Blasphemy or Biblical?

[_subgenius]

Tobin, it was God who revealed these things to the prophets, apostles, as well as myself and many other "Mormons." Do you sometimes feel like the Lone Ranger?

God revealed no such thing. It is men that have speculated they can be God when they should not. It is a great sin that Mormons are guilty of and they will have to repent. The scriptures teach no such thing and the Lord did not either. Mormons can teach false doctrine with the best of them - like polygamy and denying blacks the priesthood. This evil, blasphemous doctrine is just as bad and will disappear in time as well.

don't actually read the scriptures much do you?
see my previous post

[_Tobin]

don't actually read the scriptures much do you?
see my previous post

Actually, the scriptures do not teach such a thing and you rip quotes from the Bible out of context and impose a blasphemous and boastful interpretation on them which is a sin in my opinion. Let's look at your first example, Acts 17:28. Just prior to that the Apostle Paul already states that God is the maker of the world, the Lord of heaven and earth, who does not dwell in a temple made with hands, because he doesn't need anything and that we exist because of him.

Acts 17:24 God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands;
Acts 17:25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things;
Acts 17:26 And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation;
Acts 17:27 That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us:
Acts 17:28 For in him we live, and move, and have our being; as certain also of your own poets have said, For we are also his offspring.

When we add the proper context of this with the other scriptures in the Bible that clearly state that Christ is the only begotten Son of the God

John 1:18 No man hath seen God at any time, the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

and

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

we understand what Paul was talking about. We are created in the image and likeness of God, but we are NOT God. Stating that we are offspring is a symbolic way of saying we were thus created. It does not make us equal in power or nature to God (which is obviously absurd), but something you clearly believe and is NOT being said by Paul.

John 10:34 Is it not written in your law, 'I said, you are gods'?

This is another example of your attempt to rip something out of context and impose a bizarre interpretation on it. Jesus was speaking to strict Jewish monotheists who believed that there is only one God. So your interpreation that this was given a pantheistic or polytheistic context is patently false. In fact, Jesus is alluding to Psalm 82 where human judges were called "gods", which you also cite.

Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

However, you are also misunderstating that context as well. The psalmist Asaph was speaking in irony. If you actually read it, he is stating that these judges, who had become unjust in their dealings with men, will die like the men that really were and not as gods. Clearly the judges were only "gods" in the sense that they stood in place of God to judge over life and death matters but were NOT God since they die as other men do.

When you properly understand this context, then you know what Jesus is really saying in John 10:34. Jesus is alluding to Psalm 82 where God even called human judges 'gods', then it is much more appropriate that Jesus, being the Son of God, be called God. Bear in mind that Jesus had just said "I and My Father are one" (John 10:30) and that the Jews wanted to stone him because they thought Christ was blaspheming by making Himself out to be equal with God (31-33). So this is why Jesus gave this response.

The rest of your quotes follow this same flawed approach of ripping quotes from the Bible out of context or uses quotes from modern Mormon apostles and prophets who were equally mistaken in their approach. The fact is the Bible teachs there is only one true God and does not teach this polytheistic garbage that you allude to. Also, if you had tried to teach that men are God in the times of Jesus, you would have been killed for blasphemy and they would have been justified to do it. You are lucky we live in a more tolerant age.

[_Buffalo]

John 10:34 Is it not written in your law, 'I said, you are gods'?

This is another example of your attempt to rip something out of context and impose a bizarre interpretation on it. Jesus was speaking to strict Jewish monotheists who believed that there is only one God. So your interpreation that this was given a pantheistic or polytheistic context is patently false. In fact, Jesus is alluding to Psalm 82 where human judges were called "gods", which you also cite.

Psalm 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

However, you are also misunderstating that context as well. The psalmist Asaph was speaking in irony. If you actually read it, he is stating that these judges, who had become unjust in their dealings with men, will die like the men that really were and not as gods. Clearly the judges were only "gods" in the sense that they stood in place of God to judge over life and death matters but were NOT God since they die as other men do.

When you properly understand this context, then you know what Jesus is really saying in John 10:34. Jesus is alluding to Psalm 82 where God even called human judges 'gods', then it is much more appropriate that Jesus, being the Son of God, be called God. Bear in mind that Jesus had just said "I and My Father are one" (John 10:30) and that the Jews wanted to stone him because they thought Christ was blaspheming by making Himself out to be equal with God (31-33). So this is why Jesus gave this response.

False. Psalm 82 is referring to the sons of El - the ancient Canaanite pantheon once acknowledged by the Hebrews as real gods. The narrative was that Yahweh came in from outside that group of Gods and chastised them for not doing their job.

[_Tobin]

False. Psalm 82 is referring to the sons of El - the ancient Canaanite pantheon once acknowledged by the Hebrews as real gods. The narrative was that Yahweh came in from outside that group of Gods and chastised them for not doing their job.

I'll leave it to the reader to actually read Psalms 82. As far as I can see, nothing you said is there and so I wonder who is stating something that is false?

[_Buffalo]

False. Psalm 82 is referring to the sons of El - the ancient Canaanite pantheon once acknowledged by the Hebrews as real gods. The narrative was that Yahweh came in from outside that group of Gods and chastised them for not doing their job.

I'll leave it to the reader to actually read Psalms 82. As far as I can see, nothing you said is there and so I wonder who is stating something that is false?

Context.

(Psalmist) God stands in the assembly of El; He judges among the gods.
(Yahweh speaking to the gods) How long will you judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
(Psalmist) They (the gods) know not, neither will they (the gods) understand; they (the gods) walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
(Yahweh speaking to the gods) I thought you are gods; and all of you are the sons of the Most High?
But you shall die like Adam, and fall like one of the Shining Ones.
(Psalmist) Arise, O God, judge the earth: for you shall inherit all nations.

For further context, see:

Deuteronomy 32:8-9.
When the Elyon (most high) gave the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of El. But Yahweh's portion was with his people, (the tribe of) Jacob was his share of inheritance.

In that episode Yahweh and El (a.k.a. “the Most High”) are separate gods. It says that the sons of El (who were also gods) inherited their nations from the Most High, but that Yahweh’s inheritance of the tribe of Jacob was somehow different.

[_Drifting]

I've found it's never been wise to challenge Buff on his biblical knowledge.

I'm sure Tobin will apologise for doubting you...

[_Tobin]

...

The Psalmist is addressing the judges of Israel, not the Canaaite pantheon. I understand there is a NET Bible interpretation along these lines, but I really doubt it is legitimate and stating your view is the correct one vs the traditional view is bizarre. I certainly don't believe the Jews (or Jesus) viewed it as you do and so it is completely meaningless in this context.

[_subgenius]

... he doesn't need anything and that we exist because of him.

uh...nobody is disputing this, and its a little beside the point, but thanks.

...For we are also his offspring.

seems clear, ok.

When we add the proper context of this with the other scriptures in the Bible that clearly state that Christ is the only begotten Son of the God

do you really not get why one must be so specific with "begotten"?

Also, if you had tried to teach that men are God in the times of Jesus, you would have been killed for blasphemy and they would have been justified to do it.

no one is teaching that now...big stretch from "may be like" to "are"...but i understand, evangelical types often mis-read and need someone else to tell them what it "really" means.

You are lucky we live in a more tolerant age.

[/quote]
not really, because it is under this veil of tolerance that you peddle your so called "goods", when the truth reveals them to be a bitter and foul fruit indeed.

so obviously your lack of rebuttal for the following is because?...........
1 John 3:2 - "Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is."
or how about?
Genesis 3:22
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever

Obviously, to a degree, we are are "like" God, as He is included in "us"...but we lack one critical ingredient, the taste of the fruit from the tree of life, a taste that is indeed possible for us to have.

Revelation 2:7
He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God


i tell you what, keep jingling around that evangelical notion of a schizophrenic God that was so conveniently defined by the government of Constantine and continue to blindly adhere to that Nicene Creed, which is of men and not of God, and the next time you scream blasphemy don't be surprised if it is while you are standing in front of a mirror.

[_Tobin]

...

I felt no need to continue addressing your reckless approach to quotes from the Bible since they are just derivatives of you ripping an incorrect interpretation of them from their context. It is a simple fact that the Bible does not teach the interpretation you impose on it. The doctrine that man is God (or will be God) is pure blasphemy. Few outside of Mormonism endorse it (the church itself is backing off of it as well) and they are correct in doing so since it is painfully obvious that man is not God. I realize you believe it and do not see how sinful and what a terrible belief it is. At the heart of it, it denies the divinity and sacrifice of God and makes those that endorse it equal in arrogance to Satan (he tried to make himself God as well).

[_Buffalo]

...

The Psalmist is addressing the judges of Israel, not the Canaaite pantheon. I understand there is a NET Bible interpretation along these lines, but I really doubt it is legitimate and stating your view is the correct one vs the traditional view is bizarre. I certainly don't believe the Jews (or Jesus) viewed it as you do and so it is completely meaningless in this context.

Your interpretation is anachronistic, and one used by divinity school grads and preachers. The explanation I gave is the scholarly interpretation.