"Ye are gods" saith scripture. Yet Jesus says "I make myself more by being as the lesser"

[Godservant]

There is a lesson in this.

John 10:35-36 If He called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), do you say of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?

What do we call that blaspheming today?

"Not right"? "Off topic"? "Beside the point"?

Here we are as gods. Do we make ourselves more by being as the lesser?

And WHAT IF I annoy you? Is it not an opportunity to be greater still?

But there is a truth we are missing! The truth about gods!

For what is a god if no one will be as the lesser? Is he not simply an oddity?

[Sparko]

are you saying that we are Gods?

I thought there was only ONE God.

[Pilgrim]

I think I need the OP to clarify the point a little for me.

[scooner67]

Has anyone been keeping up with any of Heiser's work on Psalms 82. He is an evangelical scholar who is reformed, yet Mormon's have been using his work to support there claims that there are other plural dieties who are gods thus supporting there claims that ancient hebrew texts of scripture indeed support there understanding of multiple gods who are councils to the most high God. Does anyone know of work that has been done to refute mormon claims. I have read Heiser's work and he is not saying that these other gods share God's unique nature, but he does maintain that they are divine and that our understanding of monotheism needs to be augmented. Mormon's apologist like Ostler and Kerry Shirts are jumping all over this work. Feedback please....:)

[Pilgrim]

err...was that a response to the OP?

[RBerman]

(This post is in response to Scooner)

Psalm 82 uses familiar ANE language in which the king is described as being God's son (see Psalm 2:7 for another example) or even is called "god" himself (see Psalm 45:6 for another example) by virtue of his position as the ruler, the one who mediates God's authority to the people. This is not an ontological declaration of godhood, which is why Psalm 45:7 makes a clear distinction between the king as "god" and the true God, "God, your God" in the very next verse. Elohim is occasionally used in this generic sense of anyone in a position of authority (Exodus 21:6; Exodus 22:8-9; 1 Samuel 2:25; Psalm 8:5), whether human or angelic. This kind of language is not surprising in a document written over the course of thousands of years. How many English words have acquired variations in their meaning just in the last few hundred years, or less?

As for Psalm 82, its point is that kings are not god in the same sense that YHWH is God. Positionally, they are gods (Psalm 82:6), but ontologically, they are men (Psalm 82:7) and can be judged by YHWH like any other man.

[Godservant]

I am asking: what gods are we?

"Are we making ourselves the lesser,?" is my concern.

In the process, I point out that mere "objection" to a god, that calls into question their "god" status, is blasphemy.

The latter is not the point, so much as learning how to fulfil the desire of gods (such as you are).

[RBerman]

I am asking: what gods are we?

"Are we making ourselves the lesser,?" is my concern.

In the process, I point out that mere "objection" to a god, that calls into question their "god" status, is blasphemy.

The latter is not the point, so much as learning how to fulfil the desire of gods (such as you are).

As I said in my post above, we are not the gods mentioned in Psalm 82. We are not Ancient Near Eastern Kings being judged by the true God.

[Godservant]

As I said in my post above, we are not the gods mentioned in Psalm 82. We are not Ancient Near Eastern Kings being judged by the true God.

The Devil says "not".

[Pilgrim]

Sphincter says what?

[Godservant]

The Devil says "Got".

[scooner67]

(This post is in response to Scooner)

Psalm 82 uses familiar ANE language in which the king is described as being God's son (see Psalm 2:7 for another example) or even is called "god" himself (see Psalm 45:6 for another example) by virtue of his position as the ruler, the one who mediates God's authority to the people. This is not an ontological declaration of godhood, which is why Psalm 45:7 makes a clear distinction between the king as "god" and the true God, "God, your God" in the very next verse. Elohim is occasionally used in this generic sense of anyone in a position of authority (Exodus 21:6; Exodus 22:8-9; 1 Samuel 2:25; Psalm 8:5), whether human or angelic. This kind of language is not surprising in a document written over the course of thousands of years. How many English words have acquired variations in their meaning just in the last few hundred years, or less?

As for Psalm 82, its point is that kings are not god in the same sense that YHWH is God. Positionally, they are gods (Psalm 82:6), but ontologically, they are men (Psalm 82:7) and can be judged by YHWH like any other man.

Interesting and that's the way I've always taken it too me. However after reading Michael Heiser I can see where that might not be the only other translation. Granted i do not see these other elohims as of the same quality as God Most High who sits in this council, however I can see how they might be created divine beings who were chastised by God. I would note where God says they will die like men......which seems to me to indicate that this is not talking abouit human rulers or judges as I've always thought it had....anyways if you haven't already....please check out michael heisers work. It's worth the reading.....I only brought this up because Mormon's are having a field day with his work by taking him out of context.

[RBerman]

Interesting and that's the way I've always taken it too me. However after reading Michael Heiser I can see where that might not be the only other translation. Granted i do not see these other elohims as of the same quality as God Most High who sits in this council, however I can see how they might be created divine beings who were chastised by God. I would note where God says they will die like men......which seems to me to indicate that this is not talking abouit human rulers or judges as I've always thought it had....anyways if you haven't already....please check out michael heisers work. It's worth the reading.....I only brought this up because Mormon's are having a field day with his work by taking him out of context.

I'm not familiar with Michael Heiser, but I don't buy an exegesis that says, "The text would not have said 'die like men' unless the beings in question were not men." The point is that they will not live like Elohim, even though they are rulers (elohim with a little "e") like Elohim is a ruler. Indeed, it's not hard to find literary and historical examples of actual men being exhorted to do something "like men."

[scooner67]

I'm not familiar with Michael Heiser, but I don't buy an exegesis that says, "The text would not have said 'die like men' unless the beings in question were not men." The point is that they will not live like Elohim, even though they are rulers (elohim with a little "e") like Elohim is a ruler. Indeed, it's not hard to find literary and historical examples of actual men being exhorted to do something "like men."

Well if you find the time I think you'd find it an interesting read all the same. Again I don't necessary by into his interpretation however I find nothing heretical in what he's advocating as far as his interpretation. He does maintain that these elohims spoken of in Psalms 82 are created divine beings and are not of the same substance as Yahweh. He coins the term that they do not share the same "species unique " nature with Yahweh..but he does maintain that these beings are divine and ruling in heaven and God sits in council with them. But here is the link for what it's worth http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/ specifically http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/Intr...cil%20MTIT.pdf

Again I only mention him because of a guy name kerry shirts aka the backyard professor whose been quoting him and taking him completely out of context in order to support Mormon claims to the existence of other gods in the connection to a heavenly family that exists in heaven. Of course Heiser as an evangelical doesn't beleive this....but FARMS is having a hay day..some of which Michael himself has refuted....

[RBerman]

Yeah. I don't think it's heretical to say that Psalm 68 is directed at angels. I just don't think it's correct. I can't think of any other part of the Bible whose intended audience is angels, either. I can see how verse 1 "God stands in the congregation of the mighty; he judges among the gods," might call to mind Job 1's heavenly court. But the conclusion of the Psalm is, "Arise, O God, judge the earth: for you shall inherit all nations." That seems pretty clearly to be directed at earthly rulers.