We can become gods?

[Yekcidmij]

Originally Posted by 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.

I don't even know that we need to discuss a Deutero-Isaiah theory. I don't have much of a problem with it and do find the subject interesting. Barkers theory is somewhat like a Deutero Isaiah theory, but a little different.

In any case, if you want to accept biblical criticism, and remain consistent and rational in your thinking, you must reject 1 Nephi 20-21, 2 Nephi 6-8, 3 Nephi 20 & 22, Mosiah 12, and Mosiah 14. Those chapters all quote from what would then be considered the corrupted deutero-Isaiah and would also be terribly anachronistic. You would probably also have to reject 2 Nephi 12-24, 27, 30 since those chapters represent an inappropriate division in the text of 1st Isaiah.

Not that I reject the deutero-Isaiah (or even tritero-Isaiah, since there is no consensus among scholars on the composition of the book) theory, but I just want to point out the logical conclusion of its acceptance by LDS. The logical conclusion would be that Joseph Smith was not a true prophet.


Now I personally lean toward a unity in Isaiah rather than multiple authors to the book. So those entire chapters in the Book of Mormon contain very little for me to object about.

[livy111us]

Many Early Christian Fathes interpreted Psalms 82:6 to mean the deification of man.

Deification of man - FAIRMormon

I said " you are gods, all of you sons of the most high.’ let Eunomius hear this, let
Arius, who say that the son of God is son in the same way we are. That we are gods is not so by
nature, but by grace. "but to as many as receive Him he gave power to becoming sons of God" I
made man for that purpose, that from men they may become gods. We are called gods and
sons!...(Christ said) "all of you sons of the Most High," it is not possible to be the son of the
Most High, unless He Himself is the Most High. I said that all of you would be exalted as I am
exalted. (Jerome (340 A.D.-420 A.D.) the homilies of Saint Jerome pg. 106-107)

Mark Nispel has recently studied the extensive use of Psalm 82.6 (ye are gods) in early Christological contexts, and has suggested that this may be the origin of the idea of deification. The evidence of the Latin authors, who know of becoming god only in the context of the Christological argument of Psalm 82 indicates that the theology of Christian deification, while drawing upon Hellenistic ideas, arose chiefly out of the exegetical debate over Psalm 82.6 (Mark D. Nispel, Christian Deification and the Early Testimonia, Vigiliae Christianae 53 (1999): 302).

Arthur Darby Nock writes that the concept of deification admitted of a wide range of variations and was often expressed with a boldness which surprises moderns who have been brought up to think of the category of >divinity as infinitely remote. It had its roots in Gen. 1.26 and Psalm > 82.6 (A. D. Nock, review article, Journal of Religion 31 (1951): 214-6).

[Yekcidmij]

Originally Posted by livy111us

Many Early Christian Fathes interpreted Psalms 82:6 to mean the deification of man.

Quoting the church fathers is fine, but if they think Psalm 82 is refering to deification of man, they are simply wrong. The "gods" in Psalm 82 are killed according to the Psalm. That's the extreme opposite of deification. If Jerome misread it that bad, well I'm sorry for Jerome. If Jerome wants to talk to me about it, that's fine too.

I also unfortunately don't have access to the entire work by Jerome so I can't read the snippet in it's context. Since you are quoting the work, what is the context of the quote? Surely you check sources, right?

Church fathers aren't scripture and I laid out my take on Psalm 82, and it's relation to John 10, so quoting church fathers is nothing more than an interesting footnote, and calling it "interesting" is a formality of respect.

[rameumptom]

Originally Posted by Yekcidmij

I don't even know that we need to discuss a Deutero-Isaiah theory. I don't have much of a problem with it and do find the subject interesting. Barkers theory is somewhat like a Deutero Isaiah theory, but a little different.

In any case, if you want to accept biblical criticism, and remain consistent and rational in your thinking, you must reject 1 Nephi 20-21, 2 Nephi 6-8, 3 Nephi 20 & 22, Mosiah 12, and Mosiah 14. Those chapters all quote from what would then be considered the corrupted deutero-Isaiah and would also be terribly anachronistic. You would probably also have to reject 2 Nephi 12-24, 27, 30 since those chapters represent an inappropriate division in the text of 1st Isaiah.

Not that I reject the deutero-Isaiah (or even tritero-Isaiah, since there is no consensus among scholars on the composition of the book) theory, but I just want to point out the logical conclusion of its acceptance by LDS. The logical conclusion would be that Joseph Smith was not a true prophet.


Now I personally lean toward a unity in Isaiah rather than multiple authors to the book. So those entire chapters in the Book of Mormon contain very little for me to object about.

We do need to discuss 2nd Isaiah. For two reasons. First, the portions quoted in the Book of Mormon are actually among a key section in dispute. Word Print study was done on Isaiah, showing there probably was a Deutero-Isaiah, but did not include the chapters included in the Book of Mormon (Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, ed Parry/Welch). Also, of the disputed chapters from Deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, it only includes the chapters that do not make Yahweh and Elohim one being: one of the clear points of the Deuteronomist view.

The Book of Mormon supports the concept of two deities, Father and Son, El and Yahweh. And shows it in the Isaiah chapters. Either Joseph Smith was an amazing genius in choosing which chapters to use, or he was inspired to translate an actual ancient document.

A very good article by Kevin Christensen discusses some of the points in this thread, including points from Margaret Barker is found at this link.

[rameumptom]

One other thing, Nephi would have quoted Isaiah from the Brass Plates of Laban. Given Nephi was a descendant of Manasseh and Joseph (of Egypt), the Brass Plates would have been an article of the Northern Kingdom, probably carried to Jerusalem just before or immediately after Israel was carried of by Assyria.

The Northern Kingdom was attached to the "E" version of the Biblical text, which focused on Elohim, the Abrahamic covenant, wandering in the wilderness, wilderness altars, etc. These are things that disappeared or were lessened in importance post-Diaspora, as Yahweh absorbed Elohim, the focus turned to the Mosaic law and the Levite priests, and centralizing worship in the Temple of Jerusalem.

In the writings of Moses, for example, there are two trips by the wandering Israelites to Meribah. Both instances tell of Moses hitting a rock with his staff and bringing forth water. The E version has the Angel of the Lord's Presence stand on the rock directing Moses (Exodus 17). The other version lessens Moses' authority, having him mess up and losing his chance to enter into the Promised Land (Numbers 20). It should be noted that the Book of Mormon mentions the E version of the story (1 Ne 17:29).

It has been suggested by John Sorensen (IIRC) that the Brass Plates may be the source for E. Brought to Jerusalem by Laban's family after the Northern Kingdom was destroyed, then integrated into the writings already extant in Jerusalem. We see in the BoM how these records were important enough that the elders of Jerusalem would have Laban bring them to consult (even at night, as Laban's servant Zoram didn't seem it strange to follow the disguised Nephi through the streets of Jerusalem and outside its walls late at night).

[rameumptom]

Originally Posted by Yekcidmij

Quoting the church fathers is fine, but if they think Psalm 82 is refering to deification of man, they are simply wrong. The "gods" in Psalm 82 are killed according to the Psalm. That's the extreme opposite of deification. If Jerome misread it that bad, well I'm sorry for Jerome. If Jerome wants to talk to me about it, that's fine too.

I also unfortunately don't have access to the entire work by Jerome so I can't read the snippet in it's context. Since you are quoting the work, what is the context of the quote? Surely you check sources, right?

Church fathers aren't scripture and I laid out my take on Psalm 82, and it's relation to John 10, so quoting church fathers is nothing more than an interesting footnote, and calling it "interesting" is a formality of respect.

Scripture often has both an earthly meaning and a heavenly/spiritual one. We see it here, as well.

They are talking about the divine council here. These are sons of El that are each given an earthly kingdom to rule over. Yahweh received the greatest prize: Israel. Many of them squandered their divine inheritance, using intrigue to steal the portions of others. Job 1 tells about Satan and the sons of El going to challenge Yahweh to a dual over his son, Job! This is exactly what Psalms 82 is directly going after. They were to deal well with their earthly children over whom they'd been given authority. Instead, they squandered their opportunity and many fell from their divine place. Some suggest that Isaiah 14:12-20 tells of the Babylonian king representing one of these divine sons falling from heaven as he sought to overthrow God. LDS doctrine teaches it was none other than Satan (Moses 1:4, Abraham 3:24-28). Both in the ancient writings of the divine council and in LDS scripture, we read of challenges being made to God and Jesus' role as Savior.

Funny how a young farm boy from the Northeast could figure that out when it has taken biblical scholars up until the last 25 years to begin to understand this!

Here are a few links concerning the divine council:

The Heavenly Divine Council

Reconsidering Psalms 82:6

And here's Psalms 82 in the New American Bible version:

A psalm of Asaph. God rises in the divine council, gives judgment in the midst of the gods.
2
"How long will you judge unjustly and favor the cause of the wicked? Selah
3
Defend the lowly and fatherless; render justice to the afflicted and needy.
4
Rescue the lowly and poor; deliver them from the hand of the wicked."
5
The gods neither know nor understand, wandering about in darkness, and all the world's foundations shake.
6
I declare: "Gods though you be, offspring of the Most High (El Elyon) all of you,
7
Yet like any mortal you shall die; like any prince you shall fall."
8
Arise, O God, judge the earth, for yours are all the nations.

[a-train]

Behold, will ye reject these words? Will ye reject the words of the prophets; and will ye reject all the words which have been spoken concerning Christ, after so many have spoken concerning him; and deny the good word of Christ, and the power of God, and the gift of the Holy Ghost, and quench the Holy Spirit, and make a mock of the great plan of redemption, which hath been laid for you? - Jacob 6:8

Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. - Matt 5:3

Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Matt 5:5

Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. - Matt 5:10

And Jesus said unto them, Verily I say unto you, That ye which have followed me, in the regeneration when the Son of man shall sit in the throne of his glory, ye also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel. And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. - Matt 19:28-29

And he shall set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: - Matt. 25:33-34

The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us. - Rom. 8:16-18

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. - Rev. 3:21

And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them: and I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshipped the beast, neither his image, neither had received his mark upon their foreheads, or in their hands; and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years. - Rev. 20:4

-a-train

[Yekcidmij]

Originally Posted by rameumptom

Word Print study was done on Isaiah, showing there probably was a Deutero-Isaiah,

Actually word print study isn't as conclusive as you think. First, the Qumran document matches our current Isaiah very well. It doesn't show any evience of massive doctoring. It shows no evidence of major redactional editors or the like. The only "evidence" that ever comes foward is a word print analysys. And maybe the word print analysis is correct and there were many authors. There is no conclusion among scholars on how many authors there were. It ranges from 1 to many. For example Y. Radday did an investigation and concluded that 1-12 was one author, 23-35 was another, 40-48 was another, 49-55 another, and 56-66 another. And word print analyis does show a degree of unity to the work, for example, the phrae "Holy One of Israel" is a very rare phrase in the Bible and it shows up in chs 1-39 16 and chs 40-66 7 times. Similiar concepts also show up in various parts of the book. So word print analysis hardly leads to the conclusion of just 2 authors and there is no consensus on how many. And word print analysis does not lead to the conclusion of Barker. That's her theory and is not the natural conclusion from the evidence.

If the work is not a unity, I think it becomes difficult to explain how we got the present form of the book at all. You have to end up positing a school of "I Isaiah" who followed their master before the exile, and a group of "II ISaiah" students who grew out of the first school during the exile. The tendency seems to have become to whittle down Isaiah into very small units of which later redactors, presumably of these various "Isaiah" schools, add their prophecies and that the actual original Isaiah was limited to the first part of the book and wasn't much more that Amos and Hosea in size. It should be noted though that contemporaries of Isaiah (Amos, Hosea) did not spark such movements of prophetic schools nor is there any other evidence that there was a school of Isaiah with which to redact more prophecies onto the original.

The only consensus among scholars is that Isaiah isn't a unity. But that is where we began and an argument can be made to the unity of the book. (can provide a bibliography of works that do if anyone is interested).

but did not include the chapters included in the Book of Mormon (Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, ed Parry/Welch).

Also, of the disputed chapters from Deutero-Isaiah in the Book of Mormon, it only includes the chapters that do not make Yahweh and Elohim one being: one of the clear points of the Deuteronomist view.[/quote]

Well, the problem is that 961 times in the OT, YHWH is explicitly called Elohim. It's not limited to Isaiah. Deut 6:5 is a good example that even Jesus quotes in Matt 22. So saying that all instances in the OT of YHWH being equated to Elohim is a carry over from a Babylonian corruption is premature. This also fails to take into account both the DSS and the SP, both groups of which had no love for followers of Ezra's reforms, aka the Pharisees, but both groups also include the equating of YHWH to Elohim and both groups include all of the Torah with only a few slight variations.

Also, I Nephi 22 quotes Deut 18 which includes the exact same "Lord your God" phrase that translates to "YHWH Elohim"

20 And the Lord will surely prepare a way for his people, unto the fulfilling of the words of Moses, which he spake, saying: A prophet shall the Lord your God raise up unto you, like unto me; him shall ye hear in all things whatsoever he shall say unto you. And it shall come to pass that all those who will not hear that prophet shall be cut off from among the people.

[Yekcidmij]

Originally Posted by rameumptom

Scripture often has both an earthly meaning and a heavenly/spiritual one. We see it here, as well.

If you read my earlier post, I don't dispute that there is an assembly there. It should be noted also that the assembly in Psalm 82 is sentenced to death. And if I didn't say it earlier, I do see connections to Job and to Deut 32, and possibly a few other places.

The post and my reasoning on PSalm 82 was rather lengthy, so I'm not going to repost it.

And here's Psalms 82 in the New American Bible version:

The literal Hebrew says, "assembly of El" not "divine assembly". The New American Bible is giving a little interpretation to their translation. And there is a distinction drawn in vs 6 between the elohim and men. The elohim will die just like men do. The implication is that men die and elohim normally do not, but this will be an exception due the the Elohim standing in the assembly that renders judgment on them. The elohim of El's assembly are unjust and so will die like men do. In any case, the elohim here are not members of the human race nor are they humans who have progressed to become members of El's assembly, and if they were, they aren't anymore because they are dead according to the Psalm. The elohim in Psalm 82 are not elohim you want to identify yourself with. They are unjust, unknowing, impotent, and ultimately, judged and dead.

[rameumptom]

I agree they were unjust elohim that were condemned to die. That was what I was driving at, since someone had suggested that it was referring to earthly judges and not divine beings. I thought the NAB helped bring that concept out better.

I have no problem with a singular author for Isaiah. My point in discussing the word prints wasn't that there have to be two authors, but that the normal divisions made by those insisting on Deutero-Isaiah may be wrong in the chapters assigned to him. The word prints research done suggests that the Isaiah chapters in the Book of Mormon are all consistent with one author, rather than two regarding those chapters.

The Deuteronomists sought to join Elohim and Yahweh together into one. Since they preceeded Nephi, it is possible that some terminology from the Deuteronomists did make it into the Brass Plates. I could imagine Laban adding a copy of Deuteronomy from Jerusalem's temple in Josiah's day, which would be used by Nephi later on.

We cannot conclude that the Isaiah scrolls in the DSS, or any of the DSS, to have not been affected by the Diaspora and Ezra's redaction. After all, the DSS date back to the 2nd century BCE, centuries after the Deuteronomists, Priestly group, and Ezra made their changes.