"The Sons of God!" Mere mortals, literal sons or angels? (Mormonism, church)

Originally Posted by whoppers

I can't believe that "they" are just now being made aware of bene elohim in Detueronomy 32:8 (and in an online forum, at that) - it's been common knowledge for decades now! And they have been publishing Bibles... That alone should demonstrate how bad a translation the "Concordant Literal" is, and always has been. An interesting exercise is to look up the Concordant in Wikipedia and see the absolute lack of credentials the original "translators" had, as well as their membership in some strange "Brethren Movement" which informed their "translational" principles.

It explains a lot...

Exactly, just google Concordant Publishing Concern. It's all there.

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane

Jesus, by his time, was living in a fiercely monotheistic society and thus, his commentary on Psalm 82 reflected that. It would have been highly blasphemous (at that time) to claim that the Jewish god had rivals/equals or even sons, yet ironically, according to the NT account, such blasphemous claims were the very reasons Jesus was executed for.

I do realize that Jesus is your ultimate authority and you have no choice but to go with his view, but I have to disagree strongly that Psalm 82 (at its writing) and in post-NT society referred to humans.

Good post, Insane.
As should be evident to Eusebius from the changing tradition found in Detueronomy 32:8 (which has been gone over in much detail) - beliefs and interpretations of the Biblical text changed over time. This has been shown countless times. In addition to that, Biblical authors interpreted previous Biblical authors into new theological ideas. It did not remain static.

The problem is that there's an assumption that the Bible tells one big story, and that it's by one big author (even if he inspired men to write it down for him) and that we can use the views of the 1st Century Christians to put words in the mouths of ancient Israelite authors. That's a shame, but luckily it's a view that is slowly dying out while the rest of Christianity accepts the fact that, like everything: things change.


I think many would be surprised with the traditions that Jesus or Paul held to, but did not explicitly state in the NT. Another bad assumption that is frequently made is that a NT author cannot possibly have held a view that is not found in Scripture. This view prevents many from exploring works such as Jubilees and 1st Enoch and the Jewish Tradition to see what was behind the thoughts of Jesus and Paul. It's been demonstrated a few times in this thread already, but the assumption remains, it appears.


You should find this interesting, in light of what you have been saying. Simon B. Parker brings Psalm 82 into a direct line of discussion of what has gone before in this thread:

Thus in Gen 6:1-4 the divine beings are portrayed in a reference to a traditional myth (or myths), which is given a place in events leading up to the deluge. Here they are radically differentiated and separated from Yahweh.
In Deut 32:8-9 the divine beings appeared originally as Yahweh's peers, but the text is reread and eventually rewritten to make Yahweh the supreme, and then the only, deity.
In Ps 82 Yahweh again appears as one of the divine beings, but only to expose his peers as total failures and to displace them as rule of the world.
In the remaining cases, the divine beings appear as Yahweh's court - his servants and worshippers.
(Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible [DDD], "Sons of (the) Gods/s", p. 797)

He further sums up how the term was viewed in Judaism and Christianity:

The apocrypha and pesudepigrapha conceive of the "children of God" as angels - though the term is also used of faithful Jews. These two uses are virtually conflated in the eschatological expectations of some texts, which see faithful Israel becoming heavenly beings in God's ultimate new order.

The NT adopts the idea and the term to embrace the newly defined community of God's people, and then also occasionally applies it to the quasi-angelic nature and status of the faithful in the final transformation.
(ibid, p. 799)

This has all been said before in this thread, but the article is definitely worth reading for those who have access to the DDD (and if you don't - you should find a copy of it, as it's full of great info). It goes into much more detail than the above. The biggest point demonstrated in the above citations is that the concept did not remain static, but changed. The difficulty for some is to realize this in the first place. One should always ask "from what tradition am I reading this text"? for it will have a definite bearing on how you see it. After that question, perhaps one should ask "am I doing justice to the original author's intention and message, or am I discarding it in favor of my tradition's way of reading it"?

What should be fascinating for some is the broadening view of the Biblical authors and traditions all this study reveals. Conservative opposition to such an endeavor just seems to shrink the Biblical world, or keep it in a state that was long passed hundreds of years ago by other Christians. Sola Scriptura becomes an idol, in a way, that must be preserved - in the minds of many.

Hey whoppers, you should start a Bibliography thread with possible links, on the Divine Council, Sons of God, ANE, and Evolution of God and people could add things they think will be helpful that you did not mention. I think that would be great since you have a plethora of citations.

[whoppers]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Hey whoppers, you should start a Bibliography thread with possible links, on the Divine Council, Sons of God, ANE, and Evolution of God and people could add things they think will be helpful that you did not mention. I think that would be great since you have a plethora of citations.

That might be a life's work right there heh heh! There's so much material that has been published (and not published, but available) in these areas that I'm not sure anyone could do a comprehensive listing. Perhaps a "Best of" or a "Highlights Version" - but even that would be pretty subjective. Unfortunately, most of my citations would probably be to books, and not links to web-pages. Daniel could probably provide some fascinating links and citations, as he has been doing some serious academic (and published) work in the areas you mentioned (check out his blog).

Usually, a good place to find a bibliography is in a recent book on the subject. If it has good notes, and citations, it will provide a near limitless chain of sources to follow because each of those sources will, in turn, have their own bibliographies listing other sources. It becomes maddeningly large - the amount of literature that has been written on the subject. For online links, some scholarly blogs have links to the side of the page (or on a separate page) to online resources.

I suppose one could list some major works of interest in a thread, and comments could be given on the individual works and how they are helpful in particular areas of interest.

[InsaneInDaMembrane]

Originally Posted by whoppers

The problem is that there's an assumption that the Bible tells one big story, and that it's by one big author (even if he inspired men to write it down for him) and that we can use the views of the 1st Century Christians to put words in the mouths of ancient Israelite authors. That's a shame, but luckily it's a view that is slowly dying out while the rest of Christianity accepts the fact that, like everything: things change.

This is EXACTLY what Bart Ehrman speaks about. The initial claim is flawed ("God inspired the bible's writing and therefore it is completely accurate and without error"). Off of that base, the literalist Christian reads the book like he reads other books - in horizontal fashion. The idea is that there is ONE author behind it all and thus, one central theme, running like a thread from Genesis to Revelation in which there are no contradictions, variances of theology, conflicts or theological evolution. This causes far more problems than it solves. When one stacks up the books of the bible vertically, read each on its OWN merit a whole new picture emerges. While there are similar concepts from book to book, you can't help but notice changes traversing the time period covered on the bible's pages.

One huge elephant in the room that has baffled new and well-seasoned Christians that proves this point of theological evolution is the gradual changing of the central character - the biblical god. The yapping god of Ezekiel is far different from the action god of Exodus. In Ezekiel he grieves and bemoans over his wayward people but he does nothing other than proclaims curses, threats and promises. In Exodus he is smiting and smoting. When [some] Christians push the "he is the same god" concept even further into the New Testament, the contrast is even more stark.

Originally Posted by InsaneInDaMembrane

This is EXACTLY what Bart Ehrman speaks about. The initial claim is flawed ("God inspired the bible's writing and therefore it is completely accurate and without error"). Off of that base, the literalist Christian reads the book like he reads other books - in horizontal fashion. The idea is that there is ONE author behind it all and thus, one central theme, running like a thread from Genesis to Revelation in which there are no contradictions, variances of theology, conflicts or theological evolution. This causes far more problems than it solves. When one stacks up the books of the bible vertically, read each on its OWN merit a whole new picture emerges. While there are similar concepts from book to book, you can't help but notice changes traversing the time period covered on the bible's pages.

One huge elephant in the room that has baffled new and well-seasoned Christians that proves this point of theological evolution is the gradual changing of the central character - the biblical god. The yapping god of Ezekiel is far different from the action god of Exodus. In Ezekiel he grieves and bemoans over his wayward people but he does nothing other than proclaims curses, threats and promises. In Exodus he is smiting and smoting. When [some] Christians push the "he is the same god" concept even further into the New Testament, the contrast is even more stark.

Yes! just read Deut. God did not seem to mind that other people worshiped the other gods that actually existed just as long as his portion did not go-a whoring after them. He is so jealous that he even makes a covenant with them and if they violate it then off to the Divine Woodshed. Just look at all the phrases of 'your' God, 'our' God, 'other gods' and 'I am a jealous God' etc. Of course YHWH justifies the extermination of these other people in order to exalt his people and himself over the other nations and other gods. Does not seem like the NT loving Father of all mankind who just wishes he could put his loving arms around you - now does it.

Reminds of a new believer I once encountered - when he read Leviticus-Deut. his summary was Blood! Blood! Death! Blood! more Blood! Kill! Kill! and more Blood! I did have to laugh

[Daniel O. McClellan]

Originally Posted by Shiloh1

Yes! just read Deut. God did not seem to mind that other people worshiped the other gods that actually existed just as long as his portion did not go-a whoring after them. He is so jealous that he even makes a covenant with them and if they violate it then off to the Divine Woodshed. Just look at all the phrases of 'your' God, 'our' God, 'other gods' and 'I am a jealous God' etc. Of course YHWH justifies the extermination of these other people in order to exalt his people and himself over the other nations and other gods. Does not seem like the NT loving Father of all mankind who just wishes he could put his loving arms around you - now does it.

Reminds of a new believer I once encountered - when he read Leviticus-Deut. his summary was Blood! Blood! Death! Blood! more Blood! Kill! Kill! and more Blood! I did have to laugh

The best discussion of the conceptualization of God in Deuteronomy is Nathan MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of Monotheism. The vassal treaty metaphor for God's relationship with Israel dominates the final form of the text, and the violent and harsh rhetoric is just rhetoric aimed at denigrating Assyrian rulers and non-Josianic Israelite factions. I will start a PhD program at Oxford in October where I'll write my doctoral dissertation on the conceptualizations of God in Deutero-Isaiah and their relationship to modern monotheism. The story there is a bit different, but is largely based on the rhetoric of Deuteronomy.

Originally Posted by Daniel O. McClellan

The best discussion of the conceptualization of God in Deuteronomy is Nathan MacDonald, Deuteronomy and the Meaning of Monotheism. The vassal treaty metaphor for God's relationship with Israel dominates the final form of the text, and the violent and harsh rhetoric is just rhetoric aimed at denigrating Assyrian rulers and non-Josianic Israelite factions. I will start a PhD program at Oxford in October where I'll write my doctoral dissertation on the conceptualizations of God in Deutero-Isaiah and their relationship to modern monotheism. The story there is a bit different, but is largely based on the rhetoric of Deuteronomy.

Now that sounds interesting and congrats - will you be blogging on this subject as well?

[whoppers]

One did NOT want to violate a vassal treaty agreement in the ANE, though the consequences that would ensue make for some entertaining reading!

[dtango]

Originally Posted by whoppers

I would agree to a point - but would phrase it differently. I would suggest that to understand an ANE text, it is helpful and necessary to know what world the text was produced in - and this requires delving into other texts in the "Wisdom Tradition" as just one part of that process. It all depends on what your goal is. If your goal is to understand a particular text, then the above definitely helps. If your goal is to try to find that synthesis you've been striving for, then the above is necessary ...

The goal should be to understand the words of the ancestors, and to achieve this goal one has no need of comprehending the theological mind of the various epochs but their sources: the legends. Theologians and philosophers derived their ideas from oral traditions but the scholars, as I see, occupy themselves solely with what poets, philosophers and theologians produced in writting.

Originally Posted by whoppers

Their deeds are important for understanding, but I wouldn't go so far as to claim that what held true for a myth about Zeus and co. necessarily held true for Yahweh and co.

Hesiod, Catalogue of Women or Eoiai, fragment 55 (204)

…δή γαρ τότε μήδετο θέσκελα έργα Ζεύς υψιβρεμέτης, με3ίξαι κατ’ απείρονα γαίαν τυρβάξας, ήδη δε γένος μερόπων ανθρώπων πολλόν αϊστώσαι σπεύδε πρ[‘ο]φασιν μεν ολέσθαι ψυχάς ημιθέων [ν… … .]οισι βροτοίσι τέκνα θεών μι[…]. […]ο. [οφ]θαλμοίσιν ορώντα…

…because at that time Zeus was planning divine deeds; to bring confusion to earth as he was in a hurry to exterminate the mankind, in order to destroy the souls of the demigods, so that the wretched humans will not merge with the children of the gods by seen death with their own eyes.

Genesis

6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were fair, and they took them wives of all which they chose,
6:3 And the Lord said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be a hundred and twenty years.

Both Yahweh and Zeus were in a hurry to exterminate those of no pure blood. The sons of the gods who were made of… pure spirit, came into the fleshy girls and produced offspring who was also flesh.

Originally Posted by whoppers

“Original Sin" is not a concept that is the same across all cultures.

Originally Posted by whoppers

[...]
However, in one Babylonian story - Enuma Elish, (to use another example, from just one pro-Mardukl/pro-Babylon tradition from Mesopotamia) the humans are created from the blood of one of Marduk's enemies, and this "evil" blood would account for much of mankind's "sinful" nature. Different stories, different traditions, different conclusions regarding man's nature.

D i f f e r e n t !! ??

Originally Posted by whoppers

1- I doubt you have an actual reliable criteria for determining which "sons of gods" were imaginative and which ones were not.

The sexaholic eponymous sons of gods if they actually were the products of the imagination of the theologians of all times (Christian thinkers also failed to avoid using the pregnancy of a woman in the creation of their god) then something is going terribly wrong with theology!!

Imaginative are only the spiritual asexual sons. The others were quite realistic and with natural appetite guys.

Originally Posted by whoppers

2- You're trying to interpret a Hebrew text from your strange mono-myth theory again, Dtango, and it's still not convincing, I'm afraid.

It will take some time. I Know!

Originally Posted by whoppers

But you still insist on interpreting a Hebrew text through the lens of every other text that suits your mono-myth. Do you really think that everyone who wrote down stories that made it into the Hebrew Bible consulted some sort of mono-myth diagram, or had a copy of "The Mono-Myth: Please add your version and pass on" at hand?

Your disregard towards oral tradition and popular culture is criminal. Nobody “wrote down stories.” The stories the Greek tragic poets wrote were inspired from legends. The oldest religious texts of humanity are the Pyramid texts and they are based on legends so ancient that most of the Egyptian priests did not understand the texts. Scholars know nothing about these texts. Nothing! Absolute zero; but they insist on analyzing every word in the Hebrew texts as if the Israelites descended from the skies 4000 years ago.

Originally Posted by whoppers

If your ideas of the giants were held by the Israelites, as well - we certainly do not have any evidence for that anywhere. And speculation doesn't count, either.

The idea the Israelites held of the Giants is the same as the one held by the Greeks, the Germanic tribes and the American Indians. The difference being that the Israelites had the courage to admit that they themselves did the killings.

For the evidence you should look into Mount Carmel caves (Mircea dear, the Jewish tradition goes back at the least 50,000 years ).