Zone1 For the Love of God...

[onefour1]

I'm not sure what you mean by "offspring". Do you believe the Father God had sex with Mary?

What I mean by offspring is that we all existed as self existent intelligences for an eternity past and that God the Father, through the process of procreation through a Mother in Heaven has given birth to our spirits which has the effect of combining our intelligences with spirit matter to create the spirit sons and daughters of God.

Doctrine and Covenants 93:29
29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

Doctrine and Covenants 131:7-8
7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;
8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.

 

[ding]

I think we all understand that we all believe in different beliefs. Jesus called us gods in Psalms 82:6 and reiterated it in John 10:31-36. Was Jesus a polytheist? Why would he call those unto whom the word came gods? If they are gods, then there are many gods. If they are not gods, is Jesus a liar? True, they are not the god we should worship and follow for our salvation but he did call them gods and there must be more gods than just one if he himself called us such. Why is it so incredible that we would be called gods after this life if we have already been called gods while in this life?

We disagree on those interpretations.

* [Psalm 82] As in Ps 58, the pagan gods are seen as subordinate divine beings to whom Israel’s God had delegated oversight of the foreign countries in the beginning (Dt 32:8–9). Now God arises in the heavenly assembly (Ps 82:1) to rebuke the unjust “gods” (Ps 82:2–4), who are stripped of divine status and reduced in rank to mortals (Ps 82:5–7). They are accused of misruling the earth by not upholding the poor. A short prayer for universal justice concludes the Psalm (Ps 82:8).​

​

* [82:5] The gods are blind and unable to declare what is right. Their misrule shakes earth’s foundations (cf. Ps 11:3; 75:4), which God made firm in creation (Ps 96:10).​

​

* [82:6] I declare: “Gods though you be”: in Jn 10:34 Jesus uses the verse to prove that those to whom the word of God is addressed can fittingly be called “gods.”​

So, no. Jesus is not a polytheist, but you are.

 

[onefour1]

Why would we call a sad person "blue" when clearly he has the same skin tone as anyone else?

There are more meanings to the word blue that just its color.

There are few words in Hebrew, and the definition of the word was determined by context. Rulers, leaders, those chosen by God for a specific task, etc. all fell under the word elohiym.

My point was who determined it in the translation and was it inspired by God? Yes, God did call them "Elohim" which means "gods" or "god". Maybe the translators added the definition of "judges" or maybe because that was a part of their task, but they were called "haelohim" which in almost all cases in the Bible is translated as "gods" or "god". Just because they acted as judges of the people does not mean they were called judges. It could be that they were called, "gods". It may very well be that the translators changed the word to mean "judges" simply because they found it offensive or they understood that part of their tasks were to judge.

The LDS faith simply added another definition, that which in the afterlife, men become Gods.

So you are saying that we added the definition of "gods" or "god" to the word "elohim"? Sorry but the bible is full of the word "elohim" being translated as "gods" or "god". It wasn't the LDS that changed the meaning. The meaning that was really added was probably "judges".

Jews held no such belief in Biblical times, and no such belief now.

The Jews were often in a state of apostasy and thus they rejected the Lord Jesus as their Savior. Many Christians also fell into apostasy after the days of the Jesus' ministry and came up with the idea that God and Jesus and the Holy Ghost are the same being.

That belief was presented in the nineteenth century by the LDS denomination, and it remains the only denomination who believes that is what scripture meant all along. Perhaps the LDS faithful believe their minds were open to a greater understanding, and that's fine. But it is not the same understanding in Biblical times or of any other religion until the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints emerged.

I think through apostasy, Christians fell away from the true beliefs of who and what God is and thus came up with the Nicene Creed along with other creeds that are not true. That great apostasy would lead to a need for a restitution of all things where Jesus would need to be preached unto them again.

Acts 3:20-21
20 And he shall send Jesus Christ, which before was preached unto you:
21 Whom the heaven must receive until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken by the mouth of all his holy prophets since the world began.

 

[onefour1]

No. The definition behind Jesus' use of the word meant men appointed by God to carry out a specific task here on earth.

Why call them gods if they are not? Your definition is not found in the Hebrew.

 

[BS Filter]

What I mean by offspring is that we all existed as self existent intelligences for an eternity past and that God the Father, through the process of procreation through a Mother in Heaven has given birth to our spirits which has the effect of combining our intelligences with spirit matter to create the spirit sons and daughters of God.

Doctrine and Covenants 93:29
29 Man was also in the beginning with God. Intelligence, or the light of truth, was not created or made, neither indeed can be.

Doctrine and Covenants 131:7-8
7 There is no such thing as immaterial matter. All spirit is matter, but it is more fine or pure, and can only be discerned by purer eyes;
8 We cannot see it; but when our bodies are purified we shall see that it is all matter.

I understand that you respect the doctrines and covenants as scripture. I don't. Do you believe that the Father God had sexual intercourse with Mary?

 

[frigidweirdo]

It is noting is that that over all these years because of the different cultures and different languages, the author's intent may no longer be as clear as it was to his original audience.

Then why not write a new book.
Which is an interesting question. If God were to decide to write a new book, would anyone accept it?

 

[onefour1]

We disagree on those interpretations.

* [Psalm 82] As in Ps 58, the pagan gods are seen as subordinate divine beings to whom Israel’s God had delegated oversight of the foreign countries in the beginning (Dt 32:8–9). Now God arises in the heavenly assembly (Ps 82:1) to rebuke the unjust “gods” (Ps 82:2–4), who are stripped of divine status and reduced in rank to mortals (Ps 82:5–7). They are accused of misruling the earth by not upholding the poor. A short prayer for universal justice concludes the Psalm (Ps 82:8).​

​

* [82:5] The gods are blind and unable to declare what is right. Their misrule shakes earth’s foundations (cf. Ps 11:3; 75:4), which God made firm in creation (Ps 96:10).​

​

* [82:6] I declare: “Gods though you be”: in Jn 10:34 Jesus uses the verse to prove that those to whom the word of God is addressed can fittingly be called “gods.”​

So, no. Jesus is not a polytheist, but you are.

Reading comprehension is needed here. I have not stated that Psalms 82:6 ever referred to Gods who are perfect and have been exalted to the same position that the Father holds. Again, my point is simply that Jesus called them (those men who were on earth who were in need of salvation and repentance of sin) gods. If they were not in some sense of how God and Jesus view mankind as gods, then why call them gods? The context of John 10 shows that he meant to use the word, "gods". So why did Jesus use the word "gods" for those who are not the supreme being of our universe and not the ones whom we look to for our eternal progression and salvation? In some respect Jesus considered those to whom the word of God came as gods. My personal belief is that he called them gods because they are the very offspring of God and all are children of the Most High. In other words, Gods beget gods. They may or may not reach perfection but it is possible to reach perfection even as God the Father is perfect else why would Jesus command us to become so? We are potential Gods in embryo and thus we are called gods. Not that we are, or those whom he specifically referred to, were perfect, but that they are the children of God and have the potential to become so. So if he called them, unto whom the word of God came, gods, can we not admit that there are other gods in the universe as Paul the Apostle stated in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6. True we don't worship them and true many who have been called gods are not of the same perfection and glory as the Father in Heaven, but they are called gods. In some way, shape, or form, Jesus found it good to call those to whom the word of God came, "gods". Evidently in Exodus 21 and 22 he call those who judged others, "gods". In Psalms 82:1 he calls those who make up the congregation of the mighty, "gods". My point is the same as Paul the Apostle, that there are those that are called gods whether in heaven or on earth as there be gods many and lords many. Not that these who are called gods are of equal perfection with God our Eternal Heavenly Father but that even God the Son recognizes others as "gods". When God says, "there are not other Gods beside me", I believe what he means is that there are no other gods who should be worshipped and to whom you should look to for your progression and salvation. Not that there are not other gods in existence since Jesus himself called regular men, "gods".

 

[onefour1]

I understand that you respect the doctrines and covenants as scripture. I don't. Do you believe that the Father God had sexual intercourse with Mary?

I know you don't but just to let you know where I am coming from, I do believe they are scripture and revelations from God. I personally do not feel that the Father had intercourse with Mary. If man can do artificial insemination on women, certainly God can do so also and much more. Do you believe that Jesus is the literal offspring of God the Father and Mary the mother of Jesus in the flesh?

 

[BS Filter]

I know you don't but just to let you know where I am coming from, I do believe they are scripture and revelations from God. I personally do not feel that the Father had intercourse with Mary. If man can do artificial insemination on women, certainly God can do so also and much more. Do you believe that Jesus is the literal offspring of God the Father and Mary the mother of Jesus in the flesh?

I believe

I know you don't but just to let you know where I am coming from, I do believe they are scripture and revelations from God. I personally do not feel that the Father had intercourse with Mary. If man can do artificial insemination on women, certainly God can do so also and much more. Do you believe that Jesus is the literal offspring of God the Father and Mary the mother of Jesus in the flesh?

All I know is what Scripture says. Mary conceived by the Holy Spirit. That's all I believe. I have no idea how it works.

 

[ding]

Reading comprehension is needed here. I have not stated that Psalms 82:6 ever referred to Gods who are perfect and have been exalted to the same position that the Father holds. Again, my point is simply that Jesus called them (those men who were on earth who were in need of salvation and repentance of sin) gods. If they were not in some sense of how God and Jesus view mankind as gods, then why call them gods? The context of John 10 shows that he meant to use the word, "gods". So why did Jesus use the word "gods" for those who are not the supreme being of our universe and not the ones whom we look to for our eternal progression and salvation? In some respect Jesus considered those to whom the word of God came as gods. My personal belief is that he called them gods because they are the very offspring of God and all are children of the Most High. In other words, Gods beget gods. They may or may not reach perfection but it is possible to reach perfection even as God the Father is perfect else why would Jesus command us to become so? We are potential Gods in embryo and thus we are called gods. Not that we are, or those whom he specifically referred to, were perfect, but that they are the children of God and have the potential to become so. So if he called them, unto whom the word of God came, gods, can we not admit that there are other gods in the universe as Paul the Apostle stated in 1 Corinthians 8:5-6. True we don't worship them and true many who have been called gods are not of the same perfection and glory as the Father in Heaven, but they are called gods. In some way, shape, or form, Jesus found it good to call those to whom the word of God came, "gods". Evidently in Exodus 21 and 22 he call those who judged others, "gods". In Psalms 82:1 he calls those who make up the congregation of the mighty, "gods". My point is the same as Paul the Apostle, that there are those that are called gods whether in heaven or on earth as there be gods many and lords many. Not that these who are called gods are of equal perfection with God our Eternal Heavenly Father but that even God the Son recognizes others as "gods". When God says, "there are not other Gods beside me", I believe what he means is that there are no other gods who should be worshipped and to whom you should look to for your progression and salvation. Not that there are not other gods in existence since Jesus himself called regular men, "gods".

We are going to have to agree to disagree. I'm not going to argue about polytheistic beliefs from a monotheistic religion. If you want to believe you will become God, go for it. I think that is ridiculous.

 

[BreezeWood]

Then why not write a new book.
Which is an interesting question. If God were to decide to write a new book, would anyone accept it?

* a book who's language is clear and its meaning understood ... than a long dead one not universally spoken in even the narrow region it was used, their 10000 page document ...

when as jesus knew well the hevenly religion prescribed to a&e for their journey is only 6 words long and spoken with clairity for all to understand - the triumph of good vs evil - for jugement and admission to the everlasting.

 

[Meriweather]

My point was who determined it in the translation and was it inspired by God? Yes, God did call them "Elohim" which means "gods" or "god". Maybe the translators added the definition of "judges" or maybe because that was a part of their task, but they were called "haelohim" which in almost all cases in the Bible is translated as "gods" or "god". Just because they acted as judges of the people does not mean they were called judges. It could be that they were called, "gods". It may very well be that the translators changed the word to mean "judges" simply because they found it offensive or they understood that part of their tasks were to judge.

You have forgotten that the word also means those in power, those ruling over men. That was the role of judges at one time.

 

[Meriweather]

So you are saying that we added the definition of "gods" or "god" to the word "elohim"? Sorry but the bible is full of the word "elohim" being translated as "gods" or "god"

Yes, and in those passages the word was used to describe those in power, those ruling over men, or in the case of Moses (when he was called a god over Pharaoh, that he was authorized to give a message to Pharaoh.

It wasn't the LDS that changed the meaning. The meaning that was really added was probably "judges".

No, at that time the judges were those in power, and that is why the word was used in reference to them in the passages noted.

No account even implies that these men, the powerful who ruled on earth, were going to become gods once they died.

 

[frigidweirdo]

* a book who's language is clear and its meaning understood ... than a long dead one not universally spoken in even the narrow region it was used, their 10000 page document ...

when as jesus knew well the hevenly religion prescribed to a&e for their journey is only 6 words long and spoken with clairity for all to understand - the triumph of good vs evil - for jugement and admission to the everlasting.

What?

 

[Meriweather]

Why call them gods if they are not? Your definition is not found in the Hebrew.

Have you read any Hebrew commentary on the 'sons of god'? If so, you know there is no inkling that these people were going to die and become Gods. You will read--as I did--that elohiym is also used in reference to the powerful here on earth. Its use is never about what they will become in the afterlife.

 

[BreezeWood]

What?

If God were to decide to write a new book, would anyone accept it?

an attempt for your nonsensical assertion ...

* the religion of antiquity is visual and spoken not written ... is how to know its from the heavens.

 

[frigidweirdo]

an attempt for your nonsensical assertion ...

* the religion of antiquity is visual and spoken not written ... is how to know its from the heavens.

What?

 

[zaangalewa]

From Latter-day scriptures, it is my opinion that there is a vast amount of intelligence in the universe that vary from a very low amount of intellectual capacity to a very high amount of intellectual capacity. I believe that God has combined most matter with intelligence. He has then given things a law by which they obey. The laws of physics are such laws that are given by God to the elements of the universe to obey. So I believe there is intelligence in man, animals, plants, and even rocks and dirt and in all things, etc.

For sure we need intelligence - whatever it is - if we like to understand all this things.

These intelligences are very obedient to God and abide by the laws that they are given. However, if God should decide to give the elements another law to obey, then the waters of the Red Sea might stand up on its own or water may change to wine or the illnesses of the sick may be cured, etc., etc. Simply by the word of God, the elements obey.

hmm ... why not? If I see it the right way then "things" - whatever they are - have only to change their form in space and time to be something else.

God can, at times, give these powers unto his servants and they too can command the elements.

I used a match in the morning. It burned. But why not to use the bound energy all around us in every way we like to use it? I am not able to do so - but perhaps will come a time when our descendents will be able to do so. In this case they will need also an extremely good control of their own free will - otherwise they will not survive.

I believe that when the two witnesses come on scene as mentioned in the eleventh chapter of Revelation,

I think no one understands what's written in the revelation - so my motivation to read this book of the bible is not very high.

we will again see man given the power to command the elements. To me, it is nothing more than obedient intelligence.

Obedient intelligence with or without self-perception and/or self-awareness? Is this intelligence able to say "no" to the will of god or do you think it is also an expression of the will of god on its own?

Jacob 4:6
6 Wherefore, we search the prophets, and we have many revelations and the spirit of prophecy; and having all these witnesses we obtain a hope, and our faith becometh unshaken, insomuch that we truly can command in the name of Jesus and the very trees obey us, or the mountains, or the waves of the sea.

I guess in the moment I live more in fear the mountains really will go to the prophets.

 

[Leviticus]

Don't be silly. Read a little Church history. Some of our greatest Saints either disagreed with each other or with the Pope. Not sure where you came up with the idea the Church confiscated free will, for nothing is further from the truth. The Church notes there are plenty of issues on which the faithful can/may/will disagree with each other. It has never been a problem, and no need for you to create a problem that has never existed.

And popes have a long history of excommunicating people who disagree with them well before later popes decide to make them saints.

99% of Catholic dogma doesn't come from The Bible it comes from the church itself making things up whenever it is convenient to do so and ignoring even The Bible when its teachings become inconvenient for their political and social agenda.

 

[Meriweather]

99% of Catholic dogma doesn't come from The Bible it comes from the church itself making things up whenever it is convenient to do so and ignoring even The Bible when its teachings become inconvenient for their political and social agenda.

Perhaps you could give a specific example of this?