The Divine Council

[johnny]

LDSMusic483

You know, you've said that about a dozen times...yet you keep quoting John on it. So get it right. JOHN said. It was John who said no man hath seen him, and it was John who quoted Jesus then saying that you could see God if you were of God.

You know, after saying it a dozen times the words still reveal "No man hath seen God at any time. "

I'll take the words of Jesus...He said:John 6: 46 46 Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

"he which is of God" saw the glory of God.

[LDSMusic483]

LDSMusic483

You know, after saying it a dozen times the words still reveal "No man hath seen God at any time. "

"he which is of God" saw the glory of God.

Now now...that's not true...it says just God in that scripture, not the glory..I know you wouldn't be changing the scriptures.

[johnny]

LDSMusic483,

Now now...that's not true...it says just God in that scripture, not the glory..I know you wouldn't be changing the scriptures.

Scripture gives example that it is the glory of God that is seen. For example both Moses and Stephen saw the glory of God.

[LDSMusic483]

LDSMusic483,

Scripture gives example that it is the glory of God that is seen. For example both Moses and Stephen saw the glory of God.

And for example Moses saw God face to face and spoke to Him as a man speaketh unto a friend. Also, Stephn also saw God and not just his glory. Otherwise it would have said he saw Jesus standing on the right hand of the glory of God. Coincidentily...God has a right side! Good to know since he has no shape. What is the right side of shapelessness?

[johnny]

LDSMusic483,

And for example Moses saw God face to face and spoke to Him as a man speaketh unto a friend.

Moses could not have seen the face of God because ...

• Exod.33 ([20] And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. [22] And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: )
  

Also, Stephn also saw God and not just his glory. Otherwise it would have said he saw Jesus standing on the right hand of the glory of God. Coincidentily...God has a right side! Good to know since he has no shape. What is the right side of shapelessness?

Stephen saw the glory of God, Jesus was on right hand of the glory of God. God does not have a physcial right side like a man, the glory of God can be seen.

• Acts.7 ([55] But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, [56] And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.)
  

[johnny]

LDSMusic483,

It has been fun but it is my bed time ... I will reply tomorrow.

[LDSMusic483]

LDSMusic483,

Moses could not have seen the face of God because ...

• Exod.33 ([20] And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me, and live. [22] And it shall come to pass, while my glory passeth by, that I will put thee in a clift of the rock, and will cover thee with my hand while I pass by: )
  

Stephen saw the glory of God, Jesus was on right hand of the glory of God. God does not have a physcial right side like a man, the glory of God can be seen.

• Acts.7 ([55] But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, [56] And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.)
  

Well, I believe that Exod 33:20 and 33:11 are two separate times. And you need to read verse 23, as it talks about the Lords back parts. And the Lord is clearly implying that He HAS face, but at that time Moses wouldn't see that, but only see His back parts.

Also, your acts quotes is counter productive rom what you said. You say that Jesus was on the right hand of the glory of God. That is not what the scriptures say. Especially the part you bolded. It clearly says that He was o the right hand of GOD, not His glory.

[johnny]

LDSMusic483,

I am going to stop responding to the topic of seeing God, since this is taking this thread off topic.

Please open another thread if you want to continue the topic of seeing God and I will be glad to respond.

I will will re-post #120 in hope to bring this topic back to the topic of divine councils,

At any rate, if you accept the sons of God as present at creation, and the sons of God are God's council, then what is the difficulty of accepting that the divine council was there at creation?

The part I don't accept is the part in Mormon scripture which reveals that the divine council formed the heavens and the earth and that the divine council formed man from the dust of the ground (see below).

• The Book of Abraham 5 "The Gods finish their planning of the creation of all things [1] And thus we will finish the heavens and the earth, and all the hosts of them. [2] And the Gods said among themselves: On the seventh time we will end our work, which we have counseled; and we will rest on the seventh time from all our work which we have counseled. [3] And the Gods concluded upon the seventh time, because that on the seventh time they would rest from all their works which they (the Gods) counseled among themselves to form; and sanctified it. And thus were their decisions at the time that they counseled among themselves to form the heavens and the earth. [4] And the Gods came down and formed these the generations of the heavens and of the earth, when they were formed in the day that the Gods formed the earth and the heavens, [5] According to all that which they had said concerning every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and every herb of the field before it grew; for the Gods had not caused it to rain upon the earth when they counseled to do them, and had not formed a man to till the ground. [6] But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground. [7] And the Gods formed man from the dust of the ground, and took his spirit (that is, the manâ??s spirit), and put it into him; and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul."
  

I don't accept this Mormon teaching of the divine council because it is contrary to what the holy prophets Isaiah and Malachi revealed which reveals that one God created and he was alone and by himself (see below).

• Mal.2 ([10] Have we not all one father? hath not one God created us? why do we deal treacherously every man against his brother, by profaning the covenant of our fathers?)
  
• -
  
• Isa.44 ([6] Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God. [8] 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 God; I know not any. [24] Thus saith the LORD, thy redeemer, and he that formed thee from the womb, I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone ; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself ; )
  

[kryoung1983]

Guys you aren't going to get any where with him. He ignores all historic context, even when modern scholarhship proves his ignorance, and then usus some isolated verse as the back drop for his entire theology. The Old Testament is full of many many accounts of 'seeing God' and what exactly does he mean by the glory of God. Does he even know what that means. It doesn't make any sense. Even the concept of the burning bush is very physical as far as the experience is concerned. Everything is in a physical frame work. I guess he has to justify his priori assumption of the 'ontological uniqueness' of God as Blake T. Ostler would say.

[ed2276]

Sargon

I am not denying Mormonâ??s this opportunity, it not a matter of a double standard. It is a matter that modern Mormon revelation is contrary to both the OT and the NT texts.

The OT reveals â??one God created usâ? (Mal 2:10) and God was â??aloneâ? and â??by myselfâ? during creation (Isa 44:24).

The NT reveals â??God that made the worldâ? (Acts 17:24) and â??the Word was with God, and the Word was Godâ? (John 1:1)

The modern revealtion of Joseph Smith revealed "the head of the Gods called a council of the Gods; and they came together and concocted [prepared] a plan to create the world and people it."

On the point of the timing of the creation relative to the population of heaven, I don't know that the Bible reveals what you tell us it does. In fact, the Bible, as I read it, makes a case for the council of the Gods, or at least more god than one whether in council or not, being present at the creation of the earth. I have already pointed you to Job, where the Lord says that at the time he laid the foundation of the earth the sons of God were there to shout for joy. These gods, then, must have been created before the foundations of the earth were laid down in order to witness the Lord creating them. It follows that the Lord was not alone at the time of the creation. There were others present to witness His work.

But, even if we cannot agree on this, it is good to know that you at least agree with the LDS Biblical teaching that there are in fact more gods than the One-- real gods that you call lesser gods...and that these gods comprised a Divine Council. Hence, you also agree that the Bible reveals that ancient Judaism did not believe in strict monotheism, but believed, as the LDS do, in sons of God, who were gods but not above the Most High God in power, authority, dominion, etc. and that "though there be gods many...but to us there is only one God,... the Father", who we alone worship in the name of His Son.

[ed2276]

Nope, your right, I was there.

[ed2276]

Sons of God, Offspring of God...kinda sounds like the same thing to me

sons=offspring=children:

"You are gods; all of you are children of the most High"

Offspring of God are sons of God, are children of the most High, and are gods.

[johnny]

ed2276

These gods, then, must have been created before the foundations of the earth were laid down in order to witness the Lord creating them. It follows that the Lord was not alone at the time of the creation. There were others present to witness His work.

God created these called "gods". The Son, the Word, was "before all things" created, see below:

• Col 1 ([3] We give thanks to God and the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, praying always for you, [15] Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: [16] For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: [17] And he is before all things , and by him all things consist. [18] And he is the head of the body, the church: who is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead; that in all things he might have the preeminence)
  

But, even if we cannot agree on this, it is good to know that you at least agree with the LDS Biblical teaching that there are in fact more gods than the One-- real gods that you call lesser gods...and that these gods comprised a Divine Council.

I see it differently ... I would say I disagree with the Mormon teachings. These other "gods" are created by the one true God. These "real gods" would include Satan who is called god. The Son of God is NOT part of this "Divine Council" because the Son was "the Word" prior to the incarnation. The Son of God is not a created creature like these "gods" in the "Divine Council".

Hence, you also agree that the Bible reveals that ancient Judaism did not believe in strict monotheism, but believed, as the LDS do, in sons of God, who were gods but not above the Most High God in power, authority, dominion, etc. and that "though there be gods many...but to us there is only one God,... the Father", who we alone worship in the name of His Son.

I believe in a monotheism that the apostle Paul taught which is "there is none other God but One" and that "called gods". I do not believe in the Mormon concept taught by Joseph Smith which is that the Father, the Son, and the HG are "three Gods".

• 1Cor 8 ([4] As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. [5] For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) [6] But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.)
  

[Ron Beron]

The Son of God is NOT part of this "Divine Council" because the Son was "the Word" prior to the incarnation. The Son of God is not a created creature like these "gods" in the "Divine Council".

What is the Word? If you answer Logos, what was the Logos and give its history according to the Catholic understanding if you please?

[ed2276]

Rommelator

Did you miss the words of Jesus, he decalared

1John.4 ([12] No man hath seen God at any time. If we love one another, God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.)

Why do you keep ignoring the words of Jesus in 1John 4:12?

Excuse me, but the words in 1 John 4:12 are not the words of Jesus; they are the words of John.

The words of Jesus are:

Not that any man hath seen the Father, save he which is of God, he hath seen the Father.

So, why is it that you ignore the words of Jesus in John 6:46?

Now if you want to carry this farther and say that Jesus is God, then a literal reading that you propose would mean that no man has ever seen Jesus, as Jesus is God. But, we know from reading the Bible that many men saw God in the OT and the many saw God in the NT.

I suppose that what we must do to accomodate your tunnel vision is to whittle away any verse in the Bible that says that men have seen God because you have adopted 1 John 4:12 as your pet.

So, why don't you write down a list of verses in the Bible that you would like to delete from the Bible. We can start by lopping off Jesus' words in John 6.46.

[Anijen]

Excuse me, but the words in 1 John 4:12 are not the words of Jesus; they are the words of John.

The words of Jesus are:

So, why is it that you ignore the words of Jesus in John 6:46?

Now if you want to carry this farther and say that Jesus is God, then a literal reading that you propose would mean that no man has ever seen Jesus, as Jesus is God. But, we know from reading the Bible that many men saw God in the OT and the many saw God in the NT.

I suppose that what we must do to accomodate your tunnel vision is to whittle away any verse in the Bible that says that men have seen God because you have adopted 1 John 4:12 as your pet.

So, why don't you write down a list of verses in the Bible that you would like to delete from the Bible. We can start by lopping off Jesus' words in John 6.46.

Sometimes I wish I could write as articulate and with wit and wisdom as you have here. Bravo!

[ed2276]

LDSMusic483

You know, after saying it a dozen times the words still reveal "No man hath seen God at any time. "

"he which is of God" saw the glory of God.

If they saw the glory of God and God is formless, then they saw God; Unless you are saying that God's glory is something that is not God.

Either way, your goose is cooked on this issue.

[johnny]

Ron Beron,

What is the Word? If you answer Logos, what was the Logos and give its history according to the Catholic understanding if you please?

So we don't go off-topic I will simply say "the Word" IS NOT a created angel like Satan. For more discussion go to the following link. My view of "the Word" is the same as the second century bishop Irenaeus, see below.

The Logos

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09328a.htm

• Irenaeus "It was not angels, therefore, who made us nor who formed us, neither had angels power to make an image of God, nor anyone else. . . . For God did not stand in need of these in order to accomplish what he had himself determined with himself beforehand should be done, as if he did not possess his own hands. For with him [the Father] were always present the Word and Wisdom, the Son and the Spirit, by whom and in whom, freely and spontaneously, he made all things, to whom also he speaks, saying, â??Let us make man in our image and likenessâ?? [Gen. 1:26]" (Against Heresies 4:20:1 [A.D. 189].
  
• -
  
• Irenaeus "The Son, though, always co-existing with the Father, of old and from the beginning, always reveals the Father to the angels and archangels and powers and virtues and to all to whom God wishes to give revelation" (ibid. 2:30:9). "The various heretical gnostics transform the generation of the uttered word of men to the eternal Word of God, attributing to him a beginning of utterance and a coming into being in a manner like that of their own word. In what manner, then, would the Word of God--indeed, the great God himself, since he is the Word--differ from the word of men, were he to have the same order and process of generation?" (Against Heresies 2:13:8 [A.D. 180-
  
• -
  
• Irenaeus "Of his own accord and by his own power he made all things and arranged and perfected them, and his will is the substance of all things. He alone, then, is found to be God; he alone is omnipotent, who made all things; he alone is Father, who founded and formed all things, visible and invisible, sensible and insensate, heavenly and earthly, by the Word of his power. And he has fitted and arranged all things by his wisdom; and while he comprehends all, he can be comprehended by none. He is himself the designer, himself the builder, himself the inventor, himself the maker, himself the Lord of all" (ibid., 2:30:9).
  

[johnny]

ed2276

So, why is it that you ignore the words of Jesus in John 6:46?

So, why don't you open another thread so we can talk about, since this discussion will take us off-topic.

If they saw the glory of God and God is formless, then they saw God; Unless you are saying that God's glory is something that is not God.

I will be glad to discuss this topic, please open another thread so we don't take this thread off-topic.

[kryoung1983]

To the Hebrew Mind set creation was through modes of establishing boundaries, or differentiation. Blake T. Oster, Jon Levenson, Blake T. Ostler and others have written about the concept of creation within its original context or at least as far as they see it. According to Rashi the water was already here when he began his creation. Genesis says, a

'formless waste' Luis Stadelmann explained in the hebrew conception of the world regarding creation that it "seems to indicate a situation in which the world is envisaged as immersed in the thwm, the seas. As further development of the idea shows, the chief features of the primeval chaos were those of the raw materials of the universe" Simkin observes that 'in the yahwist creation myth, the earth itself is primordial. God never creates the earth, but the earth wihtout Gods creative acitivity is barren and lifeless" Obviously you are arguing from the stand point of ex nihilo in which something is created out of nothing. As I have argued before such is foreign to the Old Testament. Creation, through organization of preexistant matter and element, elements which are eternal. Such is the concensus of these scholars. Your idea of creation is essentially to bring into being, not to change the form of all ready existant essence of the stuff of the universe. So what is the more accurate discription of what creation means. You admit the concept of a divine council but then deny it such as when early jewish tradition states that the prophets took a role in the creation you say you don't accept that because it is not in the Bible. But it is still a part of early Jewish tradition, has been argued as being in the Bible by reputable scholars, and your ideas concerning creation are based off foreign concepts which have nothing to do with the Bible and are only interjecting your own categories and meanings.

[urroner]

To the Hebrew Mind set creation was through modes of establishing boundaries, or differentiation. Blake T. Oster, Jon Levenson, Blake T. Ostler and others have written about the concept of creation within its original context or at least as far as they see it. According to Rashi the water was already here when he began his creation. Genesis says, a

'formless waste' Luis Stadelmann explained in the hebrew conception of the world regarding creation that it "seems to indicate a situation in which the world is envisaged as immersed in the thwm, the seas. As further development of the idea shows, the chief features of the primeval chaos were those of the raw materials of the universe" Simkin observes that 'in the yahwist creation myth, the earth itself is primordial. God never creates the earth, but the earth wihtout Gods creative acitivity is barren and lifeless" Obviously you are arguing from the stand point of ex nihilo in which something is created out of nothing. As I have argued before such is foreign to the Old Testament. Creation, through organization of preexistant matter and element, elements which are eternal. Such is the concensus of these scholars. Your idea of creation is essentially to bring into being, not to change the form of all ready existant essence of the stuff of the universe. So what is the more accurate discription of what creation means. You admit the concept of a divine council but then deny it such as when early jewish tradition states that the prophets took a role in the creation you say you don't accept that because it is not in the Bible. But it is still a part of early Jewish tradition, has been argued as being in the Bible by reputable scholars, and your ideas concerning creation are based off foreign concepts which have nothing to do with the Bible and are only interjecting your own categories and meanings.

Is Jewish tradition from before the time of Christ as valid as Catholic Tradition?

[johnny]

kryoung1983,

Obviously you are arguing from the stand point of ex nihilo in which something is created out of nothing. As I have argued before such is foreign to the Old Testament. Creation, through organization of preexistant matter and element, elements which are eternal.

Since ex nihilo will most likely take this thread off-topic, open another thread and lets talk about ex nihilo.

You admit the concept of a divine council but then deny it such as when early jewish tradition states that the prophets took a role in the creation you say you don't accept that because it is not in the Bible. But it is still a part of early Jewish tradition, has been argued as being in the Bible by reputable scholars, and your ideas concerning creation are based off foreign concepts which have nothing to do with the Bible and are only interjecting your own categories and meanings.

I admit the Catholic concept of a divine council is very different than what Mormon scriptures reveal. I prefer the inspired word of God over Jewish tradition.

[LDSMusic483]

kryoung1983,

Since ex nihilo will most likely take this thread off-topic, open another thread and lets talk about ex nihilo.

I admit the Catholic concept of a divine council is very different than what Mormon scriptures reveal. I prefer the inspired word of God over Jewish tradition.

And if the Jewish tradition is based on the inspired word of God that was not recorded?

[kryoung1983]

kryoung1983,

Since ex nihilo will most likely take this thread off-topic, open another thread and lets talk about ex nihilo.

I admit the Catholic concept of a divine council is very different than what Mormon scriptures reveal. I prefer the inspired word of God over Jewish tradition.

the concepts of ex nihilo are connected with the divine council since you are implying that God is the only uncreated being who created everything else. You are twisting the concept of creation, which is in a divine council setting in the Bible and Jewish tradition to match up your concept of god as the only uncaused cause, a creator-creator relationship that is different from what is understood in the Bible. The hebrew concept of creation is to organize, whether your concept is to create or bring into being, which are two different things. If ex nihilo is wrong, then God is not the only self existant being, which means that we have more credibility for certain concepts associated with the divince council as lds thought understands it. Joseph Smith said all elements are eternal, (backwards and forwards) and this is connected with the idea that we too are eternal in that sense. Not just God. The Hebrews also understood creation in the context of giving form or reorganization of existing principles as I understand it. Your use of Isaiah just seems to fall on its face when you examine these principles.

[kryoung1983]

And if the Jewish tradition is based on the inspired word of God that was not recorded?

Since when does catholic tradition say there is a divine council? In what way? You admit the scholarship but then retract all concepts associated with a divine council? You are contradicting yourself. Show me any source from the catholic church that admitted the fact of a divine council prior to joseph smith, which was later coraborated by scholarship.