Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

David Bokovoy

Then Shall They Be Gods:

Recommended Posts

In recent years, textual and archeological discoveries have had a significant impact upon our contemporary understanding of the Bible. One of these important discoveries includes the essential administrative role fulfilled by the divine council.

Unlike many contemporary religious traditions influenced by the later post-biblical view of radical monotheism, biblical Israel believed in a council of gods who governed the affairs of the universe.

The concept of a divine council of gods is, in fact, so central to the biblical world view that non-LDS scholar Patrick D. Miller has referred to this council as

Share this post


Link to post

[double posting]

Share this post


Link to post
Of course the veracity of your statement depends very much upon what we mean by "biblical Israel." If you are speaking of the era of the Davidic monarchy and before, you'll find me generally agreeing.

I believe that this view is one of the few theological tenets that appears consistently throughout the history of biblical thought.

Many texts from the Bible support the theomorphic view of humanity. The Bible open up by presenting the first man as a deified member of the council.

The story of Eden states that the Lord took advantage of the wet-clay-like soil and

Share this post


Link to post

There are two primary issues that other Christians have with the LDS view of this issue:

1. That there is but one God, and all the host of heaven agree, as is witnessed by the angel to John in Revelation exclaiming that only God is to be worshipped and that the angel was a fellow servant of God as John. Many Mormons I've met hold fast to the belief that "a God who can't make me a God too is no God at all". Granted, that is about the brashest statement of faith I've heard from a Mormon on the topic, I've also been told that people will die if it isn't true?? Then you have the couplet and belief that God became a God by the gospel of eternal progression, which does violence to the teachings of Jesus Christ and the rest of the Biblical witnesses about God - who He is VS who we are. No Christian should disagree with Jesus teaching that we who are believers and faithful and have the faith of Jesus Christ and are doers of His word will be as the angels in the resurrection. The mortal must be clothed with immortality. Flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.

2. The economy of God is in His truth, soverienty, creation and faithfulness to His rule, not that any man or angel councels God about things He doesn't already know. Satan drew a third of the angels of heaven to rebel against Him. Was it a vote? Heaven is not a democracy. Being children of God is not about democracy, for it is a kingdom of which God is LORD of Lords, King of kings, So there are angels of armies, angels of worship, angels of helping us on earth, and who knows how many or what every purpose is, the fact is that the economy of God is that His will is done in heaven, and those under His authority on earth are also about doing His will in spirit and truth and not adding to what has already been given for us to believe and do. If we think we too can be a God (as He is, not as the angels), just how is that different from what the serpent said in Eden? Why would anyone want to go back to that issue and do likewise in spite of all that the law, prophets and Son have testified as true? I think Mormons get too close, if not smack dab in the middle of it.

Share this post


Link to post

The story of Eden states that the Lord took advantage of the wet-clay-like soil and

Share this post


Link to post
If we think we too can be a God (as He is, not as the angels), just how is that different from what the serpent said in Eden?

I don't remember anything in Genesis when the serpent told Eve she could be a God? I remember reading something about the serpent saying that if she ate of the fruit that she would be like the Gods, knowing good and evil.

neighbor, maybe you could explain to me how the two different statements mean the same thing. I have often heard this argument used against my beliefs, but I just don't see it being a valid argument.

Share this post


Link to post
If we think we too can be a God (as He is, not as the angels), just how is that different from what the serpent said in Eden?

I don't remember anything in Genesis when the serpent told Eve she could be a God? I remember reading something about the serpent saying that if she ate of the fruit that she would be like the Gods, knowing good and evil.

Besides that, was Eve so dense that this statement did not phase her? "be as the Gods..." Why didn't Eve react to that statement with a Yeah-HUH?! :P<_< if it were so clear that there was only ONE "God"?

Share this post


Link to post
Besides that, was Eve so dense that this statement did not phase her? "be as the Gods..." Why didn't Eve react to that statement with a Yeah-HUH?!  if it were so clear that there was only ONE "God"?

Of course the fact of the matter is that God himself confirms the serpent's observation in the very same chapter:

"Then the Lord God said, 'See, the man has become like on of us, knowing good and evil" (Gen. 3:22).

Share this post


Link to post
Of course the fact of the matter is that God himself confirms the serpent's observation in the very same chapter:

"Then the Lord God said, 'See, the man has become like on of us, knowing good and evil" (Gen. 3:22).

Ah, silly David, you know as well as I do that that's obviously referring to the pre-mortal Trinity, nothing more. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Ah, silly David, you know as well as I do that that's obviously referring to the pre-mortal Trinity, nothing more.

Indeed! However, if one is willing to read the text itself without the lenses of Hellenized Christianity, it is quite clear that Adam and Eve became like the gods in knowing (as explained, they were already like the gods in every other sense). From a biblical perspective, the sacred power to procreate represents the highet form of imagio dei.

Share this post


Link to post

Are you claiming that the verses which speak of the divine council support the idea that there are there are other Gods who are ontologically equal to Yahweh, and/or that men such as yourselves can attain to ontological equality with the true God?

Share this post


Link to post

David,

In recent years, textual and archeological discoveries have had a significant impact upon our contemporary understanding of the Bible. One of these important discoveries includes the essential administrative role fulfilled by the divine council.

Unlike many contemporary religious traditions influenced by the later post-biblical view of radical monotheism, biblical Israel believed in a council of gods who governed the affairs of the universe.

The concept of a divine council of gods is, in fact, so central to the biblical world view that non-LDS scholar Patrick D. Miller has referred to this council as

Share this post


Link to post

There is a very big problem with Christian theology and the singular "one" G-d and only one singular G-d doctrine. The problem is that such a doctrine in light of Old Testament relationship between G-d and man existed without a Mediator. If it is true and a fact; that man dealt with the same

Share this post


Link to post

[double posting]

Share this post


Link to post

As Dan Vogel suggests in this thread, issues pertaining to human deification in the Israelite and LDS spheres are not entirely consistent, nor should we expect them to be.

Through modern revelation, the Lord has identified this dispensation as a time in which

Share this post


Link to post

structurecop:

Besides that, was Eve so dense that this statement did not phase her? "be as the Gods..." Why didn't Eve react to that statement with a Yeah-HUH?! blink.gif huh.gif if it were so clear that there was only ONE "God"?

Better go back and re-check the Scriptures. It doesn't say "be as the Gods".

Share this post


Link to post

urroner:

neighbor, maybe you could explain to me how the two different statements mean the same thing. I have often heard this argument used against my beliefs, but I just don't see it being a valid argument.

I'm speaking of the LDS couplet and doctrine of eternal progression and temple sealings and endowments as a package. There is but one God and the eternal beings who serve Him are angels, some of which are spoken of as angels, the fallen ones being Satan and the demons/evil spirits.

To support there is but one God, when speaking of baptism, we were told to baptize them into the NAME (singular) of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and another place says to baptize believers in the name of Jesus Christ. It's all the same.

Share this post


Link to post

Hello Hooberus,

Are you claiming that the verses which speak of the divine council support the idea that there are there are other Gods who are ontologically equal to Yahweh, and/or that men such as yourselves can attain to ontological equality with the true God?

No. As vocalized in the Bible, the name Yahweh means

Share this post


Link to post
Unlike many contemporary religious traditions influenced by the later post-biblical view of radical monotheism, biblical Israel believed in a council of gods who governed the affairs of the universe.

Are trying to superimpose the earlier henotheistic understanding, atop the Deuteronomic

Reform, the era following the Exile; the period of the Hasmonians, late second temple

Judaism; etc.? If so, you're going to have to work very hard to even begin to convince me.

?????

UD

[third try]

Share this post


Link to post

Neighbor:

I will reiterate what others have already explained, just for you.

Lucifer tempts Eve:

5  For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.

(Old Testament | Genesis 3:5)

Then the Lord justifies Lucifers term of plural gods:

22 

Share this post


Link to post

Hello Uncle Dale,

Are trying to superimpose the earlier henotheistic understanding, atop the Deuteronomic

Reform, the era following the Exile; the period of the Hasmonians, late second temple

Judaism; etc.? If so, you're going to have to work very hard to even begin to convince me.

Yes. At one time I accepted the general scholarly consensus that references to

Share this post


Link to post

Please note it was structurecops post, not yours. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Hello Uncle Dale,
Are trying to superimpose the earlier henotheistic understanding, atop the Deuteronomic

Reform, the era following the Exile; the period of the Hasmonians, late second temple

Judaism; etc.? If so, you're going to have to work very hard to even begin to convince me.

Yes. At one time I accepted the general scholarly consensus that references to

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...