Why maklelan can't win a debate with me

[_maklelan]

Divine council? You don't believe in the Trinity, and yet you unabashedly accept a council of divine individuals?

You're mistaking an academic position for a faith position. Please pay better attention in the future.

It is thought by some that fallen angels had sex with human females.

No, the fallen angels tradition is quite late. Gen 56:2-4 has second tier gods having sex with human women.

It is thought by others that Godly men began to take wives from among unbelievers.

That has absolutely nothing to do with Genesis 6.

In either case, there was never any "Divine Council."

Nor was there any flood, or exodus.

That is not supported by anything the Bible clearly teaches.

No, that's where you're completely wrong. The Bible uses the very phrase "divine council" (Ps 82:1), and it's the exact same form as the phrase in the Ugaritic texts. The divine council is all over the Old Testament, and I am pretty confident that you know slightly less than jack about it. You keep going down this road and you're going to get embarrassed all over again.

Christ is the Creator according to the New Testament, and since God is revealed to be the culmination of three beings in one essence (called God), only that makes perfect sense.

No, that makes no sense at all, just like saying Christ was 100% man and 100% God because it needs to work out that way. The Trinity is not about logic or sense, the Trinity is about using Greek philosophical models to reconcile irreconcilable dogmas.

[_maklelan]

Sounds like your post was formulated by the old Indian adage " man speaks with forked tongue "

Here's a former Mormon Indian who saw the light of God's Glorious Gospel

http://youtu.be/ZWbpeJ_MIMI

What I'd really like to see is you actually addressing an issue for once, but that's not going to happen, is it?

[_Mittens]

http://youtu.be/NZLJoKXyW78

Just posted this wonderful Worship Song on Facebook, I'd be happy to address any issue, you're the one getting spanked like a red-headed step-child

I've already prophesied you'll leave with your tail behind your legs

[_maklelan]

http://youtu.be/NZLJoKXyW78

Just posted this wonderful Worship Song on Facebook, I'd be happy to address any issue, you're the one getting spanked like a red-headed step-child

I've already prophesied you'll leave with your tail behind your legs

You've already got several issues to address. You completely ignored my discussion of the divine council above, just like several other issues on several other threads. This degree of flagrant dishonesty and cowardice certainly isn't going to win you any converts, Mittens. Are you here to drive people away from Christ? Is that the plot twist?

[_Mittens]

There was no divine council other than the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit [ The Godhead] . All other of God's representatives would be were what Jesus created "angels'

[_maklelan]

There was no divine council other than the Father, Jesus and the Holy Spirit [ The Godhead] . All other of God's representatives would be were what Jesus created "angels'

No, in places like Gen 6:2-4; Job 1:6; 2:1; 38:7; etc., we don't have angels, we have "sons of God." These were second-tier deities, while angels were bottom-tier servant deities. It wasn't until the Greco-Roman period that the sons of God became angels. I discussed this in an SBL paper here.

[_Mittens]

Like I said

SONS OF GOD Divine beings associated with God in the heavens in what can be called the “divine council” (Ps. 82:1 NRSV) or the “council of the holy ones” (Ps. 89:7 NASB). In Job, the earliest Greek translation translated “sons of God” as “angels of God” (Job 1:6; 2:1) and “my angels” (Job 38:7). The phrase “sons of the living God” in Hosea 1:10, however, refers to Israel.

The expression sons of God employs a Hebrew idiom in which “son(s)” refers to participants in a class or in a state of being, and the second word describes the class or state of being. Thus, in Genesis 5:32, Noah is said to be a “son of five hundred years,” meaning he was 500 years old. In English an adjective often best translates the second term, so that “divine beings” rather than “sons of God” would be a better rendition of the Hebrew. This accords with the NRSV’s translation “heavenly beings” for “sons of gods” in Psalms 29:1; 89:6.

In the New Testament, “sons of God” always refers to human beings who do God’s will (Matt. 5:9; Rom. 8:14, 19). Similar expressions with the same meaning are to be found in Matthew 5:45; John 1:12; Romans 9:26 ( = Hos. 1:10), and 2 Corinthians 6:18. The usual designation of the heavenly beings in the New Testament is “angels.”

See Angels; Divine Council; God; Son of God.

Fred L. Horton, Jr.

[_maklelan]

Like I said

SONS OF GOD Divine beings associated with God in the heavens in what can be called the “divine council” (Ps. 82:1 NRSV) or the “council of the holy ones” (Ps. 89:7 NASB). In Job, the earliest Greek translation translated “sons of God” as “angels of God” (Job 1:6; 2:1) and “my angels” (Job 38:7).

Nope, Job was one of the last translated. The Pentateuch was the first, and we have Genesis and Deuteronomy with "sons of God" in Greek in the earliest manuscripts, and "angels of God" in later manuscripts.

The phrase “sons of the living God” in Hosea 1:10, however, refers to Israel.

It's a completely different phrase.

The expression sons of God employs a Hebrew idiom in which “son(s)” refers to participants in a class or in a state of being, and the second word describes the class or state of being. Thus, in Genesis 5:32, Noah is said to be a “son of five hundred years,” meaning he was 500 years old. In English an adjective often best translates the second term, so that “divine beings” rather than “sons of God” would be a better rendition of the Hebrew.

Not when "God" is referential rather than generic. Then it's just filial. See Cho, Lesser Deities in the Ugaritic Texts and the Hebrew Bible.

This accords with the NRSV’s translation “heavenly beings” for “sons of gods” in Psalms 29:1; 89:6.

In the New Testament, “sons of God” always refers to human beings who do God’s will (Matt. 5:9; Rom. 8:14, 19). Similar expressions with the same meaning are to be found in Matthew 5:45; John 1:12; Romans 9:26 ( = Hos. 1:10), and 2 Corinthians 6:18. The usual designation of the heavenly beings in the New Testament is “angels.”

Also "gods" and "demons." All are deities.

[_LittleNipper]

Strong's Concordance

aggelos: an angel, messenger
Original Word: ἄγγελος, ου, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: aggelos
Phonetic Spelling: (ang'-el-os)
Short Definition: an angel, messenger
Definition: a messenger, generally a (supernatural) messenger from God, an angel, conveying news or behests from God to men.
HELPS Word-studies

32 ággelos – properly, a messenger or delegate – either human (Mt 11:10; Lk 7:24, 9:52; Gal 4:14; Joseph Smith 2:25) or heavenly (a celestial angel); someone sent (by God) to proclaim His message.

32 (ággelos) is used 176 times in the New Testament (usually of heavenly angels), but only the context determines whether a human or celestial messenger is intended. For example, 32 (ággelos) in Rev 1:20 can refer to heavenly angels or key leaders (perhaps pastors) of the seven churches.

[32 (ággelos) can refer to "a human messenger" (cf. John the Baptist, Mt 11:10, quoting Mal 3:1; see also Lk 7:24, 9:52). 32 /ággelos (plural, angeloi) refers to heavenly angels over 150 times in the New Testament, i.e. spiritual beings created by God to serve His plan.

In Rev 2, 3, "angels" seems to refer to heavenly angels that serve God in conjunction with these seven local churches.

(Rev 2:1) – "Probably 'the angels of the churches' (Rev 1:20, 2:1, etc.) – i.e. really angels, and not pastors" (DNTT, Vol 1, 103).]

[_Roger]

Hi Mak:

It's been a while since I've posted. Do you consider yourself a TBM or something else? I'm a Christian - just so we know where each other is coming from - but far from an expert and especially so when the topic is the trinity, which, I'm the first to acknowledge, is a paradox. I am interested in the topic, however, so if you'll indulge me a bit, I have a few questions for you.

Yes, in that regard I disagree with him. *snip* We understand the literary and conceptual backdrop of Psalm 82 much, much better now than we did in the early twentieth century.

So how does your interpretation of Psalm 82 differ from that of Talmage and what is the basis for the new interpretation?

Psalm 82 is one of those passages for which proper translation obviously makes a big difference. I don't know either Greek or Hebrew but just looking at the NIV vs. the KJV reveals how much difference can be made by the variance in translation:

KJV
4 Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5 They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

NIV
4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.
5“The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.
They walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

I take the NIV's rendering to refer to the false gods that were worshiped by Isreal's neighbors at the time this passage was composed. The KJV, however, is somewhat ambiguous. "They" seems to be referring back to "the poor and needy" if not "the wicked."

On the other hand, you (LDS?)seem to take it as referring to many other real, genuine gods. Is that correct or am I missing where you're coming from?

What you refer to as "the divine council" is translated by the NIV as "great assembly."

NIV
God presides in the great assembly;
he renders judgment among the “gods”:

Again, the NIV seems to be making the point that sarcasm is being employed here; that the author is sarcastically referring to the false "gods" of the surrounding nations. This makes sense in light of Judaism's monotheism. Or do you not accept that Israel's religion was/is monotheistic?

Assuming you are using Psalm 82 as a proof text against the trinity but in favor of polytheism, how do you reconcile that passage with Isaiah 44 and 45?

All the best,

Roger