The Divine Council

[kryoung1983]

David Bokovoy

I was correct though in suggesting that Satan is a son of God. I am also correct in suggesting that Satan is an angel created with a command by the Lord.

Satan and Jesus were not born of a heavenly parents. The Logo's was not an angel created by God before the incarnation.

Jesus was not a member of the divine heavenly council.

That is a lot of assertion with very little to back it up. As I all ready said Eusebius refers to the 'lord' as an angel. Paul as well and he is a much better source anyway...But then again we shouldn't get into this and that verse since we all know how one can take a verse out of context to make it mean what you want it to mean.

[LDSMusic483]

This is like banging your head against a wall.

Did you read the earlier stuff on...I listen to what Jesus said...sure glad I didn't bother creating another thread on whether or not one can see God for him to join in on.

[kryoung1983]

Did you read the earlier stuff on...I listen to what Jesus said...sure glad I didn't bother creating another thread on whether or not one can see God for him to join in on.

Yeah I have read everything on this thread...I am surprised this thread has lasted so long.

[LDSMusic483]

Yeah I have read everything on this thread...I am surprised this thread has lasted so long.

Well we have Johnny to thank for that!

[kryoung1983]

Well we have Johnny to thank for that!

[/qu. Lol.

well thats true. Lol.

[Ron Beron]

'johnny' writes,

The Logos was NOT an angel who was part of the heavenly divine council. The Logos did not have the nature of an angel. Before the incarnation the Logos did not do the Lord's commandments like angels. The Logos is the word of the Lord. The Logos proceeded forth and came from God. The Logos became flesh and took upon him the form of a servant and was made in the likeness of men.

WHERE did I say it was an angel? These are your words not mine.

Logos was NOT a created angel. Through the Logos the Lord created all the angels in heaven. The Logos is the power of God and the wisdom of God. The Lord commanded and the all the angels were created. The Lord made the earth by his power and he established the world by his wisdom..

Again, where did I say this? I simply quoted words from what is ostensibly your (i.e., the Catholic Church) encyclopedia in that the Logos was subordinate to the Father. Therefore, created.

The Logos is NOT created by the Father. The Logos was before all things. The Logos was with God, and the Logos was God. God is everlasting to everlasting.

Again and again and again, read carefully the biblical references as well as material from your own church. Your opinion is not consistent with the record:

As to the Divine Nature of the Word, all apologists are agreed but to some of them, at least to St. Justin and Tertuilian, there seemed to be in this Divinity a certain

subordination

(Justin, "I Apol.", 13-cf. "II Apol.", 13; Tertullian, "Adv. Prax.", 9, 14, 26).

[Ron Beron]

Yeah I have read everything on this thread...I am surprised this thread has lasted so long.

Johnny reminds me of a poster we had on the old AOL message boards named "Ronny". In fact, he could be one and same. No matter what we said even if we agreed he would argue. Go figure. Some people are just arrogantly ignorant.

[johnny]

Ron Beron

WHERE did I say it was an angel? These are your words not mine.

Please describe Logo's in your own words. If you can please provide some scriptures.

Again, where did I say this? I simply quoted words from what is ostensibly your (i.e., the Catholic Church) encyclopedia in that the Logos was subordinate to the Father. Therefore, created.

Could you explain how you jump from "subordinate" to "created" ... what do you mean by "subordinate", what do you mean by "created" ... thanks.

Again and again and again, read carefully the biblical references as well as material from your own church. Your opinion is not consistent with the record:

Read the article again ... the article emphasizes that these were "apologist" and that their theology is sometimes less than satisfactory. The article describes the "subordination" as a speculation. The article says that the church maintained her teaching of Logos as the word of God.

[kryoung1983]

Ron Beron

Please describe Logo's in your own words. If you can please provide some scriptures.

Could you explain how you jump from "subordinate" to "created" ... what do you mean by "subordinate", what do you mean by "created" ... thanks.

Read the article again ... the article emphasizes that these were "apologist" and that their theology is sometimes less than satisfactory. The article describes the "subordination" as a speculation. The article says that the church maintained her teaching of Logos as the word of God.

Johny we have answered these things so often that I am worried you may have short term memory loss. Go See a physician Immediately.

[Ron Beron]

'johnny' writes,

Please describe Logo's in your own words. If you can please provide some scriptures.

I have already supplied more than I am willing to repost. Go back and read posts 36 and 71.

Could you explain how you jump from "subordinate" to "created" ... what do you mean by "subordinate", what do you mean by "created" ... thanks.

When I was in the army as a ROTC cadet I asked a girl out and she said she was sorry, but she didn't date anything lower than a second lieutenant. I apologized and said that I didn't know there was anything lower than a second lieutenant ( a little joke ). Seriously though, as a ROTC cadet I was subordinate to everything and everybody.

1.placed in or belonging to a lower order or rank.

2.of less importance; secondary.

3.subject to or under the authority of a superior.

4.subservient or inferior.

In other words, inferior as a child to a parent.

Read the article again ... the article emphasizes that these were "apologist" and that their theology is sometimes less than satisfactory. The article describes the "subordination" as a speculation. The article says that the church maintained her teaching of Logos as the word of God.

I have read several times and despite the apologist status offered they are still closer to the original documents than we are. Why else would you be quoting Ireanaeus since he was an apologist as well?

[LDSMusic483]

'johnny' writes,

I have already supplied more than I am willing to repost. Go back and read posts 36 and 71.

When I was in the army as a ROTC cadet I asked a girl out and she said she was sorry, but she didn't date anything lower than a second lieutenant. I apologized and said that I didn't know there was anything lower than a second lieutenant ( a little joke ). Seriously though, as a ROTC cadet I was subordinate to everything and everybody.

1.placed in or belonging to a lower order or rank.

2.of less importance; secondary.

3.subject to or under the authority of a superior.

4.subservient or inferior.

In other words, inferior as a child to a parent.

I have read several times and despite the apologist status offered they are still closer to the original documents than we are. Why else would you be quoting Ireanaeus since he was an apologist as well?

Here...let me answer this one for Johnny....*ahem* Ireanaeus was not an apologist! He was a bishop sustained by the Holy Ghost whose word has more authority than an apologist...or something like that.

[johnny]

Ron Beron

I have already supplied more than I am willing to repost. Go back and read posts 36 and 71.

In post 36 you give multiply descriptions, do you believe Philo's description below?

- "the Logos as the creative Word of God"

1.placed in or belonging to a lower order or rank.

2.of less importance; secondary.

3.subject to or under the authority of a superior.

4.subservient or inferior.

In other words, inferior as a child to a parent.

Using the description above from posts #36, could you explain how "the creative Word of God" can be "subject to or under the authority of a superior" like a army General and a second lieutenant?

Could you explain how "the creative Word of God" can sit in a divine council?

Could you explain how the Father can give direction to "the creative Word of God"?

I have read several times and despite the apologist status offered they are still closer to the original documents than we are. Why else would you be quoting Ireanaeus since he was an apologist as well?

The difference is that Ireanaeus was a second century ordained bishop. Ireanaeus wrote the following:

- It was not angels, therefore, who made us nor who formed us

- by his Word he made all things. For he alone is God, he alone is Lord, he alone is Creator, he alone is Father, he alone contains all and commands all to exist

- God; he alone is omnipotent, who made all things; he alone is Father, who founded and formed all things ... by the Word of his power

- He Himself called into being the substance of His creation, when previously it had no existence

[Sargon]

If the prophets can so solidly declare that God worked alone in the creation of mankind, yet under the surface of those words we must leave room for him to have worked through his "word," or Jesus Christ, can we not likewise leave room for the "word" to have worked in conjunction with even lesser powers?

On a different note, I'm not sure that johnny has properly interpreted our doctrine. Our scriptures do not claim that anyone besides God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ were involved in the creation of the world and of man. "Gods" need not be more than two.

[kryoung1983]

If the prophets can so solidly declare that God worked alone in the creation of mankind, yet under the surface of those words we must leave room for him to have worked through his "word," or Jesus Christ, can we not likewise leave room for the "word" to have worked in conjunction with even lesser powers?

On a different note, I'm not sure that johnny has properly interpreted our doctrine. Our scriptures do not claim that anyone besides God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ were involved in the creation of the world and of man. "Gods" need not be more than two.

What about Michael? Then again he worked under the direction of Jesus Christ, who worked under the direction of the father. I still see it as the creative work of God since it was just delegated authority. I would guess if others worked, it was in the name of Christ, since everything points to him, because he is our great mediator.

[johnny]

Sargon,

If the prophets can so solidly declare that God worked alone in the creation of mankind, yet under the surface of those words we must leave room for him to have worked through his "word," or Jesus Christ, can we not likewise leave room for the "word" to have worked in conjunction with even lesser powers?

Could you describe his â??wordâ??

Is his â??wordâ? a created angel like Satan?

Can his â??wordâ? sit in a divine council?

Can his â??wordâ? receive direction from the Father?

On a different note, I'm not sure that johnny has properly interpreted our doctrine. Our scriptures do not claim that anyone besides God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ were involved in the creation of the world and of man. "Gods" need not be more than two.

Below are the Mormon teachings and scriptures I am familiar with, if I have interpreted them incorrectly then please correct me .. thanks.

In the teachings below is sounds like â??Godsâ? is more than two and that otherâ??s were involved in creation beside the Father and the Son.

• Mormon Gospel Principles Chapter 5 "In planning to create the physical earth, Christ said to those who were with him, '. . . we will make an earth ...'. Under the direction of the Father, Christ formed and organized the earth. He divided light from darkness to make day and night."
  
• -
  
• Mormon Gospel Principles Chapter 2 "All men and women are . . . literally the sons and daughters of Deity. ... The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ ... our Heavenly Father called a Grand Council to present his plan for our progression ... "
  
• -
  
• Mormon Scripture, The Book of Abraham 4 "The Gods plan the creation of the earth and all life thereon [1] And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth. [3] And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light. [26] And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness; and we will give them dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. [27] So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them."
  
• -
  
• Joseph Smitth's King Follett Sermon "The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The grand councilors sat at the head in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the worlds which were created at the time."
  

[LDSMusic483]

Below are the Mormon teachings and scriptures I am familiar with, if I have interpreted them incorrectly then please correct me .. thanks.

[*]Mormon Gospel Principles Chapter 2 "All men and women are . . . literally the sons and daughters of Deity. ... The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ ... our Heavenly Father called a Grand Council to present his plan for our progression ... "

[*]-

I'd say you did pretty acurately with the exception of the above noted...that's not talking about the creation, that's talking about the plan of our progression. That was teaching us about what we had to look forward to and the such, but the others are accurate.

[kryoung1983]

Sargon,

Could you describe his â??wordâ??

"Is his â??wordâ? a created angel like Satan?

Can his â??wordâ? sit in a divine council?

Can his â??wordâ? receive direction from the Father?

Below are the Mormon teachings and scriptures I am familiar with, if I have interpreted them incorrectly then please correct me .. thanks."

Obviously. His word was thought to be distinct from the father, and it is only through the MEDIATOR that we can approach God. What do you think a mediator is? Even in Judaism they have the tradition of the angel of the lords presence or metatron. There are two forms of the metatron tradition. There is the enoch version where Enoch is taken up, robed, and exalted as 'the second yahweh' and becomes his vice regent. The other is the premordial metatron, or creative agent by which the world was made. When ever God spoke to the Prophets who did it through his mediating agent, Christ, who held the divine name in himself, the title yahweh was a divine title bestowed upon him, and he spoke in the place of the father, and was God through officiation. Or at least that is how I understand it.

In the teachings below is sounds like â??Godsâ? is more than two and that otherâ??s were involved in creation beside the Father and the Son.

• Mormon Gospel Principles Chapter 5 "In planning to create the physical earth, Christ said to those who were with him, '. . . we will make an earth ...'. Under the direction of the Father, Christ formed and organized the earth. He divided light from darkness to make day and night."
  
• -
  
• Mormon Gospel Principles Chapter 2 "All men and women are . . . literally the sons and daughters of Deity. ... The first spirit born to our heavenly parents was Jesus Christ ... our Heavenly Father called a Grand Council to present his plan for our progression ... "
  
• -
  
• Mormon Scripture, The Book of Abraham 4 "The Gods plan the creation of the earth and all life thereon [1] And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth. [3] And they (the Gods) said: Let there be light; and there was light. [26] And the Gods took counsel among themselves and said: Let us go down and form man in our image, after our likeness; and we will give them dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. [27] So the Gods went down to organize man in their own image, in the image of the Gods to form they him, male and female to form they them."
  
• -
  
• Joseph Smitth's King Follett Sermon "The head God called together the Gods and sat in grand council to bring forth the world. The grand councilors sat at the head in yonder heavens and contemplated the creation of the worlds which were created at the time."
  

All you have proved is that there was a grand council as modern scholarship says. I suggest reading Theodore Mullen Jr. 1980 Harvard Monograph on the divine council in caananite and early Hebrew literature. A divine council consititutes a COUNCIL OF THE GOGDS...not just christ, and el. In fact the paralels between christ/baal are amazing, and el in the caananite panteon operates as the king of the gods, where baal operates as king of the cosmos, also in urgaritic literature it is the divine family that is consistent and is the basis for theology which I believe is the truth but was later desecrated through the apostasy. El and baal are seperate deities, and baal seems to act as a false christ, or at least that is how I have seen it played out as I have looked at the paralels between yahweh/baal

[johnny]

kryoung1983

All you have proved is that there was a grand council as modern scholarship says. I suggest reading Theodore Mullen Jr. 1980 Harvard Monograph on the divine council in caananite and early Hebrew literature. A divine council consititutes a COUNCIL OF THE GOGDS...not just christ, and el.

The idea of â??a ground councilâ? is nothing modern.

The details of the divine council are whatâ??s in question, for example was Christ a member of the council and did the council members form man.

The modern teachings of the Mormon Church are contrary to what the early first and second century bishops taught.

[ed2276]

kryoung1983

The idea of â??a ground councilâ? is nothing modern.

The details of the divine council are whatâ??s in question, for example was Christ a member of the council and did the council members form man.

Deuteronomy 32 makes it clear that the lots of inheritance were divided among the sons of God, who we know were gods and were present at the divine council. One of these lots, Jacob, was apportioned to the Lord (Yahweh), who we know to be Jesus, the God of Israel. So, it appears that Jesus was present at the divine council, at least when the most High divided the nations among the gods.

We also see in Psalms 82 a judgment scene where the gods lose their inheritances. The most High stands in his council among the gods, addresses them, and then addresses another God into whose hands he commits all judgment and gives the earth as an inheritance (Psa 82:8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations. ).

We know that the Father (most High) committed all judgment unto the Son (Jesus)--Jhn 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:-- and that the earth is the Lord's (Jesus')--1Cr 10:26 For the earth [is] the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. Now, unless you know of a Lord and God, other than Jesus, the most High addressed at the council of gods in Psalms 82 and into whose hands the Father had committed all judgment and who has inherited the fulness of the earth from the Father, it seems unquestionable that the God whom the most High spoke to in the council was in fact the Lord, Jesus.

[johnny]

ed2276

Deuteronomy 32 makes it clear that the lots of inheritance were divided among the sons of God, who we know were gods and were present at the divine council. One of these lots, Jacob, was apportioned to the Lord (Yahweh), who we know to be Jesus, the God of Israel. So, it appears that Jesus was present at the divine council, at least when the most High divided the nations among the gods.

Jesus was not present at the divine council. Deuteronomy 32 makes it clear that the LORD(Yahweh) was the father, our God. Deuteronomy 4 makes it clear the LORD our God took Israel unto him as an inheritance.

We also see in Psalms 82 a judgment scene where the gods lose their inheritances. The most High stands in his council among the gods, addresses them, and then addresses another God into whose hands he commits all judgment and gives the earth as an inheritance (Psa 82:8 Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations. ).

Psalm 82 is not speaking of â??another Godâ?, verse 8 reveals that now God will directly take over the rulership of the whole world. Israel's God had originally assigned jurisdiction over the foreign nations to the subordinate deities, keeping Israel as a personal possession.

We know that the Father (most High) committed all judgment unto the Son (Jesus)--Jhn 5:22 For the Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgment unto the Son:-- and that the earth is the Lord's (Jesus')--1Cr 10:26 For the earth [is] the Lord's, and the fulness thereof. Now, unless you know of a Lord and God, other than Jesus, the most High addressed at the council of gods in Psalms 82 and into whose hands the Father had committed all judgment and who has inherited the fulness of the earth from the Father, it seems unquestionable that the God whom the most High spoke to in the council was in fact the Lord, Jesus.

We know that the God, our Father, the Lord, will judge the world by the man whom he has ordained and raised from the dead (Acts 17:24-31).

[Glenn101]

ed2276

Jesus was not present at the divine council. Deuteronomy 32 makes it clear that the LORD(Yahweh) was the father, our God. Deuteronomy 4 makes it clear the LORD our God took Israel unto him as an inheritance.

It is hard to understand how Jesus was not at the divine council since jesus and Jehovah are one and the same.

Glenn

[johnny]

glennthigpen

It is hard to understand how Jesus was not at the divine council sisnce jesus and Jehovah are one and the same.

It is not hard to understand if you believe the apostle John when he says that the Son was "the Word" or Logos.

[LDSMusic483]

glennthigpen

It is not hard to understand if you believe the apostle John when he says that the Son was "the Word" or Logos.

I believe Jesus when he referred to himself as "I Am." Definitely think that Jehovah was present

[kryoung1983]

I believe Jesus when he referred to himself as "I Am." Definitely think that Jehovah was present

Is it me or is this post becoming VERY circular. I have given up trying to point to evidence that is just dismissed because it is unconvenient.

[johnny]

LDSMusic483

I believe Jesus when he referred to himself as "I Am." Definitely think that Jehovah was present

I also believe the Son of God is â??I AMâ?.