Exaltation And Isaiah 43:10

[Billy]

The problem with this interpretation is that it seems to rob Jesus' citation of Psalm 82 of any usefulness as an apologetic for his own divinity.

John 10

34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Why do you assume that these verses are suppose to prove his own divinity?

[ebeddoulos]

Please read my answer more closely, because I don't think you got it. You said that a rock is not equal of God. I showed you several scriptures from YOUR own LDS website that proves that Rock can be a metaphor for Christ, who is God. I was repling directly to your statement about "A Rock is not the equal of God" statement. I was not referring to Isaiah 44 in my reply in that specific post.

Oh I got it all right:

Somehow, I think that is not what you meant. Typical of anti-Mormons you just started tossing a lot of chaff into your wake in the hope that we [sarcasm] poor Biblically illiterate Mormons [/sarcasm] would lock onto something else so you could extricate yourself from the predicament in which you found yourself.

As I said then and I say now it did not work.

I'll not let you change the subject, which is still Isaiah 44:8. Throw all the chaff you wish.

Once you quite trying to make the scriptures fit your agenda, then they will open up to you. Pounding square scriptural pegs into round agenda holes just does not make Billy a wise boy.

Let me try it again. I know you said that you agreed with me that God is without equal but based on the chaff you are throwing, you obviously have yet to understand that â??beside meâ? is a Hebrew aphorism used to convey peer relationship or equality. If you did understand you would have phrased the chaff question differently. Therefore Isaiah 44:8 is still the subject at hand:

"Do not dread, nor be afraid. Have I not declared and made you hear since then? So you are My witnesses: Is there a God besides Me? Yea, there is none. I have not known a Rock." (Isaiah 44:8 - LITV)

"Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have I not declared unto thee of old, and showed it? and ye are my witnesses. Is there a God besides me? yea, there is no Rock; I know not any." (Isaiah 44:8 - ASV)

"Have no fear, do not be afraid: have I not told you and revealed it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God except me? There is no Rock; I know of none." (Isaiah 44:8 - NJB)

[cksalmon]

John 10

34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

36Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Why do you assume that these verses are suppose to prove his own divinity?

The context immediately preceding the verses you've cited above seems fairly straightfoward.

"[Jesus said] I and the Father are one.â?

31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, â??I have shown you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you going to stone me?â? 33 The Jews answered him, â??It is not for a good work that we are going to stone you but for blasphemy, because you, being a man, make yourself God.â?

Jesus' argument is a direct response to the Jews's accusation that he--a mere human being--was claiming to be divine:

34 Jesus answered them, â??Is it not written in your Law, â??I said, you are godsâ??? 35 If he called them gods to whom the word of God cameâ??and Scripture cannot be brokenâ?? 36 do you say of him whom the Father consecrated and sent into the world, â??You are blaspheming,â?? because I said, â??I am the Son of Godâ???

I'm not aware, at this point, of a better, more natural, way to read the passage.

[MormonMason]

Well, that and the evidence that these chapters in Isaish were rewritten by someone after the exile. What the original actually said is unknown at the present time.

Forgot to point out that chapters 41 and 43 read like a post-exilic lawyer not a pre-exilic poet. Isaiah was a poet and a "statesman" from pre-exilic times but he was not a lawyer from post-exilic times. Some later lawyer rewrote those passages long after Isaiah was dead. My only wish is that we had the originals of these passages. They likely would have made interesting reading if the modifications made to Deuteronomy 32 by later scribes are any indication.

[Billy]

Let me try it again. I know you said that you agreed with me that God is without equal but based on the chaff you are throwing, you obviously have yet to understand that â??beside meâ? is a Hebrew aphorism used to convey peer relationship or equality. If you did understand you would have phrased the chaff question differently. Therefore Isaiah 44:8 is still the subject at hand:

â??Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no. . .Idol made of Rock; I know not any.â? (Isaiah 44:8 )

One more time: Isaiah 44:8 is saying that God has no equal among the gods and certainly not among false gods such as those made of stone.

I already answered your question July 24 at 603 pm in the post below. Again for the second time I agree with you that God does not have an equal among true or false gods, because there is only one true and living God. I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Your translation of Is 44:8, "Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no. . .Idol made of Rock; I know not any.â? You are comparing the true God with a false God with "besides me" connecting the two. You say that the "besides me" is used to convey peer relationships or equality, but in this sentence there is not a peer relationship, rather YOU are comparing the true God with a false God by your own translation.

I agree with your statement that that "GOD HAS NO EQUAL", because there is only one God.

Going to the LDS website, I wanted to see the cross references on the word that we are discussing to help understand the LDS point of view. Unfortunately this seems to lead to more confusion, rather that clearing things up.

http://scriptures.lds.org/en/isa/44/8b

Isaiah 44:8

"8 aFear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no bGod; I know not any."

LDS Cross-reference

8b Isa. 45: 5 (5-22).

"5

[Billy]

The context immediately preceding the verses you've cited above seems fairly straightfoward.

Jesus' argument is a direct response to the Jews's accusation that he--a mere human being--was claiming to be divine:

I'm not aware, at this point, of a better, more natural, way to read the passage.

30I and the Father are one."

31Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him,

32but Jesus said to them, "I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?33"We are not stoning you for any of these," replied the Jews, "but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God."

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

35If he called them 'gods,' to whom the word of God cameâ??and the Scripture cannot be broken

36what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, 'I am God's Son'?

I see your point, you are using verses 30-33 as Jesus' claim to divinity, and then using verses 34-36 as proof for those claims. The only problem is that I don't think that 34-36 proves Jesus' case as divine. Just because someone else is called a god (judges) does not make the another person a god (Jesus). Jesus' divintiy was shown to these people in many ways, especially the signs and miracles that followed him. It they did not believe after seeing and hearing about the many miracles, they certainly would not believe if he merely stated that the judges in Psalms were or would become gods.

Rather I stick with the interpretation (verses 34-36) that Jesus was really pointing out their double standard. It was OK by them to call mere men who were unrighteous judges gods, but blasphemy to call Jesus the Son of God, especially because he was the real Son of God.

[cksalmon]

I see your point, you are using verses 30-33 as Jesus' claim to divinity, and then using verses 34-36 as proof for those claims. The only problem is that I don't think that 34-36 proves Jesus' case as divine. Just because someone else is called a god (judges) does not make the another person a god (Jesus).

Well, "prove" is almost certainly not the best term. I would call it analogical argumentation.

Jesus' divintiy was shown to these people in many ways, especially the signs and miracles that followed him. It they did not believe after seeing and hearing about the many miracles, they certainly would not believe if he merely stated that the judges in Psalms were or would become gods.

Rather I stick with the interpretation (verses 34-36) that Jesus was really pointing out their double standard. It was OK by them to call mere men who were unrighteous judges gods, but blasphemy to call Jesus the Son of God, especially because he was the real Son of God.

But, as I see it, there is no operational double standard per the standard interpretation. Why would it be hypocritical for the Jews to agree that the human judges had been labeled "gods," but only in a metaphorical, non-actual manner, but object to Jesus' claim to real divinity? There doesn't seem to be anything hypocritical at all here, as I read it. They were stating, "You can't equate yourself God. Period." Per the traditional reading, metaphors are okay; blasphemy is verboten. Per the traditional reading, it seems that the force of Jesus' argument is loosened considerably, such that he is only claiming metaphorical divinity.

I see your point. I'm just trying to understand the force of the text in its context. I don't know how to parse all this.

Monotheistically yours...

CKS

[consiglieri]

I see your point. I'm just trying to understand the force of the text in its context. I don't know how to parse all this.

Maybe some of what hacked off the Pharisees so much about Jesus quoting this was the fact that Jesus used the original but later marginalized interpretation that it referred to the divine council of the sons of God.

In other words, they ask Jesus how he can equate himself with God and not blaspheme, and Jesus quotes the psalm to them that speaks of a plurality of Gods (or at least sons of God), which to the Pharisees would constitute another blasphemy.

Just a thought.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[cksalmon]

Maybe some of what hacked off the Pharisees so much about Jesus quoting this was the fact that Jesus used the original but later marginalized interpretation that it referred to the divine council of the sons of God

Certainly, this is the pressing issue, Consig.

I'm currently poring over Heiser's dissertation (just now to chapter three). If "later marginalized," then, it appears, much later marginalized, and therein lies the relevant issue.

[Billy]

Why would it be hypocritical for the Jews to agree that the human judges had been labeled "gods," but only in a metaphorical, non-actual manner, but object to Jesus' claim to real divinity? There doesn't seem to be anything hypocritical at all here, as I read it. They were stating, "You can't equate yourself God. Period." Per the traditional reading, metaphors are okay; blasphemy is verboten. Per the traditional reading, it seems that the force of Jesus' argument is loosened considerably, such that he is only claiming metaphorical divinity.

CKS

I don't have a great answer for you to be honest, but I give you my thoughts on this.

I think that your point was that the judges are called gods but did not necessarily claim to be god, whereas Jesus did claim to be God. However by the mere use of the term god, places the judges above merely being human. I certainly would not use the term for god for myself even if it was strictly a metaphor. So just the fact that they were called god and if they accepted that title, indirectly they were placing themselves above humanity in one form or another.

From the Jewish leader's point of view, the judges were men and called gods, and Jesus was a mere man (or worse) and he was called the Son of God, both were men and both were called god. If one group of men (judges) can call themselves god then why can't another man (Jesus) who they considered a mere man, call himself god. If you call yourself a god but don't believe it, that is not blasphemy. On the other hand, if you call yourself god and believe it, then that is blasphemy. I would consider both cases blasphemy.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

The problem with this interpretation is that it seems to rob Jesus' citation of Psalm 82 of any usefulness as an apologetic for his own divinity. In effect, it makes Jesus' analogy into something like this: "Why are you criticizing me for claiming real divinity? After all, Psalm 82 speaks metaphorically about 'divine' humans."

If Jesus understood Psalm 82 in a completely metaphorical sense, what are the implications, in context, for Jesus' use of this passage in light of his claim to divinity (as the "Son of God")? Was Jesus portraying himself as merely a "human judge" who can metaphorically (though not in reality) refer to himself as "divine" (

[ebeddoulos]

I already answered your question July 24 at 603 pm in the post below. Again for the second time I agree with you that God does not have an equal among true or false gods, because there is only one true and living God. I am not sure what point you are trying to make. Your translation of Is 44:8, "Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no. . .Idol made of Rock; I know not any.â? You are comparing the true God with a false God with "besides me" connecting the two. You say that the "besides me" is used to convey peer relationships or equality, but in this sentence there is not a peer relationship, rather YOU are comparing the true God with a false God by your own translation.

Now that I answered your question again for the second time, would you be kind enough to answer my 3 questions above, two of the three I asked you previously (i.e. I added one)?

I am unsure what you are trying to prove unless you wish to put on display just how little you know of the scripture or just how little you think I know. I am beginning to suspect it is the former. Which is why I do not think you are ever going to get it. But let me try it one more time. I know you say that you agree with me that God is without equal but based on the chaff you continue to toss about, you obvious fail to understand that â??beside meâ? is a Hebrew aphorism used to convey peer relationship or equality. You cannot compare peer relationships without having something with which to compare. If you did understand that very basic concept you would not continue with your chaff questions. But you don't understand, do you.

The subject is still Isaiah 44:8 but perhaps if we use your other proof text, Isaiah 45:5 you will finally get it. The protagonist in both Isaiah 44:8 and Isaiah 45:5 is Jehovah (or as you have acknowledged, Jesus Chris). For verification that it is Jehovah see the Hebrew underlying the English text in Isaiah 44:6 and Isaiah 45:5.

It is a rock, i.e., a carved idol that is being used for comparison is Isaiah 44:8. In Isaiah 45:5, the comparison is being made against a lesser deity aka elohim. As you should know but are apparently blissfully unaware, like the English word â??godâ?, the Hebrew elohim can refer to The Supreme Deity Himself or to a lesser deity or to a false deity. In Hebrew, Elohim, though plural in form can also be used in the singular. If you were aware you would not have asked your chaff questions.

Just as Isaiah 44:8 illustrates that God is without peer especially when compared to a stone idol, So in Isaiah 45:5 the Bible demonstrates that God is without peer among the lesser deities. This is why two very similar verses use two very different words for comparison. It broadens the scope. It takes away the wiggle room. No matter what or who is being compared against God, it is God who is withour peer. Now do you finally get it?

I think the above answers even your chaff question. I suspect however that you shall continue along this line of reasoning. Anti-Mormons always do. Anti-Mormons are predictable if nothing else. May I suggest a change from the usual anti-Mormon playbook? Surprise me.

[Zakuska]

I don't have a great answer for you to be honest, but I give you my thoughts on this.

I think that your point was that the judges are called gods but did not necessarily claim to be god, whereas Jesus did claim to be God. However by the mere use of the term god, places the judges above merely being human. I certainly would not use the term for god for myself even if it was strictly a metaphor. So just the fact that they were called god and if they accepted that title, indirectly they were placing themselves above humanity in one form or another.

But they weren't the ones placing themselves above humanity at all. As Jesus' interpretation of the verse says... it was God's word who called them gods and the scripture can't be broken.

What God calls Holy, let not thou call blasphemy.

[Billy]

I am unsure what you are trying to prove unless you wish to put on display just how little you know of the scripture. . .Which is why I do not think you are ever going to get it.

Now you know how I feel, but drill instructors are known more for there brawn. I know what your are TRYING to prove, but I don't buy it. You are twisting thiings, and the more you twist it the more confusing it becomes.

â??beside meâ? is a Hebrew aphorism used to convey peer relationship or equality.

I bet you don't even believe what you are trying to persuade me believe.

According to your belief (LDS belief), are you saying the the pre-mortal Jesus is God the Father's EQUAL or peer?

As you should know but are apparently blissfully unaware, like the English word â??godâ?, the Hebrew elohim can refer to The Supreme Deity Himself or to a lesser deity or to a false deity.

Like the unrighteous judges in Psalm 82:6 that we have been talking about for several days in another this thread, which you probably did not see because you were blissfully unaware.

Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.

Psa 82:7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes

]Just as Isaiah 44:8 illustrates that God is without peer especially when compared to a stone idol,

Hey wait a minute, I thought we were talking about peer relationships here.

This is why two very similar verses use two very different words for comparison. It broadens the scope. It takes away the wiggle room. No matter what or who is being compared against God, it is God who is withour peer. Now do you finally get it?

Isaiah 44:8 aFear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no bGod; I know not any.

8b LDS Bible cross reference #2

Isa. 46: 9 Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me,

So you would explain Isa 46:9 the same way that God (pre-mortal Jesus) is saying that there is NONE like me, refers only to false gods?

[MormonMason]

The whole argumentation on the subject is a waste of time and effort, in my view. Isaiah has been rewritten/interpolated by a post-exilic scribe and the original no longer exists or is extant in even the Dead Sea Scrolls at this time. The kinds of changes imaginable and highly likely for the text of Isaiah are along the same lines as those that the evidence shows were made to Deuteronomy 32 to make it read more monotheistically.

[Billy]

But they weren't the ones placing themselves above humanity at all. As Jesus' interpretation of the verse says... it was God's word who called them gods and the scripture can't be broken.

You make a good point, even a quote that I had in another post brings this up, see below

The quote below probably explains it better

http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/4310.htm

"a. Is it not written in your law, "I said, â??You are godsâ??": The judges of Psalm 82 were called "gods" because in their office they determined the fate of other men. Also, in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8-9, God calls earthly judges "gods."

[cksalmon]

I am unsure what you are trying to prove unless you wish to put on display just how little you know of the scripture or just how little you think I know. I am beginning to suspect it is the former. Which is why I do not think you are ever going to get it.

...

I suspect however that you shall continue along this line of reasoning. Anti-Mormons always do. Anti-Mormons are predictable if nothing else. May I suggest a change from the usual anti-Mormon playbook? Surprise me.

The paragraphs I've elided were perhaps useful to discussion. What I've quoted is not.

I suspect however that you shall continue along the line of personal attack. Mormons always do. Mormons are predictable if nothing else. May I suggest a change from the usual Mormon playbook? Surprise me.

That's fair, right?

[cksalmon]

The whole argumentation on the subject is a waste of time and effort, in my view. Isaiah has been rewritten/interpolated by a post-exilic scribe and the original no longer exists or is extant in even the Dead Sea Scrolls at this time. The kinds of changes imaginable and highly likely for the text of Isaiah are along the same lines as those that the evidence shows were made to Deuteronomy 32 to make it read more monotheistically.

Obviously, you're not required to participate. We have an extant text. We can't discuss documents we don't possess. If you're primarily concerned with imagined changes to a more original document rather than the extant text we possess, then I can see why you wouldn't see the discussion as fruitful. Others of us are interested, however.

[MormonMason]

Perhaps. But how would either side make their point stick in light of the evidence of the interpolation of the text itself, such as differing style and vocabulary? It would be impossible in light of the fact that the original is no longer extant and all we have is an altered text that cannot be applied by either side to the theological issues at hand?

[cksalmon]

Perhaps. But how would either side make their point stick in light of the evidence of the interpolation of the text itself, such as differing style and vocabulary? It would be impossible in light of the fact that the original is no longer extant and all we have is an altered text that cannot be applied by either side to the theological issues at hand?

What we shouldn't do (or at least what I won't do and what I suspect Billy will not do) is throw up our hands in frustration and abandon the attempt to understand the biblical texts in context and in relation to each other. That's a defeatist hermeneutic that I just don't embrace.

[Zakuska]

You make a good point, even a quote that I had in another post brings this up, see below

"a. Is it not written in your law, "I said, â??You are godsâ??": The judges of Psalm 82 were called "gods" because in their office they determined the fate of other men. Also, in Exodus 21:6 and 22:8-9, God calls earthly judges "gods."

The problem I have with this explanation...

1) It assumes these 'gods' where 'Human Judges'

2) No where are these 'Judges' put in a place of "determining the fates of other men".

3) These Judges are punished for 'judging unjustly' and stripped of Imortality. Something men do not have because it was lost in the Garden. If these where 'Human Judges' there is no need to compare their deaths to men's death. Men die period.

[MormonMason]

What we shouldn't do (or at least what I won't do and what I suspect Billy will not do) is throw up our hands in frustration and abandon the attempt to understand the biblical texts in context and in relation to each other. That's a defeatist hermeneutic that I just don't embrace.

Oh, I understand where you are coming from and I am not advocating that you abandon attempts at trying to understand what it is that we have left of the text of Isaiah. I just want to make clear that no one can make their points stick on the matter of the text due to its current condition as opposed to its original condition. So long as you understand that the current Isaiah text cannot be used to bash "Mormon theology" over the head because the current text is an alteration by much later scribes, you can have at any and all theological janglings that you wish. I just want to make it clear that it cannot be used as a weapon against LDS views and doctrines.

It is a hard thing to deal with a Bible which has been rewritten. I understand that and I understand evangelicals' concern over such matters due to their theological underpinnings. But, the truth is, these Isaiah passages are useless against LDS for reasons discussed above--mostly that Isaiah did not write the passages being so used as they now are extant.

[Billy]

The problem I have with this explanation...

1) It assumes these 'gods' where 'Human Judges'

2) No where are these 'Judges' put in a place of "determining the fates of other men".

3) These Judges are punished for 'judging unjustly' and stripped of Imortality. Something men do not have because it was lost in the Garden. If these where 'Human Judges' there is no need to compare their deaths to men's death. Men die period.

Psalms 82

6 I said, â??You are gods, And all of you are children of the Most High.

7 But you shall die like men, And fall like one of the princes.â?

I am not sure what YOUR understanding of these verses are, could you explain them to me from your point of view?

What do you mean by "stripped of Immortality"?

Edit

James Talmage "Jesus the Christ" Chapter 28

"Plainly they had found no ambiguity in His words. He then cited to them the scriptures, wherein even judges empowered by divine authority are called gods, and asked: "Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Do you disagree with James Talmage's explanation?

[cksalmon]

Oh, I understand where you are coming from and I am not advocating that you abandon attempts at trying to understand what it is that we have left of the text of Isaiah. I just want to make clear that no one can make their points stick on the matter of the text due to its current condition as opposed to its original condition. So long as you understand that the current Isaiah text cannot be used to bash "Mormon theology" over the head because the current text is an alteration by much later scribes, you can have at any and all theological janglings that you wish. I just want to make it clear that it cannot be used as a weapon against LDS views and doctrines.

It is a hard thing to deal with a Bible which has been rewritten. I understand that and I understand evangelicals' concern over such matters due to their theological underpinnings. But, the truth is, these Isaiah passages are useless against LDS for reasons discussed above--mostly that Isaiah did not write the passages being so used as they now are extant.

Leaving aside the pejorative implications of "bashing Mormon theology," no, I do cannot bring myself to understand any such thing.

I certainly feel no compulsion to give you free reign to circumscribe the arena of scriptural debate based on your belief in "imagined and likely" interpolations--and I trust you feel the same in reverse.

"Jangling?" That's the sound I tend to hear when folks state that a biblical text is out of bounds for legitimate discussion.

In sum, I'd say that I feel forced to categorically reject your dictum that this passage (or any biblical passage) is useless in objective discussion.

You've made your own position clear and I believe I understand it.

[cksalmon]

Its as if, you are actually agreeing some what with teh LDS interpretation here. Is that correct?

You do make some good points that I havent yet thought about. Thanks.

I think it would be somewhat incorrect to say that I'm agreeing with the LDS interpretation. I do hope to agree with what I take to be a fully-orbed engagement with the text itself.

The text is best understood, I'd suggest, in light of its own presuppositions and concerns.

In an objective reading of the text-qua-text, it can at least be hoped that the truth of the passage can be (however imperfectly) ascertained.