God in mormonism

[BilliardsBall]

Okay, I think I know where you're getting confused. Here are some points for you to keep in mind about out beliefs:

1. God (the Father) is a spirit (i.e. the source of life) in a glorified, immortal body.
2. Long before the world was even made, He created billions of spirits, the spirits of each and every one of us. We have no idea how He did this.
3. We lived with Him in spirit form before we ever came to this earth.
4. A physical body was created for each of us through sexual intercourse between our earthly parents.
5. God placed the spirit intended for each physical body into that body (whether at conception, at birth, or somewhere in between is not known for sure)
6. That spirit is what gives our physical body life. Physical death occurs when the spirit leaves the physical body and the organs cease to function.
7. The spirit itself does not die but awaits the resurrection of the physical body in the "Spirit World," an intermediate realm between earth and heaven.
8. At the Second Coming of Christ, the spirits of the righteous will once again return to the bodies they inhabited during mortality, giving those bodies new and immortal life. They will enter into heaven.
9. After perhaps billions of years, some of these spirits will have progressed to the point where they have come to have godlike qualities and attributes.
10. The process begins again, at Step 2. The difference is that this time around, God's children will be the creators. They will create billions of new spirits who will live in our presence until it is time to be born onto an earth we have created. Again, we don't know what is entailed in the creation of a spirit. The physical bodies of our spirit offspring will be created at conception by their parents.

It's a never-ending cycle of creation.

I see. Thank you for clarifying.

I believe that Jesus's death and resurrection were to make me perfect. Heaven is perfect and only perfect people may be there (and in the new Earth and etc. that is coming).

I believe in Eternal Progression in terms of we will always be learning and enjoying life and learning in Heaven. But having become changed and perfect at the Rapture, I will not ever progress toward godhood (as I understand the scriptures).

 

[Katzpur]

I see. Thank you for clarifying.

I believe that Jesus's death and resurrection were to make me perfect. Heaven is perfect and only perfect people may be there (and in the new Earth and etc. that is coming).

I believe in Eternal Progression in terms of we will always be learning and enjoying life and learning in Heaven. But having become changed and perfect at the Rapture, I will not ever progress toward godhood (as I understand the scriptures).

Fair enough. I wasn't expecting you to agree; I was just hoping that you'd understand our perspective and I gather that you did.

 

[Clear]

BilliardsBall :

Other than your adoption of the modern theory of “magical” instantaneous “perfection” of modern theology, ironically, your description of those in heaven who are always “learning” and “enjoying life and learning” in heaven parallels the Qumranic description of those who are like "God" / “God-like”.

If there is a social Heaven that is to be a social group that exists in perfect harmony and perfect and uninterrupted happiness forever, then it will be inhabited by individual who obey moral and social laws which both create and support that perfect sociality. Whereas the early Judeo-Christians, texts called those perfect and exalted beings who are able to live in such a social heaven; who have learned to perfectly enjoy eternal life, and are forever learning and progressing in intelligence and power associated with such characteristics, "gods" and "god-like", you simply have not told us by what term you would call them..

While is it a matter of simple semantics, you can certainly give those post-mortal beings who have learned to be like God in certain characteristics, a different designation rather than use the early Judeo-Christian term "god-like".

Clear

 

[BilliardsBall]

BilliardsBall :

Other than your adoption of the modern theory of “magical” instantaneous “perfection” of modern theology, ironically, your description of those in heaven who are always “learning” and “enjoying life and learning” in heaven parallels the Qumranic description of those who are like "God" / “God-like”.

If there is a social Heaven that is to be a social group that exists in perfect harmony and perfect and uninterrupted happiness forever, then it will be inhabited by individual who obey moral and social laws which both create and support that perfect sociality. Whereas the early Judeo-Christians, texts called those perfect and exalted beings who are able to live in such a social heaven; who have learned to perfectly enjoy eternal life, and are forever learning and progressing in intelligence and power associated with such characteristics, "gods" and "god-like", you simply have not told us by what term you would call them..

While is it a matter of simple semantics, you can certainly give those post-mortal beings who have learned to be like God in certain characteristics, a different designation rather than use the early Judeo-Christian term "god-like".

Clear

1. Perfection to attain heaven isn't modern theology. Jesus said "You must be perfect, like your Father in Heaven".

2. Logic agrees. If two people fight and hurt each other in Heaven, it is no longer a place of perfection. Only perfect people may go to Heaven.

I'm imperfect. I would say that Jesus died and rose to do what I cannot, become perfect/sinless.

3. The term I would use, therefore, isn't godlike but sinless. God has shared some of His characteristics with us, Adam and Even were sinless before the Fall, but we would agree, not godlike.

Not trying to argue with you here, only clarify. I recognize some of my biases, including being "raised" in the faith in modern, not ancient times. However, I like to think my doctrines are neither modernist nor ancient, the way some Roman Catholic doctrines are ancient but off the mark, but biblical in nature.

Thanks!

 

[Clear]

Hi BilliardsBall :

1) BilliardsBall said : “Perfection to attain heaven isn't modern theology. Jesus said "You must be perfect, like your Father in Heaven".
You are confused. It is not the concept of “perfection in heaven" that I referred to as a modern theory. It was your modern theory of "instantaneous" “perfection at the rapture” that I was referring to. This interpretation does not express itself in the earliest Judeo-Christian textual witnesses where Christians themelves describe the early Christian movement and its doctrines..

In early Judeo-Christian textual witnesses, there were other principles such as repentance that were important in the process of moral improvement.

I am honestly not sure when the theory of “instantaneous” perfection first appears in Judeo-Christian theory, but it does not appear in the earliest lectionaries, diaries, hymns, Christian fiction literature, etc. It is a interpretation that first appears in later centuries.


2) BilliardsBall said : The term I would use, therefore, isn't godlike but sinless.
This is simply another difference between your religious theory and ancient Judeo-Christian theory. As I showed in post #24 in multiple examples, the early texts DID use the term “god-like”. Your modern religious theories and its terms are different than ancient religious worldviews and their terms.


3) BilliardsBall said : “I like to think my doctrines are neither modernist nor ancient…”
I understand. This is how most of us like to think. However, if you read the early Judeo-Christian literature where Christians write and describe their interpretations, you will see that your specific doctrinal theory and it’s interpretation of “instantaneous perfection” inside a theology where mercy renders repentance obsolete, doesn’t exist in the earliest textual witnesses. This is not to say your theories are right or wrong; simply that they did not exist in the earliest textual witnesses of interpretations in the early christian movement.


4) BilliardsBall said : “If two people fight and hurt each other in Heaven, it is no longer a place of perfection. Only perfect people may go to Heaven.”
You and I are in perfect agreement on this point. Even individuals deemed "instantaneously sinless at a rapture" who have not learned and mastered moral/social principles of harmony, unity and eternal joy cannot be allowed into a social heaven if it is to be a place of perfect harmony, unity and joy forever.


BilliardsBall, good luck in your spiritual journey

Clear
σενεφιω

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hi BilliardsBall :

1) BilliardsBall said : “Perfection to attain heaven isn't modern theology. Jesus said "You must be perfect, like your Father in Heaven".
You are confused. It is not the concept of “perfection in heaven" that I referred to as a modern theory. It was your modern theory of "instantaneous" “perfection at the rapture” that I was referring to. This interpretation does not express itself in the earliest Judeo-Christian textual witnesses where Christians themelves describe the early Christian movement and its doctrines..

In early Judeo-Christian textual witnesses, there were other principles such as repentance that were important in the process of moral improvement.

I am honestly not sure when the theory of “instantaneous” perfection first appears in Judeo-Christian theory, but it does not appear in the earliest lectionaries, diaries, hymns, Christian fiction literature, etc. It is a interpretation that first appears in later centuries.


2) BilliardsBall said : The term I would use, therefore, isn't godlike but sinless.
This is simply another difference between your religious theory and ancient Judeo-Christian theory. As I showed in post #24 in multiple examples, the early texts DID use the term “god-like”. Your modern religious theories and its terms are different than ancient religious worldviews and their terms.


3) BilliardsBall said : “I like to think my doctrines are neither modernist nor ancient…”
I understand. This is how most of us like to think. However, if you read the early Judeo-Christian literature where Christians write and describe their interpretations, you will see that your specific doctrinal theory and it’s interpretation of “instantaneous perfection” inside a theology where mercy renders repentance obsolete, doesn’t exist in the earliest textual witnesses. This is not to say your theories are right or wrong; simply that they did not exist in the earliest textual witnesses of interpretations in the early christian movement.


4) BilliardsBall said : “If two people fight and hurt each other in Heaven, it is no longer a place of perfection. Only perfect people may go to Heaven.”
You and I are in perfect agreement on this point. Even individuals deemed "instantaneously sinless at a rapture" who have not learned and mastered moral/social principles of harmony, unity and eternal joy cannot be allowed into a social heaven if it is to be a place of perfect harmony, unity and joy forever.


BilliardsBall, good luck in your spiritual journey

Clear
σενεφιω

I read post 24 when you posted it. Qumran'ers and other mystics were marginalized in the ancient Near East, even among their Jewish people, and are not at all the people establishing the standards for orthodoxy or orthopraxy, now as then, for the Jewish people or any Christian people that I know about. You quoted them extensively, yes. I just looked at post 24 again. Was there a biblical quotation given? I didn't see any except a rejected fragment from Colossians that appears in no received texts. The thought has occurred to me that the Qumran community may have lived remotely in the wilderness because their doctrines about godhood meant they were excommunicated from the synagogues.

Perfection and etc. may not appear in the ancient church documents you studied apart from the scriptures, but appearances include Revelation, where the saints are standing in robes, white and clean, washed in the Lamb's blood. The unbelievers are naked and ashamed.

There is a feast in Heaven following the Rapture. The unclean and the lying, abominable, etc. are shut out. What I'm discussing with you is all in the biblical texts.

I'm willing to change my viewpoint on this doctrine, certainly. If you can demonstrate it from the scriptures. I was (correctly) reproved on this thread for quoting non-canonical LDS sources. In the same vein, my conscience is informed by the scripture and the correct hermeneutics of scripture. If I thought sources giving interpretations centuries after Jesus were right, I'd follow Marcion, or be a gnostic, or Roman Catholic, but I diverge from their unorthodox (wrong) doctrines.

Thank you for your patience with me.

 

[Clear]

1) Billiardsball claimed : "Qumran'ers and other mysticas were marginalized in the ancient Near East, even among their Jewish people, and are not at all the people establishing the standards for orthodoxy or orthopraxy, now as then, for the Jewish people or any Christian people that I know about."

You are making silly claims. The Jews of Qumran were not particularly “mystical”. If the copper scroll is genuine, it places them squarely inside orthodox Temple Judaism of the time.

As for textual standards, their biblical texts are almost a thousand years older than the oldest texts later rabbinical Jews used to create their bibles. Also, the Qumranic texts allowed us to correct errors and fill in huge gaps of texts in bibles the later rabbinic Judaism created. One problem is, as you have stated, that you "do not know" about “Jewish people or any Christian people” of the earliest ages and their standards.


2) BilliardsBall said : "You quoted them extensively, yes. I just looked at post 24 again. Was there a biblical quotation given? I didn't see any except a rejected fragment from Colossians that appears in no received texts."

If you looked at them, perhaps you should read them so that you do not have to ask if “a biblical quotation” was given. (there were). Additionally, you claim that you read a “rejected fragment from Colossians”. I did not give a single quote from Colossians. The "Col 1." in one quote does NOT refer to "colossians", but instead it refers to the COLUMN (Col 1.) the quote comes from in a Q document. You are confused, your historical presumptions wrong, and your historical conclusions incorrect.



3) BilliardsBall said : Perfection and etc. may not appear in the ancient church documents you studied apart from the scriptures, but appearances include Revelation, where the saints are standing in robes, white and clean, washed in the Lamb's blood. The unbelievers are naked and ashamed.

You are yet again confused. The base Koine greek word rendered “perfection” DOES appear multiple times, in multiple early Judeo-Christian texts including the N.T.

The early Judeo-Christians used the term in their context and not as your modern religious theory is using it. Why are we to prefer your modern usage and your modern interpretation of early texts and usages to the interpretations and usages of the earliest Judeo-Christians?



4) BilliardsBall pointed out : "There is a feast in Heaven following the Rapture. The unclean and the lying, abominable, etc. are shut out. What I'm discussing with you is all in the biblical texts."

Whether you are using the bible to support your theories just as other christians use the bible to support other theories which conflict with yours, still, such irrelevant points will not change the fact that the early Judeo-Christians used the terms “like God”, “God-like”, “divine ones”, “pious ones”. It will not change how early Judeo-Christians applied these terms to beings who inhabit heaven with the Lord God, and it will not create your theory of "instantaneous perfection" that did not exist in early Judeo-Christian textual interpretations.


5) BilliardBall said : "I'm willing to change my viewpoint on this doctrine, certainly."

You do NOT have to believe that the early Judeo-Christians used these terms and applied them to beings who were to live in heaven with him regardless of the historical data. You are free to theorize and believe as you wish.



6) BilliardsBall Said : If you can demonstrate it from the scriptures. I was (correctly) reproved on this thread for quoting non-canonical LDS sources.

Firstly, you were (correctly) reproved for mis-using such sources to create inaccurate impressions regarding LDS doctrines. I am glad you admit this point.

I am NOT doing what you did. I am not using the writings of early Judeo-Christians to say what LDS theology is, or to inaccurately represent it.

Rather I am using the early Judeo-Christian writings to show what the early Judeo-Christians themselves believed in their own texts and in their own words in their own interpretive context.

THE early Judeo-Christian textual witnesses as to what THEY believed may or may not be what the LDS believe and I do not represent it as such. The LDS (and all others) will make their own determinations as to which early Judeo-Christian doctrines parallel the LDS doctrines and which do not. I am very comfortable with this. The LDS (or anyone else) are allowed to compare the early Judeo-Christian doctrines to LDS doctrines and see the obvious doctrinal parallels and come to their own conclusions as to what these parallels with LDS doctrines might mean.




7) BilliardsBall said : In the same vein, my conscience is informed by the scripture and the correct hermeneutics of scripture.

I honor you for this attempt to inform your conscience with good data and your attempts to act in accordance with what you find. This is honorable and good and wise. It is "god-like" to act according to the knowledge one has (since God himself does this). I have not spoken regarding your conscience, nor how you are to inform it. That, you must decide.

I have pointed out that your religious theories and your interpretations of early texts are different than the religious theories and interpretations of the early Judeo-Christians. This is not to say the early Christians were correct and you are incorrect, but merely that your worldviews and interpretations are different than the earliest Judeo-Christians.

If you think your views are correct and theirs are incorrect, then the question must be asked as to WHY you think your theories and your interpretations are to be preferred over the earliest Judeo-Christians who themselves left multiple textual witnesses as to what they believed and as to their interpretations of text and early doctrines.



8) BilliardsBall said : "If I thought sources giving interpretations centuries after Jesus were right, I'd follow Marcion, or be a gnostic, or Roman Catholic, but I diverge from their unorthodox (wrong) doctrines."

Again, your logic of "following marcion" or "becoming a gnostic" is becoming silly. Marcion or gnostics or the roman congregation were are not our only choices and their writings are not our only choice. It is inaccurate to mis-represent these as our only choices when there are many better choices.

For example, the Apostolic Fathers are a group of very early Christian writings that were written at a time when the writer could have known an apostle. There are MANY similar ancient texts that leave very early orthodox witnesses and repeated themes that tell us what early orthodoxy was.

For example, the writings of Clement are CONCURRENT to N.T. writings and predate the creation of any New Testament canon. In fact, Clement was the apostle Peters colleague. What Clement said regarding what the apostle Peter said and what the apostle Peter did and what the apostle Peter meant is an incredibly important witness. Clement can tell us not only what Peter said but Clements writings are an important witness as to what the apostles were teaching at that time and his description of “original” Christian interpretation would have been completely orthodox.

It's not Just Clements witness, but there are many others. For example, Papias was a “hearer of John” and his textual witness could inform us regarding Johns original speech and teachings. Pre-New Testament Texts which were used as source material for the New Testament itself, leave their own mark upon the New Testament text itself. For example, Jude quotes Jewish Enoch as do the other apostles (ff. Bruce found more than 127 quotes from Enoch in the N.T.). Thus, such source texts are important.

Just because you are unfamiliar with early Judeo-Christian texts and do not know their import and role in the early Judeo-Christian movement, does not mean that their witness is not important. For example, why is your witness and interpretation to be preferred over that of Clement, a young convert and protégé to the apostle Peter?


Clear
σιτζσιω

 

[BilliardsBall]

Just because you are unfamiliar with early Judeo-Christian texts and do not know their import and role in the early Judeo-Christian movement, does not mean that their witness is not important. For example, why is your witness and interpretation to be preferred over that of Clement, a young convert and protégé to the apostle Peter?

I apologize for my misquoting you. It wasn't intentional. I am familiar with early texts. I am both a Jew and have a Bachelor's in Religion with the emphasis on Judeo-Christian studies, from a secular university.

I feel like I need to repeat my earlier statement, however, regarding canon and orthodoxy. And to amplify:

1. I believe the 66 books of the Bible are canon and inspired. Quoting ancient apocrypha to me is much as the same as quoting inter-testament apocrypha or NT apocrypha.

2. My interpretation is not to be preferred over Clement I's writings and witness, no, but the scriptures of 1 and 2 Peter are to be regarded as authoritative by biblicists, and not Clement's correspondence. Etc.

3. Perhaps we should return to discussing items like the Isaiah passage: "Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me." One modern paraphrase puts it as "There is no other God--there never has been, and there never will be." I find that in conflict with a doctrine saying I will become a god in the next age. I can almost accept "godlike", however, since in our pre-Fall state we were much closed to God, sinless.

I apologize and I'm sorry we've gotten off onto the wrong foot. However, I have trouble reconciling very clear Bible statements with non-biblical commentary, mysticism, pseudo-gospels, etc. I'm a Bible kind of fellow.

 

[Clear]

BilliardsBall ;


This historical conversation is becoming increasingly bizarre and the frequency of your various overstatements and claims you are making are creating credibility gaps.

For examples :

BilliardsBall said (#68) : I apologize for my misquoting you. It wasn't intentional. I am familiar with early texts.

It is not your “misquoting” but your frequent “miscontexting” and your obvious overstating your knowledge level that is bothersome. For examples, you claim to be “familiar with early texts”, yet it is obvious to readers that you are NOT familiar with these early texts and their import. You claim knowledge and then repeatedly display blatant ignorance of historical principles. For example, you’ve mis-characterized early Judaic texts as “mystic”, and normative texts as “gnostic”. You claim familiarity with these early texts and then make silly , irrational and illogical and unhistorical statements about them.

For example, in your last post you say : "Quoting ancient apocrypha to me is much as the same as quoting inter-testament apocrypha or NT apocrypha." BilliardsBall (#68)

This strange but candid admission itself mixes different historical genres inaccurately and equates entirely different historical textual genres, and reveals how little you know about early Judeo-Christian Literature. The many early historical genres are NOT the same as apocrypha and only someone ignorant of them would make such basic historical mistakes. You rejected a historical principle as incorrect simply because you confused the standard historical textual symbol for “column” (“Col.”) with the book of Colossians! Your inability to even consider original language and original meanings undermine your claims to have historical knowledge and puts into doubt the accuracy of historical conclusions and theories you make. Within each of your posts is mounting, clear, evidence that you do NOT know and understand ancient Judeo-Christianity and their textual witnesses as the early Christians did and that you are simply spitting out modern theological assumptions you’ve made.

For example, you illogically and naively claim that “as a Messianic Jew”, you “know Paul’s words” (as though this is, somehow, logical reasoning?) Your religion is not the same as ancient Judaism. Their religion was temple centered whereas your religion has no temple but instead, you have synagogues. Their religion had a priesthood with priests as did the early Jewish religion, but your religion has no priesthood, instead, you have rabbis (teachers who have no priesthood). Their religion had prophetic revelation as guidance, but your religion has no such gift as prophetic revelation, but instead has rabbinical theologians who create doctrine and then explain and spread it among the masses. Their pre-Massoretic Torahs were not the same as your post massoretic text as the Massorah tell us. Your textual interpretations are not the same as ancient Judaism (OR ancient Christianity). The fact that you cannot see these basic differences between their ancient belief system and your modern belief you have adopted is a warning sign to all readers with any historical acumen. You are NOT a historian. The fact that you assume that being a modern “Jew” and having “a bachelor’s degree” give you historical qualifications is evidence of more simple naiveté and historical ignorance.

Your last post says : " I believe the 66 books of the Bible are canon and inspired." BilliardsBall (#68)
This is historically irrelevant since the early Judeo-Christians of the peri New Testament era I’ve been quoting did not HAVE a New Testament. The New Testament as an established Christian library did not exist in the earliest centuries of the Christian movement and, as we’ve already seen, the early Judeo-Christians did not interpret the early texts as you do.


BilliardsBall said (#68) " My interpretation is not to be preferred over Clement I's writings and witness, no, but the scriptures of 1 and 2 Peter are to be regarded as authoritative by biblicists, and not Clement's correspondence. Etc. "
To say that Clements interpretation OF Peters writings is to be preferred because he was a colleague of the Apostle Peter; that Clement listened to the very words of Peter; that Clement actually heard the apostle Peters explanation as to what the Apostle Peter meant in his sayings and writings and then to reject Clements observations and turn back to modern theories one has adopted is illogical historically. You have yet to offer us any answer as to why anyone should prefer your modern interpretation in preference to the early Judeo-Christians interpretation of the earliest periods.

You now tell us that that you are "a bible kind of fellow." (whatever that means). I am guessing it means that you like to quote scriptures and apply your interpretation to those texts to create a modern and personal belief system that makes sense to you as almost all Christians do. However, this then, still begs the question : : Why should we adopt your modern theories with your modern interpretations of the bible and of Christianity and abandon the earliest Judeo-Christian witnesses as to early beliefs and the earliest Judeo-Christian interpretations of the earliest Judeo-Christian teachings?

BilliardsBall, If you actually DO ever become interested in early Judeo-Christian history and in what the earliest Judeo-Christians believed. I think you would find these areas of knowledge insightful and that the earliest Judeo-Christian doctrines and worldview are superior to any modern theory you or your pastor or parents can contrive. In any case, I wish you the best of spiritual journeys in this life.


Clear
σισινεω

 

[Clear]

“Katzpur likes this” (#69)



Katzpur, I am glad these points make sense to you.


EVOLUTION AND CHANGE IN RELIGION
It is very difficult for individuals who have very little religious historical acumen to have a feel and sense that religion, like the world around it, undergoes some evolution. Most of us LIKE to believe that our current religious belief system and current texts are exactly the same as what God delivered in the beginning and that no one has tampered with it or changed them in any way.

If the Jewish textual witnesses tell us anything, it is that when mankind is given some principles from God, mankind then starts to veer from these principles in multiple ways. God then sends prophets to restore Israel to the correct theological path. Mankind may (or may not) accept correction, but those who do, ultimately, veer from that path over time, and then another prophet comes along to try to restore Israel back to a correct theological path. Thus the sacred texts tell us that this happened, over and over. Even those who are good at heart and are sincerely trying to believe in God and his son, still come to create personal theories that are different than the original theology we want to espouse.

For example, BillardsBalls’ theory of magical and instantaneous “perfection without repentance” would have been heretical to early Christians. Whereas early Christianities' “process theology” involving repentance is heretical to his modern theory. This theological “disagreement” between ancient, historical, Christian doctrine and one’s modern Christian beliefs can be quite unnerving and uncomfortable.


REACTIONS OF RELIGIONISTS TO HISTORICAL DATA THAT DISAGREES WITH MODERN PERSONAL THEORY
The typical reflex of non-historian Christians to this historical disagreement is to attempt to defend one’s current belief by discounting the many early Christian textual witnesses and retreat to the comfort of the very narrow data stream of a few bible verses to which they apply a friendly interpretation to so as to support and justify whatever belief one currently has.

However, the early Judeo-Christians also left many interpretive textual witnesses as well. They tell us in their own texts and in their own words what these things meant to them at that period in time. One may then attempt to defend a modern theory by then dismissing these texts in various ways. One can mis-context them as written by "heretics", “gnostics”, “mystics”, etc. to discount early textual witnesses, and thus, avoid the discomfort of legitimate historical disagreement to a personal modern theory.

However, there is also a great deal of linguistic data that also supports the early Christian interpretation as well. For example, multiple examples of papyral studies exist which show how early Christians actually USED Koine Greek that the new testament was written in. Such discoveries as to how Koine was actually used in real life obviously trumps and changes lectionary meanings in important ways and tell us much more about early meanings and common usage of terms and context of language than simple dictionaries can ever do.

However, often, due to continuing discomfort due to historical disagreement with modern theory, one may attempt to discount the value of this data as well. For example, when I suggest we look at early Hebrew meaning in looking at Isaiah 43:10, a reply is “Is it necessary to look closely at the Hebrew in this instance?” and the modernist may simply return to the comfort of a personal modern theory and it’s incorrect historical assumptions as the standard for their examination. In this way, they "turn off the light and go back to sleep". An examination of the original language can be very important.

For example, if a verse says "There is no other God beside me...". It matters whether the term "beside me" is an exclusionary, numeric term or a literal spacial term. The hebraist Heiser and others have long ago shown that "beside me" is a spacial usage involved here. It is comparative, and that changes the meaning. Thus, the exact same verses used by sunday school christians to show the ancient Hebrew had only one God are often the exact same verses the scholars of early theology use to show the early Hebrews were henotheistic. The difference is in the interpretation. Thus, it MATTERS how the ancient Judeo-Christian interpreted such terms and texts.

Often the defensive dismissal is that an 18th or 19th century dictionary, somehow trumps how words were actually used in several hundred 1st century papyri by ancient individuals who actually spoke and wrote the language. AND, ironically, such dismissals come from non-linguists who are least able to make that judgement.

It’s not just the “dishonest” or those who "lack faith in their current personal theories that are guilty of these sorts of defense against historical data. I think ALL of us have a tendency to this sort of reaction and it is a tendency that we need to learn to overcome.

If they do not overcome this defensive reaction to new and better data, then the modernist Christian with their modern theories will find themselves habitually retreating from ANY authentic and deep historical examination and must remain at a more superficial level of examination. Many of these modern theories MUST therefore, remain at the level of dogmatic insistence and rely on a few picked scriptures without any deeper historical examinations. They can survive as dogma, but they cannot survive in a historical world.

AN EXAMPLE FROM CURRENT CONTEXT
As we’ve seen demonstrated multiple times, the early Judeo-Christian texts apply the term "God", "God-like", "like God", "the pious", "sacred ones", etc. to beings who are not the Lord God. The recent dogmatic insistence by a modern christian that early Judeo-Christians cannot use the designation of the term “god” for ANY other thing besides the Lord God and idols is a dogmatic position but not a historical position.

For example, Exodus 7:1 reads And "Jehovah/Lord" said to Moses, See, I give you [to be] god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall [be] thy prophet.
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, רְאֵה נְתַתִּיךָ אֱלֹהִים לְפַרְעֹה; וְאַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ, יִהְיֶה נְבִיאֶךָ. (t.r.)
καὶ εἶπεν κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων ἰδοὺ δέδωκά σε θεὸν Φαραω καὶ Ααρων ὁ ἀδελφός σου ἔσται σου προφήτης (LXX)

While the historian of Early Judeo-Christian religion is perfectly comfortable with this term and it’s early usage, the dogmatists' theory is undermined by this usage of the term "god" applied to a man (Moses in this case).

The use of the concept and word “god” or being “godly (i.e. “godlike” / “like god”) is no longer used in most of the modern Christian systems of belief in the same way as it was used anciently, so that it seems foreign to the modern Christian worldviews. If the dogmatist cannot place such occurrences into the early historical context of a specific designation having a proper use in historical Judeo-Christianity, then the concept of calling Moses a “god” can seem disorienting. It is the same with the designation of any other being as a God.

Interestingly, it was also the same type of situation occurred among the Jews with the term “Baal” as it applied to the God of Israel anciently. Once the term (which simply means "Lord"...) came to be associated with a detestable God other than Jehovah, then Israel no longer used “Baal” to refer to Jehovah and names of good individuals (i.e. Baal was used in their names just as Jehovah, and El were often used in names) in the hebrew text were changed to try to avoid using any form of this name. (... in that day, says the Lord, that you will call Me Ishi [i.e. my Husband], and you shall no more call Me Baali [i.e. my Lord/Baal]...Hosea 2:16) Hardly ANYONE outside of historians would ever dream of Baal being used to describe Jehovah nowadays. It's simply not used in that context any more. This change in practice is simply another example of evolving historical meanings; evolving context; and evolving practices.


In any case, I hope your spiritual journey is Good in this life Katzpur



Clear
ακεισεω

 

[Orontes]

I'm imperfect. I would say that Jesus died and rose to do what I cannot, become perfect/sinless.

Hello, I've been reading your exchanges with Clear. I have a couple questions.

Why do you conflate perfect and sinless?
If Jesus makes one perfect (am I right you assume this is a sudden change of status?): how is that done? If perfection is a moral category, and morality necessarily entails the free choices of the subject, how can another make one perfect?

 

[BilliardsBall]

BilliardsBall ;


This historical conversation is becoming increasingly bizarre and the frequency of your various overstatements and claims you are making are creating credibility gaps.

For examples :

BilliardsBall said (#68) : I apologize for my misquoting you. It wasn't intentional. I am familiar with early texts.

It is not your “misquoting” but your frequent “miscontexting” and your obvious overstating your knowledge level that is bothersome. For examples, you claim to be “familiar with early texts”, yet it is obvious to readers that you are NOT familiar with these early texts and their import. You claim knowledge and then repeatedly display blatant ignorance of historical principles. For example, you’ve mis-characterized early Judaic texts as “mystic”, and normative texts as “gnostic”. You claim familiarity with these early texts and then make silly , irrational and illogical and unhistorical statements about them.

For example, in your last post you say : "Quoting ancient apocrypha to me is much as the same as quoting inter-testament apocrypha or NT apocrypha." BilliardsBall (#68)

This strange but candid admission itself mixes different historical genres inaccurately and equates entirely different historical textual genres, and reveals how little you know about early Judeo-Christian Literature. The many early historical genres are NOT the same as apocrypha and only someone ignorant of them would make such basic historical mistakes. You rejected a historical principle as incorrect simply because you confused the standard historical textual symbol for “column” (“Col.”) with the book of Colossians! Your inability to even consider original language and original meanings undermine your claims to have historical knowledge and puts into doubt the accuracy of historical conclusions and theories you make. Within each of your posts is mounting, clear, evidence that you do NOT know and understand ancient Judeo-Christianity and their textual witnesses as the early Christians did and that you are simply spitting out modern theological assumptions you’ve made.

For example, you illogically and naively claim that “as a Messianic Jew”, you “know Paul’s words” (as though this is, somehow, logical reasoning?) Your religion is not the same as ancient Judaism. Their religion was temple centered whereas your religion has no temple but instead, you have synagogues. Their religion had a priesthood with priests as did the early Jewish religion, but your religion has no priesthood, instead, you have rabbis (teachers who have no priesthood). Their religion had prophetic revelation as guidance, but your religion has no such gift as prophetic revelation, but instead has rabbinical theologians who create doctrine and then explain and spread it among the masses. Their pre-Massoretic Torahs were not the same as your post massoretic text as the Massorah tell us. Your textual interpretations are not the same as ancient Judaism (OR ancient Christianity). The fact that you cannot see these basic differences between their ancient belief system and your modern belief you have adopted is a warning sign to all readers with any historical acumen. You are NOT a historian. The fact that you assume that being a modern “Jew” and having “a bachelor’s degree” give you historical qualifications is evidence of more simple naiveté and historical ignorance.

Your last post says : " I believe the 66 books of the Bible are canon and inspired." BilliardsBall (#68)
This is historically irrelevant since the early Judeo-Christians of the peri New Testament era I’ve been quoting did not HAVE a New Testament. The New Testament as an established Christian library did not exist in the earliest centuries of the Christian movement and, as we’ve already seen, the early Judeo-Christians did not interpret the early texts as you do.


BilliardsBall said (#68) " My interpretation is not to be preferred over Clement I's writings and witness, no, but the scriptures of 1 and 2 Peter are to be regarded as authoritative by biblicists, and not Clement's correspondence. Etc. "
To say that Clements interpretation OF Peters writings is to be preferred because he was a colleague of the Apostle Peter; that Clement listened to the very words of Peter; that Clement actually heard the apostle Peters explanation as to what the Apostle Peter meant in his sayings and writings and then to reject Clements observations and turn back to modern theories one has adopted is illogical historically. You have yet to offer us any answer as to why anyone should prefer your modern interpretation in preference to the early Judeo-Christians interpretation of the earliest periods.

You now tell us that that you are "a bible kind of fellow." (whatever that means). I am guessing it means that you like to quote scriptures and apply your interpretation to those texts to create a modern and personal belief system that makes sense to you as almost all Christians do. However, this then, still begs the question : : Why should we adopt your modern theories with your modern interpretations of the bible and of Christianity and abandon the earliest Judeo-Christian witnesses as to early beliefs and the earliest Judeo-Christian interpretations of the earliest Judeo-Christian teachings?

BilliardsBall, If you actually DO ever become interested in early Judeo-Christian history and in what the earliest Judeo-Christians believed. I think you would find these areas of knowledge insightful and that the earliest Judeo-Christian doctrines and worldview are superior to any modern theory you or your pastor or parents can contrive. In any case, I wish you the best of spiritual journeys in this life.


Clear
σισινεω

It was made clear by another post contributor that I should confine my remarks to canon. Are you saying the LDS accepts as canonical non-biblical ancient sources?

 

[BilliardsBall]

“Katzpur likes this” (#69)



Katzpur, I am glad these points make sense to you.


EVOLUTION AND CHANGE IN RELIGION
It is very difficult for individuals who have very little religious historical acumen to have a feel and sense that religion, like the world around it, undergoes some evolution. Most of us LIKE to believe that our current religious belief system and current texts are exactly the same as what God delivered in the beginning and that no one has tampered with it or changed them in any way.

If the Jewish textual witnesses tell us anything, it is that when mankind is given some principles from God, mankind then starts to veer from these principles in multiple ways. God then sends prophets to restore Israel to the correct theological path. Mankind may (or may not) accept correction, but those who do, ultimately, veer from that path over time, and then another prophet comes along to try to restore Israel back to a correct theological path. Thus the sacred texts tell us that this happened, over and over. Even those who are good at heart and are sincerely trying to believe in God and his son, still come to create personal theories that are different than the original theology we want to espouse.

For example, BillardsBalls’ theory of magical and instantaneous “perfection without repentance” would have been heretical to early Christians. Whereas early Christianities' “process theology” involving repentance is heretical to his modern theory. This theological “disagreement” between ancient, historical, Christian doctrine and one’s modern Christian beliefs can be quite unnerving and uncomfortable.


REACTIONS OF RELIGIONISTS TO HISTORICAL DATA THAT DISAGREES WITH MODERN PERSONAL THEORY
The typical reflex of non-historian Christians to this historical disagreement is to attempt to defend one’s current belief by discounting the many early Christian textual witnesses and retreat to the comfort of the very narrow data stream of a few bible verses to which they apply a friendly interpretation to so as to support and justify whatever belief one currently has.

However, the early Judeo-Christians also left many interpretive textual witnesses as well. They tell us in their own texts and in their own words what these things meant to them at that period in time. One may then attempt to defend a modern theory by then dismissing these texts in various ways. One can mis-context them as written by "heretics", “gnostics”, “mystics”, etc. to discount early textual witnesses, and thus, avoid the discomfort of legitimate historical disagreement to a personal modern theory.

However, there is also a great deal of linguistic data that also supports the early Christian interpretation as well. For example, multiple examples of papyral studies exist which show how early Christians actually USED Koine Greek that the new testament was written in. Such discoveries as to how Koine was actually used in real life obviously trumps and changes lectionary meanings in important ways and tell us much more about early meanings and common usage of terms and context of language than simple dictionaries can ever do.

However, often, due to continuing discomfort due to historical disagreement with modern theory, one may attempt to discount the value of this data as well. For example, when I suggest we look at early Hebrew meaning in looking at Isaiah 43:10, a reply is “Is it necessary to look closely at the Hebrew in this instance?” and the modernist may simply return to the comfort of a personal modern theory and it’s incorrect historical assumptions as the standard for their examination. In this way, they "turn off the light and go back to sleep". An examination of the original language can be very important.

For example, if a verse says "There is no other God beside me...". It matters whether the term "beside me" is an exclusionary, numeric term or a literal spacial term. The hebraist Heiser and others have long ago shown that "beside me" is a spacial usage involved here. It is comparative, and that changes the meaning. Thus, the exact same verses used by sunday school christians to show the ancient Hebrew had only one God are often the exact same verses the scholars of early theology use to show the early Hebrews were henotheistic. The difference is in the interpretation. Thus, it MATTERS how the ancient Judeo-Christian interpreted such terms and texts.

Often the defensive dismissal is that an 18th or 19th century dictionary, somehow trumps how words were actually used in several hundred 1st century papyri by ancient individuals who actually spoke and wrote the language. AND, ironically, such dismissals come from non-linguists who are least able to make that judgement.

It’s not just the “dishonest” or those who "lack faith in their current personal theories that are guilty of these sorts of defense against historical data. I think ALL of us have a tendency to this sort of reaction and it is a tendency that we need to learn to overcome.

If they do not overcome this defensive reaction to new and better data, then the modernist Christian with their modern theories will find themselves habitually retreating from ANY authentic and deep historical examination and must remain at a more superficial level of examination. Many of these modern theories MUST therefore, remain at the level of dogmatic insistence and rely on a few picked scriptures without any deeper historical examinations. They can survive as dogma, but they cannot survive in a historical world.

AN EXAMPLE FROM CURRENT CONTEXT
As we’ve seen demonstrated multiple times, the early Judeo-Christian texts apply the term "God", "God-like", "like God", "the pious", "sacred ones", etc. to beings who are not the Lord God. The recent dogmatic insistence by a modern christian that early Judeo-Christians cannot use the designation of the term “god” for ANY other thing besides the Lord God and idols is a dogmatic position but not a historical position.

For example, Exodus 7:1 reads And "Jehovah/Lord" said to Moses, See, I give you [to be] god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall [be] thy prophet.
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, רְאֵה נְתַתִּיךָ אֱלֹהִים לְפַרְעֹה; וְאַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ, יִהְיֶה נְבִיאֶךָ. (t.r.)
καὶ εἶπεν κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων ἰδοὺ δέδωκά σε θεὸν Φαραω καὶ Ααρων ὁ ἀδελφός σου ἔσται σου προφήτης (LXX)

While the historian of Early Judeo-Christian religion is perfectly comfortable with this term and it’s early usage, the dogmatists' theory is undermined by this usage of the term "god" applied to a man (Moses in this case).

The use of the concept and word “god” or being “godly (i.e. “godlike” / “like god”) is no longer used in most of the modern Christian systems of belief in the same way as it was used anciently, so that it seems foreign to the modern Christian worldviews. If the dogmatist cannot place such occurrences into the early historical context of a specific designation having a proper use in historical Judeo-Christianity, then the concept of calling Moses a “god” can seem disorienting. It is the same with the designation of any other being as a God.

Interestingly, it was also the same type of situation occurred among the Jews with the term “Baal” as it applied to the God of Israel anciently. Once the term (which simply means "Lord"...) came to be associated with a detestable God other than Jehovah, then Israel no longer used “Baal” to refer to Jehovah and names of good individuals (i.e. Baal was used in their names just as Jehovah, and El were often used in names) in the hebrew text were changed to try to avoid using any form of this name. (... in that day, says the Lord, that you will call Me Ishi [i.e. my Husband], and you shall no more call Me Baali [i.e. my Lord/Baal]...Hosea 2:16) Hardly ANYONE outside of historians would ever dream of Baal being used to describe Jehovah nowadays. It's simply not used in that context any more. This change in practice is simply another example of evolving historical meanings; evolving context; and evolving practices.


In any case, I hope your spiritual journey is Good in this life Katzpur



Clear
ακεισεω

That all sounds good. Except I'm unsure of how we might use any kind of context to misunderstand terms like "no other" or "only God" or "Before me, no other gods were nor shall there be any after me". I'm fairly clear on what words like no, only, before and after mean. Also, these clear kinds of terms have been employed by hundreds of Bible translators across hundreds of English Bible versions.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hello, I've been reading your exchanges with Clear. I have a couple questions.

Why do you conflate perfect and sinless?
If Jesus makes one perfect (am I right you assume this is a sudden change of status?): how is that done? If perfection is a moral category, and morality necessarily entails the free choices of the subject, how can another make one perfect?

Sin is imperfection. Perfecting is no sin.

One becomes born again and the Holy Spirit cleanses the believer. At the Rapture, the believer is changed and transported via their new, imperishable, Christ-like, sinless body. Paul spoke of the members of His perishable body being prone to sin...

Perfect is a clean record and not a moral categorization IMHO. To be without sin is to be regarded as free of defect, unblemished, utterly spotless. The Lamb is able to impart His sinlessness to us as our substitutionary atonement, since He was both deity and sinless. His worth is immeasurable. I guess something that nags at me about becoming a god over time via eternal progression is that if I'm to have spirit children who are imperfect, I will also have to die and redeem them, like Christ, won't I? Yes? No? I'm not certain. I likely do not understand EP well.

 

[Katzpur]

We can actually destroy idols but not other gods, since other gods do not exist. However we are warned "...That you may not mix with these nations remaining among you or make mention of the names of their gods or swear by them or serve them or bow down to them" so I cannot even say your name in Heaven if you are to be a god there. That is why I asked for clarification.

That all sounds good. Except I'm unsure of how we might use any kind of context to misunderstand terms like "no other" or "only God" or "Before me, no other gods were nor shall there be any after me". I'm fairly clear on what words like no, only, before and after mean. Also, these clear kinds of terms have been employed by hundreds of Bible translators across hundreds of English Bible versions.

So, if no other beings called "gods" exist, who is God a God of? Non-existent beings?

Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward…

Joshua 22:22 The LORD God of gods, the LORD God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the LORD…

And if these being "that are called gods" do not exist, how is it that they are "called gods" not only in earth but in heaven as well?

1 Corinthians 8:5-6 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.

 

[Orontes]

Sin is imperfection. Perfecting is no sin.

One becomes born again and the Holy Spirit cleanses the believer. At the Rapture, the believer is changed and transported via their new, imperishable, Christ-like, sinless body. Paul spoke of the members of His perishable body being prone to sin...

Perfect is a clean record and not a moral categorization IMHO. To be without sin is to be regarded as free of defect, unblemished, utterly spotless. The Lamb is able to impart His sinlessness to us as our substitutionary atonement, since He was both deity and sinless. His worth is immeasurable. I guess something that nags at me about becoming a god over time via eternal progression is that if I'm to have spirit children who are imperfect, I will also have to die and redeem them, like Christ, won't I? Yes? No? I'm not certain. I likely do not understand EP well.

Perfection may be sinless, but it doesn’t follow being sinless constitutes perfection. In logic this is a distinction between necessity and sufficiency. For example, one may say to be human is to be a mammal, but being a mammal doesn’t mean one is thereby human.

Per rapture: what sense are you using this? Do you hold to the idea of a Pre-Tribulation Rapture? If so, that is a Puritan construct, typically tied to the 18th Century that gained some popularity among Evangelical Christians in the U.S. If you’re referring to the more traditional rapture: this is simply another word for the First Resurrection at Christ’s Second Coming. Which are you referring to?

If perfection is to have a clean record, but this is not connected to any moral status, what does clean mean?

Per the substitutionary atonement model you suggested: how is the substitution of one not guilty for one guilty just? If there were a murderer condemned to prison and his brother steps forward and says, I love my brother, I will go to prison for him and he can go free. Is that just?

To your question on repeatable Christs: in Mormonism there is no set position on this. There are some who hold a view where in a larger cosmic cycle of the gods, that each incarnation of a new heavenly family will have one who serves as a redeeming figure for that family. My own view is that The Christ is a singular role filled by Jesus of Nazareth. His role as Messiah is infinite. His position is distinct just as with the Father.

 

[JAFulkers]

Clear,
Thanks for the awesome posts!
You present a lot of interesting information.

If I wanted to learn more about Judeo-Christian history, what books would you recommend starting with.?
I'm not a smart guy, so I'd need something basic.
Maybe something that would be good listening material for an upcoming long drive I'm taking..

Thanks!

 

[BilliardsBall]

So, if no other beings called "gods" exist, who is God a God of? Non-existent beings?

Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward…

Joshua 22:22 The LORD God of gods, the LORD God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the LORD…

And if these being "that are called gods" do not exist, how is it that they are "called gods" not only in earth but in heaven as well?

1 Corinthians 8:5-6 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.

The Bible is a book, and the book of books, but to say it is a mere book is to discredit its essence, its foundation, its power. There's a reason why it has a lower case g in the translation you shared, a "God of gods". I would think the simplest rendering would be that all gods are idols and false, but maybe we could start with things like "Therefore, is Allah a god?"

 

[BilliardsBall]

Perfection may be sinless, but it doesn’t follow being sinless constitutes perfection. In logic this is a distinction between necessity and sufficiency. For example, one may say to be human is to be a mammal, but being a mammal doesn’t mean one is thereby human.

Per rapture: what sense are you using this? Do you hold to the idea of a Pre-Tribulation Rapture? If so, that is a Puritan construct, typically tied to the 18th Century that gained some popularity among Evangelical Christians in the U.S. If you’re referring to the more traditional rapture: this is simply another word for the First Resurrection at Christ’s Second Coming. Which are you referring to?

If perfection is to have a clean record, but this is not connected to any moral status, what does clean mean?

Per the substitutionary atonement model you suggested: how is the substitution of one not guilty for one guilty just? If there were a murderer condemned to prison and his brother steps forward and says, I love my brother, I will go to prison for him and he can go free. Is that just?

To your question on repeatable Christs: in Mormonism there is no set position on this. There are some who hold a view where in a larger cosmic cycle of the gods, that each incarnation of a new heavenly family will have one who serves as a redeeming figure for that family. My own view is that The Christ is a singular role filled by Jesus of Nazareth. His role as Messiah is infinite. His position is distinct just as with the Father.

I'm a bit disconcerted. I regard my LDS brothers as just that. Do LDS members disbelieve in substitutionary atonement?

 

[Clear]

1) REGARDING THE NEED FOR HONEST AND ACCURATE COMMUNICATION

BilliardsBall claimed : "It was made clear by another post contributor that I should confine my remarks to canon." Post #72

You were caught mis-using non-canonical sources to create inaccurate impressions regarding what the LDS believe. You have been caught offering small inaccuracies in your claims that embellish and change points so that they are not “quite” the truth. (for example, the statement above….) The fact that you have caught doing this is a reminder to us all that trying to create inaccurate impressions about another person or their belief, is a form of bearing false witness.

Due to this unfortunate history you have, I hope you don’t mind if we check the accuracy of your new witness in the context of there being only Jehovah as a being who is designated as a god. You quoted certain scriptures.
Will you give us the actual, full quote and scripture reference for your quotation : “only God” and for your quotation : "Before me, no other gods were nor shall there be any after me"

I've done a google search and cannot find the quotes as you have quoted them and I am hesitant to conclude that you have "embellished" scriptures themselves...



2) REGARDING BILLIARDSBALLS' MODERN THEORY THAT ONLY JEHOVAH CAN HAVE THE DESIGNATION OF "GOD"

Clear said in post # 70 : AN EXAMPLE FROM CURRENT CONTEXT
As we’ve seen demonstrated multiple times, the early Judeo-Christian texts apply the term "God", "God-like", "like God", "the pious", "sacred ones", etc. to beings who are not the Lord God. The recent dogmatic insistence by a modern christian that early Judeo-Christians cannot use the designation of the term “god” for ANY other thing besides the Lord God and idols is a dogmatic position but not a historical position.

For example, Exodus 7:1 reads And "Jehovah/Lord" said to Moses, See, I give you [to be] god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall [be] thy prophet.
וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל-מֹשֶׁה, רְאֵה נְתַתִּיךָ אֱלֹהִים לְפַרְעֹה; וְאַהֲרֹן אָחִיךָ, יִהְיֶה נְבִיאֶךָ. (t.r.)
καὶ εἶπεν κύριος πρὸς Μωυσῆν λέγων ἰδοὺ δέδωκά σε θεὸν Φαραω καὶ Ααρων ὁ ἀδελφός σου ἔσται σου προφήτης (LXX)

While the historian of Early Judeo-Christian religion is perfectly comfortable with this term and it’s early usage, the dogmatists' theory is undermined by this usage of the term "god" applied to a man (Moses in this case).

The use of the concept and word “god” or being “godly (i.e. “godlike” / “like god”) is no longer used in most of the modern Christian systems of belief in the same way as it was used anciently, so that it seems foreign to the modern Christian worldviews. If the dogmatist cannot place such occurrences into the early historical context of a specific designation having a proper use in historical Judeo-Christianity, then the concept of calling Moses a “god” can seem disorienting. It is the same with the designation of any other being as a God.


BillardsBall replied #73 That all sounds good. Except I'm unsure of how we might use any kind of context to misunderstand terms like "no other" or "only God" or "Before me, no other gods were nor shall there be any after me".



I agree that you are ignorant of ancient languages and it's terms, and thus, “unsure” of how you’ve misunderstand ancient terms. If your present theory prohibits Moses from being a god in any sense, then your theory is going to have change if it wants to survive in historical reality. How are you going to change your theory to deal with Moses being designated as a god?

Clear
νεδρδρω