We can become gods?

[PassionForHisWord]

Originally Posted by Yekcidmij

This Psalm has fascinated me mainly because of a constant reference to it from people outside traditional orthodoxy and Judaism. I respectfully, and humbly (since they are much smarter than me), disagree with Geisler and Howe on this one (I'm protestant, btw).

Here's my take on Psalm 82.

I think it's used as a polemic tactic against the gods of the nations. The Psalm does not address explicitly whether or not those gods are real or fake idols. It does seem to assume they are real in some sense, otherwise who is it God is judging? The Psalm carries with it a strong Canaanite theme to it:

82:1 Elohim stands in the assembly of El;
in the midst of the elohim he renders judgment.

The "assembly of El" is a phrase only used here in the entire bible. There is another possible reference to it in Isaiah 14 where it says, "stars of El". I see only 2 real possibilities here. (1) vs. 1 is a polemic tactic against the Canaanite high god El. Israel's God stands in El's assembly and just begins to run the show thereby showing the impotence of El to do anything about it. (2) El is refering Israel's God Himself and the one taking a stand in His assembly is a plenipotentiary agent.

I think (2) is more likely since at the end of the Psalm the standing elohim that has been rendering judgment calls on Elohim to stand and render judgment. The picture is that the El in vs. 1 is seated as judge and at the end of the Psalm the Elohim that has been rendering judgment on the gods of the nations calls on the seated One to stand and execute judgment on the nations themselves.

The other "elohim" (gods) mentioned in the passage are the gods of the nations. But they are not god in the same sense as either El that is seated or the Elohim that is standing. They are in fact incapable of executing justice properly as they make unjust decisions according to vs. 2. These gods don't even "know or understand" and they stumble around in darkness. In fact, they will die "like men" and fall like any other ruler. There is a distinction drawn between the elohim and men. The elohim here are not men. But they are not elohim in the same sense as the standing one or the seated one are because they are being judged by these other 2 and can't do anything about it.

The standing Elohim would be a plenipotentiary of the seated El since it seems that the execution of the verdict depends solely on the seated El.


Now, since I am Christian, I must also be able to cohere this understanding with the way Jesus is using it in John 10 or I must find another way to explain it.




In the conext of the passage, Jesus is defending His unique relationship to the Father. And He does this by appealing to Psalm 82.

The first thing to note is that He says "Is it not written in your law". This is interesting because this is a Psalm and is not located in the Torah. What is Jesus talking about? Does Jesus not understand what the Torah is? Of course he understands, and I think this shows a high degree of understanding of Torah. I think He is talking about the "Oral Torah" which many Jews adhered to, and Jews today adhere to. This was a Pharisee belief that God had delivered a written Torah and an oral Torah to Moses on Sinai. Lucky for us, the Rabbi's eventually wrote down the oral Torah. So, what does the Oral Torah say about Psalm 82?

Mishnah Avot:


And also in the Targum, an interesting version of Psalm 82 shows up:



This is the mindset Jesus is addressing. In Hebrew, "elohim" doesn't always refer to deity, and that reading was how the Jewish people were reading the Psalm ("rulers" or "judges"). The people he was addressing thought that Psalm 82 was talking about rulers/judges of Israel who God gave the Torah to on Sinai. In John 10, Jesus is using this and turning it in on them and this is evident in the passage:

10:35 If those people to whom the word of God came were called ‘gods’ (and the scripture cannot be broken),

and he was doing this while defending His unique relationship to the Father. He is not affirming that they are indeed gods. He is using the Psalm with the same intent that the original author did - polemic. If they had applied the entire Psalm to themselves they would have seen that the "gods" there do not "know are understand", a phrase Jesus picks on in John 10 also:

10:38b so that you may come to know and understand that I am in the Father and the Father is in me.”

and they would have been aware that these gods in the Psalm are killed. Not really someone you want to identify with huh? I think Jesus is also identifying Himself with the elohim that is standing in Psalm 82 and rendering judgment since the context is Jesus defending His unique relationship with the Father and since Jesus says, "I said you are gods". I think Jesus is identifying Himself as the One that is rendering judgment. In Psalm 82 the judgment is rendered on the gods of the nations. In John 10 the judgment is rendered on the Jewish leaders, who identify themselves as the "gods" in the Psalm.

Jesus is not affirming they are gods; that grossly takes the passage out of context. He's, if anything, doing the opposite by rendering judgment on them, but I think affirming or denying their deity is not involved in the passage or a concern of the passage at all, especially since Jews didn't consider themselves to be divine.

He is not affirming that their understanding of Psalm 82, "rulers" or "judges" of the Torah, is correct either since there is a remark to "your law" that seems to draw a distinction between what Jesus was affirming and what they affirmed (kind of like, "your law, not mine").

The original context of Psalm 82 is judgment on the gods of the nations. If anything, the the oral law has misapplied that Psalm and Jesus exploits the opprotunity to defend His unique relationship to the Father and their subordination to Him. Just as Psalm 82 was a polemic against the gods of the nations, Jesus uses Psalm 82 as a polemic against those standing there due to their understanding of Psalm 82.

Hope that helps.

That is a very helpful response.

[Misshalfway]

I am going to ponder out loud here. It seems to me that there are three types of Gods, if you will:

1) True Gods (IE. God the Father, Jesus Christ, Holy Ghost). These are eternal and perfect in nature, power, knowledge, action and purpose. (some may understand God honestly but differently)

2) Posers or false gods or false christs who may or may not exist and who do not have the truth but who have an agenda to distort the truth or lead followers aways from the truth. This may include idols or materialism or even in some ways of looking at it....arm of the flesh. (satan is the author and influencer of all to deceive and corrupt the children of men and the designs of God)

3) Children of God, who have great potential who are literally the offspring of God but who are human and flawed and need help to attain perfection thru the sacrifice of a Savior and a loving and perfect Father. These include all the human family. Those who obey the eternal commandments and laws that lead to perfection, will be given all the Father has and become joint heirs with Christ. But, these children cannot obtain this glory by themselves but must be given these blessings thru the combination of Atonement, covenant, and obedience.

The way I see it, I can become a god or a spiritual adult. But I am not perfect as the Father is and can only become perfect because of help or grace. The only thing I really know about become this type of god is that eternal progression becomes available. The D&C says they are called gods "...because they go on".

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by PassionForHisWord

Yes, that's part of the context. But the other half is God's statement: There has been no God before Him, and niether will there be after Him.

Let's say I got in a line to buy lunch for myself. If I was the only one in line, and also somehow the only customer the restaurant had all day, that would make me both the first customer and the last customer for that day, right?

Well, rather than using a time segment of a day, God declares He is the first and the last for all eternity (Isaiah 44:6). The first and the last what? The first and the last God. He even adds (in that verse reference I just put) that besides Him there is no other God. He has been the first for the entire infinite duration that He has been in existence, and because He is the only God, He will also be the last for the entire infinite duration that He will continue to exist in.

It may sound a little silly, but if we go back to my analogy, this would be the equivalent of me saying "I am the first and the last customer today, and besides me there is no other customer today."

Much of the problem you have to do with the doctrine is that you employ logic intent on finding fault. This is the same problem the Pharisees and Scribes had in opposing Jesus. So I am not sure where to begin. Let us start with Genesis. Note that prior to the fall of man all references to G-d or g-d are plural. Note that after the fall of man all references to G-d are singular. Failure to engage this fact is a great flaw of traditional Trinitarian Christians. It fails to recognize the very core and basis of the fall and the only means for fallen man to return to the Kingdom of Heaven.

In the most simple of terms if man deals with the exact same single G-d before and after the fall then there was in truth no fall. We learn from scripture that Jesus is the “only” mediator G-d with the Father. With this understanding of Jesus everything in ancient scripture makes sense. For example; as the “mediator G-d” for fallen man there are no other G-ds for consideration. All of the ancient references to G-d in Biblical scripture parallel the ancient covenants concerning Kingdoms and Suzerain rule as directed toward subjects of that kingdom. It would be most foolish to think that the ancient Egyptians thought Pharaoh was indeed the only Suzerain on earth – even though every ancient Egyptian manuscript referencing Pharaoh says exactly that.

The LDS doctrine is that G-d the Father is the Suzerain of the Kingdom of heaven and that Jesus Christ his “begotten” Son is his servant vassal. We call the Father our father because he is the father of our spirits. LDS doctrine also teaches that the destiny of man is to evolve and become like G-d. To say this is impossible it to limit G-d and say he has no such power to do any such thing. Which in my mind is rather foolish since G-d gave all living creatures power to reproduce after their own “kind” and then to imply that G-d has no such power himself.

I also submit that there is no character or attribute of G-d that is not worthy of man’s emulation. In every way G-d intended for man to be like him. To claim and pronounce otherwise is in my mind the worst kind heresy and makes G-d a creation of man and his logic rather than man the very intended image and likeness of that G-d that created him.

The Traveler

[Yekcidmij]

Originally Posted by Misshalfway

I am going to ponder out loud here. It seems to me that there are three types of Gods, if you will:

I think that the bible speaks of 2 kinds of what the old testament calls "elohim" (gods). Both uses can be seen in Psalm 82. First, the very word "elohim" is not a proper name, but is a generic title that usually refers more to a plane of existence. There are a few instances when it is used to talk about human judges (Ex 21:6; 22:8-9), and I think it's used to denote the function as an elohim rather than being, in the present tense, an elohim. The elohim are in heaven, men are on earth. I think this has carried over to our language today to what we call "angels" and "demons". Angels and demons are elohim (and yes I have verses).

Then there is a unique use of the of the title elohim when it refers to Israel's God. He is THE Elohim, Ha'elohim. He is utterly unique from everything else and is incomparable to anything else. He is the One and only Creator of everything, including all other elohim. Nothing is, was, or will be like Him. YHWH (Jehovah) is Elohim and no ther elohim is YHWH.

Deut 6:4:
Shema Yisrael,.. YHWH.........Eloheinu,. YHWH....... Ehud.
Hear O, Israel, Jehovah [is] our God, Jehovah [is] One.

Failure to engage this fact is a great flaw of traditional Trinitarian Christians.

Until now.

[Misshalfway]

So interesting, Yek.

[PassionForHisWord]

Originally Posted by Yekcidmij

I think that the bible speaks of 2 kinds of what the old testament calls "elohim" (gods). Both uses can be seen in Psalm 82. First, the very word "elohim" is not a proper name, but is a generic title that usually refers more to a plane of existence. There are a few instances when it is used to talk about human judges (Ex 21:6; 22:8-9), and I think it's used to denote the function as an elohim rather than being, in the present tense, an elohim. The elohim are in heaven, men are on earth. I think this has carried over to our language today to what we call "angels" and "demons". Angels and demons are elohim (and yes I have verses).

Then there is a unique use of the of the title elohim when it refers to Israel's God. He is THE Elohim, Ha'elohim. He is utterly unique from everything else and is incomparable to anything else. He is the One and only Creator of everything, including all other elohim. Nothing is, was, or will be like Him. YHWH (Jehovah) is Elohim and no ther elohim is YHWH.

Deut 6:4:
Shema Yisrael,.. YHWH.........Eloheinu,. YHWH....... Ehud.
Hear O, Israel, Jehovah [is] our God, Jehovah [is] One.





Until now.

The Shema actually screams the doctrine of the trinity. As I think many of us know, the word "Elohim" denotes three or more figures. And the word used for "one" in the passage is "echad", which describes a compound unity among 2 or more figures (the same word is used when the Bible describes marriage as becoming one flesh in Genesis 2:24).

So what the Shema is saying about YHWH is that He is three or more figures united as one Being.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by Yekcidmij

I think that the bible speaks of 2 kinds of what the old testament calls "elohim" (gods). Both uses can be seen in Psalm 82. First, the very word "elohim" is not a proper name, but is a generic title that usually refers more to a plane of existence. There are a few instances when it is used to talk about human judges (Ex 21:6; 22:8-9), and I think it's used to denote the function as an elohim rather than being, in the present tense, an elohim. The elohim are in heaven, men are on earth. I think this has carried over to our language today to what we call "angels" and "demons". Angels and demons are elohim (and yes I have verses).

Then there is a unique use of the of the title elohim when it refers to Israel's God. He is THE Elohim, Ha'elohim. He is utterly unique from everything else and is incomparable to anything else. He is the One and only Creator of everything, including all other elohim. Nothing is, was, or will be like Him. YHWH (Jehovah) is Elohim and no ther elohim is YHWH.

Deut 6:4:
Shema Yisrael,.. YHWH.........Eloheinu,. YHWH....... Ehud.
Hear O, Israel, Jehovah [is] our God, Jehovah [is] One.

Until now.

I am not sure how you have engaged the great flaw of traditional Trinitarian Christians. In every case you have used "one" to reference G-d from Biblical scripture the reference is the ancient Hebrew "Ehad" - yet you are using it as though it was "Yhead". The singularity of "ehad" excludes the differentiation of both a Father and a Son. Ehad implies a unity as a man and woman becoming "one" in marriage. A single individual would have been yhead.

The Traveler

[rameumptom]

There are two ways to view this passage in Isaiah. First, it is considered a part of Deutero-Isaiah, which was probably written during the exile. The post-First Temple Deuteronomists rewrote portions of the bible and introduced their religious views to excise the ancient First Temple beliefs.

Margaret Barker and other biblical scholars show that in the First Temple period, the Jews DID believe in multiple gods. There was a divine council, led by El Elyon/Elohim. He had several divine sons, the foremost being Yahweh/Jehovah. He divided the nations amongst them, and they spent the centuries attempting to overthrow other divine sons.

So, in Job 1, we see Satan and the sons of God going to heaven to test Jehovah for preeminence. Job believed in the divine council, but his friends viewed things from a monotheistic/Deuteronomist way, and challenged him, believing he had fallen and deserved to die.

The martyr Stephen on his death was filled with the Spirit and stated seeing Christ, the son of God standing on the right hand of God. Margaret Barker teaches that the concept of a divine council was reinstituted by early Christians who understood and followed the First Temple beliefs, but was later rejected in the Nicene Creed.

The other concept to consider is that Jehovah was the God in Israel during Isaiah's reign. Of the divine sons reigning over other nations there were always overthrows and intrigue (as we see in Job 1). The original Canaanite god was overthrown by Baal. In this instance, we can now understand why Jehovah would state that there was no other God of Israel before or after him, as in other nations.

[Yekcidmij]

Originally Posted by Traveler

In every case you have used "one" to reference G-d from Biblical scripture the reference is the ancient Hebrew "Ehad" - yet you are using it as though it was "Yhead". The singularity of "ehad" excludes the differentiation of both a Father and a Son. Ehad implies a unity as a man and woman becoming "one" in marriage. A single individual would have been yhead.

The Traveler

I was using Deut 6:4 in terms of the context it occurs in. It refers to the uniqueness of Israel's God and that He is the sole object of their worship. It is not an analysis of the inner being, contrary to what PassionForHisWord says. It has nothing to do with unity either. Neither of those are the appropriate context of Deuteronomy. It has to do with uniquness and devotion.

Originally Posted by PassionForHisWord

The Shema actually screams the doctrine of the trinity.

I happen to affirm the Nicene Creed, but I'm afraid it's not entailed in Deut 6:4.

As I think many of us know, the word "Elohim" denotes three or more figures.

Not always. It can be used to refer to 1 figurel, such as Gen 1:27, or it can be used to refer to an unspecified many figures, such as Psalm 82.

And the word used for "one" in the passage is "echad", which describes a compound unity among 2 or more figures (the same word is used when the Bible describes marriage as becoming one flesh in Genesis 2:24).

Gen 1:27 and Psalm 82:1 use 'elohim' in the sense of 1 figure since the helping verbs and pronouns denote 1 figure.

So what the Shema is saying about YHWH is that He is three or more figures united as one Being.

Not really.

[Yekcidmij]

----nvm