James Whiteâ??s YouTube diatribeâ?¦

[urroner]

. . .St. Athanasius of Alexandria wrote, "God became man so that man might become God." (On the Incarnation 54:3, PG 25:192B). His statement is an apt description of the doctrine. What would otherwise seem absurdâ??that fallen, sinful man may become holy as God is holyâ??has been made possible through Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate. Naturally, the crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis: it is not possible for any created being to become (ontologically) God, or even part of God (the henosis of Greek Neoplatonic philosophy).[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis

So, in lieu of trying to understand what the ECFs truly meant, let's turn to wikipedia and find something that puts an Evangelical theological spin on everything. We have demonstrated in the Bible, there is ample evidence that eloheim also means "gods" and there were other gods than Christ and the Father and that Christ is separate and distinct from the Father and even worshiped the Father. Then there is the council of God which was composed of gods, gods which are real.

[cksalmon]

So, in lieu of trying to understand what the ECFs truly meant, let's turn to wikipedia and find something that puts an Evangelical theological spin on everything. We have demonstrated in the Bible, there is ample evidence that eloheim also means "gods" and there were other gods than Christ and the Father and that Christ is separate and distinct from the Father and even worshiped the Father. Then there is the council of God which was composed of gods, gods which are real.

Hey urroner--

If you wish to appeal to Heiser, I think it might behoove you to more completely understand Heiser's argument(s) from the biblical texts (again, I would recommend his dissertation). I'm all for you "spinning" the data LDS-style, though I certainly wouldn't choose to phrase things in such a potentially derogatory manner, but you should know that Heiser is not really on your side at this point. He's just not saying what you're saying here.

Heiser is still, from what I can tell, a pretty committed monotheist in the relevant sense. He views any and all other elohim as subservient beings directly created by Yahweh, and subject to Yahweh's approbation or judgment.

Notwithstanding Waltz's comments (which, admittedly, don't really deal with Heiser), it would be a mistake to attribute to Heiser the view that other elohim are qualitatively identical, at whatever remove, to Yahweh. David hasn't, I don't think, at this point, come to terms with Heiser's exegesis. Per his own admission, I believe. But, that's neither here nor there. My point is that Heiser is not saying what you're apparently saying.

His dissertation, again, would repay careful study. Hesier just doesn't make the distinction you apparently wish to make between God the Father and God the Son.

It's just not there in his material. I'm all for referencing Heiser as an important OT exegete; I just don't wish to see his work co-opted in the service of LDS apologetics in excess of what he actually affirms.

Best.

cks

[mpschmitt]

. . .St. Athanasius of Alexandria wrote, "God became man so that man might become God." (On the Incarnation 54:3, PG 25:192B). His statement is an apt description of the doctrine. What would otherwise seem absurd—that fallen, sinful man may become holy as God is holy—has been made possible through Jesus Christ, who is God incarnate. Naturally, the crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis: it is not possible for any created being to become (ontologically) God, or even part of God (the henosis of Greek Neoplatonic philosophy).[1]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theosis

What I understand from the Bible leads me to the conclusion that what God has in store for his faithful children is something more than just becoming holy as he is holy...

Let me share what I mean...

Psalms 8:3-5

When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;

What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

So this is the starting place if you will (setting our pre-existence aside for the moment - Jeremiah 1:5). In our mortal state, we are a little lower than the angels, yet we will be crowned with glory and honor. Keep that language in mind as we proceed...

Psalms 82:6

I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Which verse Jesus uses to defend his own claim of Divine paternity against charges of blasphemy:

John 10:

The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.

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

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

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

If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.

But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him

.

Now a question: If the word gods in Psalms 82 were only meant to mean rulers or judges, why would Jesus use it to defend his claim to Divinity?

Now let's look at the section of Doctrine and Covenants where the word gods is used in the LDS sense of the word (a set of verses rarely - if ever - cited by anti-Mormon writers because it softens the sensationalizing):

D+C 76:51-62

They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given—

That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power;

And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true.

They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.

They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things—

They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory;

And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the corder of the Only Begotten Son.

Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God—

Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

And they shall overcome all things.

Wherefore, let no man glory in man, but rather let him glory in God, who shall subdue all enemies under his feet.

These shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever.

I've bolded key aspects of these verses that will be related to verses I'll share in a minute. But the overall message is this:

1. God will always be our God

2. What we receive comes through overcoming all things by faith and obedience, because of Christ through whom the Father subdued all enemies under his feet

3. What latter day saints mean by becoming gods is entering into this state and receiving all things through Christ

Now, let's look at what the New Testament has to say on the matter:

Acts 17:29 -

...we are the offspring of God...

Romans 8 16-17 -

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

So we are the sons of God (there's that phrase again), and as children we are joint heirs. What is a joint-heir. Someone who inherits all that the heir inherits. What does Jesus inherit?

Hebrews 1:1-8

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

So it is clear that Jesus inherits all things from the Father including that special name of Son with a capital "S". The writer of Hebrews further emphasizes this point by pointing out again at then that all those who are saved in Christ are made higher than the angels. In Chapter 2 he further emphasizes this point (by referring back to Psalms 8 ):

Hebrews 2: 5-10

For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the world to come, whereof we speak.

But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man, that thou visitest him?

Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:

Thou hast put all things in subjection under his feet. For in that he put all in subjection under him, he left nothing that is not put under him. But now we see not yet all things put under him.

But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour; that he by the grace of God should taste death for every man.

For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings.

So many sons are brought to Glory through the offering of the Son and overcome all things as Christ has. Precisely what D+C 76 describes above.

When we come to Christ we are changed and that changing process continues onward and upward until the perfect day...

2 Corinthians 3:18

But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.

1 Timothy 6:14-16 teaches us some important aspects about the glory of Christ and how we cannot, in our mortal state approach him:

That thou keep this commandment without spot, unrebukeable, until the appearing of our Lord Jesus Christ:

Which in his times he shall shew, who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings, and Lord of lords;

Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

Yet John declares that in our redeemed state, we will be different, and able to see him and approach him:

1 John 3:2

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

And what will our ultimate state be in that day? We will rule and reign with him. It will be just as Doctrine and Covenants 76 describes it. Because of what Christ won for us, we are elevated above the angels and sit on the throne (emblematic of power and authority) with him. And this will be because we overcome by faith in Him...

Revelation 3:21

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.

Revelation 21:7

He that overcometh shall inherit call things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son.

So you see? The LDS doctrine of deification is not as scary or un-biblical as it may be made to appear at times. In fact I find that Doctrine and Covenants 76 is a perfectly succinct description of the Biblical doctrines described here.

[Billy]

What I understand from the Bible leads me to the conclusion that what God has in store for his faithful children is something more than just becoming holy as he is holy...

Let me share what I mean...

Psalms 8:3-5

When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;

What is man, that thou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou visitest him?

For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

Thou madest him to have dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet:

This is speaking about Christ.

Hebrews 2:7 " 7Thou madest him a little lower than the angels; thou crownedst him with glory and honour, and didst set him over the works of thy hands:"

Psalms 82:6

"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High."

. . .Now a question: If the word gods in Psalms 82 were only meant to mean rulers or judges, why would Jesus use it to defend his claim to Divinity?

James Talmage Jesus the Christ page 501 says that this refers to judges.

As far as the claim that Christ is defending his divine paternity against blasphemy, I don't read John 10 shown below that way. I read it as an indictment against the leaders that on the one hand they call judges gods, and Christ is claiming to be the son of God and they are quick to stone him. Stated another way, on the one hand a man can be called god and it is OK, yet it is not OK for Jesus to be called the Son of God (even though he obviously is the son of God)

John 10

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

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

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

Now, let's look at what the New Testament has to say on the matter:

Acts 17:29 -

...we are the offspring of God...

Compare to the NASB translation

Acts 17:29"Being then the children of God. . .

Romans 8 16-17 -

For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. . .

So we are the sons of God (there's that phrase again),

John 1:12 "12But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:"

If we are already spiritual offspring from God the Father and one of his wives, then this verse does not make sense, because we already ARE sons of God, we would not need to become sons of God by receiving Christ.

By faith in Christ and being born again we become the adopted children of God. But this does not make us a baby god in the making.

Yet John declares that in our redeemed state, we will be different, and able to see him and approach him:

QUOTE

1 John 3:2

Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

There is no question that when we die and are resurrected that we will have a new resurrection body and be glorified.

"Glorification is the third stage of Christian development. The first being justification, then sanctification, and finally glorification. (Rom. 8:28-30) Glorification is the completion, the consummation, the perfection, the full realization of salvation." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorification

[Billy]

So, in lieu of trying to understand what the ECFs truly meant, let's turn to wikipedia and find something that puts an Evangelical theological spin on everything.

I have a quote from "Is the Mormon My Brother?" by James R White if you prefer him over wikipedia.

[jonzlaw]

for the moment, I would like to address the issue of whether or not Latter-day Saints are polytheistsâ??as such, I am looking forward to your responses.

Grace and peace,

David

[jonzlaw]

for the moment, I would like to address the issue of whether or not Latter-day Saints are polytheistsâ??as such, I am looking forward to your responses.

Grace and peace,

David

The Trinity question aside, don't Mormons believe that God was first a man, who became a god, and that there were other gods before Him, and that Mormon men can become gods when they die? I'm not debating whether any of this is true, but doesn't this belief plainly demonstrate that Mormons are polytheists? Further, doesn't this belief just as plainly set Mormons apart from the evangelical Christian?

Anyone??????

[RAIDERJO76]

On 12-29-08, James White posted an anti-Mormon video on YouTube:

Four days later, he posted the same video on his AOMIN site:

http://www.aomin.org/aoblog/index.php?itemid=3058

Within the first minute of his diatribe, James states:

â??Mormonism is the most polytheistic religion that I have ever encounteredâ?¦â?

Yet, the LDS apostle, Jeffrey R. Holland, in the October 2007 GC address that James is critiquing, states:

There are many serious problems with Jamesâ?? video; but, for the moment, I would like to address the issue of whether or not Latter-day Saints are polytheistsâ??as such, I am looking forward to your responses.

Grace and peace,

David

Hey David,

I'm not sure I understand your position because it seems sort of vague, so can I ask a couple questions?

1) How do you and the Mormon Church understand/define polytheism?

2) How do you and the Mormon Church understand/define the Trinity?

Thanks, and Peace

Joe

[urroner]

Hey urroner--

If you wish to appeal to Heiser, I think it might behoove you to more completely understand Heiser's argument(s) from the biblical texts (again, I would recommend his dissertation). I'm all for you "spinning" the data LDS-style, though I certainly wouldn't choose to phrase things in such a potentially derogatory manner, but you should know that Heiser is not really on your side at this point. He's just not saying what you're saying here.

Heiser is still, from what I can tell, a pretty committed monotheist in the relevant sense. He views any and all other elohim as subservient beings directly created by Yahweh, and subject to Yahweh's approbation or judgment.

Notwithstanding Waltz's comments (which, admittedly, don't really deal with Heiser), it would be a mistake to attribute to Heiser the view that other elohim are qualitatively identical, at whatever remove, to Yahweh. David hasn't, I don't think, at this point, come to terms with Heiser's exegesis. Per his own admission, I believe. But, that's neither here nor there. My point is that Heiser is not saying what you're apparently saying.

His dissertation, again, would repay careful study. Hesier just doesn't make the distinction you apparently wish to make between God the Father and God the Son.

It's just not there in his material. I'm all for referencing Heiser as an important OT exegete; I just don't wish to see his work co-opted in the service of LDS apologetics in excess of what he actually affirms.

Best.

cks

Basically, what I'm trying to state, is that there are more gods than one, real gods, gods that exist and live with God. It doesn't matter if they are equivalent or not to God the Father, as far as I'm concerned in this discussion, since this is a thread, or suppose to be a thread about polytheism. Billy and some others are gleefully running around casting upon us the name "polytheist" while, at the same time, they are monotheists. They say there is only one God and there are no other god with Him and I'm just using Heiser to demonstrate that the early Israelites, pre-Exilic Israelites, including Moses and Isaiah, believed in Eloheim, the Head God, and a council of eloheim (gods) who was headed by Eloheim's Son, Jehovah, the God of Israel.

For what I have read and how I understand him, Heiser has said that none of the gods are comparable to Eloheim and that from the rest, none are comparable to Jehovah, but there are gods in addition to God the Father and His Son.

Have I misread Heiser here?

I am going to order Heiser's dissertation as soon as I can afford it. I just had to plunk down $1000 for material and equipment to fix my roof. I was just getting ready to order it when my oldest son came in and told me the good news.

[cksalmon]

Basically, what I'm trying to state, is that there are more gods than one, real gods, gods that exist and live with God. It doesn't matter if they are equivalent or not to God the Father, as far as I'm concerned in this discussion, since this is a thread, or suppose to be a thread about polytheism. Billy and some others are gleefully running around casting upon us the name "polytheist" while, at the same time, they are monotheists. They say there is only one God and there are no other god with Him and I'm just using Heiser to demonstrate that the early Israelites, pre-Exilic Israelites, including Moses and Isaiah, believed in Eloheim, the Head God, and a council of eloheim (gods) who was headed by Eloheim's Son, Jehovah, the God of Israel.

For what I have read and how I understand him, Heiser has said that none of the gods are comparable to Eloheim and that from the rest, none are comparable to Jehovah, but there are gods in addition to God the Father and His Son.

Have I misread Heiser here?

Hey urroner--

I believe so. Check out this lecture from earlier year about this very concept. My main clarification would be that Heiser holds that YHWH is God of Israel and YHWH is the Divine Coregent. Elohim is merely a term of classification (not a name) that is quite often used to refer to YHWH (as if it were a name).

I am going to order Heiser's dissertation as soon as I can afford it. I just had to plunk down $1000 for material and equipment to fix my roof. I was just getting ready to order it when my oldest son came in and told me the good news.

That stinks. I would note that Heiser will be publishing in the near future a distillation of his dissertation aimed at non-specialists (tentatively titled, The Myth that is True).

Also of possible interest is an extended interview with Heiser on the Future Quake radio program about the Divine Council. I found it in eight parts on Youtube, extracted the audio, and dumped it all into a single mp3 for download. Unfortunately, my attempts to upload it here have failed. I might need to cut it in half and upload two files, which I'll attempt a bit later.

Best.

cks

[3DOP]

Hey David,

I'm not sure I understand your position because it seems sort of vague, so can I ask a couple questions?

1) How do you and the Mormon Church understand/define polytheism?

2) How do you and the Mormon Church understand/define the Trinity?

Thanks, and Peace

Joe

Hey Joe,

I think David thought the thread had run its course. It sounded a page or so ago like he was about to exit. David is Catholic. If I understand him correctly, I think he asked the questions in the opening post, not because he believes in LDS teachings on the Godhead, but because he thought that the You Tube presentation was flawed and ultimately, unfair to Mormons. In my opinion, there are probably a few good reasons to not be LDS (I am only familiar with one). The charge of polytheism could never qualify as a good reason to leave the LDS Church. What LDS antagonists concoct into polytheism is not what is condemned in the Old Testament. Further, if one is going to charge LDS with polytheism, it can be hard to avoid the trap of being "polytheist" yourself if you believe in One God with Three Persons. If those who charge Mormons of polytheism are correct, perhaps Jews and Muslims who charge Trinitarian Christians of polytheism are correct?

That summarizes what I consider to be the important points discussed in this thread (flavored of course by own biases, heh.).

3DOP

[Anijen]

Thank you CK, D Waltz, 3dop for your views. I appreciate intelligent civil discussion. This thread has been fascinating for me to read especially the posts from those three I mentioned (CK, D Waltz, 3dop).

I wanted to ask a question about "boredom". I like the idea of us having the opportunity to progress to a point where some time in the future we can be partakers of that divine nature addressed before. I have never warmed up to the idea that I go to heaven and based on my works I get more rewards, is my cloud bigger, my wings more fluffier, or my harp more in tune? I do like the idea of worshipping, and praising God for ever and one way in reverencing him is to be like him. Now if I get a chance to make a planet it will be full of streams, mountains , fish and evergreen trees etc. Anyway I digress, back to the boredom topic. Is there more than just playing a harp on a cloud? I realize that is a childish or bad metaphor but I couldn't think of any other way to phrase it. I could only do that for so long and eternity is too long of a time not to be outdoors.

[mfbukowski]

What I understand from the Bible leads me to the conclusion that what God has in store for his faithful children is something more than just becoming holy as he is holy...

Let me share what I mean...

Great job, amazing post!

[mfbukowski]

Anyone??????

You are not getting any bites because we have been over this question ad nauseum here there and everywhere. We are tired of answering it.

Do you know the joke about the guys in prison with one joke book that everyone has read so many times that they have it memorized? All they have to do is yell out the page numbers. Somebody yells out "85" and everybody laughs. Somebody else yells out "52" and everybody laughs. A newcomer decides he wants to try it and yells out "42"- nobody laughs.

His bunk mate says "it's all in the way you tell it"!

You just yelled out "42". Spice up the question and maybe you will get bites. Or better yet, read the whole thread.

[David Waltz]

Hi Billy,

Sorry about the delay in my response, but I have had no â??freeâ?? time for the internet until this morning.

You posted:

>>You state that the Father beget the Son before time. What exactly do you mean by the term begat? Do you believe that the Father was by Himself at one point, and that Jesus and the Holy Spirit were made or created by the Father in some way OR do you believe that the Three have always existed in the relationship that they now exist?>>

Me: Well the Greek term gennaō is usually used in a procreative sense (e.g. Abraham begat Isaac, Isaac begat Jacob, et al.); but it is also used in a figurative sense for creation. However, following the Church Fathers, I believe that it is used in the former sense, when we talk about the relationship between the Father and the Son.

As for the when, since the Father begat the Son before time, there is no â??beforeâ?? as finite beings would understand it; so I go no further than to say that the Father begat the Son before time.

>>I also believe that God will share what He has with us. But when you use the word share what he has, do you think that we will become our own separate god (i.e. each an individual god separate from the Godhead)?>>

Me: Just as Jesus, who possesses the divine nature in its fullness, â??can do nothing of himselfâ? (i.e. apart from God the Father); so to with Godâ??s adopted Sons.

Grace and peace,

David

[David Waltz]

Do I *really* have to answser this in reference to you and myself Urroner? Can I show just a smidgin of mercy please? Fascinating that they in their limited human abilities. likewise limit what God can and cannot or will or will not do eh? LOL! Good to see ya again Dave.

Hey Kerry!!!

Good to see you too. When are you and Lynn going to make that trip out to the beach?

The Beachbum

[David Waltz]

>> I have a quote from "Is the Mormon My Brother?" by James R White if you prefer him over wikipedia.>>

Me: Well, I have dealt with Jamesâ?? skewed use of the Church Fathers on my blog; with that said, I prefer the Catholic authors I cited, the Church Fathers themselves, and the Bible over James and the wikiâ?¦

Grace and peace,

David

[David Waltz]

Hey David,

I'm not sure I understand your position because it seems sort of vague, so can I ask a couple questions?

1) How do you and the Mormon Church understand/define polytheism?

2) How do you and the Mormon Church understand/define the Trinity?

Thanks, and Peace

Joe

Hi Joe,

I have dealt at length with both of the above throughout this thread. I know the thread is quite long now, but when you have the time, read through it; if you have any questions after that, feel free to fire away.

Grace and peace,

David

[David Waltz]

Hi 3DOP,

Thanks for picking up the slack in my absence; you posted:

>>That summarizes what I consider to be the important points discussed in this thread (flavored of course by own biases, heh.).>>

Your summary was/is spot-on.

Grace and peace,

David

[Billy]

Me: Well the Greek term gennaō is usually used in a procreative sense (e.g. Abraham begat Isaac, Isaac begat Jacob, et al.); but it is also used in a figurative sense for creation. However, following the Church Fathers, I believe that it is used in the former sense, when we talk about the relationship between the Father and the Son.

As for the when, since the Father begat the Son before time, there is no â??beforeâ?? as finite beings would understand it; so I go no further than to say that the Father begat the Son before time.

I agree with you in the fact that God is outside of time.

If I understand your position correctly, you do not believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-eternal. Do you think that your view contradicts John 1:1 in any way?

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

[jerryp48]

I agree with you in the fact that God is outside of time.

If I understand your position correctly, you do not believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-eternal. Do you think that your view contradicts John 1:1 in any way?

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

That scripture to me seems to very clearly show that Jehovah (Christ) was with God the Father from the beginning (first born in the spirit as well as Jehovah of the old testament) and was God (having been divinely invested, spoke for and more importantly as God the Father). Being one with God the Father, Christ can and does speak in first person as God the Father.

[urroner]

Hey urroner--

I believe so. Check out this lecture from earlier year about this very concept. My main clarification would be that Heiser holds that YHWH is God of Israel and YHWH is the Divine Coregent. Elohim is merely a term of classification (not a name) that is quite often used to refer to YHWH (as if it were a name).

That stinks. I would note that Heiser will be publishing in the near future a distillation of his dissertation aimed at non-specialists (tentatively titled, The Myth that is True).

Also of possible interest is an extended interview with Heiser on the Future Quake radio program about the Divine Council. I found it in eight parts on Youtube, extracted the audio, and dumped it all into a single mp3 for download. Unfortunately, my attempts to upload it here have failed. I might need to cut it in half and upload two files, which I'll attempt a bit later.

Best.

cks

As soon as I get a chance, I'll check out that lecture that Heiser gave.

I realize now that I was wrong is saying that he believed God the Father was Eloheim, that Christ was Jehovah, and there were other eloheim, but I wasn't that far off. He said that God the Father is Jehovah, that in the Council, He had a co-ruler, His Son, and then there was the rest of the eloheim.

I have read other mainstream Christian scholars who have said that God the Father is Eloheim, Christ was Jehovah, and then there is the rest of the eloheim. Many of them also have said that due to problems with the OT, the names Jehovah and Eloheim are often used interchangeably.

Heiser said:

I related how certain members of the divine council are explicitly called gods in the inspired text, but that these gods were inferior to Yahweh, the God of Israel, and His unique co-ruler, the Son.

CKS, thanks for pointing my error out.

[urroner]

I agree with you in the fact that God is outside of time.

If I understand your position correctly, you do not believe that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are co-eternal. Do you think that your view contradicts John 1:1 in any way?

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

What is meant by "the beginning?" What is "the beginning" the beginning of? If God the Father created His Son outside of time, then it has be "before" the "beginning" since a beginning, any beginning demands the existence of time.

[urroner]

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

How do you interpret this verse Billy?

[CQUIRK]

The Trinity question aside, don't Mormons believe that God was first a man, who became a god, and that there were other gods before Him, and that Mormon men can become gods when they die? I'm not debating whether any of this is true, but doesn't this belief plainly demonstrate that Mormons are polytheists? Further, doesn't this belief just as plainly set Mormons apart from the evangelical Christian?

What a simpleton reasoning for the simpleton argument that we are "polytheist".

Ever heard of Henothiesm?

Realistically, thats a better, and accurate argument to make about us.

Every argument against the LDS faith I read, the more my testimony strengthens.

Ignorance, hypocracy, and bigotry are the 3 main ingredients in a argument against the LDS faith.

FYI- The Jews were Henotheistic before they were taken to Babylon.