"I said," ye are gods? Christians Only, Please!

[JayJayDee]

The word translated as - wife - is actually - woman. No wife - no marriage.

Since this "woman" is "his" it refers to his wife. This is recognized by most Bible translators.

According to the Orthodox Jewish Bible.....

"Therefore shall an ish leave his av and his em, and shall cleave unto his isha: and they shall be basar echad."

Leaving his parents to become "one flesh" (one body) with his "woman" constitutes marriage in most cultures, regardless of whether they have a formal ceremony or not. In Jewish life, marriage was important for the production of offspring to carry on the family name and for the inheritance of family owned land.

These things are obvious if you look further than just the meaning of one word. Seriously.

 

[Ingledsva]

Since this "woman" is "his" it refers to his wife. This is recognized by most Bible translators.

According to the Orthodox Jewish Bible.....

"Therefore shall an ish leave his av and his em, and shall cleave unto his isha: and they shall be basar echad."

Leaving his parents to become "one flesh" (one body) with his "woman" constitutes marriage in most cultures, regardless of whether they have a formal ceremony or not. In Jewish life, marriage was important for the production of offspring to carry on the family name and for the inheritance of family owned land.

These things are obvious if you look further than just the meaning of one word. Seriously.

There was originally NO SUCH THING as marriage.

All such translations are much later tack-ons.

Leaving your parents, - actually being passed from one male - your father, - to another male - your new owner, - forever, - with no choice - to be a brood-mare, is not marriage.

*

 

[Awoon]

There was originally NO SUCH THING as marriage.

All such translations are much later tack-ons.

Leaving your parents, - actually being passed from one male - your father, - to another male - your new owner, - forever, - with no choice - to be a broad mare, is not marriage.

*

Maybe if you started charging money for your knowledge they would listen to you closer?

 

[Kolibri]

Either as a wide mare or a breeding mare, the way women were treated as second class citizens, if even that, was not God's intent at all. You'll note that the woman was given as "a helper", "a complement" of him. (Genesis 2:18) She was never to be a non-person. Proverbs 31 shows that a capable married woman is very much to be a complement with a lot of self-determined authority. (Buying her own land ect.)

 

[Awoon]

Either as a wide mare or a breeding mare, the way women were treated as second class citizens, if even that was not God's intent at all. You'll note that the woman was given as "a helper", "a complement" of him. (Genesis 2:18) She was never to be a non-person. Proverbs 31 shows that a capable woman is very much a complement with a lot of self-determined authority. (Buying her own land ect.)

Property laws is what RULES in a Man's World. The Bible is written by and for Men.

 

[Kolibri]

Property laws is what RULES in a Man's World. The Bible is written by and for Men.

Zelophehad's daughters might have a different take on that. Even within a patriarchal society, there was provisions made to protect inheritance rights of the family. And when we see how Jesus honored women, we can note by contrast that imperfect men do not behave decently when it comes to even God-given authority.

As Jehovah himself pointed out, the sad result of imperfection would in part be husbands dominating wives. (Ge 3:16b) It takes frequent reflection on Jehovah's word to get closer and closer to getting it right. (James 1:19-25)

 

[Awoon]

Zelophehad's daughters might have a different take on that. Even within a patriarchal society, there was provisions made to protect inheritance rights of the family. And when we see how Jesus honored women, we can note by contrast that imperfect men do not behave decently when it comes to even God-given authority.

As Jehovah himself pointed out, the sad result of imperfection would in part be husbands dominating wives. (Ge 3:16b) It takes frequent reflection on Jehovah's word to get closer and closer to getting it right. (James 1:19-25)

Arguing scriptures are a waste of time. But that's all JWs do. Mary was Joseph's property.

 

[Kolibri]

But that's all JWs do.

I am not ashamed to use the scriptures as authority. But perhaps I do not need to respond when you comment since that annoys you.

 

[Awoon]

I am not ashamed to use the scriptures as authority. But perhaps I do not need to respond when you comment since that annoys you.

That the JW purpose in life.

 

[Ingledsva]

Either as a wide mare or a breeding mare, the way women were treated as second class citizens, if even that, was not God's intent at all. You'll note that the woman was given as "a helper", "a complement" of him. (Genesis 2:18) She was never to be a non-person. Proverbs 31 shows that a capable married woman is very much to be a complement with a lot of self-determined authority. (Buying her own land ect.)

LOL! Good thing you caught that. I need to slow down - and proofread.

However, whatever it says woman was created as, - the laws and reality of this patriarchal culture were that women were owned, and passed from a father to another male, - to pop out babies.

They were in no way equal.

*

 

[TheInfiniteLight]

I find an interesting story here, John 10:30 I and my‍ Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones‍ again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent‍ into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Evidently the Jews saw before them a mere man who the Jews said “being a man, makest thyself God.” This really angered the Jews and Jesus came back to his defense with Psalms 82:6 I have said, Ye are‍ gods; and all of you are children‍ of the most High. This as Jesus stated was written in there law and Jesus said that he was the one who gave them this doctrine “I said.”

I often wondered out of all of holy writ why Jesus used this Psalms passage to his defense. Jesus even went as far to say that this passage of interpretation could not be broken. It could not be interpreted any other way. In my opinion no one will ever replace God the eternal Father, however, Jesus defended himself with their own scripture.

I find elsewhere in Exodus 7:1...And the lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. What another interesting statement, God made Moses a God unto pharaoh. Paul called Satan the “god of this world” in 2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god‍ of this world‍ hath blinded‍ the minds‍ of them which believe not, lest the light‍ of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image‍ of God, should shine unto them.

Peter used the term “Godliness three times. Paul used the term godliness six times. We have Jesus as the son of God, however the Jews took this a step further by saying Jesus claimed to be God. We have Moses a God and Satan a God. I don’t know what this all entails about being a God? I understand the concept and evidently “God” seems to be a title instead of a name. Is “God” a name? Going all the way back to the beginning, it seems to me that the likeness of humans to God is emphasized in the first chapter of Genesis: “God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. … So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” After Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” God said they had “become as one of us,” suggesting that a process of approaching godliness was already underway. What do you think?


Notes:

Genesis 1:26–27, Genesis 2:17; 3:22, 2 Peter 1:6, 2 Peter 1:7, 2 Peter 3:11, 1 Timothy 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:10, 1 Timothy 4:7, 1 Timothy 4:8, 1 Timothy 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:6

Source:

Scriptures Search Results

What Jesus means is that you are made in the image of God; and therefore share his likeness as gods.

 

[Norman]

What are you supposed to be proving here?

Norman: If you read my OP, I said that I find this story interesting. I wondered what anyone else thought about this.

You merely regurgitated what I had, -

Norman: No, I did not regurgitate what you said. The fact is some have tried to argue that the "gods" of Psalm 82 were actually human judges. But this claim has fallen sharply out of favor among scholars over the past century. Moreover, Jesus' citation of a metaphorical use of the term "god" wouldn't go very far toward justifying his claim of literal divinity. He would seem merely to be playing a word game. (Do you think that Jesus was playing a word game with “Gods” and “Judges?”)

while purposely leaving out the FACT that Elohiym also means JUDGES/chosen ones/Kings/Priests, etc., - and the whole quote he quoted is about JUDGING - and it says they are HUMANS - not Gods, or angels.

Norman:If you want your claim that the word “Elohim” in Psalms 82 refers to human judges, I challenge you to show me any passage in the Old Testament where “elohim” is used in such a manner. Not in translation, please, but based on an exegesis of the original Hebrew.

I am well aware of what the Hebrew is, and you implying that there is no other translation - is BOGUS! Totally FALSE!

Norman, well that makes two of us, so now that we both know that we are efficient in Hebrew let’s continue. What would be another translation from this? Please show me? I would like to point out that Jesus never quoted verses 1 through 5, nor 7 and 8. I am only focusing on what Jesus quoted, however, for purpose sake I listed all eight verses. Psalms 82:6-8 (Keep in mind that Jesus only quoted verse 6 to defend himself.

Psalms 82
1. God [ʾĕlōhîm] standeth in the congregation of the mighty [ʿădat ʾēl]; he judgeth among the gods [bəqereb ʾĕlōhîm].

2. How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

3. Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

4. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.

5. They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

6. I have said, Ye are gods [ʾĕlōhîm]; and all of you are children of the most High [bənê ʿelyôn].

7. But ('aken) ye shall die (Muwth) like men, ('adam)and fall (Naphal)like one ('echad)of the princes (Sar)

8. Arise, O God [ʾĕlōhîm], judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

It would be absolutely ridiculous - and I might add NOT Hebrew - to say those Sons of God - are Gods! That would be full on PAGAN! That is NOT what it translates to.

Norman: That is exactly what Jesus was saying to the Pharisees, that we are gods. What all that entails exactly I do not know. However, remember that “God” is a title and not a name. Are you saying that Jesus was Pagan and the Pharisees that addressed him was Pagan? If John 10:34 must refer to ordinary human beings in order to have the force Jesus intended it to have, and if Psalm 82 almost certainly refers to members of the divine court in heaven, the only way to save Jesus from a charge of misapplying the psalm is to understand ordinary human beings as "gods" and as at least onetime members of the divine, heavenly court. (I assume you do not believe that Jesus did not know what he was quoting and what he was saying. He knew exactly what he was saying and the Pharisees knew what he was saying, everyone understood what was being said. That is why the Pharisees wanted to kill Jesus.)

Nor would Jesus - trained in his religion, - imply that they were GODS. (since you imply his using it means he is God) Again - totally Pagan.

Norman: I did not implement it, Jesus did. Yes, Jesus was a Jew.

ALL of Israel - are Sons of God - and obviously not real GODS! or Angels, etc!

Norman: Your blanket statement doesn’t explain anything to me, please be more detail?

Obviously the LDS "perspective" adds things that are NOT in the Bible.

Norman: We have added nothing or said anything that is not in the Bible. "Ye are gods." Since almost from our beginning, Latter-day Saints have understood this phrase quoted by Jesus in John 10:34 and Psalms 82:6; as biblical evidence to support our doctrine of exaltation, which holds that humans are gods in embryo. We are in good company with these two passages. This is a fact not fiction.

This verse alone - tells us you are wrong, - as it says they are Adam - HUMANKIND!

Psa 82:7 Nevertheless as ADAM/human beings, shall die, and of a certainty, as all leaders perish/fall.

Norman: Psalms 82:7. But ('aken) ye shall die (Muwth) like men, ('adam)and fall (Naphal)like one ('echad)of the princes (Sar
What is your point here?

Psa 82:8 Arise o Elohiym/Judges, execute judgment on the land/nation; for you shall inherit the whole nation/people/land.

Norman: An interesting point, Christ quoted a single verse in reference to His opponents. He never cited verses 1 through 5, nor 7 and 8 of Psalms 82. It is very interesting that out of all of holy writ, the biblical passages that Jesus could have used, he used Psalms 82:6 to his defense. Why do you this this was Ingla?

In dealing with the several passages where elohim has been rendered ‘judges’ in the authorized text, we first have to start with Gordon’s article in 1935. Gordon demonstrated that in every instance where the Hebrew has been translated ‘judges’, the text should more properly be translated literally (as the Greek and Latin translations did) as ‘gods’. Remarking on the selections mentioned by McKeever, Gordon wrote: The literal translation, gods (plural), found in the Vulgate (ad deos) and Luther’s version (voer die Götter) is better suited to what appears to be the real meaning of the passage in light of newly discovered material. Translating elohim as judges is questionable at best. As Peterson put it:

Source: Gordon, “Elohim in its Reputed Meaning of Rulers, Judges,” 140.

Try - just try to tell me, - ADAM - means angels, heavenly beings, or gods, etc!!!

Norman: What is your point? Please add scriptures or commentary to explain your point? Using blanket statements do explain anything.


I will add - where does it say - heavenly beings will inherit the earth??? Rather than humans???

Norman: I do not understand your question? Can you put some passage (s) to explain what you are trying to convey to me?

Also - here is a verse using Elohiym as JUDGES.

1 Sa 2:25 If a man sins against a man, then Judges/Elohiym shall judge him. But if a man sins against YHVH, who shall pray for him? But they did not listen to the voice of their father because YHVH desired to put them to death.

*

Norman: You quoted 1 Samuel 2:25, not relevant. These passages that I cite here helps in context of Psalms 82:6. In Genesis 6:2, 4, and Job 1:6; 2:1, the members of the divine council are designated as bənê hā-ʾĕlōhîm ("the sons of God"). Psalm 97:7 addresses kōl-ʾĕlōhîm ("all [ye] gods").

If we are to take the scripture seriously, we must conclude that sons of the Most High/bene elyon/huioi hypsistou are elohim/gods, and that the true followers of Christ can become sons of the Most High/bene elyon/huioi hypsistou, or in other words, elohim/gods. And this, of course, is the LDS Christian position. An interesting point, Christ quoted a single verse in reference to His opponents. He never cited verses 1 through 5, nor 7 and 8.

Why do you ignore this? Who are the bene elohim/elyon? In the context of the New Testament use of elyon/hypsistos (LXX Greek for elyon), In the New Testament Christ is called the son of elyon/hypsistos (Lk 1:32, 1:35, 8:28, Mk 5:7), but is never himself called hypsistos (all other passages: Lk 1:76; Acts 7:28, 16:7, Heb 7:1). Hypsistos is thus, by accident or intention, a unique title for the Father in the New Testament.

I should note also that, interestingly enough, to the best of my knowledge the phrase bene Yahweh never occurs in the OT. (Do you know of any?) If so, it is interesting to ask why? Why are there “bene elim,” “bene ha-elohim”, bene Elohim” and “bene elyon” but--if all of these
are simple equivalents for Yahweh--there are no bene Yahweh?

 

[Hong Xiuquan]

Consider for a oment that the esperience of death and suffering are for our education as


Hi, yet another Mormon here. I'd like to rebut a couple of things here and then I'll turn you back over to my brothers. Satan was not removed from heaven for wanting to be a god. He was removed from heaven for wanting to take away man's agency which God had granted. Calling LDS polytheists is the same as saying you have more than one father. We only have one Heavenly Father to whom we are answerable. Just as there may be other fathers on the block, in the same city, state, country... world,.. universe, there is still only one father for each of us. OK, I'm done.

Christians don't believe that we can become a god....and our goal is not to become a god. Can you explain in detail what you mean by man's agency? Thanks.

 

[Hong Xiuquan]

After reading all that you posted, I considered that the question I would respond to directly is the last part of the above quote from you. But let me preface it with this: I don't necessarily disagree with you that Adam may have preceded Eve by a significant period of time. I also think it likely that while Adam received his instructions directly from God, Eve on the other hand received them from Adam; so whereas Adam was operating on knowledge, Eve was operating on faith in what Adam told her. This made her more susceptible to temptation, but it was temptation mingled with thoughtful consideration on her part.

The thing is though, the commandment to multiply pertained to them both as a couple for obvious reasons. Whether you accept the Book of Mormon as germane to the issue or not is really beside the point. We know (as far as the Biblical account is concerned) that they did not have children until after they were banished from the Garden.

Personally, though most Christians believe that Cain was the first child born, he may not have been. The Bible mentions that Adam had daughters too. To record the names of daughters was not important. It is possible that Adam left Eden with many daughters....and Cain was then the first son, but not the first child. This could explain where Cain got his wife from later. He could have married an older sister.

 

[Hong Xiuquan]

Challenging what you say is not "taking authority!" This is a debate site. When you say something - you will be asked to prove it.

As to Jer 1:5, Look it up in the Hebrew. The first words are - Not yet molded/shaped in the womb. That implies molding something that is already there, - for a purpose, - and of course, already there, is science as well.

Jer 1:5 Not Yet molded/shaped in the womb, I knew you; and before you exited the womb, I sanctified you as a prophet to the nations, ordained.

SO - not yet fully formed/shaped in the womb - I knew you - made contact - sanctifying you as a prophet before your birth.

Nowhere in the Bible does it say spirit parents, or spirit children that become humans.

Here is what it does say -

Gen 2:7 And molded YHVH Elohiym the adam/human being from the dust/clay of the ground, and blew into his nostrils the breath of life; and the adam/human being became a living soul.

*

You really seem to know the Bible well. Were you a Christian in the past? For someone who is not a Christian, I have to take my hat off to you.

 

[Hong Xiuquan]

Here again you are taking the stance of an authority whom I must prove myself to. I do not recognize you as any such authority, but this once, on this one issue... as a mentioned in my response to JayJayDee, "Consider what God told Jeremiah. "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee;..." Now you may have a different interpretation of this, but I see this as an indication that Jeremiah existed before he was born in the flesh. We all existed as God's children before being born into the mortality."

I am not making this stuff up out of the blue (as you put it). I just have access to information that you do not accept. As I said, it matters not to me if you don't accept what I say, but you are not an authority figure whose demands I must meet.

I don't agree with what you say but I enjoy reading your explanations. They are very concise and clear. May I ask what your role in the LDS church is? My father was a Protestant pastor. I'm an English teacher in Indonesia. Maybe we can share a bit about ourselves first so the thread doesn't have so much "heat".

 

[Thanda]

Christians don't believe that we can become a god....and our goal is not to become a god. Can you explain in detail what you mean by man's agency? Thanks.

I would like to give my take on the meaning of man's agency.

Man's moral agency is his right, responsibility and accountability over what kind of person he is and becomes.

So according to Mormon belief in the pre-existence God the Father proposed a plan whereby man could become like him. It required man to learn to live by faith, to learn to judge between good and evil and to learn to love what is good and righteous and to hate evil. Therefore God proposed that the Earth be created as a learning and testing ground for us. We would come here for a brief period, have experiences that would help us stretch and grow. And we would then receive a reward according to the growth we achieved. This plan required us to be subject to death and sin. We needed to be able to feel pain and commit sin so that we could be properly tested. However the sin and death we would experience (by our own choice - God would not make us sin. It is us who would choose it) we would not be able to overcome by our own efforts. So this plan needed a Saviour. Someone who could come on Earth and live a perfect life and offer a perfect sacrifice for the imperfections of his brothers.
Jesus, our eldest brother and God's first born, stood forward and said "Here am I send me. And thy will be done. And the honor be thine forever and ever".
Satan on the other hand saw a loophole in this plan. He saw that since the plan was based on freedom of choice there was a possibility that those who did not choose wisely would not pass the tests. So he proposed a more "full-proof" plan. People's freedom of choice would be taken from them and they would all obey all God's commandments and they would all make it back to him . In fact there would be no need for a Saviour. And since this "new and improved" plan was his he decided he should get the glory other than God. But since stripping man of his freedom to choose would negate the purpose of God plan (which is for men to become like him - and God chooses to be what he is and to do what he does) he rejected the devil's plan.
The devil was angry and convinced 1/3 of God's children to follow him in rebellion. When their minds were made up that they would not follow God's plan they were thrust out of heaven. They forfeited the opportunity to progress by coming to this Earth. All those who are born on this Earth are those who chose God and Christ in the pre-existence. That is why the devil hates us so much - we rejected him. And since he is miserable he also seeks our misery. But as we defeated him once though our faith in Christ so we can once again defeat him in this life through the same faith.

I hope this was useful.

 

[Hong Xiuquan]

Thanda: Thanks for explaining the term. God said in the Bible that he didn't want man to become like him and he quickly expelled Adam and Eve so they wouldn't eat from the Tree of Life. What do Mormons say in regards to this verse? I actually have some other questions too, if you have time: 1. Mormons believe in a heavenly mother and father. And they have created everyone in existence? Protestants teach that there are no sexual relationships in Heaven.....or do Mormons believe that everyone was originally created by the divine couple in a different way? (non-sexual). 2. What is the official Mormon church position on the modern theory of Ancient Astronauts? 3. How did JS get the translation of the tablets? I've heard some people say he looked into a hat and others say he put his head into a sack. I'd like to hear the official version. Did he see words in sentences or did they come one word at a time? And then his scribe (who was present) would write down what he saw.....is that correct?

 

[Katzpur]

Christians don't believe that we can become a god....and our goal is not to become a god. Can you explain in detail what you mean by man's agency? Thanks.

Actually some Christians do -- and they're not all Mormons. I seem to recall having posted this before for you, but maybe it was for someone else on another thread. Here's what C.S. Lewis had to say on the subject:

“The command Be ye perfect is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were “gods” and He is going to make good His words. If we let Him – for we can prevent Him, if we choose – He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though, of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what He said."

That sounds almost identical to the Mormon belief.

 

[Katzpur]

I just noticed that I had posted that before. One of the most highly-respected Christian theologians to have ever lived believed that man can become a god.

And there is tons of evidence that this doctrine was widely-believed and taught by some of the most well-known and revered Church fathers:

In the second century, Saint Irenaeus said, “If the Word became a man, it was so men may become gods.” He also posed this question: “Do we cast blame on Him (God) because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as Gods?” At about the same period of time, Saint Clement made this statement: “The Word of God became a man so that you might learn from a man how to become a god.” And Saint Justin Martyr agreed, saying that men are “deemed worthy of becoming gods and of having power to become sons of the highest.” Some two centuries later, Athanasius explained that “the Word was made flesh in order that we might be enabled to be made gods. He became man that we might be made divine.” And, finally, Augustine, said, “But He that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. For he has given them power to become the sons of God. If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods.”

So, while it may be accurate to say that most Christians today don't believe that they have the potential to become gods, many, many Christians over the centuries have believed otherwise.