maklelan Posted November 13, 2011 Posted November 13, 2011 I'll be posting my SBL paper on Psalm 82 in the contemporary LDS tradition at the end of the week. Until then, I've posted an extended bibliography, with links to available publications, on my blog here. The abstract for my paper follows:Within the Christian and Jewish traditions, Psalm 82 has long been read as a metaphoric judgment against negligent human beings. This dates back to traditions current at the turn of the Era that primarily read the text as a reference to the Israelites at Sinai. Similar readings were common within the academy until the early 20th century, when scholars began to uncover a better context for understanding the psalm’s themes, namely the divine council imagery found in Syro-Palestinian and Mesopotamian literature. Most scholars today view the text as a judgment against the gods of the nations. The Latter-day Saint interpretation of Psalm 82 has long aligned with the traditional reading, although Latter-day Saints recognize a genetic link between humanity and divinity that removes the theological necessity of reading the references to “gods” as metaphorical. The most comprehensive expression of the contemporary Latter-day Saint reading of Psalm 82 is found in Daniel Peterson’s 2000 article, “‘Ye are Gods’: Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind.” As with most conservative Christians, Peterson appeals to Jesus’ use of the psalm in John 10:34–36 as a key to harmonizing the two texts. He departs from the conservative Christian position in proposing that the division between the human and the divine was in both texts rather porous. After discussing the Latter-day Saint position, this paper will examine both Psalm 82 and John 10:34–36, but not with an eye specifically to reconciling the two. Rather it will highlight those places where the texts differ. It will suggest that Psalm 82 represents a condemnation of the gods of the nations, and that the tradition underlying John 10’s reading of the psalm is an innovation of the Greco-Roman period which reinterpreted the psalm in light of recently developed ideas of divinity. This will illuminate the role of developing monotheism in shaping early Jewish and Christian themes of humanity’s participation in the divine. The paper will conclude with implications for Latter-day Saint exegesis of the Bible.
ldsfaqs Posted November 13, 2011 Posted November 13, 2011 Folks might like this video....http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CSFRx25b7J4
diglot Posted November 13, 2011 Posted November 13, 2011 (edited) Folks might like this video....At about the 2:20 mark, the guy says that some people say "gods" in John 10.34 should be translated as "judges". Who says that? I don't see why someone would claim that "gods" should be translated as "judges" in John 10.34. I mean, translating theoi as "gods" isn't exactly controversial lol. Edited November 13, 2011 by diglot
Bill Hamblin Posted November 13, 2011 Posted November 13, 2011 (edited) At about the 2:20 mark, the guy says that some people say "gods" in John 10.34 should be translated as "judges". Who says that? I've never read any commentary or literature on John 10.34 that says "gods" should be translated as "judges".I think he's misspeaking. A widespread argument (going back at least to early rabbis) is that the "gods" of Ps 82 refer to human judges. A possible implication of this claim is that the gods of John 10 must be judges to. Edited November 14, 2011 by Bill Hamblin
diglot Posted November 13, 2011 Posted November 13, 2011 His misspeaking. A widespread argument (going back at least to early rabbis) is that the "gods" of Ps 82 refer to human judges. A possible implication of this claim is that the gods of John 10 must be judges to.Yea, after thinking about it for a minute I thought he might be referring to the "judges" interpretation of Psa 82.
ldsfaqs Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 It's a common anti-mormon and christian teaching that the verses in question means "judges" not actually gods as stated.Reason being is because most christians don't believe we actually are and can be gods, so they re-write the scripture to fit their theology.They call LDS Theology "satanic" in this concept, because they believe satan wanted to be a god, and thus they consider that false doctrine when we say we also are gods and also can be gods.Thus, he didn't mis-speak. He was simply addressing the common interpretation by other christians trying to weasel out of the we are actually gods teaching.
diglot Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 It's a common anti-mormon and christian teaching that the verses in question means "judges" not actually gods as stated.Reason being is because most christians don't believe we actually are and can be gods, so they re-write the scripture to fit their theology.They call LDS Theology "satanic" in this concept, because they believe satan wanted to be a god, and thus they consider that false doctrine when we say we also are gods and also can be gods.Thus, he didn't mis-speak. He was simply addressing the common interpretation by other christians trying to weasel out of the we are actually gods teaching.Err, ok. Show me someone who says that "gods" should be translated as "judges" in John 10.34.I have seen a few mainstream Christian apologists try and argue that Psalm 82 refers to human judges (which I would disagree with). But I haven't seen say that Jesus' quotation of that Psalm in John is a mistranslation that should be instead be translated as "judges".I think the other poster in this thread is correct; the speaker simply misspoke in the video. I think he meant to say that certain people interpret Jesus' words in John 10 as referring to human judges; not that people say Jesus' words should be translated as "judges" instead of "Gods."This seems like an irrelevant quibble that detracts from the purpose of this thread (Maklelan's talk at SBL on Psa 82 and John 10 and how it illuminates the concept of humanity’s participation in the divine in the Second Temple period). I only brought this up because the video you posted had me confused due to the speakers lack of preciseness in the words he chose to use.
Bill Hamblin Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 It seems to me that the "gods" in John 10 must have been understood as ontological gods in some way or Jesus is guilty of equivocation when he defends himself against a charge of blasphemy for "making himself to be God".
maklelan Posted November 14, 2011 Author Posted November 14, 2011 It seems to me that the "gods" in John 10 must have been understood as ontological gods in some way or Jesus is guilty of equivocation when he defends himself against a charge of blasphemy for "making himself to be God".Yeah, I argue for the Israelites at Sinai reading of John 10. The Israelites were made immortal and thus divine in virtue of receiving the law. I argue that this reading has nothing to do with Psalm 82 as it was originally read, though. It was an innovation of the Greco-Roman period.
ldsfaqs Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Err, ok. Show me someone who says that "gods" should be translated as "judges" in John 10.34.I have seen a few mainstream Christian apologists try and argue that Psalm 82 refers to human judges (which I would disagree with). But I haven't seen say that Jesus' quotation of that Psalm in John is a mistranslation that should be instead be translated as "judges".I think the other poster in this thread is correct; the speaker simply misspoke in the video. I think he meant to say that certain people interpret Jesus' words in John 10 as referring to human judges; not that people say Jesus' words should be translated as "judges" instead of "Gods."This seems like an irrelevant quibble that detracts from the purpose of this thread (Maklelan's talk at SBL on Psa 82 and John 10 and how it illuminates the concept of humanity’s participation in the divine in the Second Temple period). I only brought this up because the video you posted had me confused due to the speakers lack of preciseness in the words he chose to use.I'm a former member of multiples of various christian religions, also a former anti-mormon, and I've dealt with anti-mormons and other christians for over 20 years. Believe me, this is a common teaching. You may not embrace, but most do. Again, he didn't mispeak.
Zakuska Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Perhaps this might help...--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Clarke's Commentary on the BibleIs it not written in your law - The words which our Lord quotes are taken from Psalm 82:6, which shows that, under the word law, our Lord comprised the Jewish sacred writings in general. See also John 12:34; John 15:25.Ye are gods? - That is, judges, who are called אלהים elohim. That judges are here meant appears from Psalm 82:2, etc., and also from what follows here. And this is probably the only place where the word אלהים is applied to any but the true God. See Parkhurst under the root אלה.
Jesterss Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 It's a common anti-mormon and christian teaching that the verses in question means "judges" not actually gods as stated.Reason being is because most christians don't believe we actually are and can be gods, so they re-write the scripture to fit their theology.Isaiah 43:10 would be proof as to why.
altersteve Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Isaiah 43:10 would be proof as to why.When read in context, this verse -- along with others such as Isaiah 42:8, 44:8, and 45:22 -- is meant to declare the authority of Jehovah over false gods and "graven images," as well as over others who are considered "gods" in the sense that they are divine and exalted. It is not meant to say that there are no other divine beings below Heavenly Father, the God of gods.
Jesterss Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 When read in context, this verse -- along with others such as Isaiah 42:8, 44:8, and 45:22 -- is meant to declare the authority of Jehovah over false gods and "graven images," as well as over others who are considered "gods" in the sense that they are divine and exalted. It is not meant to say that there are no other divine beings below Heavenly Father, the God of gods.There is no disagreeance on any of what you said. But the part in which I struck out has no relevance to what I or ldsfaqs stated. You state divine beings but don't state it as no gods. Do you believe that there will be other gods or simply just divine beings? 43:10 10Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.
altersteve Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 There is no disagreeance on any of what you said. But the part in which I struck out has no relevance to what I or ldsfaqs stated. You state divine beings but don't state it as no gods. Do you believe that there will be other gods or simply just divine beings? 43:10 10Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.Exalted beings are referred to as "gods" in modern revelation. But there will be no gods after the Lord, because that would imply that the Lord will stop being God. This obviously won't happen. But that doesn't mean that there are no other beings "that are called gods." As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 8:5 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.Obviously, you will disagree with this, and since you've been known to be very stubborn and thus a frustrating person to have a discussion with, I'm not going to take this any further.
Jesterss Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 (edited) Exalted beings are referred to as "gods" in modern revelation. But there will be no gods after the Lord, because that would imply that the Lord will stop being God. This obviously won't happen. But that doesn't mean that there are no other beings "that are called gods." As Paul said in 1 Corinthians 8:5 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.Obviously, you will disagree with this, and since you've been known to be very stubborn and thus a frustrating person to have a discussion with, I'm not going to take this any further.I have no problem understanding how this ( 1 corinthians 8 ) would fit into your theology, but taking this verse as to explain Isaiah 43:10 and the creation of any new gods is a very weak derailment to the question at hand. Do you believe there will be new gods created? For more accurate questioning, do you believe you or a true lds believer will become a god? Edited November 14, 2011 by Jesterss
ldsfaqs Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Altersteve has spoken correctly Jesterss.....Further, please read these short articles and understand the "actual CONTEXT" of the statement in question that you bolded.http://en.fairmormon.org/Latter-day_Saint_scripture/Critical_proof_text/Isaiah_43:10http://en.fairmormon.org/Mormonism_and_the_nature_of_God/%22No_God_beside_me%22Further, there is another reason why your interpretation and usage of that scripture is false.... Because it conflicts with other statements from scripture, thus you call God a liar. See this thread for an example. Are you calling Christ a liar, when he as well as Psalm's calls us all GODS??? Watch the above video I posted also.So, who are you going to embrace, your religions interpretation of scripture, or what the Bible actually says in context and in full??? hmmm?
Calm Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 (edited) Err, ok. Show me someone who says that "gods" should be translated as "judges" in John 10:34http://www.gracebiblechurch.us/outlines/sm030803.htmlhttp://christianchat.com/bible-discussion-forum/25304-ye-gods.html see post 4*****also http://www.blueletterbible.org/commentaries/comm_view.cfm?AuthorID=1&contentID=6818&commInfo=25&topic=PsalmsBoth use "ye are judges" as substitutions for the original.Takes all kinds Edited November 14, 2011 by calmoriah
Jesterss Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 (edited) Altersteve has spoken correctly Jesterss.....Further, please read these short articles and understand the "actual CONTEXT" of the statement in question that you bolded.http://en.fairmormon...xt/Isaiah_43:10http://en.fairmormon...od_beside_me%22Further, there is another reason why your interpretation and usage of that scripture is false.... Because it conflicts with other statements from scripture, thus you call God a liar. See this thread for an example. Are you calling Christ a liar, when he as well as Psalm's calls us all GODS??? Watch the above video I posted also.So, who are you going to embrace, your religions interpretation of scripture, or what the Bible actually says in context and in full??? hmmm?Your reply is confusing... please provide reference of what you are responding too. There have been multiple posts in which to try and extract what you are trying to say, which I don't follow... more concise please.. Edited November 14, 2011 by Jesterss
altersteve Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 (edited) I have no problem understanding how this ( 1 corinthians 8 ) would fit into your theology, but taking this verse as to explain Isaiah 43:10 and the creation of any new gods is a very weak derailment to the question at hand. Do you believe there will be new gods created? For more accurate questioning, do you believe you or a true lds believer will become a god?In some sense, yes. But I don't believe being exalted ("becoming a god") entails being equal with my Heavenly Father, or doing anything independent of Him. Being "God" and being "a god" are two very different things. Thus, I don't believe that this is at all in contradiction with Isaiah 43:10 or any other Bible verse.And I only answered this because it was a question about my beliefs, not about the LDS interpretation of Isaiah 43:10 or 1 Corinthians 8. As I said, I'm not going to get into a discussion about the meanings of specific Bible verses with you, because doing so is a waste of my time and yours. It gets nobody anywhere. If you were to be a bit more open-minded about what I have to say about such things, then I would be more willing to discuss it with you. But I'm not going to do that if all you're going to do nothing but argue with me as you have done in the past. Edited November 14, 2011 by altersteve
Jesterss Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 In some sense, yes. But I don't believe being exalted ("becoming a god") entails being equal with my Heavenly Father, or doing anything independent of Him. Being "God" and being "a god" are two very different things. Thus, I don't believe that this is at all in contradiction with Isaiah 43:10 or any other Bible verse.Perhaps you could elaborate on your definition of god. I think I understand God from your perspective being God the Father, the one and only. But how exactly does a person, such as yourself, become a god? I guess my question is more on trying to understand how "a god" and God (other than title and glory alone) are two very different things?And I only answered this because it was a question about my beliefs, not about the LDS interpretation of Isaiah 43:10 or 1 Corinthians 8. As I said, I'm not going to get into a discussion about the meanings of specific Bible verses with you, because doing so is a waste of my time and yours. It gets nobody anywhere. If you were to be a bit more open-minded about what I have to say about such things, then I would be more willing to discuss it with you. But I'm not going to do that if all you're going to do nothing but argue with me as you have done in the past.Right, I get that. But you did respond to my reference as to deny that it had a logical relation to there not being any more gods. Not saying you have to agree or the person I said it too has to either, just that it is a logical reference to those in opposition to the LDS faith.
Calm Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 How does the child of a father become a father himself (the care taking and teaching aspects, not just the physical)?
Jesterss Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 How does the child of a father become a father himself (the care taking and teaching aspects, not just the physical)?Is this directed at me? Rhetorical? If so, I fail to see where you are going with this.Perhaps you could tell me how Jesus was born without a physical sexual act?
Calm Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 If man can produce children without a physical sexual act, I am certain God can manage it.As to the child becoming a father like his father, a child of God would surely be able to become a god....how it is done would be God the Father teaching him how as a father teaches his own child to become a parent through teaching, providing opportunities to nurture and above all else provide the best example of how a father should act and interact. 1
altersteve Posted November 14, 2011 Posted November 14, 2011 Perhaps you could elaborate on your definition of god. I think I understand God from your perspective being God the Father, the one and only. But how exactly does a person, such as yourself, become a god? I guess my question is more on trying to understand how "a god" and God (other than title and glory alone) are two very different things?We are exalted, ultimately, through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. That is more important than anything, as our faith in Christ is what leads to repentance, which leads to baptism and reception of the gift of the Holy Ghost. We are also expected to receive our endowments and be sealed to our spouse and family for eternity in the temple, since we are exalted as families, not as individuals. That's why marriage is so important, as I believe I have explained before. Faith leads to all these things, and of course it leads to enduring to the end, which is absolutely necessary for eternal life with God. In the LDS view, God doesn't want to simply save us, He wants to exalt us, which means that He wants to make us even as His is and give us everything He has, allowing us to become joint-heirs of the heavenly kingdom with Jesus Christ through the Atonement.We differ from God when we are exalted, however, because He is our Father. He is the Creator. All the glory in everything we do and will do is His, and His alone. We will never be independent of Him, and we will always worship Him. Even if one can become "a god," that means deified and exalted by God, not becoming exactly as God is.So the difference lies in exactly what you said: in title and in glory. Our Heavenly Father is the God of gods, the Creator and Supreme Ruler of all that exists, and the Father of our spirits. Those titles, and the glory that comes from them, will never be ours.
Recommended Posts