Revisiting "ye are gods"

[Pyreaux]

14 hours ago, theplains said:

Would you clarify.

How is Heavenly Father of our Earth above all the other Heavenly Fathers of all the other created worlds?

So it seems you believe the beings of Psalm 82:6-7 are not deities” but rather eternal beings 
who became mortal and then their mortal bodies died.

Since they were not deities and they were already eternal beings (as per LDS theology), in what
way did the reception of the covenant on Mount Sinai mean the Israelites had become gods?

Does immortal mean they were not mortal before they made the golden calf?

It is not doctrine that there are other Heavenly Fathers, but even if it's entertained as possible or accepted as truth, it doesn't change much, as its still a matter of relativism. There are no others we need to be concerned with. "For though there be that are called gods... in heaven... as there be gods many... But to us there is but one God, the Father" (1 Corinthians 8:5).

InCognitus speaks not from LDS doctrine but Jewish tradition, midrash tradition about the Israelites that were endowed priests and entered a transfigured state (pre-resurrection temporary immortality), they had to relinquish their priestly regalia when they sinned. That is one thought. InCognitus may show the midrash or even walk you through the Biblical linguistic clues of their calling and initiation as born again/ritually resurrected priests, and transfigured when Israel saw the Lord.

He's working under the assumption that all Jews at Jesus' time thought like modern monotheistic Jews. Though reasonable, I disagree. Since the Dead Sea Scrolls were found, in addition to Paul in 1 Corinthians 8:5, indicates there are beings that are called gods and lords that exist in heaven. I think the Jews in Christ's time were not a monolithic group, they did not all believe in strict monotheism in Jesus' time. My opinion is a mix of modern academia, Michael Heiser, and a distrust of Jewish opinion after the siege of Jerusalem of 70 AD, when its an anti-Christian narrative. They obscured the very existence of the Sons of God in the Masoretic text, it was mainly because Jesus claimed to be a heavenly Son of God. He can't have been one of them if they convince you they don't exist.

Edited August 25, 2023 by Pyreaux

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Would you clarify.

How is Heavenly Father of our Earth above all the other Heavenly Fathers of all the other created worlds?
 

So it seems you believe the beings of Psalm 82:6-7 are not deities” but rather eternal beings 
who became mortal and then their mortal bodies died.
 

Since they were not deities and they were already eternal beings (as per LDS theology), in what
way did the reception of the covenant on Mount Sinai mean the Israelites had become gods?

Does immortal mean they were not mortal before they made the golden calf?

When one becomes fully one with the God above all other Gods in charity, intelligence, knowledge, wisdom, truth, light, life, power and glory he simply becomes one with a Godhead that includes more than three personages. For example, when one has obtained an infinite and eternal measure of divine knowledge, and therefore knows everything that the so-called God above all other Gods knows, it no longer matters who the God above all other Gods is because they are both in exactly same. In this way, every God becomes the God above all other Gods because they all feel, think and act exactly the same way — I.e. in the perfect way. It’s like Christ telling the apostle Philip that it wasn’t necessary for him to see the Father to know who and what God is, because insofar as the attributes of God are concerned he and his Father were exactly the same. Perfection is perfection, and once the eternal fullness of perfection is achieved there isn’t anyone or anything that’s more perfect because they are all perfect in one.

[InCognitus]

12 hours ago, theplains said:

Would you clarify.

How is Heavenly Father of our Earth above all the other Heavenly Fathers of all the other created worlds?

There may be many "fathers" (I am a father), and perhaps some fathers are in heaven, but our doctrine is exactly as it says in in Doctrine and Covenants 121:32, there is one "Eternal God of all other gods before this world was".

I'll also just quote what @Pyreaux said above, since he said it so well:  "It is not doctrine that there are other Heavenly Fathers, but even if it's entertained as possible or accepted as truth, it doesn't change much, as its still a matter of relativism. There are no others we need to be concerned with. 'For though there be that are called gods... in heaven... as there be gods many... But to us there is but one God, the Father' (1 Corinthians 8:5)."

12 hours ago, theplains said:

So it seems you believe the beings of Psalm 82:6-7 are not deities” but rather eternal beings 
who became mortal and then their mortal bodies died.

"Deification" is to be made eternal like God and be glorified.  They were deities. 

As for whose belief I was referring to, I was talking about what the Jews believed at the time of Jesus, and this is related to how Jesus responded to them in the gospel of John.  

This can best be summarized from this quote from "The Rabbinic Interpretation of Psalm 82 and the Gospel of John: John 10:34", by James S. Ackerman, The Harvard Theological Review Vol. 59, No. 2 (Apr., 1966), p. 186-187:

Quote

Tanh.B [Vaera]:9 tells us that the Angel of Death was created for the nations of the world, but that God had refused him authority over the Israelites because he had made them gods.4 How was this accomplished? 'Abodah Zarah 5a states that the Israelites were protected from the power of death when God gave them the Torah. This is best summarized in Midrash Rabbah Ex. 32:7:

• Another explanation of "Behold I send an angel," it is written, "I said: ye are godlike beings, and all of you sons of the Most High." When Israel stood at Sinai and received the Torah, the Holy One, blessed Angel of Death, "Thou hast power over all the heathen people, for they are my portion, and just as I live forever, be eternal, as it says, 'When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance . . for the portion of the Lord is his people, inheritance.' "'

     Thus we have the tradition that Israel was protected from the Angel of Death at Mt. Sinai. When God took Israel as his allotment, he made his people godlike through giving them the Torah. The Angel of Death was instead given power over the other nations.

     'Abodah Zarah 5a states further that the Israelites were corrupt in their actions, and so God told them that they would die like men. Thus we have a neat transition from verse 6 ("you are gods") to verse 7 ("you shall die like men"). What type of sin is being described here? Is it a general comment on man's fallen state? Or is the rabbinic tradition alluding to some specific event? Midrash Rabbah Lev. 4:I tells us that the Israelites' godlike status was short-lived. No sooner had they been given the Torah than they sinned by making the golden calf. So God spoke to the Israelites: if they had not sinned, they would have lived eternally, because he had given them the title of "gods" and "sons of the Most High." But Israel, through making the golden calf, had shown that she wanted to die, so "indeed like אָדָם shall ye die."

The same journal article also explains why the "human judges" interpretation of Psalm 82:6-7 doesn't work, but we've already been over that.

14 hours ago, theplains said:

Since they were not deities and they were already eternal beings (as per LDS theology), in what
way did the reception of the covenant on Mount Sinai mean the Israelites had become gods?

Does immortal mean they were not mortal before they made the golden calf?

Again, I'm not quoting "LDS theology", but I was explaining how the Jews at the time of Jesus understood the passage and why Jesus used it to argue against them in John 10.

[Navidad]

If you removed LDS theology and anthropology from the context of Psalm 82, how would you interpret the text? One of the key criteria for good interpretation is to be able to see a text through the lenses of others. I always think that is a helpful exercise.

[InCognitus]

On 8/25/2023 at 8:04 AM, Navidad said:

If you removed LDS theology and anthropology from the context of Psalm 82, how would you interpret the text? One of the key criteria for good interpretation is to be able to see a text through the lenses of others. I always think that is a helpful exercise.

I just recently started reading Michael Heiser's book, The Unseen Realm - Recovering the Supernatural Worldview of the Bible.  I've been familiar with Heiser's other articles on these topics for years, but my Anabaptist friend read the book not long ago and recommended it to me as a way for us both to connect on the Old Testament world view, so I took up his challenge to read the book.  It's well written for a popular audience, so it's an easy read, but I'm only half way through it so I can't comment on it as a whole. 

So far I have only a few disagreements with Heiser's approach (like his reading into the text some of his Protestant views, like creation ex-nihilo and the idea that angels "take on human form" when the text itself never infers that angels have any other form than human form, and also reading in his view of the Trinity into some passages).  But otherwise I think this is a book that certainly attempts to remove some of our modern blinders to what the Bible texts actually say.  

But I think his first deep dive encounter with the reality of what Psalm 82 is saying is worth looking at relative to your question, since it was the very text that changed all of his thinking.  The following is a quote from the book (cited above) discussing his Psalm 82 encounter, and these pages are also available in the preview in the Amazon link I posted above.  This comes from pages 11 and 12 of the book (with bold emphasis added - not for your benefit, but it relates to other aspects of our discussion in this thread):

Quote

WE ALL HAVE WATERSHED MOMENTS IN LIFE, CRITICAL TURNING POINTS where, from that moment on, nothing will ever be the same.
     One such moment in my own life—the catalyst behind this book—came on a Sunday morning in church while I was in graduate school. I was chatting with a friend who, like me, was working on a PhD in Hebrew studies, killing a few minutes before the service started. I don’t recall much of the  conversation, though I’m sure it was something about Old Testament theology. But I’ll never forget how it ended. My friend handed me his Hebrew Bible, open to Psalm 82.  He said simply, “Here, read that … look at it closely.”
     The first verse hit me like a bolt of lightning:

     God [elohim] stands in the divine assembly;
     he administers judgment in the midst of the gods [elohim].

     I’ve indicated the Hebrew wording that caught my eye and put my heart in my throat. The word elohim occurs twice in this short verse. Other than the covenant name, Yahweh, it’s the most common word in the Old Testament for God. And the first use of the word in this verse worked fine. But since I knew my Hebrew grammar, I saw immediately that the second instance needed to be translated as plural. There it was, plain as day: The God of the Old Testament was part of an assembly—a pantheon—of other gods.
     Needless to say, I didn’t hear a word of the sermon. My mind was reeling. 
     How was it possible that I’d never seen that before? I’d read through the Bible seven or eight times. I’d been to seminary. I’d studied Hebrew. I’d taught for five years at a Bible college.
     What did this do to my theology? I’d always thought—and had taught my students—that any other “gods” referenced in the Bible were just idols. As easy and comfortable as that explanation was, it didn’t make sense here. The God of Israel isn’t part of a group of idols. But I couldn’t picture him running around with other real gods, either. This was the Bible, not Greek mythology. But there it was in black and white. The text had me by the throat, and I couldn’t shake free.

     I immediately set to work trying to find answers. I soon discovered that the ground I was exploring was a place where evangelicals had feared to tread. The explanations I found from evangelical scholars were disturbingly weak, mostly maintaining that the gods (elohim) in the verse were just men—Jewish elders— or that the verse was about the Trinity.  I knew neither of those could be correct.  Psalm 82 states that the gods were being condemned as corrupt in their administration of the nations of the earth. The Bible nowhere teaches that God appointed a council of Jewish elders to rule over foreign nations, and God certainly wouldn’t be railing against the rest of the Trinity, Jesus and the Spirit, for being corrupt. Frankly, the answers just weren’t honest with the straightforward words in the text of Psalm 82.
     When I looked beyond the world of evangelical scholarship, I discovered that other scholars had churned out dozens of articles and books on Psalm 82 and Israelite religion. They’d left no stone unturned in ferreting out parallels between the psalm and its ideas and the literature of other civilizations of the biblical world—in some cases, matching the psalm’s phrases word for word. Their research brought to light other biblical passages that echoed the content of Psalm 82. I came to realize that most of what I’d been taught about the unseen world in Bible college and seminary had been filtered by English translations or derived from sources like Milton’s Paradise Lost.
     That Sunday morning and its fallout forced a decision. My conscience wouldn’t let me ignore my own Bible in order to retain the theology with which I was comfortable. Was my loyalty to the text or to Christian tradition? Did I really have to choose between the two? I wasn’t sure, but I knew that what I was reading in Psalm 82, taken at face value, simply didn’t fit the theological patterns I had always been taught. And yet there had to be answers. After all, the passages I had only now noticed had also been read by apostles like Paul—and by Jesus himself, for that matter. If I couldn’t find help in finding those answers, I would just have to put the pieces together myself.

Heiser talks about this pivotal experience in several of his publications.  

I think Heiser's approach, as described above, is an attempt at removing all of our preconceptions and let the Bible texts speak for themselves, which is also what I think you are asking us to do with our interpretations of the text.  (I italicized "attempt" for the reasons I described above, where I see that he has failed to remove all his preconceptions in some of the topics discussed in the book).  

What are your views on Psalm 82?

Edited August 26, 2023 by InCognitus

[Pyreaux]

I can't unsee what I see now. All I see is Elohim can't be standing in the midst of one elohim. The Psalmist calls on Elohim to the punish the then unpunished wicked not-Elohim but elohim who somehow own the nations that Yhwh had not, at that time, inherited. Yhwh here is the God of Israel, not the world. Other nations are property of these other elohim, which I don't assume from this passage alone that this is referring to a group of humans.

Edited August 27, 2023 by Pyreaux

[theplains]

On 8/24/2023 at 12:50 PM, Pyreaux said:

It is not doctrine that there are other Heavenly Fathers, but even if it's entertained as possible or accepted as truth, it doesn't change much, as its still a matter of relativism. 

Is it a doctrine or gospel principle that some LDS males may become the Heavenly Fathers 
of their own worlds in the future?

[theplains]

On 8/24/2023 at 12:54 PM, teddyaware said:

When one becomes fully one with the God above all other Gods in charity, intelligence, knowledge, wisdom, truth, light, life, power and glory he simply becomes one with a Godhead that includes more than three personages. 

Who is this God above all other Gods?

Does this mean that Heavenly Father, Son, and Holy Spirit of our Earth are not their own 
individual Godhead but rather they are members instead of the Godhead that pre-existed 
their exaltation?

[theplains]

On 8/25/2023 at 1:19 AM, InCognitus said:

There may be many "fathers" (I am a father), and perhaps some fathers are in heaven, but our doctrine is exactly as it says in in Doctrine and Covenants 121:32, there is one "Eternal God of all other gods before this world was".

"Deification" is to be made eternal like God and be glorified.  They were deities. 

Is it a doctrine or gospel principle that some LDS males may become the Heavenly Fathers of 
their own worlds in the future?

If they (those in Psalm 82:6-7) were deities, why would the Jews label Jesus with blasphemy 
for using that passage?

[Pyreaux]

7 hours ago, theplains said:

Is it a doctrine or gospel principle that some LDS males may become the Heavenly Fathers 
of their own worlds in the future?

Neither. The restored Everlasting Covenant is like Abraham's Covenant that promised Abraham, Issac and Jacob endless posterity, we are promised an "Eternal Increase" which suggests some sort of ability to procreate, but that is all that is certain as to what that exactly means. In the Bible, El Elyon, the Most High God's creation of heaven and earth is actually described as a "procreation" (Gen 14).

There is no doctrine about populating planets or spiritual children or whether it means resurrected bodies can procreate in the millennium. Hypothetically, if it were a truly a big repeating cycle, as some merely suppose it to be, to us there will only be one God the Father, even if we became a heavenly father ourselves. Whether we'll have spirit children, and whether they'll know or worship Heavenly Father is a big mystery. Relative to us, there are no other Gods to worship, nor will there be in the future.

7 hours ago, theplains said:

If they (those in Psalm 82:6-7) were deities, why would the Jews label Jesus with blasphemy 
for using that passage?

Exactly what Jesus was asking. Jesus claiming to be a Son of God wasn't blasphemy, there are other Sons of God, heavenly beings called gods. While not claiming to be “God” the Father, by claiming to be one of those gods, a Son of God, was thought blasphemy because His status as a Son of God was a claim to be equal to God. Jesus' equality with the Father isn't because they are the same being but is brought on by his divine sonship (John 5:18 Philip 2:6). Those made into God's sons are made equal to God by whatever heavenly laws make sons and heirs equal to their Fathers.

For instance, Jesus is the Son of God, made equal to God, and He adopts humans as sons, making Christians new sons of God, and joint heirs, equal to Christ. As Paul puts it, by God’s “adoption of sons” (Galatians 5:4), equivocates with other sons “thou art no more a servant but a son, and if a son, the heir of God” (Galatians 4:8) and if heirs, heirs of God, and joint heirs with Jesus Christ, etc. By becoming a “son” renders every son equal regardless of our original decent (Galatians 3:27-28). Notice at first, John the Revelator was not rebuked for worshiping the Christ-angel (Revelations 1:17) but after his induction into the holy of holies in heaven to become a born again son/High Priest, he is then rebuked for worshiping the Christ-angel for the reason that both John and the Christ were (now, not before) “fellow servants” to God the Father (Revelations 19:10; 22:8-9).

Edited August 30, 2023 by Pyreaux

[InCognitus]

6 hours ago, theplains said:

Is it a doctrine or gospel principle that some LDS males may become the Heavenly Fathers of 
their own worlds in the future?

Ditto everything Pyreaux just said.

6 hours ago, theplains said:

If they (those in Psalm 82:6-7) were deities, why would the Jews label Jesus with blasphemy 
for using that passage?

Ditto everything Pyreaux just said. 

Why do you think the Jews were accusing him of blasphemy?  Because they thought he was calling them unjust judges?

This is yet another reason why the human judges interpretation simply doesn't work in John 10.  The Jews took up stones to stone Jesus in verse 31 of John 10, and explained their reasons for wanting to stone him in verse 33:  "For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God."  And this is BEFORE Jesus quoted from Psalm 82.  So no, the Jews weren't upset about him using the passages, but it was because Jesus said he was the son of God thus making himself equal with God.  Jesus repeatedly referred to God as "my Father" before he ever quoted from Psalm 82 (see verses 25, 29, 30 and 32).

And after he quoted Psalm 82, he said this:  "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.  Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand"  (John 10:37–39)

It was all about Jesus saying he is the Son of God.

Edited August 30, 2023 by InCognitus

[theplains]

On 8/29/2023 at 8:00 PM, InCognitus said:

Why do you think the Jews were accusing him of blasphemy?  Because they thought he was calling them unjust judges?

The Jews viewed his claim of being the Son of God as being equal to God.

But I don’t think he was using Psalm 82 as a defense of his deity but rather as a rebuke 
to them as the corrupt judges who were considered gods.
 

On 8/29/2023 at 8:00 PM, InCognitus said:

This is yet another reason why the human judges interpretation simply doesn't work in John 10. 

If I have understood your position, you believe the gods in Psalm 82 are not deities, they 
are not human judges, but they are eternal beings?

[theplains]

On 8/29/2023 at 5:47 PM, Pyreaux said:

Neither. The restored Everlasting Covenant is like Abraham's Covenant that promised Abraham, Issac and Jacob endless posterity, we are promised an "Eternal Increase" which suggests some sort of ability to procreate, but that is all that is certain as to what that exactly means. In the Bible, El Elyon, the Most High God's creation of heaven and earth is actually described as a "procreation" (Gen 14).

There is no doctrine about populating planets or spiritual children or whether it means resurrected bodies can procreate in the millennium.

Do you believe Heavenly Mother and Father were once a woman and man on some other world who 
progressed into becoming Gods and then through eternal increase populated the Earth and the 
other worlds (Moses 1:33-35)?
 

On 8/29/2023 at 5:47 PM, Pyreaux said:

Hypothetically, if it were a truly a big repeating cycle, as some merely suppose it to be, to us there will only be one God the Father, even if we became a heavenly father ourselves. Whether we'll have spirit children, and whether they'll know or worship Heavenly Father is a big mystery.

According to the church teachings in Gospel Principles, this is neither hypothetical, supposition, 
or mystery.

https://ia800509.us.archive.org/27/items/GospelPrinciples1997/Gospel Principles 1997.pdf

Chapter 2

Our Heavenly Father Presented a Plan for Us to Become like Him

Since we could not progress further in heaven, our Heavenly Father called a Grand Council 
to present his plan for our progression (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 348,
349, 365). We learned that if we followed his plan, we would become like him. We would have 
a resurrected body; we would have all power in heaven and on earth; we would become heav-enly 
parents and have spirit children just as he does (see D&C 132:19–20).

Chapter 38

Heavenly Father has given us the law of eternal marriage so we can become like him. We must 
live this law to be able to have spirit children. 

Some of the blessings we can enjoy for eternity are as follows:

1. We can live in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom of God.
2. We can be exalted as God is and receive a fulness of joy.
3. We can, at some future time, increase our family by having spirit children.

Chapter 47

Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is 
perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He 
is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation.

Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will 
receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59). These
are some of the blessings given to exalted people:

1. They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76).
2. They will become gods.
3. They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit 
children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our 
Heavenly Father.

[InCognitus]

48 minutes ago, theplains said:

The Jews viewed his claim of being the Son of God as being equal to God.

Exactly....

48 minutes ago, theplains said:

But I don’t think he was using Psalm 82 as a defense of his deity but rather as a rebuke 
to them as the corrupt judges who were considered gods.

Although given that the Jews viewed his claim of being the Son of God as being equal to God, and given that the Jews of that time viewed the gods of Psalm 82 as Israelites that had been deified and given eternal life at Mount Sinai, the use of that Psalm makes perfect sense as a way for Jesus to demonstrate the flaw in their accusations against him.

And I already explained why the corrupt judges interpretation of Psalm 82 does not work in John 10 or elsewhere.

48 minutes ago, theplains said:

If I have understood your position, you believe the gods in Psalm 82 are not deities, they 
are not human judges, but they are eternal beings?

You have understood incorrectly, as I already explained this above:    "Deification" is to be made eternal like God and be glorified.  They were deities.   What do you see as the difference?

Edited September 4, 2023 by InCognitus

[Pyreaux]

On 9/4/2023 at 1:14 PM, theplains said:

Do you believe Heavenly Mother and Father were once a woman and man on some other world who 
progressed into becoming Gods and then through eternal increase populated the Earth and the 
other worlds (Moses 1:33-35)?
 

According to the church teachings in Gospel Principles, this is neither hypothetical, supposition, 
or mystery.

https://ia800509.us.archive.org/27/items/GospelPrinciples1997/Gospel Principles 1997.pdf

Chapter 2

Our Heavenly Father Presented a Plan for Us to Become like Him

Since we could not progress further in heaven, our Heavenly Father called a Grand Council 
to present his plan for our progression (see Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, pp. 348,
349, 365). We learned that if we followed his plan, we would become like him. We would have 
a resurrected body; we would have all power in heaven and on earth; we would become heav-enly 
parents and have spirit children just as he does (see D&C 132:19–20).

Chapter 38

Heavenly Father has given us the law of eternal marriage so we can become like him. We must 
live this law to be able to have spirit children. 

Some of the blessings we can enjoy for eternity are as follows:

1. We can live in the highest degree of the celestial kingdom of God.
2. We can be exalted as God is and receive a fulness of joy.
3. We can, at some future time, increase our family by having spirit children.

Chapter 47

Exaltation is eternal life, the kind of life God lives. He lives in great glory. He is 
perfect. He possesses all knowledge and all wisdom. He is the Father of spirit children. He 
is a creator. We can become like our Heavenly Father. This is exaltation.

Those who receive exaltation in the celestial kingdom through faith in Jesus Christ will 
receive special blessings. The Lord has promised, “All things are theirs” (D&C 76:59). These
are some of the blessings given to exalted people:

1. They will live eternally in the presence of Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ (see D&C 76).
2. They will become gods.
3. They will have their righteous family members with them and will be able to have spirit 
children also. These spirit children will have the same relationship to them as we do to our 
Heavenly Father.

Well, it's been a while since I saw a Gospel Principles manual and I know this is the standard interpretation, this is not scripture. The most sources for it are in books by Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie. But there are no LDS scriptures that explicitly speaks of Spirit Children. Just "Eternal Increase", a "continuation of the seeds" in Section 132, refers to some kind of creative and procreative power. There isn't any scripture about the lives of our Heavenly Parents, their "mortal" experience could equally have been like ours or nothing like ours. If they were ike Jesus, they could have been a god before and throughout their mortality. Why, do you ask?

 

[theplains]

On 9/4/2023 at 2:53 PM, InCognitus said:

You have understood incorrectly, as I already explained this above:    "Deification" is to be made eternal like God and be glorified.  They were deities.

"God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:  How long
will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?" (Psalm 82:1-2).

What is the setting and time?  
Are the "gods" a reference to the "you" a group or the "you" an individual?
Are you a deity in that time and setting?

[theplains]

On 9/5/2023 at 8:16 PM, Pyreaux said:

Well, it's been a while since I saw a Gospel Principles manual and I know this is the standard interpretation, this is not scripture. The most sources for it are in books by Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie. But there are no LDS scriptures that explicitly speaks of Spirit Children. Just "Eternal Increase", a "continuation of the seeds" in Section 132, refers to some kind of creative and procreative power. There isn't any scripture about the lives of our Heavenly Parents, their "mortal" experience could equally have been like ours or nothing like ours. If they were ike Jesus, they could have been a god before and throughout their mortality. Why, do you ask?

 

The following image from the 2009 Gospel Principles says that it is used to teach doctrine.  

As for your last question, Joseph Smith taught Heavenly Father was once a man who became
a God.  The 1997 version of Gospel Principles has more references to heavenly parents and how
they came to have their fulness of joy.

 

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

The following image from the 2009 Gospel Principles says that it is used to teach doctrine.  

As for your last question, Joseph Smith taught Heavenly Father was once a man who became
a God.  The 1997 version of Gospel Principles has more references to heavenly parents and how
they came to have their fulness of joy.

Under "Teach the Doctrine", Gospel Principles says "Teach only what is supported by the scriptures, the words of latter-day prophets and apostles, and the Holy Spirit (see D&C 42:12–14; 52:9)."

Ideally in that order. The Prophet can add to the scriptures, but such new additions are presented by the First Presidency to the body of the Church and are accepted by common consent (by sustaining vote) as binding doctrine of the Church (See D&C 26:2; 107:27-31).

“It makes no difference what is written or what anyone has said, if what has been said is in conflict with what the Lord has revealed, we can set it aside.” The standard works, are the “measuring yardsticks, or balances, by which we measure every man’s doctrine.” (Joseph Fielding Smith, Doctrines of Salvation 3 vols. (1955), 3:203)

Until such doctrines are sustained by vote in conference, however, they are “neither binding nor the official doctrine of the Church.” (Stephen E. Robinson, Are Mormons Christian? (Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1992), 15.)

You are falsely claiming Joseph Smith's King Follet Discourse is doctrine, but doctrine is scripture. 

Even presuming the King Follet Discourse was canonized, it doesn't speak of God's "mortal" experience. If He was "like Jesus", that could well mean he could have been a god throughout and before his mortality. Jesus, held title of God pre-mortally, and thus indeed there might not be a definite time when God the Father was ever not a God, even if you say He were once a man. Jesus was both once a man like us and yet was fully God, very unique and not a man like us.

[InCognitus]

On 9/7/2023 at 10:37 AM, theplains said:

"God has taken his place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:  How long
will you judge unjustly and show partiality to the wicked?" (Psalm 82:1-2).

What is the setting and time?  
Are the "gods" a reference to the "you" a group or the "you" an individual?
Are you a deity in that time and setting?

The setting and time is ancient Israel.  The ancient Israelites (at that time) understood that God appointed other gods (other divine beings) to rule over the nations.  This divine council is not a concept limited to Psalm 82, it's found throughout the Bible.  The "you" in that passage refers to the divine beings under the authority of the God of Israel.

As I explained in prior posts, the Jews at the time of Jesus interpreted the passage a little differently.  They saw it as referring to the Israelites who had attained divinity on Mount Sinai, but had fallen due to their breaking the covenant.  I provided Jewish references in a post above (here). 

[theplains]

On 9/7/2023 at 2:53 PM, Pyreaux said:

Under "Teach the Doctrine", Gospel Principles says "Teach only what is supported by the scriptures, the words of latter-day prophets and apostles, and the Holy Spirit (see D&C 42:12–14; 52:9)."

"It isn’t a question of who said it or when; the question is whether it is true" (Boyd K. Packer, 1977,
Follow the Rule, speeches.byu.edu).
 

Quote

Jesus, held title of God pre-mortally, and thus indeed there might not be a definite time when God the Father was ever not a God

Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, says, "As far as man is concerned,
all things center in Christ. He is the Firstborn of the Father. By obedience and devotion to the truth
he attained that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while
yet in his pre-existent state."

This was repeated in the March 2008 Ensign magazine in "We Testify of Jesus Christ" by President 
Gordon B. Hinckley.

"He, the lowly babe of Bethlehem who two millennia ago walked the dusty roads of the Holy 
Land, became the Lord Omnipotent."

Edited September 12, 2023 by theplains

[Pyreaux]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

"It isn’t a question of who said it or when; the question is whether it is true" (Boyd K. Packer, 1977,
Follow the Rule, speeches.byu.edu).
 

Religion 430-431 - Doctrines of the Gospel Student Manual, says, "As far as man is concerned,
all things center in Christ. He is the Firstborn of the Father. By obedience and devotion to the truth
he attained that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while
yet in his pre-existent state."

This was repeated in the March 2008 Ensign magazine in "We Testify of Jesus Christ" by President 
Gordon B. Hinckley.

"He, the lowly babe of Bethlehem who two millennia ago walked the dusty roads of the Holy 
Land, became the Lord Omnipotent."

Classic Hebrews 1. And John 1. Jesus was God since the beginning/genesis, long before he was ever born a man. If Jesus was a God before he was Incarnate, how does the incarnation of God the Father mean he was ever not God? It could be true, but the scriptures tell us nothing of his life nor premortal life. Possible, logical, but neither false or true if its not scripture. Ever read midrash before? You'd probably swear the Jewish Rabbis flirt with false doctrine, creating wild narratives based on a few words, patterns and some logic. You even get the Biblical Apostles quoting midrash instead of scripture. It could be true, it just not canon.

[theplains]

On 9/12/2023 at 4:55 PM, Pyreaux said:

Classic Hebrews 1. And John 1. Jesus was God since the beginning/genesis, long before he was ever born a man. If Jesus was a God before he was Incarnate, how does the incarnation of God the Father mean he was ever not God? It could be true, but the scriptures tell us nothing of his life nor premortal life. Possible, logical, but neither false or true if its not scripture. Ever read midrash before? You'd probably swear the Jewish Rabbis flirt with false doctrine, creating wild narratives based on a few words, patterns and some logic. You even get the Biblical Apostles quoting midrash instead of scripture. It could be true, it just not canon.

From my point of view, I believe there is one God.  When God was incarnated into man (Jesus), 
God did not become two Gods.  But at the same time, Heavenly Father and Jesus are not the 
same being.  Can I fully explain or understand that? No.

From my understanding of LDS theology, Heavenly Father was a man who became a God in some 
other world with his exaltation (after following his father’s plan of salvation for him), 
with one wife or more wives (more likely). They procreated in some way and their first child 
was Jesus. I suppose he was considered a ‘god in embryo’ who reached some level of intelligence 
and then that ranked him as a God.  That would be 3 Gods (Jesus, his father, and his mother). 
They (Heavenly Father and one or more of his wives) continued to have billions of spirit 
children and populated the countless worlds that were created.  Heavenly Father (once a man on 
some other world) became a God and was subsequently worshipped by his own spirit children.  
Just like he (as the spirit child of his own Father) worshipped his God (that is, Jesus’ 
Grandfather).  The Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost) is taught to be another spirit child of heavenly 
parents who also was considered a God of the Godhead.  But the church does not teach how he was 
considered a God.

Future spirit male children of this Earth who become Gods are said to continue with eternal 
increase. Their subsequent children will have the same relationship to them as they (the exalted 
fathers of this Earth) had with their Heavenly Father. Simple implication – they too will be 
worshipped as the heavenly father of their own worlds.

I agree with you.  Some of the teachings I quote from LDS teaching manuals are not scriptural.

[teddyaware]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

From my point of view, I believe there is one God.  When God was incarnated into man (Jesus), 
God did not become two Gods.  But at the same time, Heavenly Father and Jesus are not the 
same being.  Can I fully explain or understand that? No.

From my understanding of LDS theology, Heavenly Father was a man who became a God in some 
other world with his exaltation (after following his father’s plan of salvation for him), 
with one wife or more wives (more likely). They procreated in some way and their first child 
was Jesus. I suppose he was considered a ‘god in embryo’ who reached some level of intelligence 
and then that ranked him as a God.  That would be 3 Gods (Jesus, his father, and his mother). 
They (Heavenly Father and one or more of his wives) continued to have billions of spirit 
children and populated the countless worlds that were created.  Heavenly Father (once a man on 
some other world) became a God and was subsequently worshipped by his own spirit children.  
Just like he (as the spirit child of his own Father) worshipped his God (that is, Jesus’ 
Grandfather).  The Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost) is taught to be another spirit child of heavenly 
parents who also was considered a God of the Godhead.  But the church does not teach how he was 
considered a God.

Future spirit male children of this Earth who become Gods are said to continue with eternal 
increase. Their subsequent children will have the same relationship to them as they (the exalted 
fathers of this Earth) had with their Heavenly Father. Simple implication – they too will be 
worshipped as the heavenly father of their own worlds.

I agree with you.  Some of the teachings I quote from LDS teaching manuals are not scriptural.

The fact that the Trinitarians can’t explain how God the Father and Jesus Christ are one God, while simultaneously admitting they are not the same being, indicates it isn’t possible for them to have meaningful discussions on the subject of the Godhead with the Latter-Day Saints. Until the Trinitarians are able to comprehensively define their own terms, without constantly defaulting to the standard position that the Trinity is an unknowable mystery, discussions like this one will continue to be a waste of time. Since the Trinitarians readily admit they don’t understand the nature of the oneness of the Father and the Son, for all they know the their supposed incomprehensible mystery will finally be resolved when they come to realize the Latter-Day Saints had it right all along. There is no need for knowledgeable Latter-Day Saints to fear debate with Trinitarians because the Trinitarians can’t explain enough about the nature of the oneness of the Godhead to even begin to be able draw meaningful and effective comparisons between the two positions.

I have a question for you: If all things are possible with God, and if God is able to make his faithful believers “partakers of the divine nature,” why do you think it isn’t possible for God to make his saints joint heirs with Christ in all he possesses, and fill them with all the fulness of God?

In support of the Latter-Day Saint testimony that men can indeed become like God through the atonement of Christ, I present the following three passages of holy writ…

17 That Christ may dwell in your hearts by faith; that ye, being rooted and grounded in love,

18 May be able to comprehend with all saints what is the breadth, and length, and depth, and height;

19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God? (Ephesians 3)

and…

11 And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers;

12 For the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ:

13 Till we all come in the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, unto a perfect man, unto the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ: (Ephesians 4)

and…

3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promised: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. (2 Peter 1) 

If one of your objections to men becoming like God is due to your belief that men don’t possess the divine nature, why then does Peter emphatically promise the believers that they can can indeed possess the divine nature?

Edited September 14, 2023 by teddyaware

[mfbukowski]

49 minutes ago, teddyaware said:

The fact that the Trinitarians can’t explain how God the Father and Jesus Christ are one God, while simultaneously admitting they are not the same being, indicates it isn’t possible for them to have meaningful discussions on the subject of the Godhead with the Latter-Day Saints. Until the Trinitarians are able to comprehensively define their own terms, without constantly defaulting to the standard position that the Trinity is an unknowable mystery, discussions like this one will continue to be a waste of time. Since the Trinitarians readily admit they don’t understand the nature of the oneness of the Father and the Son, for all they know the their supposed incomprehensible mystery will finally be resolved when they come to realize the Latter-Day Saints had it right all along.

Just for your understanding other Christians DO understand philosophically how the Trinity is "CONSUBSTANTIAL". Look up the word and see its history.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consubstantiality#:~:text=September 2022,spite of difference in aspect.

Aquinas spent much of his life pondering these alleged mysteries, and solving them, in his way that he, and all who accept his theories, based in Aristotle, find satisfactory TO THIS DAY.

We disagree with that philosophy and have our own, which is that they are unified- made one- in their PURPOSE, namely the immortality and eternal life of man.

We have different philosophies, that's all.  These different ways of seeing the world are sometimes call "paradigms" or hypothesis about how the world works.  As Alma teaches, we find the explanation which becomes "sweet" to us.

Catholics, and all Trinitarians have 2000 years of philosophy/theology behind their position, but individually choose, exactly as we do, the paradigm that is "sweetest" to their own consciences.

I agree with you that we have a "sweeter" paradigm, but it is just ... mistaken.. to say their faith is based on "mysteries"

 

Edited September 14, 2023 by mfbukowski
Added some

[Pyreaux]

  

On 9/14/2023 at 9:59 AM, theplains said:

From my point of view, I believe there is one God.  When God was incarnated into man (Jesus), 
God did not become two Gods.  But at the same time, Heavenly Father and Jesus are not the 
same being.  Can I fully explain or understand that? No.

From my understanding of LDS theology, Heavenly Father was a man who became a God in some 
other world with his exaltation (after following his father’s plan of salvation for him), 
with one wife or more wives (more likely). They procreated in some way and their first child 
was Jesus. I suppose he was considered a ‘god in embryo’ who reached some level of intelligence 
and then that ranked him as a God.  That would be 3 Gods (Jesus, his father, and his mother). 
They (Heavenly Father and one or more of his wives) continued to have billions of spirit 
children and populated the countless worlds that were created.  Heavenly Father (once a man on 
some other world) became a God and was subsequently worshipped by his own spirit children.  
Just like he (as the spirit child of his own Father) worshipped his God (that is, Jesus’ 
Grandfather).  The Holy Spirit (Holy Ghost) is taught to be another spirit child of heavenly 
parents who also was considered a God of the Godhead.  But the church does not teach how he was 
considered a God.

Future spirit male children of this Earth who become Gods are said to continue with eternal 
increase. Their subsequent children will have the same relationship to them as they (the exalted 
fathers of this Earth) had with their Heavenly Father. Simple implication – they too will be 
worshipped as the heavenly father of their own worlds.

I agree with you.  Some of the teachings I quote from LDS teaching manuals are not scriptural.

Not scriptural but not in conflict with scripture either. You don't seem to realize all of your distinct beliefs are not Biblical either. There is no real talk of a divine singularity, there are quite a few divinities and many derivative divinities. El Elyon (Most High) appointed a Son as a King of a council of 70 sons, they are all gods (derived gods). Yahweh, the Son of El Elyon, the King among kings, the God among gods, is Jesus, a God before he was born. There is the Ruah, a district being in Genesis 1. Jesus adopts humans as sons of God. The implication is simple, they are gods too or will be. Theosis. The current Old Testament is not as we supposed as firsthand accounts preserved by dutiful scribes. They erased the angel mythologies, which would have explained the divinity of Christ. If Judaism was always strictly monotheistic as they now claim, how could of Christ ever have been worshiped as a Son of God? Judaism wasn't purely monotheistic, but had an angelic mythology of a High God, the Father, and several Sons of God.

El Elyon, the God of Melchizedek

    Melchizedek was introduced in the Book of Genesis as the king of the city of Salem, and the Priest of "the Most High God [El Elyon (H#5945)" (Gen 14:18), who meets with Abraham, receives tithes from him and then blesses him. It has been suggested that this story about Melchizedek is an abridgment from a fuller account now lost. Who exactly is El Elyon, the God of Melchizedek? Is this the God of the Old Testament?
    El Elyon is the "possessor [qua (H#7069)] of heaven and earth" (Genesis 14:18-20), rather he was the "procreator" of heaven and earth, or a "creator" in the same sense that one is 'created' by their father (Deuteronomy 32:6). However, in the Bible based on the Masoretic texts, when Abraham swears his oath with Melchizedek, Abraham suddenly calls his deity the "Lord God Most High [Yahweh El Elyon]" (Genesis 14:22).
    We've discovered that this is a late alteration in the Masoretic texts by the Masoretic Jews after the advent of Christianity. This reading is not found in any other ancient source, not in the Syriac Peshitta, the Greek Septuagint, nor in the Aramaic Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran (1QGenAp). It was assumed that the Masoretic texts were older and that Christians altered the Septuagint, but the Christians have been vindicated, who seem to have much in common with the authors of these Dead Sea Scrolls which show that the Jews altered this and other Old Testament verses to further obscure the distinction between Elyon and his divine son Yahweh. The Masoretic texts removed details and references to the Lord's coming, the Messiah's coming, and the Sons of God, with a clear agenda to de-legitimize Christianity. If God had no divine sons, no partners helping him, Christ couldn't be who he said he was, the Lord, the messiah, the Son of God.
    They've altered one of the two great songs of Moses, its oldest parts that were appended to the Book of Deuteronomy. When Elyon first divides the nations after the fall of Babel into 70 parts, the Masoretic texts say they were being divide into that number of portions according to the number of the "children of Israel [bene Ysrael (H#1121+3478)]" (Deuteronomy 32:8) The Septuagint says the "angels of God" (LXX, Deuteronomy 32:8). The Dead Sea Scrolls say they were the "sons of God" (4QDeut). "[Yahweh]" received Israel as his allotted inheritance from His Father Elyon as one of these Sons of El (Deuteronomy 32:8-9). Yahweh was chosen to be the "God of Israel" (Ps 147:19-20) while the other 70 nations were "allotted" to "other gods [elohim]" (Deuteronomy 29:24-26).
   There are other altered verses in the Masoretic Deuteronomy, when the royal priest or Yahweh sits as king and judge to avenge and atone his land and people on the Day of Atonement, "Praise his people, O ye nations; for he avenges the blood of his servants, and takes vengeance on his adversaries, and he will be merciful [(H#3722) expiate, atone] unto his land, and to his people" (Deuteronomy 32:43) they've redacted all references to the Sons of God. The Septuagint read "Rejoice with him heaven. Bow down to him, sons of God, rejoice with his people, nation confirm him, all you angels of God, because he will avenge the blood of his sons, he will take vengeance upon his adversaries, he will repay those who hate him, and will purify the land of his people." (LXX, Deuteronomy 32:43). The Dead Sea Scrolls reads, the "blood of his sons" and "bow down to him gods, the sons of El" (4QDeut[q])
    The other gods are depicted as the satanic rivels of YHWH (Job 1) and the Psalmist of 82 calls for "Elyon" to punish the gods of the nations, via a fall, and for YHWH to inherit them all (Psalm 82). The foreign gods are called the Demons in Haazinu (Deut 32:17). "They shall sacrifice to demons, gods which they did not know". Then they are named (vv. 23-24) "They shall be) wasted with Hunger, fought by Reshef, and Qeteb (and?) Meriri." Resheph is a known name of a Canaanite god, who is known in the Bible as a demon shooting arrows of disease (Hab 3:5, Job 5:7). The others appear again in the Bible (Hosea 13:14, possibly also Job 3:5). Ba'al is the god of Phoenicia, and Jesus acknowledges him as a real person, also a demon (2 Kings 1:2–3, 6, 16; Mark 3:22).
   Long Deuteronomy 32:43 is in the Septuagint concerning an old story of an angel that was made a divine, "let all God's angels worship him" and is copied in the New Testament as a proof text for the divine premortal Jesus Christ (Hebrews 1:6). Before we found this passage in the Dead Sea Scrolls, it was assumed the Christians were adding innovate verses. It was doubted the Jews would or could have dared tampered with their own scriptures. Unfortunately, the Dead Sea Scrolls don't contain all the Hebrew scrolls to verify all the scriptures, but it is enough to prove the truth. The Jews really were deleting passages that were favorable to Christians to hide that the Old Testament describes a pre-incarnate Christ who is a God who has a Father who is a High God.

El, Chief God of the Canaanites

    A set of Ugartic (Canaanite) texts were discovered in 1928 informing us all about the Canaanite faith from 1350 B.C. to 1150 B.C. but that is not all. "The value of the Ugartic texts goes beyond the horizons of the Canaanite faith. The evidence suggests that Israelite theology was not so radically discontinuous with Canaanite religions as was once thought." (C.L. Seow, "Ugartic", The Oxford Companion to the Bible [1993] p785).
    It would seem that El was the Chief God of all the Semitic nations, El the "[Baniyu] the begetter", or as we would call him, God the Father. In the Canaanite myth, El sat on the throne, and he had 70 Sons of God and one of these sons was Ba'al Haddu. It was in the 14th century B.C. the Upper Syrians propped up Ba'al as the "king" and "judge" over other lesser gods, the sons of El, while still subordinate to his father El, and stood at his right hand. (F.M. Cross, Canaanite Myth and Hebrew Epic [1973] p185).
     The Bible refutes much of this, the major point of dispute is not about Ba'al's existence but about exactly whose nation's patron Son of El was greatest among all the nations. The Israelite prophets hated the gods of other nations; Dagon, Moloch, Chemosh and especially Ba'al with a passion, but not a single word has ever been uttered against Ba'al's father, their Chief God, El. It would seem that this is because El was never considered a rival adversary of Yahweh. The other Sons of God are depicted in the Book of Job as Yahweh's rivals.
    The Ugartic texts contains the closest language to Biblical Hebrew, a near exact vocabulary and parallels to Bible verses. In Canaanite myth, El was enthroned upon the mountain of Zaphon (North), which echoes in Isaiah who saw “the Most High [Elyon]” on the mountain of the "north [(H#6828) Zaphon] (Isaiah 14:13).

70 Bene Elohim

 The Bible does mention how in the days after Babel, the earth was divided into 70 lots (Genesis 10), or 72 nations (LXX, Genesis 10; Luke 10:1) by the Sons of God in the days of Peleg (Genesis 11:1-7). The human courts of law, the Seventy Elders of Moses (Ex 24:10) and Two Prophets (Number 11:26-29), the Seventy (m. Sanhedrin 1:6) or Seventy Two Elders of the Sanhedrin (m. Zeb 1:3; m. Yad 42), and the Seventy Elders of Christ who are sent as ambassadors to the Seventy nations (Luke 10:1) are all modeling themselves as the earthly counterparts of a heavenly law court (1 Kings 22:19-22; Psalms 82; Job 1:6-12; Daniel 7:9) as each of the seventy nations had an angelic representative (Daniel 10:20-21; 1 Enoch 89:59; 3 Enoch 1:240; 30:2; Apocalypse of Zephaniah 1:502; Exodus Rabbah 21:5; Leviticus Rabbah 29:2; Deuteronomy Rabbah 1:22; Targum Jonathan to Genesis 11:7-18; Talmud, b Sanh 99b; b. Ber 16a/17a).
    The Menorah, the golden tree, had seven lights, fruit of fire, which represent the Seven Archangels (Isaiah 11:2; Revelations 4:5; 1 Enoch 20) referred to as the "eyes" of Yahweh (Zechariah 4:14; Revelations 5:6). When King Solomon put the Menorah in the Temple, it was insufficient to light the Holy Place of the Temple, so he made ten more smaller menorahs (1 Kings 1:49; 2 Chronicles 4:6-8). Believed also to be seven branched (Ginzberg, Legends of the Jews 3:161), therefore the significance of seventy other lights would have represented the Seventy angels also. The Seventy angels are portrayed as Seventy shepherds in Enoch's dream vision (1 Enoch 89:61-62).
    As Moses, was "god to Pharaoh" (Ex 7:1). A biblical "god" is an ordinary noun applied to other ordinary things and does not mean the two are equal. The Isaiah denial verses (Isa 43:10-11) are correct, Yahweh is incomparable to other elohim of the council, such as in wisdom (Job 38-39). So, "among the gods" in the council, Yahweh has no equal (Ex 15:11). Yahweh is portrayed in as being installed as a Judge (Dt 33; 2-5; Hab 3; Zech 14) the most feared member of the council (Ps 89:6) and their King (Ps 29:12; 89:6-9; 95:3; 96:4; 97:7; 148:2). We are told that the Patriarchs didn't originally used to call upon Yahweh, but upon "[El]" (Ex 6:3; Num 24:16), until Israelites were called to the land that would become Israel. The elohim are the council of Holy Ones (Ps 77:14), plural beings that are under the Holy One of Israel (Isa 5:19; 1 Enoch 1:3; 4QEn(a)). 
    Isaiah taunts the "morning star" the divine patron over Babylon that is cast down from trying to set himself over the star-sons of El and Elyon (Isa 14:14) and is cast down. The celestial "prince of Tyre" is condemned for thinking himself to be God (Eze 28:2-10) who is distinct from the "king of Tyre" who is being punished for corrupting his wisdom (Eze 28:12-19). Yahweh roused the "spirit [single] of the kings [plural] of the Medes" is the angelic patron of Medes (Jer 51:11). The heaven and earth are seen as counterparts, when a nation rebels against Israel, its angelic patron is likewise rebelling (Dan 8:3, 20-21) like the "prince of Persia" who withstood Yahweh and required one of the Archangels, Michael, to aid him (Dan 10:13). The nations are ruled from the king that sits on Yahweh's throne (1 Chr 29:23). When the Lord Yahweh sits in judgment as He still acknowledges a Father over himself (Dan 7).
    A familiar picture is seen in Christianity, for which Christ is "Lord" and "king" and sits on a "throne" while still acknowledging a Father who is over Himself (Mt 25:31-46; Rev 3:21). Christ is never called the "Son of the Lord", only ever the "Son of the Most High God [Hupsistos (G#5310)]" (Lk 1:32; Mk 5:7). Standing at God's right hand (Ac 7:55-56) and sits in his Father's throne (Rev 3:21). If this Canaanite system truly alien to Jewish theology, why is it found in Christianity?
 
Illaya

    Daniel calls God in Aramaic "[Illaya (H#5943) Elyon]" who rules the nations of the earth by means of the "gods (H#426)" (Daniel 4:8), which he also calls the "holy ones [(H#6922)]" and the "watchers ['irim (H#5894)]" (Daniel 4:13, 17), these gods throw down the King of Babylon for his pride (Daniel 5:18-20). Elyon rescued his servants by sending "a Son of God" (Dan 3:35; 6:22).
    The Christians read from the First Book of Enoch (Jude 14) and the Dead Sea Scrolls contained a portion of it, proving that is a pre-Christian work. In the Book of Enoch, the "sons of God" that "begat the [nephilim (H#5303), fallen beings]" described in Genesis are called the "Watchers" (1 Enoch 6-16), and the name of God is "Elyon" (1 Enoch 9:5; 10:1; 40:1; 60:1; 62:7) who is also the "Lord of Spirits" as he fills the earth with spirits (1 Enoch 39:12; Hebrew 12:9; Number 16:22; 27:16). In the Books of Maccabees the "Lord of Spirits" sends out an unnamed being who he called his "manifestation" (1 Maccabees 4:24; 5:1-4; Assumptions of Moses 10:1-3; Joseph and Aseneth 14; Testament of Levi 5:1, 6).
    All the other Dead Sea Scrolls call God either "Elyon" in Hebrew or "Hupsistos" in Greek (Genesis Apocryphon, 1QApGen 2, 4; 12, 17) and so do many of the Apocrypha and Pseudopigrapha texts (Tobit 1:4; Judith 13:13; 2 Maccabees 3:31; 3 Maccabees 6:3; Apocalypse of Zephaniah A:1). Where ever we find a text that mentions "Elyon" there appear a lot of angelic activities and characters. The more angels we find written in early Hebrew within the Dead Sea Scrolls, the more we know the angels were being erased from history by the later Jews, claiming the angels were inventions from Babylon, "R. Shim'on b. Laqish said: The names of the angels were also introduced by the Jews in this way, at the return from Babylon" (Talmud, j. Rosh Ha-Shanah 1:2). The angels became thought of as mere extensions of God's will, despite all the evidence in Christianity that some of the angels of heaven seem radically independent in their thoughts and actions, such as Satan, a former "angel" from heaven (Luke 10:18; 2 Corinthians 11:14), and loosely refereed to as a "god" (2 Corinthians 4:4). 

Christian Gods

The earliest Christians were not strict monotheist. Justin Martyr, for example, was not afraid to refer to Christ as a "second God" and "another God" (Justin Martyr, The First Apology of Justin XIIL) In Origen's time there were still Christians, including himself, who were not afraid to refer to Father and Son as "two Gods in one sense and one God in another sense." (Origen, Dialogue with Heraclides).
    This theme is found in many of the texts of the Early Christian Fathers of the first centuries. The clearest explanation has to be the Jewish Christian document by Pseudo-Clement (not Clement the Bishop of Rome, but a purported traveling companion of Peter the Apostle). In which, Peter debates with Simon Magus. Simon makes a claim that in Jewish scriptures that there are many gods, "There are also many other testimonies which might be adduced by the law, not only obscure but plain, by which it is taught that there are many gods. One of these was chosen by lot, that he might be God of the Jews [Deuteronomy 32:8]. But it is not him that I speak, but the God who is also his God, whom even the Jews themselves do not know. For he is not their God, but of those who know him." (Clementine Recognitions 2:39).
    Peter explains that the Most High God is the God of the Jews, but there are also several intermediaries that are called "gods", and that the word "god" is being used with several meanings, "For every nation has an angel to whom God committed the government of that nation; and when one of these appears, although he be thought and called God by those over whom he presides, yet being asked he does not give such testimony of himself. For the Most High God, who alone holds power of all things had divided the nations of the earth into seventy two parts and over these he hath appointed angels as princes. But among the to one among the archangels who is greatest, has committed the government of those who before all others, received the worship and knowledge of the Most High." (Clementine Recognitions 2:42). Though you may question whether if this was truly spoken by Peter, this explains everything.
    Christians lost the idea that Yahweh and Elyon were distinct by accepting the new Masora Torah as official where Yahweh was the only god within it. Christians then had to explain how Christ was both; the God of the Old Testament, yet not the same as the Father. They chose poorly.

Edited September 15, 2023 by Pyreaux