Irenaeus Of Lyons

[jason e.]

so im reading leo donald davis' book "the first seven ecumenical councils 325-787; their history and theology," and he quotes irenaeus of loyns, the first theologian who attempted to refute the gnostic christians and their cliams (as made by the like of the valentinuns and marcion) that there were at least 2 gods.

irenaeus says,

"either there must be one god who contains all things and has made every creature according to his will, or there must be many interminate creators or gods... but in this case we shall have to aknowledge that none of them is god. for each of them... will be defective in comparison ith the rest, and the title 'almighty' will not be reduced to naught." pg. 39

he seems to bring up a good point that im sure has already been adressed. what say you?

[cksalmon]

so im reading leo donald davis' book "the first seven ecumenical councils 325-787; their history and theology," and he quotes irenaeus of loyns, the first theologian who attempted to refute the gnostic christians and their cliams (as made by the like of the valentinuns and marcion) that there were at least 2 gods.

irenaeus says,

"either there must be one god who contains all things and has made every creature according to his will, or there must be many interminate creators or gods... but in this case we shall have to aknowledge that none of them is god. for each of them... will be defective in comparison ith the rest, and the title 'almighty' will not be reduced to naught." pg. 39

he seems to bring up a good point that im sure has already been adressed. what say you?

Hi Jason--

As you know, Irenaeus completely rejected the idea of "intermediate creators or gods," and consistently wrote against Gnosticism.

From his Against Heresies:

1. It is proper, then, that I should begin with the first and most important head, that is, God the Creator, who made the heaven and the earth, and all things that are therein (whom these men blasphemously style the fruit of a defect), and to demonstrate that there is nothing either above Him or after Him; nor that, influenced by any one, but of His own free will, He created all things, since He is the only God, the only Lord, the only Creator, the only Father, alone containing all things, and Himself commanding all things into existence.

For some LDS here, this won't land with the force with which Irenaeus intended it, simply because they view "God" as a titular distinction rather than a description of exclusive and inherent God-making properties.

Best.

CKS

[bjw]

Is this the Iranaeus that was a pupil of Polycarp? I too am curious about this because I've heard them both quoted before to defend some LDS doctrines. Their views on the plurality of gods and the Trinity would be interesting. It sounds like the church back then was struggling with this very issue.

[LifeOnaPlate]

so im reading leo donald davis' book "the first seven ecumenical councils 325-787; their history and theology," and he quotes irenaeus of loyns, the first theologian who attempted to refute the gnostic christians and their cliams (as made by the like of the valentinuns and marcion) that there were at least 2 gods.

irenaeus says,

"either there must be one god who contains all things and has made every creature according to his will, or there must be many interminate creators or gods... but in this case we shall have to aknowledge that none of them is god. for each of them... will be defective in comparison ith the rest, and the title 'almighty' will not be reduced to naught." pg. 39

he seems to bring up a good point that im sure has already been adressed. what say you?

Irenaeus is an interesting cat, to be sure. Here we find him preaching about one God, but we also find him preaching about the fact that you, jason, and I, can become gods:

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? Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that no one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High." . . . For it was necessary at first that nature be exhibited, then after that what was mortal would be conquered and swallowed up in immortality.

-Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.38

Stranger still, is this blunt analysis by Irenaeus:

'if the Word has been made man, it is so that men may be made gods' (Adv. Haer V, Pref.)

It is instructive to keep in mind the LDS Church only believes in one God, though they be separate persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, they still remain, one God.

[valkator]

While on the surface his argument seems to make sense, his conception of 'God' is identified as the 'uncreated intelligence' that is the eternal, immortal, unbegotten 'nous/soul/spirit' of all manifested life. His lack of understanding that this 'uncreated intelligence' is not 'out there' as some separate, transcendent source to be worshipped, but within all manifested forms to be recognized as the 'reality' that we ARE that (the uncreated intelligence manifesting through form) is at the heart of the problem. He does not recognize that there are many 'gods' that are transient manifestations of this 'uncreated intelligence' that is, at the same time, not separate from the manifestation itself. This is an evident problem in not only 'traditional' Christianity, but also in Islam where they conceive of Allah in the same light, and, to a lesser degree, Judaism. A good synopsis of this can be found in the following article from Elder B.H. Roberts I've found very helpful:

The Immortality of Man

[cksalmon]

It is instructive to keep in mind the LDS Church only believes in one God, though they be separate persons, Father, Son and Holy Ghost, they still remain, one God.

Do I taste Ostler's water molecule here?

Are you suggesting that Elohim is not "one God," but 1/3 of a God? That Christ is not "one God," but 1/3 a God? Etc.

Is Elohim a God unto himself, or only truly "God" when acting in concert with the other members of Ostler's Social Trinity?

Does the LDS Church believe in only "one God" or one henotheistically-delimited Godhead?

Do you hold a belief in the eternal generation of the Son? If not, how is your interpretation of LDS "monotheism" not functionally tantamount to bi- or tritheism?

CKS

[BCSpace]

Is Elohim a God unto himself, or only truly "God" when acting in concert with the other members of Ostler's Social Trinity?

'Elohim' is simply a title. That title applies to either of the Gods: The Father, the Son, or the Holy Ghost or us (elohim). Sometimes we use it to differentiate between the Father and the Son (Elohim and Jehovah). Hence it is more than a title, it is a name-title.

Is Elohim a God unto himself,

If you are referring to the the Father (or the separate God, the Son), yes.

or only truly "God" when acting in concert with the other members of Ostler's Social Trinity?

In that case he is part of the Godhead.

Does the LDS Church believe in only "one God"

Yes, as per 1 Cor 8:4-6.

or one henotheistically-delimited Godhead?

I used to think henotheism was the correct term, but considering the intentions of the archeologist who coined the term, I now disagree as there is an element of worship attributed to the other Gods not extant in LDS theology. For example, Greeks who mainly worshipped Zeus may also have made sacrifice to Apollo.

Do you hold a belief in the eternal generation of the Son? If not, how is your interpretation of LDS "monotheism" not functionally tantamount to bi- or tritheism?

The LDS Godhead is strictly monotheistic. When the only God the Hebrews knew was Jehovah (Jesus Christ), they worshipped him alone. Now Jesus has pointed us to the Father and all worship and praise is directed to the Father (the Son directs such to the Father as well when addressed and praised as his God title demands).

The correct 'sub term' is Subordinationism.

-Irenaeus, Against Heresies 4.38

Besides that, there is also....

"...our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, became what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself." Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5: Preface, in ANF 1:526

What antiMormons forget is that we don't use the ECF as the basis for our doctrines as apostasy and heresy crept in through them. One exception: They are useful to show that the further back one goes, the more LDS doctrine one finds amidst the Church until you reach Bible times when it is all LDS and none other. Irenaeus is a prime example of this.

[cksalmon]

If you are referring to the the Father (or the separate God, the Son), yes.

I was. The statement by LOAP that LDS believe in only one God, given your comments here, seems a bit disingenuous. One Godhead, yes. One God, no.

The correct 'sub term' is Subordinationism.

Respectfully, I must disagree. Or, at least, I would make note of my own personal belief in "incarnational" subordinationism, which I believe is scriptural. Carried further, however, one delves into the realm of the Arian heresy. I always find it strange, however, to find LDS, like LOAP, espousing belief in "one God" when clearly LDS believe that each person of the LDS Trinity is an individual God. Ostler is instructive at this point. But to claim "monotheism" as an LDS belief, as that term has traditionally been understood, is quite misleading. If there are three separate, utterly distinguishable Gods in play here, then the belief system is, at least, tritheistic, if not "polytheistic" or "henotheistic," simpliciter.

What antiMormons forget is that we don't use the ECF as the basis for our doctrines as apostasy and heresy crept in through them.

I don't either.

We agree on that point, I suppose.

Best to you.

CKS

[LifeOnaPlate]

I was. The statement by LOAP that LDS believe in only one God, given your comments here, seems a bit disingenuous. One Godhead, yes. One God, no.

Respectfully, I must disagree. Or, at least, I would make note of my own personal belief in "incarnational" subordinationism, which I believe is scriptural. Carried further, however, one delves into the realm of the Arian heresy. I always find it strange, however, to find LDS, like LOAP, espousing belief in "one God" when clearly LDS believe that each person of the LDS Trinity is an individual God. Ostler is instructive at this point. But to claim "monotheism" as an LDS belief, as that term has traditionally been understood, is quite misleading. If there are three separate, utterly distinguishable Gods in play here, then the belief system is, at least, tritheistic, if not "polytheistic" or "henotheistic," simpliciter.

I don't either.

We agree on that point, I suppose.

Best to you.

CKS

You can call them the Godhead or you can call them God, it makes no difference to me, I realize, as the New Testament clearly shows, and as is opposed by the Hellenized version of God modern mainstream Christians worship, that God, His Son, and the Holy Ghost are one in unity, purpose, love, etc. and not in substance, as in the same being.

[Joseph Antley]

It's really not that paradoxical to say that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all one God, yet at the same time three Gods. As I'm sure everyone here realizes, under one definition of the word, they is a single God, under a another there is three Gods, under another there are tens, hundreds, or maybe thousands of Gods, and under yet another there is an infinite number of Gods.

Semantics, semontics...

[BCSpace]

If you are referring to the the Father (or the separate God, the Son), yes.

I was. The statement by LOAP that LDS believe in only one God, given your comments here, seems a bit disingenuous. One Godhead, yes. One God, no.

When you ask me if I (or the LDS Church) believes in one God and I say yes, I am speaking of 1 Cor 8:6.

If you were to ask the same question and I say no, I am referring to 1 Cor 8:5 which proclaims (as many other Bible verses and ECF do) that many real and divine gods exist.

We believe in (pray to) only one God. We also accept the existence of many other real and divine Gods.

Or, at least, I would make note of my own personal belief in "incarnational" subordinationism, which I believe is scriptural.

I would say there is not a single Bible verse to back any aspect specific to a triune (trinity or modal) God except that there are three Persons (called Father Son and Holy Ghost) which LDS also believe. To even make the attempt will invariably bring other verses into conflict.

I always find it strange, however, to find LDS, like LOAP, espousing belief in "one God" when clearly LDS believe that each person of the LDS Trinity is an individual God.

"One God" to an LDS person typically refers either to the 1 Cor 8:6 fact or to the fact that the Three Gods have a unity of mind and will (John 17:11, 20-22). It never refers to the Biblical heresey that there is only one God in existence and the additional heresey that it comprises the Three in the same Being.

But to claim "monotheism" as an LDS belief, as that term has traditionally been understood, is quite misleading.

When you understand subordinationism (especially as many ECF understood it), there is no misleading at all. We pray to the Father in the name of Christ.

If there are three separate, utterly distinguishable Gods in play here, then the belief system is, at least, tritheistic, if not "polytheistic" or "henotheistic," simpliciter.

Considering some of the simplistic and imcomplete dictionary definitions, one might almost forgive such an error. However, those terms academically imply elements of worship not extant in LDS theology. They do not simply declare how many Gods exist in one's belief system. They decalre the type of belief and the type of worship. LDS pray to the Father in the name of the Son. We trace our authority from the Son who got it from the Father (who to us is God as per 1 Cor 8:6, and the Lord follows His directives). That is monotheistic.

What antiMormons forget is that we don't use the ECF as the basis for our doctrines as apostasy and heresy crept in through them.

I don't either.

Actually, anyone who believes in the trinity or modalism (or a triune God of any sort), creation ex nihilo, traducianism (original sin), sola fide, sola scriptura, or predestination does (if one also includes later Fathers for some of those).

We agree on that point, I suppose.

I understand what you are getting at, but traditional Christianity is not Biblical Christianity. It has been based almost exclusively on the apostate Fathers and their creeds.

[cksalmon]

You can call them the Godhead or you can call them God, it makes no difference to me, I realize, as the New Testament clearly shows, and as is opposed by the Hellenized version of God modern mainstream Christians worship, that God, His Son, and the Holy Ghost are one in unity, purpose, love, etc. and not in substance, as in the same being.

You can call them the Godhead or you can call them God, it makes no difference to me,

For purposes of clarity, it does make quite the difference to me. Either you believe in three Gods who are united in one Godhead, or you believe in three Gods. Either way, it would seem, you believe in three separate Gods. Calling the Godhead "one God" just isn't linguistically responsible. At most, like Ostler, you can label these three beings with the composite label, "Godhead."

I think you would do well, if you haven't already, to incorporate Ostler's schema. It's consistent, honest, and, as much as it offends my personal sensibilities, logically coherent--from a certain point of view.

If you believe that each member of the LDS Godhead is a god unto himself, individually, then I don't know how you would argue that three Gods are actually, really, only one "God."

The Trinitarian conception has logical lacunae, but this isn't one of them. Not specifically. Trinitarians hold that there is no such individual being as "Christ, a God." Rather, we hold that the persons of the Trinity are both fully God individually and collectively. In that sense, there is only one God. There are not three separate beings in the way that LDS have traditionally conceived them. There is only one being: God himself. In this, we neither confound the persons, nor separate them. One God; three persons. Not three Gods.

If I am not mistaken, LDS view the Trinity as three, individual Gods who are united in purpose. This is not the same as traditional Christianity's view of the Trinity.

So, saying that the LDS Trinity comprises One God is, to my mind, to deny that each member of the LDS Trinity is a separate, individual God. Again, that's tritheism, even if you connect them meaningfully in a unitary Godhead.

But, the two terms are not interchangeable. Not to Ostler, apparently, anyway.

So, yes, it does matter a great deal to me.

Three separate Gods and one Godhead united in purpose? Or, one God and one Godhead in three persons united in substance?

Those are the available options, it would seem.

Best.

CKS

[LifeOnaPlate]

For purposes of clarity, it does make quite the difference to me. Either you believe in three Gods who are united in one Godhead, or you believe in three Gods. Either way, it would seem, you believe in three separate Gods. Calling the Godhead "one God" just isn't linguistically responsible. At most, like Ostler, you can label these three beings with the composite label, "Godhead."

I think you would do well, if you haven't already, to incorporate Ostler's schema. It's consistent, honest, and, as much as it offends my personal sensibilities, logically coherent--from a certain point of view.

If you believe that each member of the LDS Godhead is a god unto himself, individually, then I don't know how you would argue that three Gods are actually, really, only one "God."

The Trinitarian conception has logical lacunae, but this isn't one of them. Not specifically. Trinitarians hold that there is no such individual being as "Christ, a God." Rather, we hold that the persons of the Trinity are both fully God individually and collectively. In that sense, there is only one God. There are not three separate beings in the way that LDS have traditionally conceived them. There is only one being: God himself. In this, we neither confound the persons, nor separate them. One God; three persons. Not three Gods.

If I am not mistaken, LDS view the Trinity as three, individual Gods who are united in purpose. This is not the same as traditional Christianity's view of the Trinity.

So, saying that the LDS Trinity comprises One God is, to my mind, to deny that each member of the LDS Trinity is a separate, individual God. Again, that's tritheism, even if you connect them meaningfully in a unitary Godhead.

But, the two terms are not interchangeable. Not to Ostler, apparently, anyway.

So, yes, it does matter a great deal to me.

Three separate Gods and one Godhead united in purpose? Or, one God and one Godhead in three persons united in substance?

Those are the available options, it would seem.

Best.

CKS

First, I've never read anything by Ostler. Second, be careful about the application of the term "traditional Christianity." However, if by "traditional" you refer to the extra-biblical creeds inventing the Trinity, I agree with you.

[cksalmon]

First, I've never read anything by Ostler. Second, be careful about the application of the term "traditional Christianity." However, if by "traditional" you refer to the extra-biblical creeds inventing the Trinity, I agree with you.

You should. I have no problem with the application of the term "traditional Chrisitanity," personally. My own beliefs are adequately described under that label.

The question is this, "Do you believe in three separate, individual Gods who are each Gods unto themselves? Or, do you believe that they only function as God when acting in concerted effort with one another? Or, something else?

Which is it?

Best.

CKS

[3DOP]

It's really not that paradoxical to say that the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all one God, yet at the same time three Gods. As I'm sure everyone here realizes, under one definition of the word, they is a single God, under a another there is three Gods, under another there are tens, hundreds, or maybe thousands of Gods, and under yet another there is an infinite number of Gods.

Semantics, semontics...

Hi Joseph. I tend to agree. As a Catholic, I recant any of my beliefs that are contrary to the Nicene Creed and the Tradition of the Catholic Church. I believe what the Church believes. That said first, I have been saying I believe that God is Three and God is One. That is a line from a hymn by John Henry Cardinal Newman. I have said many times that I am monotheistic, but if there is a sense in which someone else (Jew or Moslem) want to suggest that they are more rigorously monotheistic, I would reply that they are welcome to the title of "Most Rigorous Monotheist". There certainly seems to be a sense in which I believe that God is Three, and when one considers what appears to happen to His adopted children...

3DOP

[cksalmon]

Hi Joseph. I tend to agree. As a Catholic, I recant any of my beliefs that are contrary to the Nicene Creed and the Tradition of the Catholic Church. I believe what the Church believes. That said first, I have been saying I believe that God is Three and God is One. That is a line from a hymn by John Henry Cardinal Newman. I have said many times that I am monotheistic, but if there is a sense in which someone else (Jew or Moslem) want to suggest that they are more rigorously monotheistic, I would reply that they are welcome to the title of "Most Rigorous Monotheist". There certainly seems to be a sense in which I believe that God is Three, and when one considers what appears to happen to His adopted children...

3DOP

As a non-Catholic who espouses belief in the creedal, catholic Trinity, I would ask, "Do you believe in three separate, individually-existing Gods?" Or, is there one God?

Best.

CKS

[BCSpace]

Calling the Godhead "one God" just isn't linguistically responsible

Why not? The Three are One God as per John 17. The context as well as the Lexicon shows that this unity extends only to sameness of mind and will ('one') and supporting each other ('in' meaning 'stands next to').

What is not responsible to say they are literally the same God when the scriptures testify that they are separate individual Gods (John 20:17, Hebrews 1:1-3, Rev 1:4-5 etc.).

At most, like Ostler, you can label these three beings with the composite label, "Godhead."

I think you would do well, if you haven't already, to incorporate Ostler's schema. It's consistent, honest, and, as much as it offends my personal sensibilities, logically coherent--from a certain point of view.

Sounds like this Ostler doesn't know what he is talking about. Perhaps Ostler has been overly affected by the Church's (admitted) mistake in the 80's and 90's of over emphasizing our similar beliefs in Jesus Christ (which resulted in fewer converts who said "why should I join when I believe the same as you?") rather than teaching the differences.

Rather, we hold that the persons of the Trinity are both fully God individually and collectively. In that sense, there is only one God.

Analogous to the Godhead but it's not the same. We have you beat in logic as there is nothing Biblically to back up your doctrine.

If I am not mistaken, LDS view the Trinity as three, individual Gods who are united in purpose. This is not the same as traditional Christianity's view of the Trinity.

It is a mistake to call what we believe a 'Trinity' as it disingenuously brings to mind that we believe certain things we actually don't. It is true that we are not the same as traditional Christianity. We are Biblical Christianity.

[BCSpace]

The question is this, "Do you believe in three separate, individual Gods who are each Gods unto themselves? Or, do you believe that they only function as God when acting in concerted effort with one another? Or, something else?

Which is it?

The first is accurate. 'Something else' might also be accurate depending on what it is. I think your problem is you are trying to make us fit our usage of terms to your definitions.

As a non-Catholic who espouses belief in the creedal, catholic Trinity, I would ask, "Do you believe in three separate, individually-existing Gods?" Or, is there one God?

'Believe' is a loaded term. If by 'believe' you mean how many Gods we ultimately worship/derive authority from etc., the answer is one. If by 'believe' you are asking how many Gods exist, the answer is many.

[cksalmon]

Hi BC--

Sounds like this Ostler doesn't know what he is talking about.

Oh, boy. Ostler is only the most responsible, most readable LDS philosopher on God currently writing in English.

It is a mistake to call what we believe a 'Trinity' as it disingenuously brings to mind that we believe certain things we actually don't. It is true that we are not the same as traditional Christianity. We are Biblical Christianity.

Okay, I won't call you Trinitarians. But, what should I call you...tritheists? That's biblical, right?

â??Hear, O Israel, the Lord is One, the Lord is three separate and individual Gods, each a God in his own right, a tritheistic conglomerate (henotheistically-delimited among the billions of Gods in the history of the Universe), Three Gods, united in One purposeâ?

Best.

CKS

[BCSpace]

Sounds like this Ostler doesn't know what he is talking about.

Oh, boy. Ostler is only the most responsible, most readable LDS philosopher on God currently writing in English.

We reject the god of the philosophers....

It is a mistake to call what we believe a 'Trinity' as it disingenuously brings to mind that we believe certain things we actually don't. It is true that we are not the same as traditional Christianity. We are Biblical Christianity.

Okay, I won't call you Trinitarians. But, what should I call you...tritheists? That's biblical, right?

Monotheist is the only accurate term I can think of. I'm quite sure I've been much plainer than Ostler. Btw, does Ostler speak for the Church?

â??Hear, O Israel, the Lord is One, the Lord is three separate and individual Gods, each a God in his own right, a tritheistic conglomerate (henotheistically-delimited among the billions of Gods in the history of the Universe), Three Gods, united in One purposeâ?

Jesus said, Whom do men say that I am?

And his disciples answered and said, Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elias, or other of the old prophets.

And Jesus answered and said, But whom do you say that I am?

Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as His rationality and then, by an act of His will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only on the fact that Scripture speaks of a Father, and a Son, and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member, and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, with only an economic subordination within God, but causing no division which would make the substance no longer simple."

And Jesus answering, said, "What?"

[PacMan]

On Irenaeus: he knew of Polycarp in his youth. Basically, he has as much credibility as a doctrinal authority of the primitive church as I do to the modern day church considering I "knew of" multiple prophets in my youth.

There's no reason to believe that Polycarp knew Irenaeus from Adam...from what I've read.

PacMan

[cksalmon]

We reject the god of the philosophers....

Monotheist is the only accurate term I can think of. I'm quite sure I've been much plainer than Ostler. Btw, does Ostler speak for the Church?

No, Ostler definitely does not speak for the Church. Don't let his PhD fool ya. He speaks for himself as a faithful, practicing LDS. (If he spoke for the Church, I'm sure he would be more circumspect in his assessment and articulation of LDS theological claims.) It just so happens that he is doing the most interesting writing about LDS theology as of today. Sorry about that. I'll try to get him an official calling. Don't hold your breath, though.

Jesus said, Whom do men say that I am?

And his disciples answered and said, Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elias, or other of the old prophets.

And Jesus answered and said, But whom do you say that I am?

Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as His rationality and then, by an act of His will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only on the fact that Scripture speaks of a Father, and a Son, and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member, and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, with only an economic subordination within God, but causing no division which would make the substance no longer simple."

And Jesus answering, said, "What?"

I'm sure Jesus would have said "What?" to this mess. He would, assuredly, have said "What?" to the LDS claim that "The Lord Our God is Three Among Billions."

Best.

CKS

[BCSpace]

He would, assuredly, have said "What?" to the LDS claim that "The Lord Our God is Three Among Billions.

Assuredly not as he himself proclaimed these things expressly in verses such as John 20:17 and the Pslams 82:6/John 10:34-36 set.

[cksalmon]

Assuredly not as he himself proclaimed these things expressly in verses such as John 20:17 and the Pslams 82:6/John 10:34-36 set.

Joh 20:17 Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"

Psa 82:6 I said, "You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you;..."

Joh 10:34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your Law, 'I said, you are gods'?

Joh 10:35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God came--and Scripture cannot be broken--

Joh 10:36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, 'You are blaspheming,' because I said, 'I am the Son of God'?

Wha?!

This has everything to do with billions of Gods? Nothing to do with God's investiture of judgment among his people on the earth?

John 20.17 is a wash.

The others have quite plausible alternative interpretations that do not involve billions of gods.

Is this it, biblically?

"gods to whom the word of God came"--i.e., Godly judges appointed to judge among men with the power and authority of God? This means there are billions of gods?

Same for Christ's quotation of same.

This is pretty scanty biblical evidence, frankly.

Do you think these passages demonstrate beyond doubt that there exist billions of gods?

Might these passages mean something else? If they purport to mean that there are billions of other gods, don't you think this biblical evidence is quite sparse and ambiguous? Who could get that interpretation other than those who already believe that there exist billions of gods?

Best.

CKS

[LifeOnaPlate]

We reject the god of the philosophers....

Monotheist is the only accurate term I can think of. I'm quite sure I've been much plainer than Ostler. Btw, does Ostler speak for the Church?

Jesus said, Whom do men say that I am?

And his disciples answered and said, Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elias, or other of the old prophets.

And Jesus answered and said, But whom do you say that I am?

Peter answered and said, "Thou art the Logos, existing in the Father as His rationality and then, by an act of His will, being generated, in consideration of the various functions by which God is related to his creation, but only on the fact that Scripture speaks of a Father, and a Son, and a Holy Spirit, each member of the Trinity being coequal with every other member, and each acting inseparably with and interpenetrating every other member, with only an economic subordination within God, but causing no division which would make the substance no longer simple."

And Jesus answering, said, "What?"

Did you conjure this? Because it is genius.

CK, while you and many misguided critics of the church insist upon these billions and billions of Gods and all of the staggering potential (while believing in some mysterious essence-god) you overlook the true LDS doctrine. We will only ever, in all of eternity, have one Father of our spirits, one Savior and one Holy Ghost. That's pretty much it. Don't overcomplicate it.