Aliwe Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 I think the individuals here are making an reference to a oft-repeated thread on the Divine Council which is found in Psalms 82, Job, etc. It is not that a belief in multiple gods is suggested only that divinity is not found only in God, but in a Divine Council and ultimately us as well.I can imagine how Mormons would interpret Psalm 82, but I really have a problem with the idea of mining the psalms for doctrine. They are poetic prayers, with almost a sonnet structure, set to music. 'Scuse me while I kiss the sky. It reminds me a little bit of the fad for Bible Codes, where they searched every eleventh byte in the KJV and strung the characters together to look for patterns that said stuff like "ELVIS AND JFK ARE SAFE ON THE UFO" or whatever. It's like people are bored with the finite set of doctrines laid out in the law and the epistles, and need to go digging for more.
Ron Beron Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 I can imagine how Mormons would interpret Psalm 82, but I really have a problem with the idea of mining the psalms for doctrine. They are poetic prayers, with almost a sonnet structure, set to music. 'Scuse me while I kiss the sky. It reminds me a little bit of the fad for Bible Codes, where they searched every eleventh byte in the KJV and strung the characters together to look for patterns that said stuff like "ELVIS AND JFK ARE SAFE ON THE UFO" or whatever. It's like people are bored with the finite set of doctrines laid out in the law and the epistles, and need to go digging for more.While they might be poetic prayers they reflect a mindset or zeitgeist of the singer. Such scenarios were also used by Jesus, Job, etc. Look through the libraries on this site, FARMS, and FAIR to find more articles on this subject.
Matthew J. Tandy Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 I can imagine how Mormons would interpret Psalm 82,I understand you may be new to biblical scholarship, or perhaps a layman and not holding much interest in the Tanakh. For clarity, I will say that outside of some minor views held by a few theologically motivated evangelical pastors and seimnaries, academia has long held that Psalm 82 is referring to a Divine Council. The other actors in the council are not equal with God, but are still divine being of a slightly different and lesser nature. It is also accepted scholarship that early Israelites believed in the existence of many gods, not just dumb idols (although you and I both know that is what they were), that each country ahd it's own deity and victory over a people was victory of your God over theirs, etc. Over time, through several reforms and redactions, along with the influence of Zoroastrianism during the exilic period, their view of God morphed closer into line with how God is viewed today.I want to be clear this does not mean the older view of God was correct. It's simply what they beleived. A solid argument can be made that the reforms and redactions and other influences were inspired by God, and that he tuaght the Israelites line upon line, precept upon precept, here a little and there a little. Unless you believe they knew 100% of the nature of God from the get go, it seems appropriate to let the scriptures speak for themselves as to what the early covenant people believed. 1
Aliwe Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 It is also accepted scholarship that early Israelites believed in the existence of many gods, not just dumb idols (although you and I both know that is what they were), that each country ahd it's own deity and victory over a people was victory of your God over theirs, etc. Over time, through several reforms and redactions, along with the influence of Zoroastrianism during the exilic period, their view of God morphed closer into line with how God is viewed today.You mean to say the Hebrews were henotheist from the beginning, and moved to a more purely monotheistic position by the time of the Babylonian Exile. Otherwise it's hard to see how you can have a "jealous" God when there are no other deities to be jealous of. But at the same time, this slow evolution rendered the sin of idolatry as a moot vestige of the earlier beliefs. Paul began to hint at that. Evangelicals shrug and put down Marduk and Baal as fallen angels.
volgadon Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 You mean to say the Hebrews were henotheist from the beginning, and moved to a more purely monotheistic position by the time of the Babylonian Exile. Otherwise it's hard to see how you can have a "jealous" God when there are no other deities to be jealous of. But at the same time, this slow evolution rendered the sin of idolatry as a moot vestige of the earlier beliefs. Paul began to hint at that. Evangelicals shrug and put down Marduk and Baal as fallen angels.No, they did not move to a purely monotheistic view until well into the middle ages. 1
Ron Beron Posted June 23, 2012 Posted June 23, 2012 You mean to say the Hebrews were henotheist from the beginning, and moved to a more purely monotheistic position by the time of the Babylonian Exile. Otherwise it's hard to see how you can have a "jealous" God when there are no other deities to be jealous of. But at the same time, this slow evolution rendered the sin of idolatry as a moot vestige of the earlier beliefs. Paul began to hint at that. Evangelicals shrug and put down Marduk and Baal as fallen angels.Actually, I think they were monolatrists which is a recognition of many deities but a consistent worship of one.
Recommended Posts