Ye Are Gods

[_Buffalo]

An oft-used proof-text that Mormons use to justify their deification doctrine. But although there may be other justification for the doctrine, the Psalms source is not it.

(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.

The context here is just Yahweh addressing the other existing gods in the pantheon. This is the point where the Hebrews decided that their adopted tribal god should overthrow the existing gods that were in charge of all the other tribes. That's it.

[_Yahoo Bot]

Feeling good about your anonymous attacks on the Church and people with reputations?

Your interpretation is a reasonable one but not the one Jesus used in John 10:34, where He quoted this passage. That passage says: "Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?"

Matthew Henry points out that Jesus was saying, if you are to be considered gods (those to whom the scripture was given), then why not me?

The point you raise is what I consider a 4th-tier challenge to church doctrine. Get out of the kitchen if you can't sling hash with the fat boys.

[_Buffalo]

Feeling good about your anonymous attacks on the Church and people with reputations?

Your interpretation is a reasonable one but not the one Jesus used in John 10:34, where He quoted this passage. That passage says: "Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods”’? If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came—and Scripture cannot be set aside— what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world?"

Matthew Henry points out that Jesus was saying, if you are to be considered gods (those to whom the scripture was given), then why not me?

The point you raise is what I consider a 4th-tier challenge to church doctrine. Get out of the kitchen if you can't sling hash with the fat boys.

It says a lot about Jesus that he didn't know what the Psalmist was writing about. Supposedly he (Jesus) as Yahweh spoke those words centuries earlier. Oops. I guess he didn't realize they'd been reinterpreted in the post-exilic switch to strict monotheism.

[_Yahoo Bot]

It says a lot about Jesus that he didn't know what the Psalmist was writing about. Supposedly he (Jesus) as Yahweh spoken those words centuries earlier. Oops.

Or perhaps instead your interpretation is not the accepted one, nor the one that prevails in the commentaries. Or perhaps you just don't read your Bible much less the commentaries. For some who professes to be an active temple-goer and church member you don't seem to know much about the subject matter for which this board exists.

[_Buffalo]

It says a lot about Jesus that he didn't know what the Psalmist was writing about. Supposedly he (Jesus) as Yahweh spoken those words centuries earlier. Oops.

Or perhaps instead your interpretation is not the accepted one, nor the one that prevails in the commentaries. Or perhaps you just don't read your Bible much less the commentaries. For some who professes to be an active temple-goer and church member you don't seem to know much about the subject matter for which this board exists.

The faithful Jewish interpretation came about in the reinterpretation made necessary by the post-exilic switch to strict monotheism. Mine is the correct, scholarly interpretation.

I'll ignore your irrelevant commentary. I know it's just your irrational rage spilling out as you chew the keyboard and come ever closer to your third heart attack.

[_Yahoo Bot]

The faithful Jewish interpretation came about in the reinterpretation made necessary by the post-exilic switch to strict monotheism. Mine is the correct, scholarly interpretation.

However, your opening post seems to fail to realize that there is substantial Christian commentary to the contrary. I've cited Matthew Henry and quoted from the NIV. Whether you are right or wrong in your view, you really set yourself up for a sucker punch.

[_Buffalo]

The faithful Jewish interpretation came about in the reinterpretation made necessary by the post-exilic switch to strict monotheism. Mine is the correct, scholarly interpretation.

However, your opening post seems to fail to realize that there is substantial Christian commentary to the contrary. I've cited Matthew Henry and quoted from the NIV. Whether you are right or wrong in your view, you really set yourself up for a sucker punch.

I explained to you the context from which the commentary originated. Sorry, no sucker punch. I'm not interested in apologetic excuse making, I'm interested in valid scholarship.

[_Yahoo Bot]

I explained to you the context from which the commentary originated. Sorry, no sucker punch. I'm not interested in apologetic excuse making, I'm interested in valid scholarship.

Of which you've just not interested. Would you like 5 more Biblical commentaries on John 10?

[_Buffalo]

I explained to you the context from which the commentary originated. Sorry, no sucker punch. I'm not interested in apologetic excuse making, I'm interested in valid scholarship.

Of which you've just not interested. Would you like 5 more Biblical commentaries on John 10?

If you can post some valid scholarship, I'd be interested in that. I'm not interested in divinity school apologetic nonsense.

[_Yahoo Bot]

If you can post some valid scholarship, I'd be interested in that. I'm not interested in divinity school apologetic nonsense.

Oh, so now let's exclude scholarship that isn't acceptable to you. Nonetheless, I don't consider the NIV translation "divinity school" nonsense.