Mormonism and the council of "gods" in Ps. 82, by Matt Slick

Theo1689

Well-known member
And yet God still acknowledges them in the OT.

I'm not sure what your point is.
Paul "acknowledged" the false goddess Artemis of the Ephesians.
Yes, Paul acknowledged that the Ephesians worshipped an idol, a non-existent God.
What exactly is that supposed to prove?

How does that contrast with Ps. 82, where Jesus cited the law to justify in calling himself the “Son of God”?

<sigh>

We've answered that about ten million times already.
Yet YOUR side continues to IGNORE Deut. 4:35,39, Deut. 32:39, 1 Kings 8:60, Ps. 86:10, Isa. 44:6,8, Isa. 45,21,22, Isa. 46:9, Mark 12:32, etc. etc.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
So, we have far more than just ONE verse that says there is only one True God/one God in existence.
Again, no one is arguing that there is only one true God. We know that there is only one true God, but that does nothing for the argument that there are other real actual and living gods.

There are far more than just ONE verse that says there are many gods. It appears to me that you just won't believe any part of the Bible that disagrees with your belief. If that is true, how can we argue anything from the Bible? We can't. All we end up with is arguing about your opinion about the Bible with zero basis for evidence.
ALL others, therefore, by default, that are labeled "gods" in the bible are NOT deity
Sorry, the name used for those gods is elohim. Except when it is applied to human judges, as seen from the context, then it has always referred to deity. That is why the translators in the Bibles in English translate it as gods. You are arguing symantex. Deity = gods. That's how the dictionary defines it. That is English. But no one can escape the fact that elohim = elohim. It's in the same sentence.
"Elohim takes his stand in the congregation of El among the elohim he judges." There is no ambiguity. We may futz around with the difference between the word god and the word deity as you just did, but there is zero difference between the word elohim and the word elohim. But that's not where the case for what these beings are is made. We are all certain that Elohim is God and that the elohim are gods. But crux of the matter comes when God says, "I said, elohim, you are..." That is the basis for the argument that these are gods because God called them gods.
But they are NOT TRUE GODS because there is ONLY ONE TRUE GOD in existence.
Again. I am not arguing that point. I agree. There is only one being who is a true God. Paul tells us who that is and it isn't Jesus Christ. It is his Father. However, when we speak of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, They, together as a group of three beings are also God, so long as they are united under the one true God, then those three are called God.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Based on that reasoning: Why does God refer to other gods in the 10 commandments?

(This is the weakness and dishonesty of verbal debate.)


To Larry’s point, I think context is important- The Old Testament didn’t distinguish between the Father and the Son. Jehovah was the God they were commanded to worship. No man comes into the Father but by Jesus.

But let’s use Matt’s reasoning of ‘God being everlasting to everlasting’ that no has come before or will come after?

Wouldn’t he be lining up with the Pharisees to stone Jesus, since Jesus proclaimed to be the Son of God, not coming in his own name, AND being “I AM”? Essentially claiming to come AFTER God the Father?

God is not God because of His merits, He is because HE IS, everything else is just evidence of that.
Ps 82 separates the most High [God] "elyown" from God the speaker. We make an assumption that El is the most High [God]. It's His congregation. The assumption is that the most High [God] is who Jesus is referring to when he taught us to pray and later said, to "my God and your God and my Father and your Father" prior to his ascension. The Old Testament as other references to El. There is a clear hierarchy addressed within Ps 82. The most High [God], God, and then gods. I believe, the most High God, is the Father, who we all want to become like (not for power and might but for love and posterity), God is the Son who is destined to become human and the gods who were all destined to become human.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Because those other "gods" are idols and idols do not exist.
You can't possibly be getting that from Ps 82.
Because those other "gods" are idols and idols do not exist. Pagans may THINK they do, but they do not. Does Ishtar (goddess) exist? Ba'al? Dagon? Marduk? Is a golden calf, that the Israelites worshiped in the wilderness, when Moses was on Mt. Sinai a true deity?
I struggled to figure out what you are responding too but couldn't make heads or tails of anything you said.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
That is all it is--your point of view. But I notice that you said nothing about Matt's points about Is. 44 and Ps. 82.
Because nothing Matt points out about Isa 44 is relevant. This one is implicit. Immediately following the statement "besides me there is no god" he clarifies what besides means and it's not what you think it means. It doesn't mean there are no other gods. He asks the questions: "Who is like me? Let him proclaim it." and "Let him declare and set it before me". Proclaim and declare what? Why other gods. There you have it. God is saying that all of these other gods (and I would add, the ones in Ps 82 also) are not beside him. They are not equal to him. And, if he were a boasting God, not even the Father is beside him because Jehovah is going to do something that not even God the Father could do. And the Father is not beside him. He is above him. But this passage is about idols, not about living gods whom God called gods.

As far as any gods being formed before or after him (different verses, I'm sure), that is true also. His Father was not formed before him nor has He formed after him. If this statement is true, that none are formed before or after, then all the gods in Ps 82 are co-eternal with God. They were already gods from the beginning and will be forever afterward
By the way, these quotes are all KJV, so they have "beside" but that is older English. Newer translations have "besides" which means "apart from, except" which is more accurate.
The context suggests that the KJV is correct.
. In other words, God's definition for a god is not the same as ours and that point alone tosses out every one of Matt's points because they are his points, not God's. Matt has a definition and the scripture gives a different one. They don't explicitly state what God says is a god, but they give enough information to show that Matt doesn't have a clue what defines a god in God's eyes.
 

brotherofJared

Well-known member
Yep. As Markk stated, that I quoted, once we ask them questions they have no scripted "talking points" to, they are lost.
In your imagination maybe. I'm not sure what you base this conclusion on, but the fact is, if you don't like our answer, you discard it and pretend we didn't answer. The evidence to support this is you keep repeating the same false conclusions even though we have addressed them which is another tactic used by our critics.
an attempt at making a rabbit trail away from our pertinent questions and points.
I don't see how irrelevant arguments have anything to do with the topic about Ps 82. So sorry, but if you don't have an argument, then there's nothing to argue.
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Ps 82 separates the most High [God] "elyown" from God the speaker. We make an assumption that El is the most High [God]. It's His congregation. The assumption is that the most High [God] is who Jesus is referring to when he taught us to pray and later said, to "my God and your God and my Father and your Father" prior to his ascension. The Old Testament as other references to El. There is a clear hierarchy addressed within Ps 82. The most High [God], God, and then gods. I believe, the most High God, is the Father, who we all want to become like (not for power and might but for love and posterity), God is the Son who is destined to become human and the gods who were all destined to become human.
And Jehovah, who is Jesus, can speak with Divine Investiture on behalf of the Father.
 

Bonnie

Super Member
That has never been the question. God's nature has nothing to do with it whatsoever. On it's face, God called them gods. Matt is not allowed to judge what God said, to tell him what he means. It has also never been the argument that those other gods are in any way, shape, or form, Jehovah or the most High [God]. Ps 82 doesn't make any such claim. So why does the nature of Jehovah need to be examined?

God's nature has EVERYTHING to do with this debate! And we can judge what God means by seeing what ELSE He said through Asaph, in the same Psalm--and what God Himself says about Himself in the other Prophets, especially Isaiah. But again, IF these "gods" are not like Jehovah, the most High God (I thought Mormons teach that Jehovah is Jesus in the OT), then are not deity by nature--are they? They are simply creatures with the title of "gods". Mighty ones. But not true deity--are they? Backpedaling now?
What we have here is the typical bogus tactic that if he has a few unrelated items correct, then his false claims must be correct also. Where have we heard that before? Tell a truth in order to unload a few lies. Yea. No, the Nature of God has nothing to do with Ps 82's other gods.
It has everything to do with it, because Mormonism teaches that man can evolve into gods and become creators of worlds and populate them with their own spirit progeny--everything THEIR "Elohim" has done on this world. And the Bible clearly indicates that there are NO OTHER GODS EXCEPT GOD. There is ONLY one true God--and it ain't the "gods" of Ps. 82! That means all others called "gods" in the Bible are, by default, UNtrue gods!
Nope.

Laughable. My diversionary tactic is in pointing out Matt's diversionary tactic. Ok.
Matt didn't have any in the part I quoted. But I noted that, just like some Mormons on this board, Larry failed to answer one of Matt's questions--something that Matt noticed right away. Why is that?
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Are you claiming "Jehovah" (YHWH) is not the most high god in the ancient Israelite pantheon?

Kind regards,
Jonathan
Yes, with a caveat: As far as the Israelite people are concerned - Jehovah is Alpha and Omega concerning their salvation. (Rev 21:6) He is their
Creator, Redeemer, and Judge. (Isa 43:11)

John 14:6: Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Hebrews 1:
1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,
2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Yes, with a caveat: As far as the Israelite people are concerned - Jehovah is Alpha and Omega concerning their salvation.
Thanks. What do you make of Gen 14:17-24 in which YHWH is equated with El Elyon (God Most High)?

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
Thanks. What do you make of Gen 14:17-24 in which YHWH is equated with El Elyon (God Most High)?

Kind regards,
Jonathan
It's not much different than saying "He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me." (Matt 10:40)

"The Father loves the Son and has placed everything in his hands." John 3:35

"For I have not spoken of myself; but the Father which sent me, he gave me a commandment, what I should say, and what I should speak." - John 12:49

While two different beings, the authority is one in the same. Anything added to infinity is still infinity, right?
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
While two different beings, the authority is one in the same.
There is reference to "YHWH El Elyon (the Most High God), the creator (singular) of heaven and earth". Where do you get two beings out of that without imposing other ideas onto the text?

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Bonnie

Super Member
And Jehovah, who is Jesus, can speak with Divine Investiture on behalf of the Father.
Except that Jesus is Himself, fully God, the eternal Word of God. He doesn't just speak on behalf of His Father, but Jesus is fully God by nature, like His Father. As Paul wrote "for in Him {Jesus} ALL the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form." (Colossians) HOW that is possible--I don't know. But I expect God to be able to BE and DO things we mere mortals canNOT be or do. For "with man it is indeed impossible, but with God NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE."
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Based on that reasoning: Why does God refer to other gods in the 10 commandments?

(This is the weakness and dishonesty of verbal debate.)


To Larry’s point, I think context is important- The Old Testament didn’t distinguish between the Father and the Son. Jehovah was the God they were commanded to worship. No man comes into the Father but by Jesus.

But let’s use Matt’s reasoning of ‘God being everlasting to everlasting’ that no has come before or will come after?

Wouldn’t he be lining up with the Pharisees to stone Jesus, since Jesus proclaimed to be the Son of God, not coming in his own name, AND being “I AM”? Essentially claiming to come AFTER God the Father?

God is not God because of His merits, He is because HE IS, everything else is just evidence of that.
God refers to these other "gods" because He knows that the nations surrounding Israel worship other "gods"--idols. Did God not say that the "gods of the nations are idols"? Do idols really exist in the world? Did Marduk exist? Dagon? Ba'al?
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
There is reference to "YHWH El Elyon (the Most High God), the creator (singular) of heaven and earth". Where do you get two beings out of that without imposing other ideas onto the text?

Kind regards,
Jonathan

Jesus DID physically created the heavens and the earth (singularly), but did not create our spirits.

Hebrews 1:2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Gen 1:
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

I don’t know Hebrew but is there an identification of collective singularity? That would an awesome thing to understand.

The way Church leaders justify it is by Divine Investiture.
Jesus explicitly says he never speaks His own words:
John 14:24 He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father’s which sent me.

The prophets (see Isaiah 50) as well as the Holy Ghost (Acts 5:3-4) speak as if God the Father (the Most High) himself is speaking.

Moreover, I think it’s important to note that even though the Son received everything from the Father, that doesn’t take anything away from his Divinity.
Jesus is the ONLY Begotten of the Father spiritually and physically. And while the Father is the Father of our spirits (Eph 4:6),
Jesus is the one who spiritually begets us, and in a way is our Father.

Mosiah 5:7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.

Thus, we can’t go around Jesus to get to God the Father. (See John 10:1-7)

So, our Lord should be revered equally to the Father. (Eph. 4:5) In authority, they are the same.

If your my lawyer in a trial, does the eyes of the law recognize both of us? No, you represent me, even though you’re not me. In this way, the Son and the Father are one.

Read John 15. It’s a perfect analogy how WE are one with Jesus AS Jesus is one with the Father.

Thus, Jesus being Jehovah shows how God is always the same, and works the same way with man, through His Son.
 

En Hakkore

Well-known member
Jesus DID physically created the heavens and the earth (singularly), but did not create our spirits.
The same deity (YHWH God) who is said to have fashioned the first human body from dust of the ground is also said to have provided the animating force (Gen 2:7). If you want to suggest a more complex union of physical and spiritual components, fair enough, but that would move beyond my initiating concern, which is your claim that YHWH is not the Most High God of the Israelite pantheon. This deity is the same one who made the earth and the heavens (Gen 2:4).

Gen 1:
26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

I don’t know Hebrew but is there an identification of collective singularity? That would an awesome thing to understand.
The singular deity (God) speaks, addressing a gathering of other deities... this is the ancient Israelite pantheon to which I am referring. As only speaker he is implicitly its head deity and when it comes to the actual creative act narrated in the following verse that you do not cite, the narrator returns exclusively to singular verbs: The head deity of the pantheon creates humanity, not some other god. While acknowledging Gen 2:7 comes from the hand of a different author than 1:26-27, the relationship is supplemental and the same singular deity who creates/fashions the human creature is in view. All three texts (1:26-27; 2:7; 14:22) equate explicitly or implicitly the creator deity with the Most High God, who in two cases is equated with YHWH. Suggesting that YHWH is not the Most High God of the Israelite pantheon is not a defensible position from the perspective of these ancient authors.

The way Church leaders justify it is by Divine Investiture.
A theological framework imposed upon these texts rather than drawn out of it against their own historical background.

Kind regards,
Jonathan
 

Bonnie

Super Member
Again, no one is arguing that there is only one true God. We know that there is only one true God, but that does nothing for the argument that there are other real actual and living gods.

IF there is only one true God, then that means all others, by default, are UNtrue Gods and NO GODS BY NATURE. These that are called "gods" in Ps. 82 exist, since they are human judges, but that doesn't mean they are deity BY NATURE. OR do you think these "gods" ARE deity by nature?
There are far more than just ONE verse that says there are many gods. It appears to me that you just won't believe any part of the Bible that disagrees with your belief. If that is true, how can we argue anything from the Bible? We can't. All we end up with is arguing about your opinion about the Bible with zero basis for evidence.
There are many so-called "gods" in the bible--like Marduk, Ba'al, Ashtoreh, Dagon, Artemis--but are they DEITY BY NATURE?
Sorry, the name used for those gods is elohim. Except when it is applied to human judges, as seen from the context, then it has always referred to deity.
Sorry, but "elohim" isn't a name. So, NOW you ARE saying that these "gods" in Ps. 82 ARE human judges? Well, we are making progress! Thanks!

Idols are referred to as "gods" in the Bible. Are THEY deity? Were Ba'al, Ashtoreh, Dagon, and Marduk real deities?

That is why the translators in the Bibles in English translate it as gods. You are arguing symantex. Deity = gods. That's how the dictionary defines it. That is English. But no one can escape the fact that elohim = elohim. It's in the same sentence.

So? But no one can escape the CONTEXT, either. OR the references in the Bible to corrupt human rulers whom God judged, as in those Isaiah verses I have quoted and fail to see that the verses in Ps. 82 are similar in content and meaning.
"Elohim takes his stand in the congregation of El among the elohim he judges." There is no ambiguity. We may futz around with the difference between the word god and the word deity as you just did, but there is zero difference between the word elohim and the word elohim.

Sure, there is a difference. All we need look at is the context. A word can have several different meanings, can it not, depending upon context? As Theo pointed out, using "can" as an example?
But that's not where the case for what these beings are is made. We are all certain that Elohim is God and that the elohim are gods. But crux of the matter comes when God says, "I said, elohim, you are..." That is the basis for the argument that these are gods because God called them gods.
Someone could call me a biscuit and butter my behind, but would that really make me a real, true biscuit?
Just because God called them "gods" does not mean they were actual deity. Again, it is a title. Judges/rulers in Exodus were called "gods" a few times, so I think that is what God is referring to here. But were they DEITY BY NATURE?
But now you are contradicting yourself--first you concede they are human judges but now you are saying they are real gods? Which is it? Again, someone can have a title of "gods" but that does not mean that they are intrinsically, ontologically, or by nature, deity, does it? As Ps. 82 shows, since these "gods" judged unjustly, favored the wicked and would die like men. Only men die like men. Or do gods die like gods?
Again. I am not arguing that point. I agree. There is only one being who is a true God. Paul tells us who that is and it isn't Jesus Christ. It is his Father. However, when we speak of the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, They, together as a group of three beings are also God, so long as they are united under the one true God, then those three are called God.
Oh, so Jesus is an UNtrue God? Is that what you are saying?

Father, Son, and HS are NOT a group of "three Beings" but a group of Three Persons/Identies in the One Godhead.

And now you are once again contradicting yourself here: "There is only one being who is a true God. Paul tells us who that is and it isn't Jesus Christ." Soooo...Jesus isn't true God but an untrue God? So, the Son and HS are not true God, but as long as they are united under the one true God--the Father--then they too can be called "God"--even though Son and HS are not "true God"--only the Father is? Is that it?

Except Paul wrote that "In Him ALL the fullness of Deity dwells in bodily form" and he also calls Jesus our "Great God and Savior." What Paul was careful to do is NOT confuse the PERSONS of the Father and the Son. Jude says Jesus is our ONLY Lord--does that mean God the Father and God the HS cannot be "Lord"? And don't forget--John 1 says that "the Word was God." And Jesus Himself said that "Before Abraham was, I AM." Remember when Thomas called Jesus "My Lord and My God!"--did Jesus correct him? Or verify what Thomas called Him?
 

Aaron32

Well-known member
...your claim that YHWH is not the Most High God of the Israelite pantheon
I think your understating my claim of the “Oneness” of authority and purpose.
You recognize the plurality of Gods in the Hebrew text, what other God exactly is recognized in Judaism that would require the plurality in the first place? It doesn’t make sense.
Mormons DO claim to worship a Godhead which is quite similar to the Trinity. The difference is that one implies God is of a different race than man in which enmity will always exist, and the other states that man can literally become One with God as Jesus is One with the Father
A theological framework imposed upon these texts rather than drawn out of it against their own historical background.
Please clarify.

As stated before, I’m not a linguist. I can only compare scholarly views.
Clearly, the text is implying a difference between YHWH Elohim and Elohim (alone) and YHWH (alone). Otherwise, they’d use the same term.
My layman interpretation incorporates the Bible as a whole. Looking at John 1:1 say Jesus is the Word of God and is God (while yet showing distinction and submission to the Father in the rest of the text), that isn’t much different to say YWHW Elohim is Lord of the Godhead. While I know that isn’t the literal translation, the “spirit” of the message is there.
 

dberrie2020

Well-known member
IF there is only one true God, then that means all others, by default, are UNtrue Gods and NO GODS BY NATURE. These that are called "gods" in Ps. 82 exist, since they are human judges, but that doesn't mean they are deity BY NATURE. OR do you think these "gods" ARE deity by nature?

You haven't defined "untrue Gods" or "deity by nature". Until you do--then discussion on those phrases is compromised. One has to have some parameters to discuss a particular. Please define what those phrases mean to you.

The gods of Psalm 82 are identified as the "sons of the Most High". Is that their nature?

Psalm 82:1-6---English Standard Version
1 God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:
2 “How long will you judge unjustly
and show partiality to the wicked? Selah
3 Give justice to the weak and the fatherless;
maintain the right of the afflicted and the destitute.
4 Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”
5 They have neither knowledge nor understanding,
they walk about in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.
6 I said, “You are gods,
sons of the Most High, all of you;
 
Top