Jump to content

Archived

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

David Bokovoy

Then Shall They Be Gods:

Recommended Posts

Unk, in approaching a Messianic monotheism, we mustn't forget the role of the Angels.  The Angelologies of, for example, so late a work as the Ethiopian Enoch (wherever it came from) are from no later than the late Hasmonean era and evidence a Divine Council that, to this kid, is indistinguishable from the pre-Exilic.

What is the difference between Rakiel and the rest and the unnamed members of G-d's Council in Isaiah and elsewhere?

Alright -- the last time we tried this conversation the mods closed down my fine

mosaic of angles and scenes from "It's a Great Life."

For me and mine, angels are powers of being -- not empowered beings. *

A good place to start that study is with the biblical "Angel of the Presence," but we

need not side-track this thread with Broadhurstian mysticism just yet.

Old Mormon sources recount how the Angel Nephi appeared to our illustrious founder.

Later the name "Moroni" was substituted. Finally, during the Nauvoo theologizing,

good old Moroni the son of Mormon got angelized (and canonized) for good. I guess

that was because Moroni, who had no wife, seemed a better candidate for the office

of ministering angel, than did well-married, and eternally progressing Nephi.

All of which probably explains why Deseret Books continues to sell "The Littlest Angel"

at Christmastime.

I saw the heavenly host once -- it is not an experience I would lightly wish upon anybody.

Uncle Dale

--------------

* Paul Tillich, A History of Christian Thought.

Share this post


Link to post

I think it's the commonalities among the various accounts that make them interesting, not the differences. The old Jew with no authority might be making an unreliable account, but that it's liklihood of being based on a truth the writers feel is secondary. A person far in the future might learn an awful lot about the LDS church, about our theology and culture, by reading the writings of our apostates. We do, after all, share the same terms and phrases. Thus the importance would be not in what was being said, but those very terms and phrases -- and concepts.

It's only natural that accounts of the councils vary, but the fact that the councils are being so widely discussed is what is significant. If they didn't exist at all it would likely be reflected in their writings -- an absence.

The apocryphal writings of the early Christians may not be reliable as genuinely reflecting Christianity; however, they do provide valuable information in telling us what some of the early Christians were thinking. Not outwardly, but in between the lines. This is the significance here. The mere presence of the councils is telling us that people were aware of the concept and interested enough in writing about it.

Share this post


Link to post
When Jesus was baptized by John in the Jordon the Father said, 'This is my son with him I am well pleased. Listen to him'

Or, for us messianiac adoptionists, is the correct rendering into English:

"Thou art My Son, This day I have begotten Thee..."

?????

Uncle "there are bibles other than the JST and the KJV, of course" Dale

Share this post


Link to post

David writes,

In the Bible, the word elohim appears as both a divine name for Israel

Share this post


Link to post
Of course, that's the natural response.  Let me ask you then, why did God pray to himself, worship himself, witness of himself?  Why was he standing on his own hand when Stephen saw him?  Better yet, how are we supposed to be one like the Trinity?  One great mass?

Please explain those points,

PacMan

Of course, that's the natural response. Let me ask you then, why did God pray to himself, worship himself, witness of himself?

'If I witness to myself my testimony is not true, however there is another that witnesses for me.' 'My will is to do that of my Father.'

Why was he standing on his own hand when Stephen saw him?

' I see Christ standing at the right hand of God'. Note that in visions, see Revelation, the Father has human attributes.

Better yet, how are we supposed to be one like the Trinity? One great mass?

'Be ye imitators of me as I am of Christ.'

'Ye do err knowing neither the scriptures nor the power of God.'

Share this post


Link to post

Beowulf,

(Dan Vogel should read this stuff, too, before arguing here about LDS misconceptions about OT beliefs...)

I still think there are significant differences that get passed over for the broad similarities. In Mormonism there is an eternal chain of gods, as well as an eternal repetition Adams and Eves, which I don

Share this post


Link to post
Of course, that's the natural response.

Pacman,

Do you understand the difference between the Trinity and modalism?

Trinitarians (such as WtC and myself) believe that God is three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the three being distinct from each other.

I have never seen WtC claim that God "prays to himself", or "worships himself", or "stands on the right hand of himself".

I have never claimed that, either (since I don't believe it).

I have never seen any Trinitarian make that claim, either.

If you haven't seen any Trinitarian make that claim, then perhaps you shouldn't simply assume that it is Trinitarian belief (because it isn't).

Your questions suggest to me that you don't understand what the Trinity teaches.

Let me ask you then, why did God pray to himself,

We don't believe that God prayed "to himself".

We believe that the Son prayed to the Father.

We do not believe that the Son is the Father, so we don't believe that "God" prayed to "himself".

worship himself,

We don't believe that God worshipped "himself".

We believe that the Son worshipped the Father.

We do not believe that the Son is the Father, so we don't believe that "God"

worshipped "himself".

witness of himself?

We don't believe that God bore witness "to himself".

We believe that the Son bore witness of the Father.

We do not believe that the Son is the Father, so we don't believe that "God" bore witness of "himself".

Why was he standing on his own hand when Stephen saw him?

We don't believe that God was standing "own his own hand".

We believe that the Son was at the right hand of the Father.

We do not believe that the Son is the Father, so we don't believe that "God" was standing "on his own hand".

Better yet, how are we supposed to be one like the Trinity?

Share this post


Link to post

So Theo, is there one God or three Gods?

If there is only one God, then God prayed to God and God witnessed of God and God worshipped God.

Share this post


Link to post
So Theo, is there one God or three Gods?

There is only one God (Deut. 4:35, 39, 6:4, 2 Sam. 22:32, 2 Kings 19:15,19, Psalm 18:31, 86:10, Isa. 37:16,20, 44:6,8, 45:5,21,22, 46:9, John 17:3, 1 Tim. 2:5, etc.)

If there is only one God, then God prayed to God and God witnessed of God and God worshipped God.

That is an oversimplistic view which (as I already explained in my previous post) ignores the distinction between the persons of the Triune God.

It seems to me that if LDS wish non-LDS to respect LDS beliefs enough to accurately represent what LDS believe, it would seem appropriate for LDS to extend that same courtesy to the beliefs of non-LDS.

However, if you simply wish to ignore a crucial point of Trinitarian belief (such as the distinction between the perons of the Trinity) in order to try to win a cheap argument "point", then such seems rather a waste of time. IMO.

Theophilus

Share this post


Link to post
If there is only one God, then God prayed to God and God witnessed of God and God worshipped God.

The fallacy in your argument is one of "equivocation".

In trying to argue that Trinitarians believe that "God" prays, or worships, or stand beside "himself" (ie. "God"), you are using "God" to refer to two different persons, namely the Father and the Son. You are changing the referent mid-sentence, ignoring the distinction between the two persons.

The Bible plainly teaches that the Son prayed to the Father.

Trinitarians believe that, and LDS believe that.

The Bible plainly teaches that the Son worshipped the Father.

Trinitarians believe that, and LDS believe that.

The Bible plainly teaches the distinction between the Son and the Father.

Trinitarians believe that, and LDS believe that.

Therefore, there should be absolutely no problem with LDS understanding that Trinitarians don't believe that God prayed to or worshipped "himself".

When you claim we believe, "God worshipped himself", or "God prayed to himself", are you interpreting "God" as "the Father", or as "the Son"?

Trinitarians don't believe the Father (ie. God) "prayed to Himself" (the Son is who prayed).

Trinitarians don't believe that the Son (ie. God) "prayed to Himself" (He prayed to the Father).

Theophilus

Share this post


Link to post

So, Theophilus, we agree on God. Great!

For Dan:

This I still think there are significant differences that get passed over for the broad similarities. In Mormonism there is an eternal chain of gods, as well as an eternal repetition Adams and Eves, which I don

Share this post


Link to post
I wonder how we can possibly hope to recreate a coherent religious history from the fragmentary evidence left us. Unk asks some killer questions here.

Assume as given rabbinical coverups of the Divine Council and normative henotheism in the 1st Temple period.

How do we square our Utah Mormon notions of continuing revelation and "line upon line" being sauce for us geeses whilst rejecting rabbinical interventions in the late 2nd Temple period as being made by "some old Jew without authority" without sauce for them there ganders? Is it possible to have a consistent scholarly approach that doesn't of necessity rely upon "likening the scriptures unto ourselves" in the light of modern scripture that may lead us unto presentism?

A fine pickle indeed.

Neighbor: It's only a pickle if that is what you believe. I have no doubt that the books of Moses are as he gave them to Israel and us. Jesus said to believe Moses. An objective check for the quality of preservation is found in the "Bible Code". If a coded name were to exist throughout the text of a book credited to Moses... and this code was discovered much later in history... wouldn't that be evidence that the text wasn't altered? It could not have been altered and have the coded name intact. As such it proves to me that Jesus was correct about Moses' writings.

And when did Moses believe in one God?

Who shall I say sent me? Tell them I am that I am sent you.

Sounds pretty singular to me.

Share this post


Link to post

Moses surely believed in One God.

But the mere fact that God told him that His Name was "I Am That I Am" is not evidence that there were no other gods in existence.

But since we LDS believe that Jesus is Jehovah, we believe that it was He, in his premortal state, who told Moses that line above.

So of course, Jesus was just quoting himself. (Which the Jews plainly understood, and got pretty riled about.)

Beowulf

Share this post


Link to post

I just believe Jesus is also the other name for God and that the Spirit is the Spirit of God and the Spirit of Jesus Christ and the Spirit which moved on the face of the waters, all of which proceed from and are God, the one God, the "I AM that I AM".

Share this post


Link to post

Hello Neighbor,

An objective check for the quality of preservation is found in the "Bible Code". If a coded name were to exist throughout the text of a book credited to Moses... and this code was discovered much later in history... wouldn't that be evidence that the text wasn't altered? It could not have been altered and have the coded name intact. As such it proves to me that Jesus was correct about Moses' writings.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but I

Share this post


Link to post

An objective check for the quality of preservation is found in the "Bible Code". If a coded name were to exist throughout the text of a book credited to Moses... and this code was discovered much later in history... wouldn't that be evidence that the text wasn't altered? It could not have been altered and have the coded name intact. As such it proves to me that Jesus was correct about Moses' writings.

Not to mention the significance of these "codes" is never understood until long after the event. Kinda makes moot the whole point of "propecy" doesn't it? And I'm sure if I lined up all the letters in any book... let's take John Grisham's The Firm for instance, I could pick out random clips of words to reveal... "Graham... shaved... this morning..." Holy cow! A prophecy concerning my life! This book must be true prophecy!

Share this post


Link to post

An objective check for the quality of preservation is found in the "Bible Code". If a coded name were to exist throughout the text of a book credited to Moses... and this code was discovered much later in history... wouldn't that be evidence that the text wasn't altered? It could not have been altered and have the coded name intact. As such it proves to me that Jesus was correct about Moses' writings.

Not to mention the significance of these "codes" is never understood until long after the event. Kinda makes moot the whole point of "propecy" doesn't it? And I'm sure if I lined up all the letters in any book... let's take John Grisham's The Firm for instance, I could pick out random clips of words to reveal... "Graham... shaved... this morning..." Holy cow! A prophecy concerning my life! This book must be true prophecy!

Presumably, if these so-called "codes" were inserted into the text, in compliance with

the express will of God, it was done for some purpose.

Was that purpose only to have the messages discovered 1900 years after the second

temple was destroyed? I mean, why so record predictive prophecy, if it never was

any good to anybody in the past?

I can study the "Bible codes" literature, and learn, that by reading every 4th letter in

some Hebrew text or another, a cluster of words like "King Arthur," "Camelot" and

"Holy Grail" may be discovered (which I just made up) -- all of which sounds very

impressive, but to what end?

Also, the preservation of such "codes" depends upon a perfect preservation of the

ancient texts, as first written, with no insertions/deletions. Biblical scholarship shows

that some biblical Hebrew passages are corrupt in the Masorites' text, and can only

be properly reconstructed by reference to the LXX, the Dead Sea scrolls, certain

Targums, etc.

Change a few lines of text here and there, and what happen to the codes?

Didn't somebody once say -- "put a million Shakespeares at a million keyboards

for a million years, and at least one of them will write "Bedtime for Bonzo?"

UD

Share this post


Link to post

Didn't somebody once say -- "put a million Shakespeares at a million keyboards

for a million years, and at least one of them will write "Bedtime for Bonzo?"

UD

<_<:P

Share this post


Link to post

I can't believe it! He dissed one of my FAVORITE movies! :unsure::P<_<

Share this post


Link to post

Dan writes

In Mormonism there is an eternal chain of gods, as well as an eternal repetition Adams and Eves, which I don

Share this post


Link to post
I am not aware of any discussion of YHWH being considered the god of war. Where did you find this?

The Song of Miriam - Exodus 15

d'Unk

Share this post


Link to post
I am not aware of any discussion of YHWH being considered the god of war.  Where did you find this?

The Song of Miriam - Exodus 15

d'Unk

Hmmm...the actual scripture is 3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

Being a man of war is not necessarily god of war. That seems to be more of the pervue of Ares. YHWH was considered the god of thunder and of storms, but not necessarily of war. A good ally to have around, though. And, if one accepts the Sumerian connection then YHWH/YA/EA/ENKI was the god of the waters, wisdom, and creation.

Share this post


Link to post

Hmmm...the actual scripture is 3  The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.

See various commentaries for the original structure of the poetic Hebrew. At the

time the original text was first composed and handed down (probably near Beersheba,

or Kadosh at some long-forgotten shrine) the singers had no compunction about

pronouncing the name of Yahweh -- the sanitizing hands of later editors inserted

the Adonai over-writes.

Being a man of war is not necessarily god of war.  That seems to be more of the pervue of Ares.  YHWH was considered the god of thunder and of storms, but not necessarily of war.  A good ally to have around, though.  And, if one accepts the Sumerian connection then YHWH/YA/EA/ENKI was the god of the waters, wisdom, and creation.

My best guess is that at the time the poetic Hebrew was composed, the worshippers

had already agreed to have "no Gods before" YHWH -- making gods of various

activities and elements unnecessary.

Like Baal Hadad, YHWH rides the divine war chariot, pulled by cherbim, through the

clouds -- making lightning, thunder, rain, and destruction of the enemy below. Not

precisely Mars, I'll grant -- but a God who conducts and oversees war nevertheless.

Probably the original Ya was not a god of waters -- though he developed into a

god who had ultimate power over the primal waters of chaos. Probably that transition

was occuring not long before the Song of Miriam was composed. YHWH has divine

power over the sea and storm -- to the Egyptians' woe.

I'm not so sure that Ya was a god of creation either -- though Zeus-like he goes

on (as YHWH) to overshadow the Father god, El. My guess is that the YHWH=El

understanding came after the song was composed -- as the worshippers moved

north into Canaanite realms.

How well all of this squares with modern LDS theology, I know not. Perhaps not at all.

UD

Share this post


Link to post
There

Share this post


Link to post
You really should not mock God's words.

Good advice. For me, the Bible Code is one of the highest forms of mockery.

If I take the first two letters from your initial paragraph,

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...