Psalms 82 "we are not gods children of the most high" (hell, Revelation)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
But God did tell them this:
Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
And Jesus told His people the exact same thing.
He absolutely did not. John 1:12 (not written by Jesus) states that his followers have power to become the "sons of God." This is a different statement but is clearly derived from Second Temple Judaism's notion of theosis, which is drawn in part from exegesis of Psalms 82. In some of the papers to which I've linked I've explained in detail how these ideologies developed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Even in Moses' day God told Moses he would be Elohim to Pharaoh and Aaron would be his prophet. So Moses was a God/Elohim/subjector/placer in that he was subjecting Pharaoh to God's judgments and placing Pharaoh in situations he had no control over.
And Moses' shining face on Mt. Sinai shows he was made divine, not just functionally or metaphorically "divine." David and Moses are the only two humans in Israelite history that are directly called "god."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
There really was no change from David's day to Christ's day as to the meaning of Psalm 82.
Demonstrably false and incredibly naive. All religious ideologies are in a constant state of evolution, and the conflation of Psalm 82 with the Sinai pericope appears nowhere prior to the first century CE.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
The early Israelites coming out of Egypt wrongly worshipped the gods of the nations, gods of wood and metal; dumb gods who could not do anything.
And if you pay any attention at all to Deuteronomy you'll see that this was wrong for only one reason: those gods were not allotted to the Israelites. The gods were acknowledged and their stewardships were considered sanctioned by Elyon himself, but since Israel belonged to Yhwh, they had to honor that singular relationship.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Elijah with his contest with the Baal priests shows them that Yahweh was the one true God and their god was no god and poked fun at them by saying maybe he's asleep or on vacation. Just because Israelite people wrongly THOUGHT the nations had real gods does not mean those gods were real.
So Deut 4:19; 17:3; 29:26; 32:8–9 are just mistaken? Baal was rejected because he was a storm deity, just like Yhwh, and there was no room for two storm deities in Syria-Palestine. Why do you think there is no anti-El rhetoric in the Bible? Because the Israelites worshipped a deity named El as well, so they could just identify their El with the Canaanite El. They couldn't identify Yhwh with Baal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
For instance, just because the people of India regard Ganesh as a real god:
does not in fact mean it really is. It just means that the people have false ideas. Likewise the early Israelites. By the way, I don't believe that if David was the writer of Psalm 82 that he wrongly believed that the elohim spoken of in that psalm were non-humans.
Psalm 82 actually had nothing to do with the Israelites at Sinai (unless I misunderstand what you are saying above.)
I know this. In the early Common Era, however, it was absolutely interpreted that way. Multiple rabbinic texts explain exactly that. Jesus' reading in John 10 promotes that reading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Those Israelites who were given the responsibility of judging their fellow Israelites were failing at this. So God tells those judges that they are going to die:
Such a situation is attested nowhere in any literature from that time period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
Psa 82:7 Yet you shall die like common humanity, And like any other of the chiefs you shall fall."
Rather than having a death fit for a ruler,
No such contrast in manner of death is anywhere attested in early Jewish literature. It's just a concoction that fundamentalists came up with in order to avoid the natural reading of the text.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
they were going to have a dead just like common humanity where it is a humiliation rather than a glorious death. They would not be entombed with the righteous royalty.
I'm not sure if you are getting your information from the time you spent at Brigham Young University and that it emanates from their theological constructs. Mormons have all kinds of strange beliefs about Gods/gods. They believe in multiple worlds and multiple gods.
You'd do better to just not waste your time trying to guess about what's motivating my exegesis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
The apostle Paul said in Christ's day that those who are led by God's spirit are sons of God/ elohim of God. Also in Romans 8:19 the manifestation of the sons of God/ elohim of God are human believers or the church.
And Paul said: "do you not know we shall judge messengers and life's affairs"? So human judges are also elohim.
What ludicrous eisegesis! There's no basis whatsoever for such a juvenile conflation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
But thanks for your thoughts. I don't agree with them, but they are interesting.
You don't agree because you don't know the languages, the contexts, or the secondary literature. All you know is the ideology you dogmatically presuppose. My interpretation is guided by a quite informed knowledge of the languages, the contexts, the secondary literature, and other things. What it is lacking is dogmatism.
Originally Posted by Eusebius But God did tell them this:
Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan
He absolutely did not. John 1:12 (not written by Jesus) states that his followers have power to become the "sons of God." This is a different statement but is clearly derived from Second Temple Judaism's notion of theosis, which is drawn in part from exegesis of Psalms 82. In some of the papers to which I've linked I've explained in detail how these ideologies developed.
Absolutely did so.
Here is John 1:12
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to
them that believe on his name:
John 10:34-35 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, that 'I say you are gods'? " (35) If
He said those were gods, to whom the word of God came (and the scripture can not be annulled),
So the Israelites who received Jesus are sons of God. They are "begotten of God."
In John 10:34-35 quoted above Jesus is putting the verse in its correct contextual setting: it is speaking of humans.
gods (in the sense you give the term) in the old testament were not given the responsibility to judge the widow and the fatherless. That was given to Moses and then the judges he set up. During the thousand year reign the 12 will sit on 12 throned judging the twelve tribes of Israel in all matters relating to law. They are elohim. In Psalm 82 the word of God came to the human judges/elohim who judged Israel.
Originally Posted by Eusebius But God did tell them this:
Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Absolutely did so.
Here is John 1:12
John 1:12 But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to
them that believe on his name:
I already quoted this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
John 10:34-35 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, that 'I say you are gods'? " (35) If
He said those were gods, to whom the word of God came (and the scripture can not be annulled),
So the Israelites who received Jesus are sons of God. They are "begotten of God."
Jesus referred to the subjects of the quote in the third person. He did not at all indicate they were to be identified with any then-contemporary group.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
In John 10:34-35 quoted above Jesus is putting the verse in its correct contextual setting: it is speaking of humans.
It is speaking of a specific group of humans, and specifically the Israelites at Sinai. Why is it so difficult for you to acknowledge this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
gods (in the sense you give the term) in the old testament were not given the responsibility to judge the widow and the fatherless.
Absolutely untrue. The rights of the widow and the fatherless were stock vernacular for cosmic justice, which absolutely was the purview of the gods. Deut 32:8–9 says Elyon established the gods over the nations. Psalm 82 acts as their deposition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
That was given to Moses and then the judges he set up. During the thousand year reign the 12 will sit on 12 throned judging the twelve tribes of Israel in all matters relating to law. They are elohim. In Psalm 82 the word of God came to the human judges/elohim who judged Israel.
No, elohim absolutely never refers to judges, and Psalm 82 simply cannot refer to humans. The language alone precludes that reading. You obviously care nothing for what the evidence and the facts indicate, and you're obviously not going to listen to reason, but for others who may be reading your errors need to be exposed.
Psalm 82 can't possibly be speaking of the Israelites at Sinai.
It most definitely is when Israel was already settled in the land and their judges/elohim should have been judging the widow and fatherless but instead they were taking bribes and not doing proper judging.
Psalm 82 can't possibly be speaking of the Israelites at Sinai.
Of course not, but the early Jews absolutely believed that it did. For instance, 'Abod. Zar. 5a and Midr. Rab. of Psalm 82 both explain that the angel of death had no power over the Israelites at Sinai, but when they sinned with the calf they lost their immortality. The legitimacy of the reading has no bearing whatsoever on whether or not a certain group accepted the reading at some time or another.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
It most definitely is when Israel was already settled in the land and their judges/elohim should have been judging the widow and fatherless but instead they were taking bribes and not doing proper judging.
That is absolutely precluded by the fact that the subjects' natures as divine beings is contrasted with their condemnation to mortality (human beings can't be demoted to mortality), and by the fact that the condemnation of the deities leaves the nations of the earth open for Yhwh's appropriation (v. 8). The text simply does not support your reading at all, and no amount of naked assertion otherwise can change that.
Psalm 82 isn't talking about human beings being demoted to mortality. It is telling those Israelites that since they were not judging the people properly that they would die like the common person and not like royalty. This happened often. And those who thought they got away with it had their tombs opened and their bones burned and ashes cast into the river.
P.S. you can't always go by what some Jew thought about a given passage. Jesus often told them that they by their traditions made the word of God of none effect. Jesus said they were blind. He was always correcting them.
No, elohim absolutely never refers to judges, and Psalm 82 simply cannot refer to humans.
....
That is absolutely precluded by the fact that the subjects' natures as divine beings is contrasted with their condemnation to mortality (human beings can't be demoted to mortality)
Yes, elohim is used to refer to ruler(s) in Israel in other parts of the OT. (e.g., Ps. 45:6, Ex. 21:8, Ex. 22:8-9)
And I don't see how you can say verse 7 necessitates that the subjects in question not be humans. Sounds like a very narrow reading you've presupposed.
Psalm 82 isn't talking about human beings being demoted to mortality. It is telling those Israelites that since they were not judging the people properly that they would die like the common person and not like royalty.
This reading is precluded by two things: (1) vv. 6–7 pronounce a condemnation to mortality (it simply cannot be read any other way in light of the contrast indicated by the אמרתי / אכן construction), and (2) there is no contrast in common vs. royal death in ancient Israel, there is only a difference in burial, which is simply not mentioned here. You're simply making stuff up. The fact that you can produce no evidence whatsoever is indication enough of that. All you can do is continue to assert your theory without adding a word of support.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
This happened often. And those who thought they got away with it had their tombs opened and their bones burned and ashes cast into the river.
And you cannot even begin to hope to show that differences in burial custom were ever referred to as differences in manner of death. Burials were described as burials, not as death. Also, royal burials are never compared to divine nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eusebius
P.S. you can't always go by what some Jew thought about a given passage. Jesus often told them that they by their traditions made the word of God of none effect. Jesus said they were blind. He was always correcting them.
Then why did he allude so obliquely to the reading? Why didn't the Jews ask what he was talking about? Why does his reading happen to align perfectly with the most common rabbinic reading? Why do Jesus' ideologies so frequently align with traditional rabbinic exegesis? You're just making stuff up. Again.
Yes, elohim is used to refer to ruler(s) in Israel in other parts of the OT. (e.g., Ps. 45:6,
This is a reference to David, who was considered divine. Kings were widely considered divine in the ancient Near East, not judges. Moses was also considered divine, and as I explained, his shining face (another divine king motif) indicates his divinity was no honorific or metaphorical divinity. Moses and David are the two single most revered figures in all of Judaism. That they were considered actually divine is no surprise. That common judges were called "gods" just because Moses and David were called gods is simply ludicrous. The texts that are asserted to refer to judges are also much, much more simply explained as references to actual divinities.
And I don't see how you can say verse 7 necessitates that the subjects in question not be humans. Sounds like a very narrow reading you've presupposed.
There is a definite contrast drawn between their nature as gods and their condemnation to mortality. It is simply senseless to insist vv. 6–7 assert that in spite of the fact that these people are humans, they will die like humans do. You can't draw a contrast between those two concepts. They are congruent, not contrastive. The Hebrew is absolutely unquestionably contrastive.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
