Theism part 3, the poly/mono-theism question - Answer to LDS

[utahpirateradio]

"Conflicting concepts can come from everywhere and not all can be true. "

I agree there, especially when it comes to the unique tenants of Mormonism. Just my humble opinion.

[smpf38]

My original interpretation of Psalms 82 BEFORE I looked into it deeper to see what the scholars had to say, was that it was referring to men. However, first and foremost, that bothered me because Christ's use of the passage doesn't work if that is the case.

Also, IF God's representatives (whether they be heavenly or earthly beings) can and ARE called "gods" in the Biblical text, then it is hypocritical for critics of the LDS to claim that calling men "gods" is "unBiblical".

[utahpirateradio]

"82:2 How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah."

Not a "godly" principle. Sorry. These were not Gods, they were human judges.

[smpf38]

So, you DO believe that Christ misused the Psalm?

I just want to be clear. Christ was saying that he was the Son of God. He said "ye are gods" (and children of the Most High), "and the scripture cannot be broken".

How does pointing to mortal men support Christ's claim of being Deity?

Why is it O.K. for Christ to call men "gods", but when Mormons say that we can become "gods" ... it is blasphemy?

You aren't being consistent.

[slu2com]

"So, you DO believe that Christ misused the Psalm? "

I'd say your opinion is just about as good as anyone's. Do you fully understand the Hebrew, and that do you also know that a word in Hebrew that is translated into english as "judges" is "elohim".

I don't think that the scripture can effectively be misused. The point is, that the Lord is obviously addressing men, not Gods, who's existance is finite. Godhood is infinite.

These people being addressed are also sinners. Not gods.

[slu2com]

"Why is it O.K. for Christ to call men "gods", but when Mormons say that we can become "gods" ... it is blasphemy?"

Blasphemy? Whooaa.. Let's not open THAT can of worms.

I let it rest as a misunderstanding. Thats about it.

[smpf38]

Me: "Why is it O.K. for Christ to call men "gods", but when Mormons say that we can become "gods" ... it is blasphemy?"

SLU: I let it rest as a misunderstanding.

So, Christ is willing to call men "gods".

Yet LDS are criticized for using the very same word for people who are purified in Christ, immortal, glorified, sanctified, "partake in the divine nature" and become "one with Christ, even as [Christ] is one with the Father" (John 17).

Certainly you can see the inconsistency here.

[slu2com]

SLU: I let it rest as a misunderstanding.

So, Christ is willing to call men "gods".

SLU: Yes it is a misunderstanding. Keep looking.

[smpf38]

Here is a link to the pdf file "Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God" by By Michael S. Heiser

w w w (dot) thedivinecouncil (dot) com/DT32BibSac (dot) pdf

It discusses God and his divine council among other things. This guy is a peer reviewed Biblical scholar. I really like how on page 20, he explains basically the same thing I tried to explain to you concerning John 10:34-36, where Jesus quotes Psalm 82.

[utahpirateradio]

Psalms 82:6 I said, "you are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you.

Therefore, you shall die as men do, as one of the princes you shall fall."

Interesting that these "gods" will "die as men do".

These weren't Gods. Because we KNOW that God is eternal. God is not finite.

All of the major religions in the world are aware of this. Christianity, Judaism and Islam are in a very obvious agreement on this topic. Mormonism is one of few that disagree.

[smpf38]

utahpirate: Interesting that these "gods" will "die as men do". These weren't Gods.

Interesting, I thought that God (Jesus) DID die. But that is another point and discussion.

You clearly didn't read the link, so you don't even know the extent of the discussion. Go to the link and go to page 20-21.

[utahpirateradio]

"Interesting, I thought that God (Jesus) DID die. But that is another point and discussion."

Good point. So are you read to speak about the rest of Psalms 82, that speak of mortal judgements in relation to these "gods".

The chapter continues to speak of ungodly practices, such as unrighteous judgment.

At the end it differentiates the true God from the rest of what are referred to as "gods" in the rest of the chapter.

These "gods" were merely men, the hebrew word "judges" also means "god".

[smpf38]

That is kind of the idea. There is THE God who is the "God of gods, Lord of lords". Then there are beings that actually exist who are called "gods".

Unless perhaps you think that Jesus Christ misused Psalms 82 when he quoted from it? (See John 10:34-36).

Christ was saying that he was the Son of God. He reminded them that they too were called "gods and children of the Most High". Now, if Psalms only says what you claim it says, then that takes the point out of Christ's argument.

[slu2com]

"So, you DO believe that Christ misused the Psalm? "

I'd say your opinion is just about as good as anyone's. Do you fully understand the Hebrew, and that do you also know that a word in Hebrew that is translated into english as "judges" is "elohim".

I don't think that the scripture can effectively be misused. The point is, that the Lord is obviously addressing men, not Gods, who's existance is finite. Godhood is infinite.

These people being addressed are also sinners. Not gods.

[smpf38]

SLU: Do you fully understand the Hebrew,...

Better yet, I can quote world class Biblical Scholars on the Hebrew.

SLU: ...and that do you also know that a word in Hebrew that is translated into english as "judges" is "elohim".

But when Christ quoted the verse HE SAID "gods" in GREEK!

So, according to you, Christ says "I am the Son of God". They say "blasphemy". So, Christ says, "don't forget God called you "judges". And that silences the critics?

Surely you jest.

[smpf38]

Well, technically in Aramaic, which was then translated to Greek as "gods" not "judges".

By the way, the word "elohim" is translated as true Deity 2350 times in the Old Testament, yet only 5 times it was decided to translate it to "judge". The word for judge is transliterated "shaphat".

[slu2com]

"But when Christ quoted the verse HE SAID "gods" in GREEK!"

That's strange, because first it is commonly known that Jesus would more likely to be speaking Aramaic rather than "GREEK".

And two, the OT scripture that Jesus would have been reading would have been written in and read from Hebrew. Typically Rabbi's read the scripture in Hebrew even if it's not their first language.

"Surely you jest. "

No, Im rather serious. Are you kidding me?

[smpf38]

SLU: ... it is commonly known that Jesus would more likely to be speaking Aramaic rather than "GREEK".

Yes, I pointed that out actually. However, it is interesting that you are kind of pointing to the idea that a translation (the one found in King James for example) can actually affect or change doctrine. Sounds kinda ... mormon.

[slu2com]

"Yes, I pointed that out actually."

I noticed that you pranced right by my second point.

"And two, the OT scripture that Jesus would have been reading would have been written in and read from Hebrew. Typically Rabbi's read the scripture in Hebrew even if it's not their first language. "

"Sounds kinda ... mormon."

Sounds more like linguistics to me. Mormon nothing. This discussion has been discussed for years before Joseph Smith.

[smpf38]

SLU: I noticed that you pranced right by my second point.

My 3 points?

-The person who wrote Psalms 82 chose the word elohim ("gods") instead of the usual word for "judges". A ratio of 2350 to 5 on that translation.

-The person who heard the Hebrew and wrote the gospel of John also understood it as "gods" (ie divine beings).

-Jesus Christ was using that passage in order to bolster HIS OWN Deity status, which wouldn't make sense if it were not referring to divine beings in the first place.

[slu2com]

"-The person who wrote Psalms 82 chose the word elohim ("gods") instead of the usual word for "judges". A ratio of 2350 to 5 on that translation. "

If you want to play word games. At least "gods" CAN be translated as "judges".

In instances where LDS play semantics with words. Like with "keys" meaning "priesthood". There is no Biblical example where "keys" relates to "Priesthood".

However, elohim can and does translate as "judge".

[slu2com]

"-The person who heard the Hebrew and wrote the gospel of John also understood it as "gods" (ie divine beings)."

Actually, it does seem to reference authority. Which would then go back to the "judges" theory.

What YOU see is "divine being". But that is not what I see in the same context.

I see a discussion about authority, not divine beings.

If these men in Psalms 82 were divine beings, they did not fit the criteria of "God".

They were sinful and finite.

[smpf38]

Me"-The person who heard the Hebrew and wrote the gospel of John also understood it as "gods" (ie divine beings)."

SLU: Actually, it does seem to reference authority.

No, the Greek word the author of John chose to use was "theos", which refers to Deity. And referring to deity was clearly the context, because the Pharisees were going to stone Jesus for saying "I and my Father are one".

The word for "judge" in Greek is "dikastes". The text says "theos". There goes your judges theory.

[slu2com]

He is trying to explain to them that He is not to be stoned for blaspheme because just like them the people they think of themselves as Gods..even though they are not but Christ is..

The problem with your context, is that you are using Psalms 82 to justify that there are multiplicity of gods in the universe.

Psalms 82 is defining sinful, finite humans. Human judges. Not Gods.

The men will die like princes for their sins. If they were exalted, they would have no sins.

[smpf38]

You have no idea as to piles and piles of scholarship, logic, linguistics, and anthropology against you on this one.

The EVANGELICAL scholar I mentioned at

w w w (dot) thedivinecouncil (dot) com

is only the tip of the iceberg.

At the very least though, you can read the article that Michael Heizer wrote on the subject of Psalms 82. Furthermore, his article on Deuteronomy 32:8-9 specifically addresses our current conversation on pages 20-21.

[slu2com]

Yes, and thousands of other well accomplished scholars see this the same way that I do. Want a list? I would have to make a video to even scratch the surface, in creating this list.

[smpf38]

Slu: ...thousands of other well accomplished scholars see this the same way that I do. Want a list? I would have to make a video.

Better yet, why don't you go through the several arguments that Heizer makes at thedivinecouncil (dot) com concerning Psalms 82. You can explain why he is wrong.

And if you are going to point to "accomplished scholars" that see it the way you do. Let's see if they are recent (after 1997) and if those recent works have been peer reviewed.

[slu2com]

"And if you are going to point to "accomplished scholars" that see it the way you do. Let's see if they are recent (after 1997) and if those recent works have been peer reviewed."

Lets also see if the sun, and the moon and all of the stars will align in the mid-noon day while sitting on a bench in San Diego while at the same time you are just finishing the last bite of a chilli dog.

Do a simple google search for "Psalms 82".

There is really not much more I need to do. Check it out.

[smpf38]

slu: Do a simple google search for "Psalms 82". There is really not much more I need to do.

Oh, that's right. A google search is about the extent of your research capabilities.

I hadn't spoken with you for a while and I forgot.

[slu2com]

"Oh, that's right. A google search is about the extent of your research capabilities."

Actually, not only have you not typed to me for awhile, but your comments were disabled, and you seem to have forgot the content of my videos (I site my sources for most everything).

Psalms 82 is a VERY common topic is all. A simple google search will reveal a vast wealth of knowledge. The first page alone will prove to be thought provoking if you actually take the time to follow my advice.

[slu2com]

youtube. com/watch?v=Fn1JF7K4YcM

I give my references in the video above.

[slu2com]

"Better yet, why don't you go through the several arguments that Heizer makes at thedivinecouncil (dot) com concerning Psalms 82. You can explain why he is wrong."

I've already explained that the Psalm is OBVIOUSLY talking about sinful humans, that will die like sinful humans. Not exhalted beings. It's not a mystery, it's semantics.

If these sinful human judges were truly gods, their lives would not have been so finite and riddled with sin.

[smpf38]

Isaiah 24:21 "In that day the Lord will PUNISH THE POWERS IN THE HEAVENS ABOVE and the kings on the earth below". This distinguishes between the divine beings of Yahweh's host and earthly rulers.

40 seconds into this video (watch?v=lHF6AIgfv2s) you will get a short explanation of advances in Biblical studies. 2 minutes in he quotes a peer reviewed scholar (and I have many more for you too).

Summed-up: The divine council consisted of lower "gods" who were less intelligent than the Most High.

[slu2com]

youtube. com/watch?v=Fn1JF7K4YcM

I give my references in the video above.

[slu2com]

"-Jesus Christ was using that passage in order to bolster HIS OWN Deity status"

Again, this refers back to the authority not the divinity issue.

The margin is, judge or diety. He is to be both. And can be one separate from the other.

Diety is obvious, He claimed that many times. However, the Pharisees were questioning his authority, and he was giving them examples of Israelite authority.

Psalms 82 was obviously talking about sinful men, not gods.

[smpf38]

slu: Diety is obvious, He claimed that many times...the Pharisees were questioning his authority...

That isn't the context of the discussion and you know it.

"I and my Father are one." "Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him."

"Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me?"

"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."

[slu2com]

He is trying to explain to them that He is not to be stoned for blaspheme because just like them the people they think of themselves as Gods..even though they are not but Christ is..

The problem with your context, is that you are using Psalms 82 to justify that there are multiplicity of gods in the universe.

Psalms 82 is defining sinful, finite humans. Human judges. Not Gods.

The men will die like princes for their sins. If they were exalted, they would have no sins.

[smpf38]

SLU: He is trying to explain to them that He is not to be stoned for blaspheme because just like them the people they think of themselves as Gods..

It is clear that you are making this up as you go along. If they DID consider themselves gods, then they would have no reason to stone Jesus.

SLU: Psalms 82 is defining sinful, finite humans. Human judges. Not Gods.

Here is a peer reviewed Biblical scholar on the subject: Michael S. Heiser

w w w (dot) thedivinecouncil (dot) com

[slu2com]

"It is clear that you are making this up as you go along. If they DID consider themselves gods, then they would have no reason to stone Jesus. "

Not the Pharisees, the sinful humans that are spoke about in Psalms 82. These people considered themselves gods, and were addressed as such, despite the fact that they were sinful humans.

This all despite the fact that God claims "There are no gods besides me. None before and none after".

They were sinful humans, that would die like men.

[smpf38]

As the great semitics scholar Cyrus Gordon pointed out... translating (elohim) as "rulers" or "judges" is an option that lacks validity... Since Gordon chronicles

the examples where (elohim) is only speculatively translated as "rulers" or

"judges," and demonstrates in each example that such a translation choice is

unnecessary, I'll focus on features of the psalm that compel the conclusion that

(elohim) in v. 1b and 6a should be translated "gods" or, better, "divine beings."

[slu2com]

"As the great semitics scholar Cyrus Gordon pointed out... translating (elohim) as "rulers" or "judges" is an option that lacks validity... "

As well as thousands of other scholars in this matter.

The word Elohim is translated as "judges". And the men spoke about in Psalms 82 were obviously not exhalted beings or Gods. They were sinful, finite, limited human beings that would die like men.

The description of these men in Psalms 82 does not describe Gods, it describes sinful men.

[smpf38]

Your google search turns up old news:

"Unfortunately, this is a textbook example where New Testament scholars, [lack] any knowledge of Ugaritic or other comparative semitic data, ... Several points need to be made regarding Jesus' use of Psalm 82, for His hermeneutic amounts to a powerful testimony to His own deity...." Want more?

Go to page 20-21 on Heiser's article about Deut.32:8-9. He specifically discusses Christ's quote in John 10:34-36.

w w w (dot) thedivinecouncil (dot) com

[slu2com]

"Your google search turns up old news:"

As it should be, this is an old topic that is very common, and someone always is wondering "are they really gods"?

Well of course they are, gods in the sense that they have sin and will die like humans. Yes judges (also translated from the same Hebrew word for God).

I mean seriously, do you consider this sinful, limited, finite humans that will die like men, to be gods?

That kind of godhood is really easy to obtain dontcha think?

[smpf38]

SLU: That kind of godhood is really easy to obtain dontcha think?

I don't know whether or not it was easy to create subservient beings known as "gods".

Nobody knows the methods by which these gods came about.

As for those who are deified through Jesus Christ and then become "gods", ... well, what Christ did was not easy at all.

[slu2com]

"I don't know whether or not it was easy "

Sure it is. They can become gods, despite their sinful nature. They can rule unfairly, and sinfully. And they can die easily as do men.

So if these types can become gods, that does not seem like the bar is set very high.

Nor does the definition of exalted seem and better than the definition of mortal.

The way that these men were defined in Psalms 82 could easily define any of us sinful mortals.

Is THAT what exalted is??

[smpf38]

SLU: They can become gods, despite their sinful nature. They can rule unfairly, and sinfully.

The passage says that they were too lax in their judgment. They were too accepting, and the free will of the wicked was infringing on the innocent.

It doesn't really go on about a "sinful nature". Perhaps being a "god" isn't as easy as it sounds. Especially if you aren't THE God who clearly was considered to be superior in the early Israelite mindset.

[utahpirateradio]

Let me help you respond to my question.

When you quoted this: "SLU: They can become gods, despite their sinful nature. They can rule unfairly, and sinfully."

You left out one very key point:

"Sure it is. They can become gods, despite their sinful nature. They can rule unfairly, and sinfully. And they can die easily as do men."

Now as for their sin. They ruled unjustly.

And "the wages of sin is death".

The verses obviously show that these men will die as a result of their judgement.

[utahpirateradio]

"The passage says that they were too lax in their judgment"

Right because they were judges.

"They were too accepting, and the free will of the wicked was infringing on the innocent."

Which was said to be the reason for their future death. They would die as a result of their sinful judgment.

Their judgment would be punished.

[smpf38]

utahpirate: Their judgment would be punished.

It isn't entirely out of possibility that the hosts of heaven can be punished?

Isa. 24:21 "In that day the LORD will punish the powers in the heavens above..."

What "powers" exist in up on high that are not THE God himself? The strict monotheism that you hold today was not the same as the early Israelite religion.

[utahpirateradio]

"What "powers" exist in up on high that are not THE God himself?"

As if it wasn't obvious enough, I would have you considered angels.

christiananswers. net/q-acb/acb-t005.html

[smpf38]

Utahpirate: As if it wasn't obvious enough, I would have you considered angels.

However, the beings that we are discussing from the text are called "elohim", not "malakh".

This isn't much of a problem for LDS though, because we consider "elohim", angels, and men to be all of the same species, just in a different state, position, or role. Therefore, considering these "divine beings" as angel-like beings is entirely appropriate to us.

[utahpirateradio]

Cool. However, I disagree and you can refer to my past points on the subject of angels..

Certainly considering the many Biblical verses that say explicitly (not cryptically, or somewhere in between the lines). That there is only 1 God, and there are none that were made before him, and there are NONE that are made after Him.

These are issues that I still hope that you give a deeper consideration too.

[smpf38]

Let's recap here shall we?

IF God's representatives (whether they be heavenly or earthly) can and ARE called "gods" in the Biblical text, then it is hypocritical for critics of the LDS church to claim that calling men "gods" is "unBiblical".

I mean, you are sitting here arguing that in Hebrew, the text calls these sinful men "elohim", the same word usually reserved for Deity. So, why then do your criticize Mormons for doing the same thing, only in a different language?

[utahpirateradio]

"Let's recap here shall we?"

Yes, certainly. You're arguement that Psalms 82 supports your point of view is foolish. Refer to my past statements.

[smpf38]

Utahpirate: You're arguement that Psalms 82 supports your point of view is foolish.

In all reality, it doesn't matter if Psalms 82 is referring to men or not. Your argument against the LDS is inconsistent.

[utahpirateradio]

"What "powers" exist in up on high that are not THE God himself? The strict monotheism that you hold today was not the same as the early Israelite religion."

The ancient religions (Abrahamic) all agree strongly on one principle. Monotheism. Christianity comes from those ancient faiths..

With two or more witnesses, every word can be established.

Or something like that.. Right..

[smpf38]

utahpirate: The ancient religions (Abrahamic) all agree strongly on one principle. Monotheism.

I care about the truth, not what other religions believe. Also, "monotheism" is an extra-biblical concept. The word does not appear in the text.

In the case of Christianity, we need to discuss in what sense the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are "one".

Utahpirate: With two or more witnesses, every word can be established.

Two of your witnesses reject Jesus as the Christ.

[utahpirateradio]

"I care about the truth, not what other religions believe. Also, "monotheism" is an extra-biblical concept. The word does not appear in the text."

Again, I am just trying to use your principles (which happens to be a Biblical principle as well).

With two or more witnesses truth can be established.

I have sufficientyly given these witnesses. One of these witnesses are in fact the root of Christianity.

As for monotheism... To be continued.

[smpf38]

Utahpirate: With two or more witnesses truth can be established.

So, since two of your "witnesses" say that Jesus was just a prophet (not the Messiah/Son of God), then why are you a Christian?

You are breaking your principle in the way you are trying to use it. Again, you are being inconsistent.

[utahpirateradio]

"So, since two of your "witnesses" say that Jesus was just a prophet (not the Messiah/Son of God), then why are you a Christian? "

First, that assumption is false. Have you ever heard of "Jews for Jesus". MANY Jews recognize Jesus as Lord and Saviour.

So don't go assuming.

As to the points that some of these people disagree about who Jesus is. That isn't the point. The point is that the ALL have a common belief, and that is monotheism.

That commonality is what is being discussed.

[utahpirateradio]

"You are breaking your principle in the way you are trying to use it. Again, you are being inconsistent. "

Actually, learning from the faith of the father's of Christianity (Jews). And the King of the Jews, Jesus is not inconsistent.

It is very appropriate actually.

Jesus was a Jew, and you may have heard of a group called "Jews for Jesus".

I think it was Brigham Young that said "take truth from ANYWHERE, because truth is truth".

So that is consistent for me, AND for you.

[smpf38]

Jews for Jesus is a Christian group. It does not reflect modern Judaism. Judaism does not accept Jesus as the Savior/Christ/Messiah. Muslims do not either. Both of these religions regard Jesus as a prophet, but not Deity.

So, again, your attempt to use (or misuse) "two witnesses" is inconsistent as far as your own beliefs are concerned.

[utahpirateradio]

'Jews for Jesus is a Christian group. It does not reflect modern Judaism. Judaism does not accept Jesus as the Savior/Christ/Messiah."

Actually these are modern Rabbi's and Jews that are coming to a realization that Christ is their savior. They are in fact "Jews" and they are for Jesus. Just because your narrow mind doesn't accept that, doesn't negate the point.

And Jesus was a Jew. The same that believe in 1 God, and monotheism.

And truth comes from everywhere.

[smpf38]

Utahpirate: They are in fact "Jews" and they are for Jesus.

They are "Jews" only in the sense of lineage and culture, not in their belief system. Likewise, someone may come from a long line of Christians, but that doesn't mean that they personally have accepted Christ as their Savior.

Utahpirate: ..truth comes from everywhere.

I think it would be better said that the truth can come from anywhere. Conflicting concepts can come from everywhere and not all can be true.

[utahpirateradio]

"Also, "monotheism" is an extra-biblical concept. The word does not appear in the text."

Come on, "Celestial Marriage" isn't mentioned in the Bible either, and Jesus Himself said that there is no marriage in heaven. Yet Mormons count that as a principle. (Matthew 22:23-33)

As for monotheism. That is a concept found throughout the Bible. Isaiah 43 is just one of many scriptures that identify this principle.

[smpf38]

utahpirate: "Celestial Marriage" isn't mentioned in the Bible either...

But Mormons don't believe that the Bible is the only source of religious truth. Our doctrines don't have to come solely from the Bible. Yours on the other hand are supposed to.

utahpirate: As for monotheism. That is a concept found throughout the Bible.

YOUR interpretation of the concept "monotheism", however, your version of monotheism, for example is not compatible with Isaiah as far as the Jews are concerned.

[utahpirateradio]

"But Mormons don't believe that the Bible is the only source of religious truth. Our doctrines don't have to come solely from the Bible."

But the Bible explicitly contridicts your assertions about "Celestial Marriage"..(Matthew 22:23-33)

So you can cherry pick whatever concepts and doctrines you want. However, I think it's hokey.

"Yours on the other hand are supposed to"

As for this topic I am in completely agreement with the Bible on Monotheism. As are the other Abrahamic faiths

[smpf38]

utahpirate: So, you can cherry pick whatever concepts and doctrines you want.

Not at all. LDS have a set of doctrines that are based on a set of canonical texts. We accept the doctrines that are found in that text.

As far as celestial marriage goes, we could talk about that here after you watch the video: watch?v=kCR54NQx6Ho

[utahpirateradio]

" LDS have a set of doctrines that are based on a set of canonical texts. We accept the doctrines that are found in that text."

And one of those texts is the Bible. The same Bible that in Matthew 22, rejects your (LDS) idea of Celestial marriage. Not even the Book of Mormon supports "Celestial Marriage"

And that principle of "Celestial Marriage" has changed many times in Mormonism.

So no you don't follow those "canonical texts" the way that you suggest that I should with the Bible.

[smpf38]

UtahPirate: And one of those texts is the Bible. The same Bible that in Matthew 22, rejects your (LDS) idea of Celestial marriage.

In all reality it does not. The context in Matthew 22 was under the Mosaic Law. LDS don't believe Celestial marriage existed under the Mosaic Law. Jesus Christ was quite accurate in that passage.

Again, I would be happy to discuss it further under the video on that topic.

[slu2com]

Cool.  Here is a video for you.

Titled: Mormon Marriage

youtube. com/watch?v=W268djDSq-o

[smpf38]

Here is some more: "First, the fact that the (elohim) in 6a are called (bene elyon) is a strong argument to their divine nature, for it is a completely transparent title for deity, both in Hebrew and Ugaritic. The word refers

only to God/El in the Bible and Ugaritic religious texts."

[slu2com]

But Psalms 82 defines sinful humans, not exhalted beings.

[smpf38]

SLU: Psalms 82 defines sinful humans, not exhalted beings

If Psalms 82 did not refer to divine beings, then Jesus Christ misused the text.

We both know that isn't the case.

[slu2com]

"We both know that isn't the case. "

Right, as I've said before.

He is trying to explain to them that He is not to be stoned for blaspheme because just like those referred to in Psalms 82 they think of themselves as Gods..even though they are not. But Christ is, which is all the more defense.

The problem with your context, is that you are using Psalms 82 to justify that there are multiplicity of gods in the universe.

Psalms 82 is defining sinful, finite humans. Human judges. Not Gods.

[smpf38]

SLu: "He is trying to explain to them that He is not to be stoned for blaspheme because just like those referred to in Psalms 82 they think of themselves as Gods..even though they are not. But Christ is, which is all the more defense."

This above statement of yours pretty much proves my point. What you said here makes absolutely no sense.

I changed my mind. Don't go to w w w (dot) thedivinecouncil (dot) com

The 6 page article on Psalms 82 would be way over your head.

[slu2com]

I've already explained that the Psalm is OBVIOUSLY talking about sinful humans, that will die like sinful humans. Not exhalted beings. It's not a mystery, it's semantics.

If these sinful human judges were truly gods, their lives would not have been so finite and riddled with sin.

[slu2com]

youtube. com/watch?v=Fn1JF7K4YcM

I give my references in the video above.

[smpf38]

The passage doesn't say that their lives were "riddled with sin". It says that their judgements were not as just as the Most High God. As for them being able to die Psalms 82 says:"

"But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes".

Sound familiar? Remember a being known as Lucifer (which means "bringer of light" and indicates that he once had an important role in Heaven). Well he was one of the "shining ones" a "morning star" and fell from Heaven.

[utahpirateradio]

"The passage doesn't say that their lives were "riddled with sin". "

It does say that they judged unjustly, and that they would die for it.

"the wages of sin is death", and yes their future death was said to be a result of their actions (or inactions as it may have been)

Gods who sin, and who die?

They do not sound like Gods to me.

[smpf38]

utah: Gods who sin, and who die?

Even a God who is perfect in every way (Jesus) can enter mortality and die.

Utahpirate: "the wages of sin is death",

Again, Jesus died for OTHER people's sin and he died. As for mortal humans, we all die whether we judge others unjustly or not.

utahpirate: They do not sound like Gods to me.

While these members of the divine council in Israelite religion were considered "gods", they were not considered as intelligent as Yahweh. They were lower in rank.

[utahpirateradio]

The most reasonable explanation is the view most widely held over the centuries.132 The "gods" referred to in Psalm 82:1 and 6 are the rulers of Israel, who have failed to carry out their responsibilities as God's representatives in the ruling of the nation. Several lines of evidence support this interpretation...

Bob Deffinbaugh , Th.M.

bible. org

[smpf38]

utahpirate: The most reasonable explanation is the view most widely held over the centuries.

Which was my first impression of the verse as well. Nevertheless, it is the new discovery of previously unknown texts and archaeological data that is enlightening the scholars on this.

[utahpirateradio]

"You clearly didn't read the link, so you don't even know the extent of the discussion. Go to the link and go to page 20-21. "

I went to the link, I didn't see page 20-21.

Maybe you can post a link directly to it. I got to one of the 9 or so link on there and didn't see a page even close to 20 at any of them.

[smpf38]

Just google search the article:

"Deuteronomy 32:8 and the Sons of God" by By Michael S. Heiser

[jandrewclark]

Can God sin?

[slu2com]

Is that your belief? Im not sure what that had to do with my video, but what are you getting at?

[jandrewclark]

just questioning the nature of God...starting with the big scope of is God Omnipotent...your video paints God with an awfully big brush I'm trying to trim it a bit

[slu2com]

Lets look at it like this. Can got destroy humanity and still be without sin?

I see it like this. Can a potter destroy his pots, and be guilty of vandalism?

God is the potter, and He can destroy His creation. It's His to create and/or destroy.

Wouldn't that be murder?

The paradox for some is God says "thou shall not kill" and then He kills.

The translation of the 10 commandments really is more "thou shall not murder". But the consiquence for sin IS death.

[slu2com]

So if "the wages of sin is death", and God pays the wages to someone. That is not murder, that is justice.

deathreference. com/Sy-Vi/Thou-Shalt-Not-Kill.­html

[jandrewclark]

Which I understand...I'm just speaking more in hypothetical to wee if God is omni-everything...so Can God die? Can God create himself? Can God create another God? Can God sin? Those kinds of questions.

[slu2com]

If God is omni-everything as you say, the yes, I suppose He CAN do all of that.

At least in my finite prospective of it. But who knows for sure? Not me.

[jandrewclark]

see, I can't imagine a God who could do all those things, so I don't imagine God is Omni-everything, despite the claims of Christianity...this puts the trinity in an interesting light if my assumptions are true.

[slu2com]

I guess thats the big IF then. Because I don't KNOW for sure about His "omni-everything" abilities.

[jandrewclark]

hmmm...the unknown God....I refer you to Paul :)

[slu2com]

To KNOW everything about the core of the entire universe, would take a better understanding of what we vaguely know about the periphials of the universe.

With such finite knowledge and minds, it would be quite a concept to fully understand.

I think it was just recently that scientist finally made a decision on if pluto is a planet or not.

[jandrewclark]

haha, true, but you would think that God wouldn't be the author of confusion and that he would be pretty central to this whole scheme.

[slu2com]

Depends on the prospective I suppose.

I see our human understanding dim and finite. I see God as infinite.

How can a finite mind fully understand infinite?

That is my life long question.

Who knows. Im still confused about pluto!

[jandrewclark]

I would think that if we can think enough about it to be confused by it, we can think enough about it to understand it.

[slu2com]

Now that concept I do not understand.

Thinking enough doesn't accomplish anything, unless there is some sort of revelation.

I mean, I could think enough about pluto and not understand anything about it, unless there is a few factors.

An advance in scientific methods

Something to compare it to

Advances in technology

But can the same reasoning be applied to spiritual understanding.

Maybe.

[jandrewclark]

Oh, I don't see any difference between science and faith when it comes to how we should reason through them. We found Pluto not because we saw it, but because we understood how the universe works and then noticed that it had to be and then we finally saw it...same with Planet X. I think it's the same with religion...you understand concepts enough you can work your way to truth. I think God's something we have a lot of understanding about with no consistent pattern of reason applied.

[slu2com]

"Oh, I don't see any difference between science and faith when it comes to how we should reason through them"

Well, being that God is the core of the universe, maybe we will gradually understand Him better, as we gradually understand the universe better.

I see some connection between science and faith. But not 100% relevance.

[jandrewclark]

Oh, I don't think that science and faith connect all that well, I think scientific theory and faith do though. I think rationalism can and should exist in faith, but I don't think Christianity an survive unless it's based on irrationalism. That's the disconnect as I see it.

[slu2com]

I watched one of your videos that rationalizes LDS beliefs.

The concepts that you applied to LDS theology can't be connected to historical Christianity in most cases.

But uses real-world simalies can be applied to Christianity in a similar fashion.

I used H20 to explain the trinity for example.

But humans can rationalize just about anything. I don't think rationality exclusively defines truth.

continued...

[slu2com]

..continued

But I do agree that some things faith-wise are TOTALLY un-rational, and thats when I have questions too.

You question the rationality of Christianity (and I do to sometimes).  But I really can't get over the issues in Mormonism. Compared to Christianity, Mormonism looks like Scientology or some wacky faith that has no explainations at all.

[jandrewclark]

Oh certainly, take two key examples: The first vision and the Golden plates...if those two stories don't require a high degree of irrationalism, I don't know what does. I don't see a Christian sect out there that can use rationalism to define itself. In the end, they are all the same. I think the truth of God is likely to be found outside Christianity unless God gave us brains with the intention that we not use them *irrationalism*

[slu2com]

Again, rationality isn't hard to come by. So again, I don't think rationality equals truth. Come on look at Nazi Germany. Lots of people used lots of rationality to justify a lot of things back then.

I think that there are universal truths, which can be used to weigh the validity, or personage of God.

However like the universe. There are just a lot of things that we just don't know.

I recently got into SCUBA and it's amazing all of the things that we don't know about our own planet.

[jandrewclark]

I think pure rationalism would be, but I think that all too often be disguise our "rationalism" in with shades of personal agenda and past history. Thus it's reformed rationalism and that doesn't work any better then irrationalism.

It is amazing what we don't know about our planet, but at least we agree how we can discover more about it. We understand the process to find truth.

We should understand similar concepts of how to seek spiritual truth.

[slu2com]

"It is amazing what we don't know about our planet, but at least we agree how we can discover more about it. We understand the process to find truth."

Not always true. Recently, at the bottom of the ocean, they found a pool of liquid that rest below ocean water, but is so dense, they can't penetrate it with their submersable craft. Yet it ripples and has mass, and acts like water. So far they don't know what it is, or how to learn more about it.

There is a lot of that in science.

[jandrewclark]

I think we all agree though that we can find a way to get a sample of it and that then we can analyze it and figure out what it is made out of, etc. There's always things we don't know yet...but we all understand processes, even if they're just processes to get to new processes.

[slu2com]

"I think we all agree though that we can find a way to get a sample of it and that then we can analyze it and figure out what it is made out of, etc."

Thats optimistic, and probably true. But like all things, it will take time.

Such as with knowing the core of the universe (i.e. God).

[slu2com]

Now this may not seem rational. Or scientific in the normal sense.

But here is a way to know God. More about Him. To know He is Who He says He is.

Prophecy and fulfillment.

Many prophecies are plain, simple and very easy to understand.

God says He will do something, and it happens. Like prophecies in Isaiah about the coming of Jesus.

100prophecies. org

Scientific? Yes. In a way. Rational? Very. Provable? Very much so.

[jandrewclark]

Sure, I would normally agree with you, but I have to chuckle at the use of Biblical prophecy because it's always so general and generation free that it really could be applied to almost anything and then those that don't come true, like Christ's second coming being in "this generation" aren't held accountable, but given the generation free pass...it's the right idea, but the wrong application.

[slu2com]

"Sure, I would normally agree with you, but I have to chuckle at the use of Biblical prophecy because it's always so general and generation free that it really could be applied to almost anything and then those that don't come true"

The specific examples such in Isaiah that I used were not vague.

"Christ's second coming being in "this generation" aren't held accountable, but given the generation free pass...it's the right idea, but the wrong application. "

Christ did come a second time.

[slu2com]

Lets see, Christ died, left (decended to Hades) and then came back. Right?

Then left again.

So maybe we are considering a third coming. I dunno.

[jandrewclark]

Sure, but Isiah's prophecies aren't really all that specific because let's be honest, Jews aren't THAT stupid and if it was just a little more accurate there'd be massive conversions. There's a lot of Jews out there that think Jesus missed a lot of Isiah's markers and I think they're right on a few of them.

Again, the problem is that it's so general..which coming is this, which generation, WTF is he talking about...He could be Notradomist as well as an actual prophet, who's to say?

[slu2com]

Sometimes tradition gets the best of us. There are so many in the world (including Christians, and even myself), that tradition heavily influences our lives, past the point of rationality.

For example, everyone knows that Christmas and Easter are orginally pagan holidays converted to Christianity.  Yet, our traditions bound us to them, even though most of us know that we would not see the apostles or Jesus celebrating these holidays if they were here today.

Makes me think of the Pharisees

[slu2com]

However, you have to be kidding me to tell me that the prophecies in Isaiah are vague regarding Jesus??

If not. Then we are on two WAY different pages here.

[jandrewclark]

They do indeed, but there's many Jews who have long left tradition behind (see passover, animal sacrifice, etc) and yet still can't come to see how Jesus can overcome the obstacles to being the Messiah bin Judea.

[slu2com]

And, of course there are many who have. There are groups around the world called "Jews for Jesus". Who still maintain their Jewish traditions, and yet celebrate Yeshua as savior and Lord.

Yet, you didn't answer my question about whether you are kidding about Isaiah's prophecies regarding Jesus. Do you REALLY believe that they aren't specific enough?

And what would be specific enough?

[slu2com]

jewsforjesus. org

[jandrewclark]

Gather all Jews back to the Land of Israel (Isaiah 43:5-6).

Now, we know that people all say that hey, this is the "2nd Coming" part of Christ's role, but in the Hebrew there are 2nd Coming prophecies for a Messiah Bin Joseph, a line which Christ is not from. So, this is a Messiah Bin Judea Prophecy. Jesus is from Judea and he would therefore have to fit the prophecy.

[slu2com]

I see nothing about Joseph or Judea within that context. Nor do I see anything in regards to Jesus returning.

We are talking about: Isaiah 43:5-6

Which version are you reading from? This is the KJV.

Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west;

I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth;"

continued....

[slu2com]

In regards to the prophcies specifically refering to Jesus via Isaiah, I have referenced: 100prophecies. org in the past, and that is what I refer to now. Isaiah 49:6 Isaiah 7:14 Isaiah 40:3 ** Isaiah 53:3 ** Isaiah 53:5 ** Isaiah 53:7 ** Isaiah 53:9 ** Isaiah 53:12 ** Isaiah 50:6 Isaiah 61:1-2 The scriptures with ** by them are the most specific in Isaiah. However there are dozens of prophecies that are very specific by other prophets relating to Jesus too. Check that link.

[jandrewclark]

Ug...I feel another video is going to be needed here because this Judea and Joseph concepts are a big deal! It's going to take some time for me to review this website of yours, kick together the concepts and then put out a video. In general though, I would say that Jews have a strong case.

[slu2com]

Cool. I just wondered if we were talking about the same verse or not. I guess we are.

Did you review those prophecies that SPECIFICLY referenced Jesus?

** Isaiah 53:3

** Isaiah 53:5

** Isaiah 53:7

** Isaiah 53:9

** Isaiah 53:12

** Isaiah 50:6

[jandrewclark]

Yes, we're on the same verse and yes I read those.

Like I said, it's going to take me a minute to give this issue a full going over bringing in Hebrew text, the lineage concepts and then the history itself before I can give you a response worthy of these points.

[slu2com]

Right on, I look forward to it. I may make a video in the next few days outlining these prophecies, and ones from Daniel and Psalms that specifically reference Jesus. But Im on my way out the door right now. Probably won't happen until Thursday.

Take care!

[jandrewclark]

I'm going to pass out here in a bit, I'll pick up the Isaiah thought tomorrow..-peace

[utahpirateradio]

Did we ever get to the Isaiah verses?

[jandrewclark]

no unfortunately I've gotten wrapped up into other affairs and haven't had time to do anything I want to do, like this one...Remind me the first week of May and I'll get to it.

[jandrewclark]

I don't think that with God anything is possible. Have you watched "the God Paradox" yet?

[slu2com]

Yes, and replied.