knowledge and dishonored to the extent that they are like Lucifer.

Quote: “ Bless the God of the godlike beings, you who inhabit the highest heaven…knowledge of the eternal godlike beings“ (THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE, 4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment)

Remember, these were orthodox teachings to the ancients who wrote and used such texts (though the moderns have abandoned such teachings). If the Copper Scroll discovered among the Dead Sea Scrolls is authentic, it placed these texts in the very mainstream of Judaic doctrines and underlie the ancient temple orthodoxy.


The divine “God-like” beings were not all simply arch-angels, but according to these ancient doctrines, some of them were the spirits of men. The discourse on the Soul of Man in the Haggadah describes the circumstances of placing the pre-existent spirit of man (or woman) into the embryo (according to their doctrinal understanding). When the spirit is told to enter the sperm or embryo the spirit is reluctant (perhaps scared to continue...) And the pre-mortal spirit then asks : Quote: “Why do you now desire to have me enter this impure sperm, I who am holy and pure, and a part of your glory?” God consoles her : “The world which I shall cause you to enter is better than the world in which you have lived hitherto, and when I created you, it was only for this purpose.” ( The Haggadah -The Soul of Man)

When the soul finally enters against her will (wisdom and souls are expressed as female anciently), “the angel carries her back to the womb of the mother.” where her body is nurtured. However, the pre-birth spirit is shown many things which prepare her for her life. Quote: “In the morning an angel carries her to Paradise, and shows her the righteous, who sit there in their glory, with crowns upon their heads. The angel then says to the soul, “Do you know who these are?” She replies in the negative, and the angel goes on: “These whom you behold here were formed, like you, in the womb of their mother. When they came into the world, they observed God’s Torah and his commandments. Therefore they became the partakers of this bliss which you see them enjoy.....

“ These righteous, glorified individuals with crowns were MEN AND WOMEN who had lived and died PREVIOUSLY.

It is important to note that the spirit is shown those who were, like her, introduced from a pre-mortal sphere into mortality and who were to learn to live gain moral knowledge, learn to live moral law and good lives and then, if successful, returned to live in bliss, having gained knowledge and characteristics they did not have when they left. THESE men and women became “pious ones” who return to God more like him (more God-like) than when they left. Each soul is given the same promise that they are able to become worthy to become one of the "pious ones" themselves.

Quote: “ .... “These whom you behold here were formed, like you, in the womb of their mother. When they came into the world, they observed God’s Torah and his commandments. Therefore they became the partakers of this bliss which you see them enjoy. Know, also, you will one day depart from the world below, and if you will observe God’s Torah, then will you be found worthy of sitting with these pious ones. But if not, you will be doomed to the other place.” (The Haggadah - The Soul of Man)

Thus, if they are successful, they take their place with other pious and Godlike ones. Quote:

“At their wondrous stations are spirits, clothed with embroidery, a sort of woven handiwork, engraven with splendid figures. In the midst of what looks like glorious scarlet and colors of utter holy spiritual light, the spirits take up their holy stand in the presence of the King – splendidly colored spirits surrounded by the appearance of whiteness. This latter glorious spiritual substance is like golden handiwork, shimmering in the light.” (THE SONGS OF THE SABBATH SACRIFICE, 4Q400-407, 11Q17, Masada Fragment)

It is by this process within mortality that “He brings some of the sons of the world near, to be reckoned with him in the council of the gods as a holy congregation, stationed for eternal life and in the lot with His holy ones...” (THE AGES OF THE WORLD 4Q180-181). The ancient doctrine was that man was not destined to simply surround god as cattle, singing praises, but to achieve to a celestial knowledge and character. This is what the psalm-writer also testifies : Quote: “That bodies, covered with worms of the dead, might rise up from the dust to an eternal council; from a perverse spirit to your understanding. That he might take his position before you with the eternal hosts and spirits of truth to be renewed with all that shall be and to rejoice together with those who know.” (THANKSGIVING PSALMS - 1QH, 1Q35, 4Q 427–432)


The thoroughly Christian Abbaton history uses language specific to this context. Jesus tells the apostles : Quote: “He put breath into him in this way; He breathed into his nostrils the breath of life three times, saying, “Live! Live! Live! According to the type of My Divinity.” And the man lived straightway, and became a living soul, according to the image and likeness of God. And when Adam had risen up he cast himself down before [My] father, saying, “My Lord and my God! Thou hast made me to come into being [from a state in which] I did not exist.” (Abbaton)

Adam was not given God’s divinity, but his TYPE of divinity. Adam doesn’t ever expect to become THE God, but rather if he obeys the torah, then he becomes LIKE God (“God-Like”). In this manner, it was taught that man was “created from the dust for the eternal council…- and for man, you have allotted an eternal destiny with the spirits of knowledge…” (THANKSGIVING PSALMS - 1QH, 1Q35, 4Q 427–432)

This doctrinal context underlies early texts.For example, in the early christian text, Testament of Adam, Eve tells her children : Quote: “He spoke to me about this in Paradise after I picked some of the fruit in which death was hiding: ‘Adam, Adam do not fear. You wanted to be a god; I will make you a god, not right now, but after a space of many years. I am consigning you to death, and the maggot and the worm will eat your body.’3...But after a short time there will be mercy on you because you were created in my image, and I will not leave you to waste away in Sheol. For your sake I will be born of the Virgin Mary. For your sake I will taste death and enter the house of the dead....4'And after three days, while I am in the tomb, I will raise up the body I received from you. And I will set you at the right hand of my divinity, and I will make you a god just like you wanted. And I will receive favor from God, and I will restore to you and to your posterity that which is the justice of heaven.” (TESTAMENT OF ADAM 3:2-4)

This context changes the meaning of Jesus’ answer to his detractors when he says “ Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?” (Jn 10:34)

In the DDS DISCOURSE ON THE EXODUS AND CONQUEST 4q374 , the ancient Jewish writer refers to Moses as “a god over the mighty” by saying “He planted His chosen in a land desirable above all others, in …He made him as a god over the mighty; as a compass for pharaoh”. The description of Moses as a God, did not make him THE God, but, for the ancient commentarist, it was NOT an inappropriate doctrinal statement. It may have been the most descriptive and most applicable term to use.

This concept of learning to learn moral characteristics which will allow men to become more like god confers upon mortality the purpose of education and testing. This is (I think) why Ignatius tells the Ephesians : “I speak to you as my fellow students. For I need to be trained by you in faith, instruction, endurance, and patience.” Ig-eph 3:1. He knows he will become more like God through a process of Imitation. Thus he taught the saints of ephesus : “Ye are imitators of God, once you took on new life” I-eph 1:1

This was the same theme the angels proclaimed in the Rechabite ascension text : Quote: “To us the holy angels of God announce (both) the incarnation of the Word of God, who (is) from the holy virgin, the mother of God, and all those things which (he) provides and perfects and endures for the sake of the salvation of mortals.....9f Have regard to us in your hidden thoughts, be imitators of our way of life, pursue peace, cherish the love (that is) unchangeable, and love purity and holiness. (HISTORY OF THE RECHABITES 12:9a and 9f)

Among religious HISTORIANS of these period texts, the LDS theology is very popular since there are so many close parallels to early Judao-christian traditions. The fact that “restorationists” (i.e. any Christian movement that is attempting to return to the earliest theological traditions regarding foundational and salvational theological traditions…) are attempting to return to early theological foundations is very, very exciting historically.


I am always intrigued by how provincial and changing certain religious discussions are depending upon the context where they arise. What one tends to experience is the rejection of religionists who have little knowledge of Judao-christianity of the earliest periods. However, even the LDS do not understand how extremely popular LDS theological themes are among the historians of the early Judao-christian periods. While “unorthodox” to modernist Christians who have adopted modern Christian theories, such religious history is quite “orthodox” in those historical discussions and periods.

From the time that I discovered the parallels between the ancient Judao-christian theology and texts and that of LDS theology, it was an exciting discovery since it allows for a modern working model of how such ancient principles affect a living group that believes in them.

There are multiple historical parallels to the ancient texts; the ancient traditions and LDS theology that are quite impressive.

So, the question still stands;

BilliardBalls, Do you think the modern readers such as yourself, actually DO understand these ancient principles in the same way as the ancients understood them? Do you think Isaiah 40:10 reflects an accurate rendering of the original on the two points I asked you about? If you believe so, tell us why.

Clear
τωφυειω

I very much appreciate your taking much time to provide so much information. Thank you.

I'm a Messianic Jew, and I have more than a passing acquaintance with pre- and post-exilic thought. But as a Messianic Jew, I know Paul's words where he explains that there are no other gods but idols that represent divinities, behind which are the powers of demons.

I am NOT saying LDS doctrine is demonic. But I am saying that even a cursory reading of either testament indicates that all non-God "gods" were to be utterly cast down and destroyed. I cannot accept that a case can be made from false idols which are to be abused, chopped into pieces and burned to say, "Someday, I will be a god or godlike and this is not an utterly unholy blasphemy". I further recognize that in EVERY instance where Jesus Christ was threatened in the gospels, than actually executed, it was for the blasphemy of daring to associate Himself with divinity. The irony is, He is divinity.

I myself believe I understand many of these principles as the ancients understood them, yes. I think Isaiah 40:10 is an accurate rendering as I gave it in English. My desire is not to look at merely one verse, however. There are hundreds of statements in the Bible like a favorite from Psalm 115: "Our God is in the heavens, He does whatever He pleases." God in this verse is singular. I have discussed the issues from ancient Judaism, even pre-written oral Talmud, Zohar, Kabalah, Rambam, etc. with many Jews. There are only two ways that Jews accept God's Oneness:

1. He is singular, utterly alone (as in, say, Moses Maimonides's articles of Jewish faith).

2. He is a plural one-ness, Father, Son, Spirit, three-in-one, not one-in-three, not millions-in-one or millions-in-millions.

I hope that clarifies. Yet I don't want to be presumptuous. This is an LDS subforum, I'm not here to teach Christian doctrine. But much of what you're saying is not only non-Orthodox but antithetical to any Christian mindset. That's why I'm trying to understand what you think gods and goddesses really are or will be.

 

[Katzpur]

How did He see a second being? "No one has seen the Father at any time."

I think He saw Jesus standing on the right hand of the throne I mentioned, in Revelation 3. The throne was surrounded by Spirit and Glory, but not a second anthropomorphic being.

Okay, fair enough. I think he saw what he said he saw -- the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God -- and you think he saw something else -- the Son of Man standing next to an empty throne. Each of us needs to be able to reconcile in our minds two passages of scripture that appear to be at odds with each other. Sometimes we do so differently, and apparently this is one of those times. I think that Clear has given you some really worthwhile information to consider, information that makes the LDS position less confusing and more logical. The choice of what to do with this information is up to you.

 

[Katzpur]

But much of what you're saying is not only non-Orthodox but antithetical to any Christian mindset. That's why I'm trying to understand what you think gods and goddesses really are or will be.

It may be non-Orthodox, but it's definitely not antithetical to any Christian mindset -- only to some Christian mindsets.

 

[Norman]

I´ve learned following from: What is Mormonism? What do Mormons believe?

Norman: My response is to long, so I have to do it in two parts. Hi Kristoffer, I suggest going to an official web-site (s) of our Church. Copying and pasting from an anti-Mormon website http://www.gotquestions.org/Mormons.html like you did, is not a way to find out sincere questions about some one’s faith. I would suggest in the future that if you have sincere questions about The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, just ask the sincere questions. Here are a couple of our official Church web-sites. www.lds.orgor www.mormon.orgwhere you can learn a treasure of information about our Church. With all due respect, you were very lazy in your post. Not doing any research on your own, as you can see below, I put a lot of effort in answering your questions. I will respect you and answer your questions.

"Mormons believe the following about God: He has not always been the Supreme Being of the universe (Mormon Doctrine, p. 321) but attained that status through righteous living and persistent effort (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345). They believe God the Father has a “body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s” (Doctrine and Covenants130:22). Brigham Young taught that Adam actually was God and the father of Jesus Christ—although this teaching has been abandoned by modern Mormon leaders.

Norman: Again, I see that you pasted and copied from this website What is Mormonism? What do Mormons believe?
Mormon Doctrine written by Bruce R. McConkie is not LDS doctrine. He wrote the book and everything in the book is his opinion. Many of our leaders write personal books all the time and it is not Church doctrine. Our Canonized scriptures are the 1611 Kings James Bible, Book of Mormon, Doctrine & Covenants and The Pearl of Great Price. God the eternal Father has always been God the eternal Father.
Yes, we do believe that God our eternal Father and Jesus Christ has bodies of flesh and bone.

There was never anything to abandon in the first place. Brigham Young’s teaching what has been coined “Adam and God” theory. This was his own personal opinion. It is not Church doctrine and has never been Church doctrine. I personally do not know what he was even trying to say.

Joseph Smith taught the following in April 1843, later recorded in Doctrine and Covenants 130:22:‍ “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.”11“I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods.”12“That which is without body or parts is nothing. There is no other God in heaven but that God who has flesh and bones.”13

Source:

Teachings: Joseph Smith Chapter 2: God the Eternal Father

In contrast, Christians know this about God: there is only one true God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Isaiah 43:10; 44:6–8).

Norman: Deuteronomy 6:4..Hear, (Shama`) O Israel: (Yisra'el) The Lord (Jehovah) our God ('elohiym) is one ('echad) Lord (Jehovah) [Latter-Day Saints agree.]

Isaiah 43:11 I, even‍ I, am‍ the Lord; (Jehovah) and beside‍ (Bil`adey) me there is‍ no savior (Yasha`). [I think this is the corner stone passage, that there is no “Savior” beside me. No other person who delivered the “Atonement.]” Compare with Rom. 5: 11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

Deuteronomy 6:4..Hear, (Shama`) O Israel: (Yisra'el) The Lord (Jehovah) our God ('elohiym) is one ('echad) Lord (Jehovah) [Latter-Day Saints agree.]

Isaiah 43:11 I, even‍ I, am‍ the Lord; (Jehovah) and beside‍ (Bil`adey) me there is‍ no savior (Yasha`). [I think this is the corner stone passage, that there is no “Savior” beside me. No other person who delivered the “Atonement.]” Compare with Rom. 5: 11 And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

He always has existed and always will exist (Deuteronomy 33:27; Psalm 90:2; 1 Timothy 1:17).

Norman: Latter Day-Saints agree.

He was not created but is the Creator (Genesis 1; Psalm 24:1; Isaiah 37:16).

Norman: Genesis 1:26 ¶And God ('elohiym) said, ('amar) Let us make man ('adam) in our image, (Tselem) after our likeness: (D@muwth) and let them have dominion‍ (Radah) over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, ('erets) and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth ('erets).

The question is, who is “Let us?” and who is “our?”

Divine names and titles, especially in the Bible, are occasionally ambiguous. The distinction between the Father and the Son is sometimes unclear. For example, the Hebrew term Elohim-a title usually applied to the Father by Latter-day Saints-often refers to Jehovah in the Bible (e.g., Isa. 12:2). Furthermore, people prayed to Jehovah as if he were the Father. In some cases, ambiguity may be due to the transmission of the text; in others, it may be explained by divine investiture wherein Christ is given the authority of the Father: "Thus the Father placed His name upon the Son; and Jesus Christ spoke and ministered in and through the Father's name; and so far as power, authority, and God ship are concerned His words and acts were and are those of the Father

Exodus 3:14 And God ('elohiym) said ('amar) unto Moses, (Mosheh) I Am That I Am: (ehyeh-asher-ehyeh) and he said, ('amar) Thus shalt thou say ('amar) unto the children (Ben) of Israel, (Yisra'el) I Am hath sent (Shalach) me unto you.

The “elohiym” here is plural. What do you do with this? As a pronoun “I” can mean I, we, in proper context.

“ehyeh-asher-ehyeh”, (The Lord God) derives from the “Qal” imperfect first person form of the verb “hayah”: (said).

Notes:

The Jews took the name of their creator so sacred that it was not to be said at all. This is why we have names like “Adonai” and “Hashem.” “Adonai Elohim” (The Lord my God). “Adonai Avinu” (The Lord our Father) Isaiah 64:8 or “Adonai El Elyon” (The Lord Most High God) Gen. 14:22;

Something interesting happened here, Ezra the scribe converted the ancient script to Aramaic morphology “ketav meruba”, which is now the form used in Torah scrolls.

Source:

http://www.biblestudytools.com

Jehovah, Jesus Christ - The Encyclopedia of Mormonism

www.lds.org

He is perfect, and no one else is equal to Him (Psalm 86:8; Isaiah 40:25).

Norman: Yes, we believe that God is Omnipresent, Omnipotent, Omniscient and Infinite.

God the Father is not a man, nor was He ever (Numbers 23:19; 1 Samuel 15:29; Hosea 11:9). He is Spirit (John 4:24), and Spirit is not made of flesh and bone (Luke 24:39).

Norman: Numbers 23:19God ('el) is‍ not a man, ('iysh) that he should lie; (Kazab) neither the son (Ben) of man, ('adam) that he should repent: (Nacham) hath he said, ('amar) and shall he not do (`asah) it?‍ or hath he spoken, (Dabar) and shall he not make it good? (Quwm)

We agree with Numbers 23:19 that God is not a man (i.e., a mortal human) in which this passage is explaining very well. God is a man with a spirit and flesh and bones. God doesn't have need for repentance. God is not like men. Men are known for lying, unfaithfulness, and not keeping their word. God never lies and has no need of changing His mind. Surely a person cannot mean to imply that God cannot be in human form—the fundamental doctrine of Christianity is that Jesus is God, made flesh. After all we are made in his image and we have a spirit and flesh and bone just like God is. Genesis 1:26 ¶And God ('elohiym) said, ('amar) Let us make man ('adam) in our image, (Tselem) after our likeness:

Luke 24:39Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle‍ me, and see; for a spirit‍ hath not flesh‍ and bones, as ye see‍ me have. (Jesus on the road to Damascus after his resurrection; if Jesus had a body of flesh and bone and a spirit with-in him then God the Father is the same.) (Jesus has a spirit and a body of flesh and bone, as does God the Father.)

John 20:28And Thomas answered and said unto him, My Lord and my God. 29 Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen‍ me, thou hast believed: blessed are‍ they that have not seen, and yet‍ have believed. (This is the most important thing Mycroft, “belief.”)

Another explanation is the context of Numbers 23:19, I quote a commentary by two prominent scholars. Karl Fredreich Keil (1807-1888) and Franz Delitzsch (1813-1890). There is six volumes of their work of the Old Testament.

Numbers 23:20

“Behold, I have received to bless: and He hath blessed; and I cannot turn it.” Balaam meets Balak's expectation that he will take back the blessing that he has uttered, with the declaration, that God does not alter His purposes like changeable and fickle men, but keeps His word unalterably, and carries it into execution. The unchangeableness of the divine purposes is a necessary consequence of the unchangeableness of the divine nature. With regard to His own counsels, God repents of nothing; but this does not prevent the repentance of God, understood as an anthropopathic expression, denoting the pain experienced by the love of God, on account of the destruction of its creatures (see at Genesis 6:6, and Exodus 32:14). The ה before הוּא; Numbers 23:19) is the interrogative ה (see Ges. §100, 4). The two clauses of Numbers 23:19, “Hath He spoken,” etc., taken by themselves, are no doubt of universal application; but taken in connection with the context, they relate specially to what God had spoken through Balaam, in his first utterance with reference to Israel, as we may see from the more precise explanation in Numbers 23:20, “Behold, I have received to bless' (לקח, taken, accepted), etc. השׁיב, to lead back, to make a thing retrograde (Isaiah 43:13). Samuel afterwards refused Saul's request in these words of Balaam (Numbers 23:19), when he entreated him to revoke his rejection on the part of God (1 Samuel 15:29).

Source:

Numbers 23 Commentary - Keil and Delitzsch Commentary on the Old Testament

Mormons believe that there are different levels or kingdoms in the afterlife: the celestial kingdom, the terrestrial kingdom, the telestial kingdom, and outer darkness (Mormon Doctrine, p. 348). Where mankind will end up depends on what they believe and do in this life (2 Nephi 25:23; Articles of Faith, p.79).

Norman: Again, the book “Mormon Doctrine” is not a teaching manual in our Church. It is not canon of our Church. In regards to the three Kingdoms, I go to Paul and modern day revelation.

Paul spoke of a man who was caught up into the third heaven (see 2 Corinthians 12:2). Could there be a third heaven if there was no second heaven or first heaven?

Doctrine and Covenants 131:1–4; 137; and the following verses from Doctrine and Covenants 76: verses 11–24 (circumstances of Joseph Smith and Sidney Rigdon’s vision of the three degrees of glory); verses 50–60, 62, 70, 92–93 (requirements and rewards of the celestial kingdom); verses 71–80, 91 (requirements and rewards of the terrestrial kingdom); and verses 81–90, 100–103 (requirements and rewards of the telestial kingdom).

Source:

Primary 5: Doctrine and Covenants and Church History Lesson 23: The Prophet Receives a Vision of the Three Degrees of Glory

Paul used the sun, moon and stars to describe the resurrection and mentions the Celestial, and Terrestrial, however and for some reason unknown Telestial was removed. The stars are representing the Telestial Kingdom.

1 Corinthians 15:40There‍ are‍ also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial is‍ one, and the glory‍ of the terrestrial is‍ another. 41 There is‍ one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for one‍ star differeth‍ from another‍ star in glory. 42 So also is‍ the resurrection of the dead. It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption: 43 It is sown in dishonour; it is raised in glory: it is sown in weakness; it is raised in power: 44 It is sown a natural‍ body; it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body.

Source:

https://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/1-cor/15?lang=eng

Here are more blessings that we will receive personally

Did u know that we Matt 25:21..ruler over many things…Did u know that Rev 1:6.we will be Kings and priests unto God........did u know that Rev 2:7..we will eat of... the tree of life, in the paradise of God.......did u know that Rev 2:17, we will eat hidden manna, will receive a white stone, and a new name in that white stone………did u know that Rev 3:5..We will be clothed in white raiment…did u know that we will be granted to sit in the saviors throne with him Rev 3:21.."I will grant u to sit with me in my throne, even as I overcame, and am set down with my father in his throne………did u now that Rev 9:15…we will be before the throne of God, serving him day and night in his temple.

In contrast, the Bible tells us that after death we go to heaven or hell based on whether or not we had faith in Jesus Christ as our Lord and Savior.

Norman: An English translation of the Hebrew word Sheol, hell signifies an abode of departed spirits and corresponds to the Greek Hades. In common speech it generally denotes the place of torment for the wicked, although it has been often held, both in the Jewish and the Christian churches, that Hades (meaning broadly the place of all departed spirits) consists of two parts, paradise and Gehenna, one the abode of the righteous and the other of the disobedient. Gehenna, or Gehenna of fire, is the Greek equivalent of the “valley of Hinnom,” a deep glen of Jerusalem where the idolatrous Jews offered their children to Moloch (2 Chr. 28:3; 33:6; Jer. 7:31; 19:2–6). It was afterwards used as a place for burning the refuse of the city (2 Kgs. 23:10) and in that way became symbolic of the place of torment (Matt. 5:22, 29–30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:15, 33; Mark 9:43, 45, 47; Luke 12:5; James 3:6). Expressions about “hell-fire” are probably due to the impression produced on men’s minds by the sight of this ceaseless burning and are figurative of the torment of those who willfully disobey God.

The devil and his angels, including the sons of perdition, are assigned to a place spoken of as a lake of fire—a figure of eternal anguish. This condition is sometimes called hell in the scriptures (2 Pet. 2:4; D&C 29:38; 88:113). This kind of hell, which is after the Resurrection and Judgment, is exclusively for the devil and his angels and is not the same as that consisting only of the period between death and resurrection. The one group are redeemed from hell and inherit some degree of glory. The other receive no glory. They continue in spiritual darkness. For them the conditions of hell remain.

Source:

Hell

To be absent from our bodies means, as believers, we are with the Lord (2 Corinthians 5:6–8).

Norman: 2 Corinthians 5:6 Therefore we are‍ always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord: 7 (For we walk by faith, not by sight 8 We are confident, I say,‍ and willing rather to be absent from the body, and to be present with the Lord. 9 Wherefore we labour, that, whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him. 10 For we must all appear before the judgment‍ seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done‍ in his‍ body, according‍ to that he hath done, whether it be‍ good or bad. (The key point about “verse 8” is the desire by many that when we die we will one day be present with the Lord. This is in the future tense. Paul taught them how they could be reconciled to their Heavenly Father through the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

Unbelievers are sent to hell or the place of the dead (Luke 16:22–23).

Norman: The parable of the rich man and Lazarus refers to two different conditions in the postmortal spirit world: “Abraham’s bosom” and “hell” (see Luke 16:22–23). The former is depicted as a place of comfort in the company of the faithful (epitomized by father Abraham), the latter as a place of torment. “Abraham’s bosom‍ conjures up an image of one man reclining companionably against another during a feast or banquet (see John 13:23). Bosom‍ also suggests having close fellowship with another (see John 1:18). In paradise, Lazarus was able to have close association with Abraham, the revered father of all Israelites” (Jay A. Parry and Donald W. Parry, Understanding the Parables of Jesus Christ‍ [2006], 156; see also the commentary for John 13:23). Between this abode of the faithful and “hell” there was “a great gulf fixed” (Luke 16:26), which prevented interchange between the two.

“Abraham’s bosom” refers to paradise, and “hell” refers to the spirit prison. The division between these two places existed before Jesus Christ visited the spirit world between the time of His death and His Resurrection. Before Christ’s death, spirits from paradise could not visit those who were in spirit prison. His ministry in the spirit world bridged the gulf between paradise and the spirit prison, making it possible for the spirits in prison to receive the message of the gospel from authorized ministers sent from paradise (see D&C 138:18–37; John 5:25–29; 1 Peter 3:18–21; 4:6).

President Joseph F. Smith‍ (1838–1918) clarified that before spirits can be released from spirit prison, they must hear the gospel and accept it and the saving ordinances must be performed for them: “In relation to the deliverance of spirits from their prison house, of course, we believe that can only be done after the gospel has been preached to them in the spirit, and they have accepted the same, and the work necessary to their redemption by the living be done for them” (Teachings of Presidents of the Church: Joseph F. Smith‍ [1998], 413–14).

Source:

New Testament Student Manual Chapter 18: Luke 15–17

 

[Norman]

When Jesus comes the second time, we will receive new bodies (1 Corinthians 15:50–54).

Norman: Every one whether they be evil or good will be resurrected, this is a free gift to all from the Savior Jesus Christ because of his atonement.

There will be a new heaven and new earth for believers (Revelation 21:1),

Norman: As part of the Fall of Adam, the earth fell from a terrestrial (paradisiacal) state to a telestial state. When Christ returns and wickedness is destroyed, “Christ will reign personally upon the earth; and … the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory” (Articles of Faith 1:10). After the thousand years of Christ’s reign, the earth will be transformed yet again. The Prophet Joseph Smith‍ described this change: “This earth will be rolled back into the presence of God and crowned with celestial glory” (Teachings: Joseph Smith,‍ 258; see D&C 29:22–25; 88:18–20, 25–26).

Doctrine & Covenants 130:6 The angels do not reside on a planet like this earth; 7 But they‍ reside in the presence‍ of God, on a globe like‍ a sea‍ of glass and fire, where all things for their glory are manifest, past, present, and future, and are continually before the Lord. 8 The place where God resides is a great Urim and Thummim. 9 This earth, in its sanctified‍ and immortal‍ state, will be made like unto crystal‍ and will be a Urim and Thummim to the inhabitants who dwell thereon, whereby all things pertaining to an inferior kingdom, or all kingdoms of a lower order, will be manifest to those who dwell on it; and this earth will be Christ’s. 10 Then the white stone‍ mentioned in Revelation 2:17, will become a Urim and Thummim to each individual who receives one, whereby things pertaining to a higher‍ order of kingdoms will be made known; 11 And a white stone‍ is given to each of those who come into the celestial kingdom, whereon is a new name‍ written, which no man knoweth save he that receiveth it. The new name is the key word.

Revelation 4:6. “Sea of Glass” The “sea of glass” mentioned in Revelation 4:6‍ represents “the earth, in its sanctified, immortal, and eternal state” (D&C 77:1; see also D&C 130:6–9).

and unbelievers will be thrown into an everlasting lake of fire (Revelation 20:11–15).

Norman: President Boyd K. Packer‍ of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles explained: “The prophets speak of the ‘gall of bitterness’ [Acts 8:23; Alma 41:11] and often compare the pain of guilt to fire and brimstone. Brimstone‍ is another name for sulfur. …“That lake of fire and brimstone, ever burning but never consumed, is the description in the scriptures for hell [see Revelation 19:20; 20:10; 21:8; D&C 63:17; 76:36]” (“The Touch of the Master’s Hand,”‍ Ensign,‍ May 2001, 23).

The Prophet Joseph Smith‍ taught: “A man is his own tormentor and his own condemner. Hence the saying, They shall go into the lake that burns with fire and brimstone [see Revelation 21:8]. The torment of disappointment in the mind of man is as exquisite as a lake burning with fire and brimstone” (Teachings: Joseph Smith,‍ 224).

There is no second chance for redemption after death (Hebrews 9:27).

Norman: In answer to this passage: Then to each life comes the experience known as death. None is exempt. All must pass its portals. Death claims the aged, the weary and worn. It visits the youth in the bloom of hope and glory of expectation. Nor are the little children kept beyond its grasp. In the words of the Apostle Paul: “It is appointed unto men once to die” (Heb. 9:27).

Source:

Mrs. Patton, Arthur Lives - New Era Apr. 1991 - new-era

There is a second chance for redemption: 1 Peter 3:19 By which also he went and preached‍ unto the spirits‍ in prison; 20 Which‍ sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering‍ of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved‍ by water. (Christ visited the spirit world and taught the people from the days of Noah)

2 Peter 4:5 Who shall give account to him that is ready to judge‍ the quick‍ and the dead. 6 For‍ for this cause was the gospelpreached‍ also to them that are dead, that they might be judged‍ according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit

Revelations 20:5 But the rest of the dead‍ lived not again until the thousand years were finished. This is‍ the first resurrection. 6 Blessed‍ and holy is‍ he that hath part in the first resurrection: on such the second death‍ hath no power, but they shall be priests‍ of God and of Christ, and shall reign with him a thousand years. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand‍ before God; and the books‍ were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book‍ of life: and the dead were judged‍ out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death‍ and hell‍ delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. 14 And death‍ and hell‍ were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Mormon leaders have taught that Jesus’ incarnation was the result of a physical relationship between God the Father and Mary (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115; Mormon Doctrine, p. 547).

Norman: Since you did not post any sources, I assume you are referring to this: "The birth of the Savior was as natural as are the births of our children; it was the result of natural action. He partook of flesh and blood--was begotten of his Father, as we were of our fathers," (Journal of Discourses, vol. 8, p. 115). Brigham Young could be right or could be wrong. We do not know exactly how the event of Mary becoming pregnant happened. It just says that the Holy Ghost over shadowed. I am dismissing the book, Mormon Doctrine by Bruce R. McConkie.

Source:

Vol. 08 Journal of Discourses :: Journal of Discourses


Mormons believe Jesus is a god, but that any human can also become a god (Doctrine and Covenants132:20; Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, p. 345–354).

Norman: D&C 132:20 Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting‍ to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them. (This is in regards to Celestial Marriage. We do not know what being a God all entails. No one will ever replace or be greater than God the eternal Father or his son Jesus Christ.)

Mosiah 15:1-7...And now Abinadi said unto them: I would that yes should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. (2) And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called "the Son" of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son-(3) The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God: and the Son because of the flesh: thus becoming the Father and Son-(4) And they are one God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and of earth.....

This is not a doctrine that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints made up. Read John 10:32-36-Psalms 82:6

Jesus asks John 10:32…Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do you stone me?

John 10:33…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…..This is exactly the same problem people have today, about a man being God, or a God, or becoming like God. The Jews had the same beef with it.

This is why Jesus used Psalms 82:6, for his defense against this so called, as the Jews put it “blasphemy” “and because that thou, “being a man” “makes thyself God”

Out of all the Old Testament Scriptures that Jesus could have used to his defense mortal humans being gods, or becoming gods, or being like god, he chose Psalms 82;6 to his defense, to show the Jews, that is was taught and “written in your law” Jesus says this.

John 10:34…Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? (Jesus is the God of the Old Testament and told the Jews that he gave them this doctrine.)

John 10:35…If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; (This interpretation cannot be broken, it means what it says.)

Jon 10:36….Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world (Jesus himself) Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

So, you see, the Jews wanted to stone Jesus because he claimed to be God, or the Son of God, or a God, or like his Father in heaven.


Mormonism teaches that salvation can be earned by a combination of faith and good works (LDS Bible Dictionary, p. 697)."

Norman: James 2:17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone. 18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith‍ by my works. 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils‍ also believe, and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith‍ without works‍ is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified‍ by works, when he had offered‍ Isaac his son upon the altar? 22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works‍ was faith made perfect? 23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed‍ God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend‍ of God. 24 Ye see then how that by works‍ a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise also was not Rahab‍ the harlot justified‍ by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them‍ out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit‍ is dead, so faith without works‍ is dead also. (Even with works and faith we still in the end will be saved by the mercy of the atonement of Jesus Christ.)

1) Is it right that mormons dont believe in a eternal God? Is God, our Father, to be resembled with ourselves when/if we get to the celestial kingdom?

Norman: We do believe in an eternal God. Yes, God is our Father and yes, we were created in his image.

2a) Have there been other Gods before the Father of ours?

Norman: There is God the Father and his son Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost. These are all that we are concerned with and have knowledge of.

2b) Is our Father like other "people" that in other dimensions/planets have come to the celestial kingdom, and therefore can create own planets?

Norman: There is no one like God the eternal Father, there is no one like Jesus Christ our Savior. Paul said in Hebrews that he created worlds without end.

2c) Who is then the true God (the one who started it all)?

Norman: God the eternal Father. Our heavenly Father created our spirits. God the Father created our physical bodies.

3a) When/if we come to the celestial kingdom: then are we on a higher spiritual state than Jesus himself, because he is on the terrestrial kingdom, and therefore doesn't live with God himself and get the opportunity to evolve himself eternally, or either create own planets?

Norman: I do not know where you got this false information from? Those who receive the highest degree in the Celestial Kingdom will live with Jesus Christ, God the eternal Father and enjoy the constant companionship of the Holy Ghost forever.

3b) How does this work?

Norman: I suggest you sincerely read the Book of Mormon and ponder it in your mind. Isaiah taught line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little there a little.

3c) Why doesn't Jesus live with God our father, but some of us got the opportunity to do this? Isn't Jesus bigger than us?

Norman: Jesus Christ reigns with God our eternal Father in all splendor and glory.

I only ask this questions because I doesntknow how a mormon sees these things. I hope there are understandings for that!

Norman: Well, I hope that my answers will suffice for you?

Hope for good answers!

[/QUOTE]

Norman: Joseph Smith: I called upon the Lord for the first time, in the place above stated or in other words I made a fruitless attempt to pray, my toung seemed to be swolen in my mouth, so that I could not utter,69 JS later explained, “I was siezed upon by some power which entirely overcame me and had such astonishing influence over me as to bind my tongue so that I could not speak. Thick darkness gathered around me and it seemed to me for a time as if I were doomed to sudden destruction.” and looked around, but saw no person or thing that was calculated to produce the noise of walking, I kneeled again my mouth was opened and my toung liberated, and I called on the Lord in mighty prayer, a pillar of fire appeared above my head, it presently rested down upon my head, and filled me with joy unspeakable, a personage appeard in the midst, of this pillar of flame which was spread all around, and yet nothing consumed, another personage soon appeared like unto the first, he said unto me thy sins are forgiven thee, he testified unto me that Jesus Christ is the son of God;

Two separate individuals. This put to rest 2000 years of debate’s, councils, creeds and arguments over the God head. The conviction that Elohim was anciently the Almighty God and Father of us all, and Jehovah was and is Jesus the Christ, his Son is based on modern scripture (D&C 110:1–4) and not Biblical exegesis. The teachings of modern prophets and apostles has tended to reinforce this usage, such as when President Joseph F. Smith taught, "Among the spirit children of Elohim the firstborn was and is Jehovah or Jesus Christ to whom all others are juniors."

Source:

http://josephsmithpapers.org/paperS...36?p=24#!/paperSummary/journal-1835-1836&p=25

Rom. 5: 11…And not only so, but we also joy in God through our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom we have now received the atonement.

 

[BilliardsBall]

It may be non-Orthodox, but it's definitely not antithetical to any Christian mindset -- only to some Christian mindsets.

Is there another denomination besides LDS that holds to gods and goddesses (other than ancient gnostic sources)? I honestly do not know.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Okay, fair enough. I think he saw what he said he saw -- the Son of Man standing on the right hand of God -- and you think he saw something else -- the Son of Man standing next to an empty throne. Each of us needs to be able to reconcile in our minds two passages of scripture that appear to be at odds with each other. Sometimes we do so differently, and apparently this is one of those times. I think that Clear has given you some really worthwhile information to consider, information that makes the LDS position less confusing and more logical. The choice of what to do with this information is up to you.

Come to think of it, I saw a DVD video once where there was a reenactment of Heavenly Father appearing to Joseph Smith in his youth. How should I reconcile that to "No man has seen the Father..."? Thank you.

 

[Katzpur]

Is there another denomination besides LDS that holds to gods and goddesses (other than ancient gnostic sources)? I honestly do not know.

I honestly don't know either, but Clear might. As I said in my post #4, it's an early Christian doctrine which few Christians seem to recognize today. C.S. Lewis, as I said previously did, but his Anglican denomination does not.

 

[Katzpur]

Come to think of it, I saw a DVD video once where there was a reenactment of Heavenly Father appearing to Joseph Smith in his youth. How should I reconcile that to "No man has seen the Father..."? Thank you.

Again, we need to look to early Christianity, and here's where Clear's expertise is very helpful. Irenaeus wrote in 180 AD that the scripture which states, "no man hath seen God at any time" should actually continue by saying, "[unless] the only-begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him]." He recognized that numerous righteous men had seen God in the past. The Bible gives accounts of their experiences. I can provide a list of scripture references for you, but you probably are aware of most of them without any help from me.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Again, we need to look to early Christianity, and here's where Clear's expertise is very helpful. Irenaeus wrote in 180 AD that the scripture which states, "no man hath seen God at any time" should actually continue by saying, "[unless] the only-begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him]." He recognized that numerous righteous men had seen God in the past. The Bible gives accounts of their experiences. I can provide a list of scripture references for you, but you probably are aware of most of them without any help from me.

There was no need IMHO for a continuance as Jesus is God, but a better rendering might be "no mere man hath seen God at any time". Also, because of the other verses as you wrote, the Son beholds the Father, but men cannot see the Father. That's also why a second being could not have been "seen" as the Father dwells in unapproachable light.

 

[Katzpur]

There was no need IMHO for a continuance as Jesus is God, but a better rendering might be "no mere man hath seen God at any time". Also, because of the other verses as you wrote, the Son beholds the Father, but men cannot see the Father. That's also why a second being could not have been "seen" as the Father dwells in unapproachable light.

Okay, well we obviously aren't going to agree on this one. And since this isn't a debate forum, I have nothing more to say on the subject.

 

[Clear]

Hi Katzpur :

I’m really busy at the moment and so have very little time, but can take a second to comment.


1) Regarding henotheism.

My area of historical interest is fairly narrow since I am mainly interested in the earliest and most authentic Judeo-Christianity in the peri-C.E. eras so I am not particularly knowledgeable regarding other religious movements or modern christian theories of the various modern Christian movements.

Early Judaism and Christianity believed in and described beings that shared some characteristics with God but who were not to be worshipped as I’ve shown in post # 24. I used Adam as an example of a being who became “as one of us”. Later normative Judaism lost prophetic gifts, lost temple worship; lost their priesthood and became Rabbinic Judaism where doctrines were created by, adopted by and spread to other Jews by their Rabbinic leaders. These two "judaisms" are two different religions having different base characteristics.

For example, While ancient vertical (prophetic) Judaism knew a great deal about God and pre-creation heavens and conditions there, the later horizontal (rabbinical) Judaism was ignorant of these things and discouraged such knowledge. For example, the Talmud tells us that Rabbinic Judaism forbade any further study of or transmission of truths concerning pre-creation doctrines, thus, this knowledge which was common in vertical Judaism (prophetic Judaism), would have been lost in a single generation to the followers of Horizontal (rabbinic Judaism) as texts were culled and the traditions and knowledge was not passed on to the next generation. The Rabbinic prohibition is in Gen Rabba, and this one reads : IT is forbidden to inquire what existed before creation, as Moses distinctly tells us (Deut. 4. 32): 'Ask now of the days that are past which were before thee, since the day God created man upon earth.' Thus the scope of inquiry is limited to the time since the Creation.–(Gen. Rabba 1)

Eminent Rabbis of "Rabbinic Judaism" who issued prohibitions against inquiring regarding conditions that existed in heaven before the creation, themselves created barriers to learning many, many of the most profoundly important truths concerning God; concerning his plan and his motives and conditions that allow mortality to make much more sense. Such rabbinic prohibitions against certain areas of knowledge left the latter religion having the same name, more intellectually anemic and more ignorant about certain basic principles. It is no wonder then that the earliest textual traditions that discuss and describe conditions before creation are relatively unknown among Jews who inherited such prohibitions to knowledge about such themes. Texts containing such pre-creation themes and descriptions would have been culled from Jewish tradition and any “canon” they might have used. It is just such prohibitions to knowledge that reminds me of Jesus’ trying to teach the Jews regarding conditions leading to ignorance of God.

Thus, even by Jesus time, Jesus berates the Jewish leaders for creating conditions where important religious principles and knowledge was not taught and passed on. Jesus said : "Woe to you experts in the law, because you have taken away the key to knowledge. You yourselves have not entered, and you have hindered those who were entering." Luke 11:52

Multiple other texts describe this condition and it’s affect among the Jews. For example, the Gospel of Thomas also refers to this same condemnation of Jewish leaders, saying : “Jesus said, “The Pharisees and the scribes have taken the keys of knowledge and hidden them. They themselves have not entered, nor have they allowed to enter those who wish to….” THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS vs 39;

Messianic Jews themselves were aware of this systematic problem and describe it in almost the same words : “They hold back the drink of knowledge from those that thirst, and for their thirst they give them vinegar to drink, that they might observe their error, behaving madly at their festivals and getting caught in their nets.” Dead Sea Scrolls 1QH, 1Q35, 4Q Col. 12:10-11

This tendency to religious abuse and apostasy from authentic doctrines was not new to the rabbinic religion, but was always a tendency for all mankind from the earliest recorded periods. For example, Moses is told by God that “...when the times of exposure come near and punishment arises through kings who (though) sharing their crimes yet punish them, then they themselves will be divided as to the truth. Consequently the word was fulfilled that they will avoid justice and approach iniquity; and they will pollute the house of their worship with the customs of the nations; and they will play the harlot after foreign gods. For they will not follow the truth of God, (Testament of Moses 5:1-6)

It was not merely Jesus who described the Jewish temple as having become “a den of thieves."( Mark 11:17), but the reformation espoused by Qumran Jews themselves is quite scathing in its condemnation of the Jewish priestly faction that administered in the Corrupted Jewish temple before it was destroyed by the Romans.

“Hear these words, O Israel. 29 At first our fathers dwelt as aliens in Egypt and they were delivered from there, 30 and received the Law of life, which they did not keep, which you also have transgressed after them. 31 then land was given to you for a possession in the land of Zion; but you and your fathers committed iniquity and did not keep the ways which the Most High commanded you. 32 And because he is a righteous judge, in due time he took from you what he had given. “ (prophets, temple, priesthood, knowledge, etc, etc.) Fourth Book of Ezra 14:28-32;

These sorts of abuse and doctrinal changes by Sadducees and Pharisees and later by rabbis as they rose to greater power and influence and created the rabbinic religion that also used the name “Judaism”, may be part of why Jesus railed against certain of the Jews who “hold the tradition of men” and “reject the commandment of God, that ye may keep your own tradition.” Mark 7:7-9

My point is, the Jewish history tells us that Prophets revealed religion, which people tend to apostatize from. Other prophets corrected and restored the doctrines from which others apostatized from. Then people apostatized from that restoration. This process repeated itself over and over. The later Rabbinic Judaism called itself “Judaism”, but it was, nonetheless, an apostate religion having different doctrines. This tendency for ALL individuals to apostatize from specific truths may be one of the important base truths mankind needs to learn.



3) Regarding the multiple textual witnesses of individuals who saw God versus the verses that says “no man hath seen God”.

I think this verse represents a lacuna like that between verses 2 and 3 of Acts 14. If this is correct, then the motive and mechanism underlying this lacuna may be similar to the Jewish Masoretes who edited Gen 18:22 to read differently than the original text. For example, in all the three Massoretic Rubrics in Orient 1379, 2349 and 2365 in each of which it is emphatically stated that the original reading was “but the Lord stood yet before Abraham” only that the text was altered. (c.f. the St. Petersburg Codex Ezek. VIII:17 and Zech II:12).

The Jewish Massoretes who altered the original text felt the original reading was simply too anthropomorphic and degrading to God (especially given legal idiom of “standing before” another in judgment for a wrong doing...). Thus they changed the text from God standing before Abraham, to a form where Abraham stood before God. The early Synagogal prayers (2,12, apos constitutions, etc.) of the Christians speak of God, showing Abraham the Christ in Christs role as the God of the old testament.

It is clear that the Judeo-Christian texts display their belief that God could and was seen of some men at certain times. For example, the entire genre of early Christian ascension literature is based on a prophet seeing God. For example, the ascension of Isaiah reads : “And Isaiah himself has said, ‘I see more than Moses the prophet.’ Moses said, There is no man who can see the Lord and live.’ But Isaiah has said, ‘I have seen the Lord, and behold I am alive.’ Martyrdom and Ascension of Isaiah . 3:9

Early Jewish Enochian literature is similar in its textual witness that certain prophets saw God. Enoch is a good example. The text describes this prophet being taken into heaven and sees both God and his son and asks the angel with him who the person is that is both with and like the Father. : “1 At that place, I saw the One to whom belongs the “chief of days.” (“he who precedes time,” “The beginning of days”, “he who is of primordial days,” “the antecedent of time”). And his head was white like wool, and there was with him another individual whose face was like that of a human being. His countenance was full of grace like that of one among the holy angels. 2 And I asked the one–from among the angels–who was going with me, and who had revealed to me all the secrets regarding the One who was born of human beings, “Who is this, and from whence is he who is going as the prototype of the Before-Time (i.e. should be translated - ...from where could he be, and for what reason does he go with him who precedes time?”). 3 And he answered me and said to me, “This is the Son of Man, to whom belongs righteousness, and with whom righteousness dwells. And he will open all the hidden storerooms; for the Lord of the Spirits has chosen him, and he is destined to be victorious before the Lord of the Spirits in eternal uprightness. 4 This Son of Man whom you have seen is the One who would remove the Kings and the mighty ones from their comfortable seats, and the strong ones from their thrones. He shall loosen the reins of the strong and crush the teeth of the sinners. 5 He shall depose the kings from their thrones and kingdoms. For they do not extol and glorify him, and neither do they obey him, the source of their kingship. 1st Enoch 46:1-6;


Whether their beliefs were correct or not, it is clear that the Early Judeo-Christian literature describes their belief in a God who had been seen and that he appeared in an anthropomorphic form.

Sorry I didn’t have time for more comment katzpur. I simply don't have much time now.

Clear
δρσιειω

 

[Katzpur]

Hi Katzpur :

I’m really busy at the moment and so have very little time, but can take a second to comment.


1) Regarding henotheism.

My area of historical interest is fairly narrow since I am mainly interested in the earliest and most authentic Judeo-Christianity in the peri-C.E. eras so I am not particularly knowledgeable regarding other religious movements.
Sorry I didn’t have time for more comment katzpur. I simply don't have much time now.

Clear

Holy Cow! With the time it must take you to glean this much knowledge, I'm surprised you have time for anything else at all.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Okay, well we obviously aren't going to agree on this one. And since this isn't a debate forum, I have nothing more to say on the subject.

I would change my stance if you or Clear could explain to me the intricacies. Thanks.

 

[Norman]

I very much appreciate your taking much time to provide so much information. Thank you.

I'm a Messianic Jew, and I have more than a passing acquaintance with pre- and post-exilic thought. But as a Messianic Jew, I know Paul's words where he explains that there are no other gods but idols that represent divinities, behind which are the powers of demons.

I am NOT saying LDS doctrine is demonic. But I am saying that even a cursory reading of either testament indicates that all non-God "gods" were to be utterly cast down and destroyed. I cannot accept that a case can be made from false idols which are to be abused, chopped into pieces and burned to say, "Someday, I will be a god or godlike and this is not an utterly unholy blasphemy". I further recognize that in EVERY instance where Jesus Christ was threatened in the gospels, than actually executed, it was for the blasphemy of daring to associate Himself with divinity. The irony is, He is divinity.

I myself believe I understand many of these principles as the ancients understood them, yes. I think Isaiah 40:10 is an accurate rendering as I gave it in English. My desire is not to look at merely one verse, however. There are hundreds of statements in the Bible like a favorite from Psalm 115: "Our God is in the heavens, He does whatever He pleases." God in this verse is singular. I have discussed the issues from ancient Judaism, even pre-written oral Talmud, Zohar, Kabalah, Rambam, etc. with many Jews. There are only two ways that Jews accept God's Oneness:

1. He is singular, utterly alone (as in, say, Moses Maimonides's articles of Jewish faith).

2. He is a plural one-ness, Father, Son, Spirit, three-in-one, not one-in-three, not millions-in-one or millions-in-millions.

I hope that clarifies. Yet I don't want to be presumptuous. This is an LDS subforum, I'm not here to teach Christian doctrine. But much of what you're saying is not only non-Orthodox but antithetical to any Christian mindset. That's why I'm trying to understand what you think gods and goddesses really are or will be.

Norman: Hi BilliardsBall, What is a Messianic Jew? Our Church is defined by the vision of Joseph Smith not by biblical exegeses. Joseph said he saw two personages that appeared to him, so from a Latter-Day saint perspective, we know that God the eternal Father and Jesus Christ his son appeared to Joseph Smith in the grove. Our Church is built upon that foundation of modern revelation and that vision. That appearance put to rest 2000 years of debates, counsels, arguments and creeds about the godhead.