Jump to content

Ye Are 'gods'


stv2k
 Share

Recommended Posts

please note i should not have capitalized the 'g' in thread topic, it should read, 'Ye are gods'. (moderator a fix?)

 

Here is a interesting event and words of Christ.

 

34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

 

35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

 

36Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

-------John 10

 

what do you make of this? why did they want to 'take' him? did the pharisees understand something that he was identifying them with?

Edited by stv2k
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like deification to me.

 

Or, as Calvin put it in his commentary on John:

 

"Christ applies this to the case in hand, that they receive the name of gods, because they are God’s ministers for governing the world. For the same reason Scripture calls the angels gods, because by them the glory of God beams forth on the world."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what do you make of this? why did they want to 'take' him? did the pharisees understand something that he was identifying them with?

 

Urk, sorry. Forgot to reply to this bit. In the verses just before then, people wishes to stone Jesus for blaspheming as a man making himself God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sounds like deification to me.

 

Or, as Calvin put it in his commentary on John:

 

"Christ applies this to the case in hand, that they receive the name of gods, because they are God’s ministers for governing the world. For the same reason Scripture calls the angels gods, because by them the glory of God beams forth on the world."

 

read psalm 82 to start.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Urk, sorry. Forgot to reply to this bit. In the verses just before then, people wishes to stone Jesus for blaspheming as a man making himself God.

 

well, Jesus did respond to thaht, but it is their reaction to his confrontation of them that i am refering to. he adressed the issue of 'making himself equal to God" but what did he mean when he spoke of 'ye are gods', why did they not accept this respone. read John 10:34-39

Edited by stv2k
Link to comment
Share on other sites

read psalm 82 to start.

 

I did.

 

Socratic method doesn't work, especially online. I apologize if I'm wrong, but that's who you're coming across right now to me. If you have an argument, or an idea, or something you want to discuss, I'm all ears and would love to hear what you think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did.

 

Socratic method doesn't work, especially online. I apologize if I'm wrong, but that's who you're coming across right now to me. If you have an argument, or an idea, or something you want to discuss, I'm all ears and would love to hear what you think.

what is a socratic method?... so why did they not accep this answer, it is written, ye are gods, sons of the most high, and he refered to that for when saying, i am the son of God. so whats the problem?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what is a socratic method?

 

It's when a teacher attempts to slowly bring a student to understanding a complex point by asking question after question, slowly having the student figure out information. When done correctly, it creates a very well rounded, organic understanding of things. It's quite popular in law schools as a form of teaching.

 

Unfortunately, it is also extremely difficult, as the teacher needs to essentially "herd" his or her student. This becomes exponentially harder in an online environment. Additionally, it requires people accept the roles of student and teacher, with the students accepting the teacher's authority.

 

Simply asking questions among peers, or worse strangers, comes across as confusing and cryptic at best. It comes across as an individual having a "right answer" they want other posters to arrive at, but refuse to explicitly state. This is... frustrating. I'm not suggesting this is your intent by any means, but this is how you are coming across, to me.

Edited by Nick the Nevermet
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Psalm 82 is one of the oldest Psalms and reveals the polytheistic origins that led to the development of the monotheism. John sees another layer of meaning to use for his own portrayal of Jesus. John, I think, is using the older sense of Ps 82 in which God is addressing, not rulers of nations, but other, though perhaps lesser gods, and calling them to account for their responsibilities on earth. Underneath Jesus's claim to be on a mission for God, the hearers of these words may hear that old echo that Jesus is more divine than human. In keeping with John's attitude, it is a more aggressive claim than being the Son of God asking to be judged by his works: Jesus is God.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well i guess the socrates method is not right or PC, or is it...... hmmmmmm, so then you believe that this forum would be uneffective to apply step six

 

Point 6

By calling ourselves progressive, we mean we find more grace in the search for understanding than we do in dogmatic certainty - more value in questioning than in absolutes.

  • Downvote 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

what do you think of this commentary, i didnt write it.

 

psalm 82

1 God presides in the great assembly [the phrase is literally "the assembly of El"];

he renders judgment among the “gods” [the "assembly of El" parallels "the gods". So it's God standing in his heavenly council addressing it's members]:

2 “How long will you defend the unjust

and show partiality to the wicked? [the 'gods' in the assembly are not being just and are playing favorites with some people at the expense of the weak and needy]

3 Defend the weak and the fatherless;

uphold the cause of the poor and the oppressed. [this is what the gods in the assembly are not doing, hence why they are called on to do the right thing]

4 Rescue the weak and the needy;

deliver them from the hand of the wicked. [again, this is what they supposed gods are failing in doing]

5 “The ‘gods’ know nothing, they understand nothing.

They walk about in darkness;

all the foundations of the earth are shaken. [the supposed gods neither know nor understand; note in John how Jesus tells his opponents to "know and understand]

6 “I said, ‘You are “gods”;

you are all sons of the Most High.’

7 But you will die like mere mortals;

you will fall like every other ruler.” [the supposed gods are sentenced to destruction]

8 Rise up, O God, judge the earth,

for all the nations are your inheritance. [here the God of Israel is called to stand up and do what the other supposed gods couldn't do]

 

-----

john 10

 

 

34 Jesus answered them, “Is it not written in your Law, ‘I have said you are “gods” [Jews at the time of Jesus understood Psalm 82 to be refering to human judges of the Law] ? 35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came[here Jesus is playing on their understanding of Ps 82. They considered themselves to be righteous judges of the Law identified in Psalm 82 as the "sons of God".]-and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? [Jesus uses their understanding to say basically, "how much more do I deserve my title "Son of God" since I am God's Word in flesh when you guys are just mere interpreters and vehicles of God's word (ie, the Law/Torah) and consider yourself to be "sons of God"] 37 Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father. 38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand [just like the supposed gods/judges of Psalm 82 failed in their understanding and knowledge, Jesus' opponents have failed in the exact same way] that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” 39 Again they tried to seize him, but he escaped their grasp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well i guess the socrates method is not right or PC, or is it...... hmmmmmm, so then you believe that this forum would be uneffective to apply step six

 

Point 6

By calling ourselves progressive, we mean we find more grace in the search for understanding than we do in dogmatic certainty - more value in questioning than in absolutes.

 

Sorry, but this misses the whole point that Nick sought to make.

:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

 

It is not PC to say that a certain tactic is an attempt to condescend. As you are not higher status than I (or I you), rhetorical tactics that involve condescension are illegitimate. For it to be "PC", I would need to be saying that conflict is "icky" or avoid "uncomfortable" language. Quite the contrary: I am interested in proper rules of engagement for debate!

 

As an extension, point 6 is about the value of questions asked by an individual who does not know the answer. Rhetorical questions are not questions, but rather a debate tactic. As such, point 6 is irrelevant to this discussion. (EDIT: "the discussion" being my claim you appear to rely on rhetorical questions, thereby avoiding a positive argument, and your disagreement by accusing my complaint of being PC.)

 

Based on how everyone in here is reacting to you, it is demonstrable that you coming across as arguing in bad faith. The only question is whether you intend to argue in bad faith, or whether your posting style isn't compatible with how discourse works here. If the latter, that can be worked on (with help, if desired). If the former.... why bother?

 

 

(This post was brought to you by Habermas and the letter D ;))

Edited by Nick the Nevermet
  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

 

It is not PC to say that a certain tactic is an attempt to condescend. As you are not higher status than I (or I you), rhetorical tactics that involve condescension are illegitimate. For it to be "PC", I would need to be saying that conflict is "icky" or avoid "uncomfortable" language. Quite the contrary: I am interested in proper rules of engagement for debate!

 

As an extension, point 6 is about the value of questions asked by an individual who does not know the answer. Rhetorical questions are not questions, but rather a debate tactic. As such, point 6 is irrelevant to this discussion. (EDIT: "the discussion" being my claim you appear to rely on rhetorical questions, thereby avoiding a positive argument, and your disagreement by accusing my complaint of being PC.)

 

Based on how everyone in here is reacting to you, it is demonstrable that you coming across as arguing in bad faith. The only question is whether you intend to argue in bad faith, or whether your posting style isn't compatible with how discourse works here. If the latter, that can be worked on (with help, if desired). If the former.... why bother?

 

 

(This post was brought to you by Habermas and the letter D ;))

can we get back to the thread topic? its not about wether my type of search is valid or not.

Edited by stv2k
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve,

 

Caution. Make no mistake. Your view is welcome here and it will never get you banned , But your behavior can and needs to not be condescending of others who do not agree if you wish to remain here. Your questions indeed are perceived here as rhetorical. To avoid this, familiarize yourself with our etiquette here, state your belief or view in your own words or commentary and why you believe that and members can discuss it with you. If you have a genuine question concerning PC then ask one at a time directly so others can respond. When you have your answer you can agree or disagree and state why and go on to other points. There will be no preaching and sermons on this site. Most all members here have read the Bible numerous times and heard enough sermons elsewhere.

 

JosephM (as Moderator)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 If he called them ‘gods,’ to whom the word of God came[here Jesus is playing on their understanding of Ps 82. They considered themselves to be righteous judges of the Law identified in Psalm 82 as the "sons of God".]-and Scripture cannot be set aside— 36 what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’? [Jesus uses their understanding to say basically, "how much more do I deserve my title "Son of God"

I agree. Psalm 82 is at the core of this dialog. Is Jesus God? I think that is the real question that John is raising. The attitude of the author of this Gospel speaks so strongly that I need to say that "John" is the one who "uses their understanding."

 

the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world

I see no evidence that Jewish leaders could know that "the Father set Jesus apart as his very own". They see that Jesus feels an inner Divine call. But even without this claim, it can be said that they have failed to be the gods that they are accusing him of being. Their works expose irresponsibility. His works reveal his faithfulness to the same call.

 

 

Take Care

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nick

 

Thanks for asking. Remember, I get a lot of mileage out of a little knowledge. Kind of ADD in my approach to researching. Erratic. I don't have that many books to recommend

 

A History of God and The Great Transformation by Karen Armstrong. (She covers more than just the Old Testament.)

Understanding the Old Testament, Bernard Anderson, a textbook I borrowed from a friend.(I have read about 1/4 of it.)

NOVA's The Bible's Buried Secrets video available online. NOVA is not always trustworthy on its own. but this program says many of the same things as the others. If one likes to see history, archaelogy, and the Bible linked there are a few fascinating moments.

 

Psalm 82

Search "Divine Council" in google. this link mentions ps 82 on page 1. http://www.thedivinecouncil.com/mshv1n1dcoverview.pdf

http://lehislibrary.files.wordpress.com/2009/08/divinecouncil-1.pdf

THE DIVINE COUNCIL IN LATE CANONICAL AND NON-CANONICAL SECOND TEMPLE JEWISH LITERATURE

http://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1092&context=fac_dis&sei-redir=1#

 

Some of what I say may be informed by lectures by Dr. David Neiman.

http://www.drdavidneiman.com/ I found mp3s of his stuff on emusic. In bits they are on youtube. You would want to find all tracks of a particular lecture.

 

I researched supplementary and documentary hypothoses, monotheism online.

http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/view.jsp?artid=731&letter=M

 

Dutch

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dutch,

 

Thanks for the suggestions. Armstrong's been on my 'to read' list for a while now, but the other books and links are new to me.

 

 

 

Steve,

 

Thanks for the commentaries. I would definitely agree the narrative in John is about Jesus claiming he has a better claim to being the Son of God than his accusers. Just to make sure I understand: that commentary suggests that the references to people other than Jesus as gods is more a rhetorical technique to point out how they shall short than anything else, correct?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dutch,

 

Thanks for the suggestions. Armstrong's been on my 'to read' list for a while now, but the other books and links are new to me.

 

 

 

Steve,

 

Thanks for the commentaries. I would definitely agree the narrative in John is about Jesus claiming he has a better claim to being the Son of God than his accusers. Just to make sure I understand: that commentary suggests that the references to people other than Jesus as gods is more a rhetorical technique to point out how they shall short than anything else, correct?

consider these verses

 

21Produce your cause, saith the LORD; bring forth your strong reasons, saith the King of Jacob.

22Let them bring them forth, and shew us what shall happen: let them shew the former things, what they be, that we may consider them, and know the latter end of them; or declare us things for to come.

23Shew the things that are to come hereafter, that we may know that ye are gods: yea, do good, or do evil, that we may be dismayed, and behold it together.

24Behold, ye are of nothing, and your work of nought: an abomination is he that chooseth you. 25I have raised up one from the north, and he shall come: from the rising of the sun shall he call upon my name: and he shall come upon princes as upon morter, and as the potter treadeth clay. (isaiah 41:21-25)

------

5For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. (genesis 3:5)

 

-----

 

 

do good or do evil.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

terms of service