"I said," ye are gods? Christians Only, Please!

[Norman]

I had not realized this before, but the theos in John 10:33 is not ho-theos but just theos. Again it would not be "the God" but "a god".

I was going to argue that the religious leaders were putting words in Jesus mouth, but they were not really claiming that he said he was "the God", but only that he was making himself out to be more than a man should be in their eyes.

So the verses in the psalms were appropriate to the charge because it was a case where even in their own scriptures men were called gods, so they really had not basis for rejecting his claim to have some power that was not typical of men..all because of his relationship with "the God" being his father.

Norman: Hi kolibri, I went back after reading your post to Psalms and read it again. I am slowly understanding why Jesus used that passage to defend himself. Good in-put, thank you.

 

[Norman]

Come on.....relax. Who said I was "bashing" Islam and Mormonism? I have a lot of Muslims in my family. I'm not bashing anyone. If you keep saying I'm a Mormon basher every time I make a comment, then our discussion is not going to go anywhere. This is a debating forum and I'm just doing what Mormons do when they visit a person's house. Why can I not do the same?

Christians don't desire to become gods. That is a Mormon desire. Satan was removed from Heaven for desiring to be a god, which was impossible anyway. Judaism and Christianity are monotheist. Mormonism is not compatible with these religions because it is a polytheist religion. Do Mormons accept the Hindu gods as real gods? In regards to the C S Lewis quote.....you have found a good one to support your ideas. Can you provide the source? I'd have to read the whole chapter to work out what he is on about. Reading just that, makes it sound like he was a Mormon.

Norman: Hi Hong Xiuquan, this is my original post. Every thing you have said above has nothing to do with my OP below.

I find an interesting story here, John 10:30 I and my‍ Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones‍ again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent‍ into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Evidently the Jews saw before them a mere man who the Jews said “being a man, makest thyself God.” This really angered the Jews and Jesus came back to his defense with Psalms 82:6 I have said, Ye are‍ gods; and all of you are children‍ of the most High. This as Jesus stated was written in there law and Jesus said that he was the one who gave them this doctrine “I said.”

I often wondered out of all of holy writ why Jesus used this Psalms passage to his defense. Jesus even went as far to say that this passage of interpretation could not be broken. It could not be interpreted any other way. In my opinion no one will ever replace God the eternal Father, however, Jesus defended himself with their own scripture.

I find elsewhere in Exodus 7:1...And the lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. What another interesting statement, God made Moses a God unto pharaoh. Paul called Satan the “god of this world” in 2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god‍ of this world‍ hath blinded‍ the minds‍ of them which believe not, lest the light‍ of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image‍ of God, should shine unto them.

Peter used the term “Godliness three times. Paul used the term godliness six times. We have Jesus as the son of God, however the Jews took this a step further by saying Jesus claimed to be God. We have Moses a God and Satan a God. I don’t know what this all entails about being a God? I understand the concept and evidently “God” seems to be a title instead of a name. Is “God” a name? Going all the way back to the beginning, it seems to me that the likeness of humans to God is emphasized in the first chapter of Genesis: “God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. … So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” After Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” God said they had “become as one of us,” suggesting that a process of approaching godliness was already underway. What do you think?


Notes:

Genesis 1:26–27, Genesis 2:17; 3:22, 2 Peter 1:6, 2 Peter 1:7, 2 Peter 3:11, 1 Timothy 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:10, 1 Timothy 4:7, 1 Timothy 4:8, 1 Timothy 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:6

Source:

Scriptures Search Results

 

[Kolibri]

Norman: Hi kolibri, I went back after reading your post to Psalms and read it again. I am slowly understanding why Jesus used that passage to defend himself. Good in-put, thank you.

yes the men in the Psalms were human judges, iirc. They had power over other men by means of their rulings in court. Judges even today are effectively gods over those that get to live with the consequences of their judgements.

 

[silvermoon383]

Hardly. Judicial rulings can be challenged at any time, including Supreme Court decisions.

 

[idea]

... “God” seems to be a title instead of a name. Is “God” a name? Going all the way back to the beginning, it seems to me that the likeness of humans to God is emphasized in the first chapter of Genesis: “God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. … So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” After Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” God said they had “become as one of us,” suggesting that a process of approaching godliness was already underway. What do you think?


Notes:

Genesis 1:26–27, Genesis 2:17; 3:22, 2 Peter 1:6, 2 Peter 1:7, 2 Peter 3:11, 1 Timothy 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:10, 1 Timothy 4:7, 1 Timothy 4:8, 1 Timothy 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:6

Source:

Scriptures Search Results

I believe we have only one "Father in Heaven" - that He formed us in His image and so became our Father. Just as there are multiple fathers on Earth, but only one of them is ours, I think there are multiple Gods, but only one of them is our God.

Ye are Gods... what will become of us? Will some of us become Gods?

“We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory, and Other Addresses

 

[Norman]

I believe we have only one "Father in Heaven" - that He formed us in His image and so became our Father. Just as there are multiple fathers on Earth, but only one of them is ours, I think there are multiple Gods, but only one of them is our God.

Ye are Gods... what will become of us? Will some of us become Gods?

“We are half-hearted creatures, fooling about with drink and sex and ambition when infinite joy is offered us, like an ignorant child who wants to go on making mud pies in a slum because he cannot imagine what is meant by the offer of a holiday at the sea. We are far too easily pleased.”
― C.S. Lewis, The Weight of Glory, and Other Addresses

Norman: Hi idea, thank you for you in-put, well said.

 

[Norman]

Hardly. Judicial rulings can be challenged at any time, including Supreme Court decisions.

Norman: Hi silvermoon, um, what do you mean? Thank you for responding.

 

[JayJayDee]

Would appreciate a response to post #15 @Norman.......?

 

[ether-ore]

I understand that some have a bit of a different view about the role of Adam and Eve but what do you think would have happened if they had just obeyed the command of their God? What would have happened if they had not eaten the forbidden fruit?

The mandate to "be fruitful and become many and fill the earth" was given before they sinned. So was it necessary for them to sin in order to have children? That makes no sense to me. Paul's words..."That is why, just as through one man sin entered into the world and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because they had all sinned." (Rom 5:12) indicate that sin came into the world through the actions of the man. What if he had rejected his wife's offer to eat of the fruit?

Was it God's plan for them to sin? That would mean that God intended death and suffering to be part of our lives all along.....How could that ever be?

Consider for a oment that the esperience of death and suffering are for our education as

Come on.....relax. Who said I was "bashing" Islam and Mormonism? I have a lot of Muslims in my family. I'm not bashing anyone. If you keep saying I'm a Mormon basher every time I make a comment, then our discussion is not going to go anywhere. This is a debating forum and I'm just doing what Mormons do when they visit a person's house. Why can I not do the same?

Christians don't desire to become gods. That is a Mormon desire. Satan was removed from Heaven for desiring to be a god, which was impossible anyway. Judaism and Christianity are monotheist. Mormonism is not compatible with these religions because it is a polytheist religion. Do Mormons accept the Hindu gods as real gods? In regards to the C S Lewis quote.....you have found a good one to support your ideas. Can you provide the source? I'd have to read the whole chapter to work out what he is on about. Reading just that, makes it sound like he was a Mormon.

Hi, yet another Mormon here. I'd like to rebut a couple of things here and then I'll turn you back over to my brothers. Satan was not removed from heaven for wanting to be a god. He was removed from heaven for wanting to take away man's agency which God had granted. Calling LDS polytheists is the same as saying you have more than one father. We only have one Heavenly Father to whom we are answerable. Just as there may be other fathers on the block, in the same city, state, country... world,.. universe, there is still only one father for each of us. OK, I'm done.

 

[JayJayDee]

Consider for a oment that the esperience of death and suffering are for our education as

As what?

Since God's original purpose did not include death at all, that is a bit hard to gel with what is said in Genesis.

Why would our Father want to educate us with suffering and death? Would we do that with our children?
You think God did not educate Adam before he brought a wife into the picture? Genesis says that God personally instructed this new son. Adam then educated his wife. She was able to relate God's command to the serpent.

Satan was the first rebel, who himself wanted "to be like God" but the only creatures who could give him what he wanted had to be inferior to him. With the creation of humans he saw his chance to get the worship he craved. Ezekiel says that satan was a covering cherub in the garden of Eden, so he was right there observing all that was taking place. He planned his move very carefully. His prime target was the man all along and the Bible confirms that it was through the man that sin entered into the world and spread to all of his descendants. (Rom 5:12)

There was no reason for death or suffering to ever have entered the human experience. Adam's selfish choice to side with his disobedient wife, brought sin and death upon the entire human race and for that he will forever forfeit any right to live again. He went back to the dust, just as Jehovah told him....never to be seen again.
Christ came to give his life for Adam's children, born in sin through no fault on their part.

Can you answer the questions I posed to Norman in post # 15?[/QUOTE]

 

[Thief]

Norman: Hi Thief, ok, you think not, what does that mean? What is a "rogue theologian."?

I readily drawn lines where I believe appropriate.

and my self imposed title is all that fits me.
I have no religion....but I believe in God.

 

[Norman]

I readily drawn lines where I believe appropriate.

and my self imposed title is all that fits me.
I have no religion....but I believe in God.

Norman: Hi Thief, thank your for your response. What do you think about my OP? What are your thoughts?

 

[Ingledsva]

As far as I know, Theos has only been - translated - as "God" once - in connection to Satan.

2Co 4:4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

The word actually has other meanings and one of them should have been used.

They should have used "lord" or "master" or "magistrate" of this world.

Same with Moses, and Jesus. Obviously they are not Gods.

*

 

[Thief]

I find an interesting story here, John 10:30 I and my‍ Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones‍ again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent‍ into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Evidently the Jews saw before them a mere man who the Jews said “being a man, makest thyself God.” This really angered the Jews and Jesus came back to his defense with Psalms 82:6 I have said, Ye are‍ gods; and all of you are children‍ of the most High. This as Jesus stated was written in there law and Jesus said that he was the one who gave them this doctrine “I said.”

I often wondered out of all of holy writ why Jesus used this Psalms passage to his defense. Jesus even went as far to say that this passage of interpretation could not be broken. It could not be interpreted any other way. In my opinion no one will ever replace God the eternal Father, however, Jesus defended himself with their own scripture.

I find elsewhere in Exodus 7:1...And the lord said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. What another interesting statement, God made Moses a God unto pharaoh. Paul called Satan the “god of this world” in 2 Corinthians 4:4 In whom the god‍ of this world‍ hath blinded‍ the minds‍ of them which believe not, lest the light‍ of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image‍ of God, should shine unto them.

Peter used the term “Godliness three times. Paul used the term godliness six times. We have Jesus as the son of God, however the Jews took this a step further by saying Jesus claimed to be God. We have Moses a God and Satan a God. I don’t know what this all entails about being a God? I understand the concept and evidently “God” seems to be a title instead of a name. Is “God” a name? Going all the way back to the beginning, it seems to me that the likeness of humans to God is emphasized in the first chapter of Genesis: “God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. … So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.” After Adam and Eve partook of the fruit of “the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,” God said they had “become as one of us,” suggesting that a process of approaching godliness was already underway. What do you think?


Notes:

Genesis 1:26–27, Genesis 2:17; 3:22, 2 Peter 1:6, 2 Peter 1:7, 2 Peter 3:11, 1 Timothy 2:2, 1 Timothy 2:10, 1 Timothy 4:7, 1 Timothy 4:8, 1 Timothy 6:5, 1 Timothy 6:6

Source:

Scriptures Search Results

You did ask what I think of your opening dialog....

Over the past six years here at the forum, my posting technique has changed quite a bit.
If you stick around long enough your technique will also change.

For now, I suggest only that you consider the main thrust of your dialog and shorten the intro.
The first post is much line drawing a line and asking responders to declare which side they stand on.
If the line was not well drawn the rest of the thread will digress quickly.

As for the content....I respond....
We ARE gods.
It's just a matter of time and we die.
and the spirit we have become will be deemed able and sufficient to receive greater things......or...
we will be left standing where we fell.

oh!....I also refrain quoting scripture....though sometimes I do....
Typically I note it is written, and let it go at that.
Many participants here doubt anything in writing anyway.

 

[JayJayDee]

@Norman and @erher-ore......In reviewing some past posts I realised that the questions I asked to both of you LDS responders to me on this thread, neither of you provided an answer to my question in posts # 15 & 30.

I am interested in your response. I would like to understand what you see the likely result of such an outcome.

 

[Ingledsva]

I find an interesting story here, John 10:30 I and my‍ Father are one. 31 Then the Jews took up stones‍ again to stone him. 32 Jesus answered them, Many good works have I shewed you from my Father; for which of those works do ye stone me? 33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. 34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? 35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; 36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent‍ into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Evidently the Jews saw before them a mere man who the Jews said “being a man, makest thyself God.” This really angered the Jews and Jesus came back to his defense with Psalms 82:6 I have said, Ye are‍ gods; and all of you are children‍ of the most High. This as Jesus stated was written in there law and Jesus said that he was the one who gave them this doctrine “I said.”

...

I just noticed one of your sentences and thought I would comment.

You say that Jesus quoting Psalm 81:6 - with that "I said" - means he Jesus said it originally.

That is NOT correct. The verse he quotes says, - I said. He is just quoting the text.

Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Also - as said before - this "god" is Elohiym - which also means elect, chosen Judges, etc.

*
Psa 82:1 A Psalm of Asaph: The ELOHIYM/gods/MAGISTRATES/Judges stand in the assembly of the mighty/powerful, among the magistrates to judge/execute.
Psa 82:2 For how long will you judge unjustly, and by reason of, advance the wicked?
Psa 82:3 Defend the weak and bereaved, needy and destitute; be righteous!
Psa 82:4 Deliver the weak and destitute from the hand of the wicked.
Psa 82:5 Of a truth, they observe and don't understand. In misery they walk. Rotten is the whole foundation.
Psa 82:6 I said Elohiym/Judges thou are; and sons elevated above all others!
Psa 82:7 Nevertheless as human beings, shall die, and of a certainty, as all leaders fall.
Psa 82:8 Arise o Elohiym/Judges, execute judgment on the land/nation; for you shall inherit the whole nation/people/land.

*

 

[Norman]

As what?

Since God's original purpose did not include death at all, that is a bit hard to gel with what is said in Genesis.

Why would our Father want to educate us with suffering and death? Would we do that with our children?
You think God did not educate Adam before he brought a wife into the picture? Genesis says that God personally instructed this new son. Adam then educated his wife. She was able to relate God's command to the serpent.

Satan was the first rebel, who himself wanted "to be like God" but the only creatures who could give him what he wanted had to be inferior to him. With the creation of humans he saw his chance to get the worship he craved. Ezekiel says that satan was a covering cherub in the garden of Eden, so he was right there observing all that was taking place. He planned his move very carefully. His prime target was the man all along and the Bible confirms that it was through the man that sin entered into the world and spread to all of his descendants. (Rom 5:12)

There was no reason for death or suffering to ever have entered the human experience. Adam's selfish choice to side with his disobedient wife, brought sin and death upon the entire human race and for that he will forever forfeit any right to live again. He went back to the dust, just as Jehovah told him....never to be seen again.
Christ came to give his life for Adam's children, born in sin through no fault on their part.

Can you answer the questions I posed to Norman in post # 15?

[/QUOTE]

Norman: Hi JayJayDee, I agree with you all the way, accept for suffering and death. I believe that we lived before we came to the earth and came down here to obtain a physical body. We do learn by suffering and other trials. Then we die and will be resurrected just like Jesus. Good points JayJayDee.

 

[ether-ore]

@Norman and @erher-ore......In reviewing some past posts I realised that the questions I asked to both of you LDS responders to me on this thread, neither of you provided an answer to my question in posts # 15 & 30.

"Consider for a moment that the experience of death and suffering are for our education" in our eternal progression: The answer is roughly akin to that of telling your child that he or she will have a greater appreciation for those things that they have to labor for. Also, I think it is a self evident truth that in order to appreciate what is good, we have to comprehend it in contrast with what is evil... in other words, we have to experience bad in order to recognize goodness by its antithesis. Human beings relish goodness more when they have been subjected to deprivation of it.

The Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil served the purpose of introducing Adam and Eve into the world of contrast. Comprehension and understanding come in large measure through contrasting one thing from another. It is my belief that Adam and Eve (prior to the fall) lived in a state of innocence, and, I believe also... in a prepubescent condition. At least it says in the Book of Mormon that they were not capable of having children. Now I know you do not accept anything it says in the Book of Mormon; I'm just telling you what I believe. In any case, because of their innocent condition, they had no comprehension that they lived in a paradise any more than any very young child understands the contrast of good or bad in its environment... what is... just is... that is all they know. Yes, they had been given the command to multiply and replenish the earth, but I don't think they actually comprehended what that entailed.

At this point I'm encroaching on the question you asked Norman. I have to say that I hadn't seen your questions because when I said "I'm done" in that last post of mine, I had stopped coming in here. I returned because I received email notification of your post. Just in case Norman has not been watching either, I'll attempt to answer your questions to him as best I can. They are as follows:

"but what do you think would have happened if they had just obeyed the command of their God?" Now I know that you will not accept anything the Book of Mormon has to say on the subject, but since it is the basis for what I believe, I'll quote from it anyway: 2 Nephi 2:22-23 "And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin."

What would have happened if they had not eaten the forbidden fruit? Refer to what it says in the above quote.

The mandate to "be fruitful and become many and fill the earth" was given before they sinned. So was it necessary for them to sin in order to have children?" I believe it was because of what the above quote says. In my meditations on this subject and in light of all of I have just said, My understanding is that evil is a thing of gradation. By comparison to what Adam and Eve had been used to, the discomforts of being mortal (as a consequence of partaking of the forbidden fruit) are by comparison to what they had experienced while in the garden can be construed as being evil. Eve's bearing of children (something she had not experienced before) can be understood on the level of experiencing the pains of giving birth, as something less than desirable. I must stop here and say something about our marvelous Mother Eve. I think somehow Eve came to the conclusion (however vaguely) that in order to fulfill the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth, she had to partake of the forbidden fruit. Eve was able to convince Adam to partake because at that moment, there was a disparity now between them; she being mortal and he being still immortal. Adam understood that in order for them as a couple to fulfill the commandment to multiply, he had to remain with Eve; so he partook. Please understand that Adam loved Eve. I think he also understood why she did what she did and loved her all the more for it. Adam and Eve understood that death would come into the world. God had said as much and Adam did die in the day he partook, albeit the Lord's Day of a thousand years; Adam lived to 930. That was the only penalty assigned to that particular sin. But I think they also understood that in order for us, you and I, to have the chance to have physical bodies and experience mortality for ourselves; that it had to be.

This segues into your next question.

Was it God's plan for them to sin? That would mean that God intended death and suffering to be part of our lives all along.....How could that ever be? It was God's plan for us (including Adam and Eve) to experience mortality in order for us to know good from evil for the reasons expressed in my first quote. Death and suffering are a part of the mortal experience. The good news is: 1 Corinthians 15:21: "For since by man [Adam] came death, by man [Jesus Christ] came also the resurrection of the dead. Even though we commit sin (in varying degrees), because of the atonement of Jesus Christ, we can repent and return home to our Heavenly Parents. We will again be unconditionally immortal and conditionally exalted on condition of repentance and obedience to the commandments and endurance of faith until the end of our mortal lives.

I am interested in your response. I would like to understand what you see the likely result of such an outcome.

 

[JayJayDee]

@ether-ore and @Norman

"Consider for a moment that the experience of death and suffering are for our education" in our eternal progression:

The answer is roughly akin to that of telling your child that he or she will have a greater appreciation for those things that they have to labor for. Also, I think it is a self evident truth that in order to appreciate what is good, we have to comprehend it in contrast with what is evil... in other words, we have to experience bad in order to recognize goodness by its antithesis. Human beings relish goodness more when they have been subjected to deprivation of it.

This has come to be a self-evident truth....but was it so in the beginning?
Do we need to eat garbage to know that it stinks?

Deprivation certainly makes us appreciate our blessings, but was this in God's original purpose? If so where will I find this notion in the Bible? If it is only in the BoM, then why isn't it in the teachings of Jesus Christ to his apostles?
Everything we understand about the coming of Jesus and his sacrifice relates back to the events in Eden. Nothing makes sense unless we understand the Edenic situation in all its scope.

The Tree of The Knowledge of Good and Evil served the purpose of introducing Adam and Eve into the world of contrast. Comprehension and understanding come in large measure through contrasting one thing from another. It is my belief that Adam and Eve (prior to the fall) lived in a state of innocence, and, I believe also... in a prepubescent condition. At least it says in the Book of Mormon that they were not capable of having children. Now I know you do not accept anything it says in the Book of Mormon; I'm just telling you what I believe. In any case, because of their innocent condition, they had no comprehension that they lived in a paradise any more than any very young child understands the contrast of good or bad in its environment... what is... just is... that is all they know. Yes, they had been given the command to multiply and replenish the earth, but I don't think they actually comprehended what that entailed.

This is a picture only painted by the BOM. Again, why is there no mention of these things in the Bible?

Adam was created a long time before his wife. We know this because He was placed in the garden and he was educated by his Father in all things first. He had the privilege of observing and naming all the animals. He would have to study and observe their nature and habits before giving them appropriate names.

"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Where was Adam before God formed him from the dust of the ground? The "breath of life" from God is what turned Adam into a "living soul". He was not "given" a soul, but "became" one when God gave him breath (spirit, ruach, pneuma).
I believe that there is no existence mentioned in the Bible before birth for any human except Jesus......and there is no existence after death except by resurrection. The Bible mentions two different resurrections.

Jesus and his apostles demonstrated what resurrection meant by raising the dead back to this life, not sending them to heaven. (See the example of Lazarus John 11:11-14) This is what the Bible teaches.

"And the Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed. And out of the ground made the Lord God to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. And the Lord God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it."

Notice it says that "God planted a garden" and put the man into it? Why? "To dress it and to keep it". This is where Adam learned to be a cultivator and horticulturalist. This is what the rest of the planet was to look like...the model of what their own creativity would eventually accomplish with the help of all their future children. They were also to be caretakers of the animals, having them in subjection. Planet Earth was not created as a training ground for heaven, but was designed to be man's permanent home. (Psalm 115:16) Adam and his wife would have had perfect children if they had not lost perfection themselves and become sinful. Jesus only came as savior because of Adam's sin. No sin would have meant no death, yet they were still mortals. It didn't mean that they 'had' to die...only that they 'could'. There were no "natural" causes of death.

And the Lord God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."

Just one command was all the "rules" they had. Why? Because "a knowledge of good and evil" was not in their thought patterns. This knowledge would not benefit them, so God was going to keep it to himself. He virtually locked it away under a penalty so harsh, that only a fool would go against it......a fool did.

"And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh." (Genesis 2:7-9, 15-24.KJV)

If we consider what Adam had to accomplish before his wife was created, that allows quite a lengthy period of time for him to be educated and instructed. When Adam became acutely aware that he was the only creature without a mate, then it was time for God to give him one.
Adam had just one simple directive. Don't touch the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Eat of that tree...and you will surely die. That command placed no hardship on the couple whatsoever. Satan made the fruit appear to be very beneficial to the woman, and so when Adam saw what she had done, instead of castigating her for her foolishness....he joined her, condemning themselves and their children to certain death. How could that ever be viewed as noble?

There were two special trees mentioned.....only one was off limits. Access to the other tree (the tree of life) was not denied until after Adam disobeyed God's command. It was made permanently inaccessible.

They were free willed beings and the devil knew it. He played on the woman's naivety and focused on her trust and self interest. But his target all along was the man. Satan knew that he could get to Adam through his affection for his new wife. Because perfect beings do not make mistakes, their action are carried out in full knowledge of the consequences....so the stated punishment rightly followed. Instead of the beautiful fruit trees of the garden, now Adam had to provide for his family with hard labor trying to grow enough grain to make bread, on cursed ground. That is hardly a reward for doing something beneficial for mankind.

Genesis 3:19, 21-24...."In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return......Unto Adam also and to his wife did the Lord God make coats of skins, and clothed them.......And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken. So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

Without influence from the BOM, what do you see in these scriptures?

I'll attempt to answer your questions to him as best I can. They are as follows:

"but what do you think would have happened if they had just obeyed the command of their God?"

Now I know that you will not accept anything the Book of Mormon has to say on the subject, but since it is the basis for what I believe, I'll quote from it anyway: 2 Nephi 2:22-23 "And now, behold, if Adam had not transgressed he would not have fallen, but he would have remained in the garden of Eden. And all things which were created must have remained in the same state in which they were after they were created; and they must have remained forever, and had no end. And they would have had no children; wherefore they would have remained in a state of innocence, having no joy, for they knew no misery; doing no good, for they knew no sin."

What would have happened if they had not eaten the forbidden fruit? Refer to what it says in the above quote.

Where would the idea that Adam would have remained in the garden come from? He was told to have children and subdue the earth, not the garden...it was already a blueprint of what the whole earth was to become. They had been told to "fill the earth", not the garden...a little difficult if you remain in a perpetual state of prepubescence.
That is a big stretch of someone's imagination IMO.

The mandate to "be fruitful and become many and fill the earth" was given before they sinned. So was it necessary for them to sin in order to have children?"

I believe it was because of what the above quote says. In my meditations on this subject and in light of all of I have just said, My understanding is that evil is a thing of gradation. By comparison to what Adam and Eve had been used to, the discomforts of being mortal (as a consequence of partaking of the forbidden fruit) are by comparison to what they had experienced while in the garden can be construed as being evil.

Can I ask what the "discomforts of being mortal" mean to you? Adam and his wife were created mortal. If they were not mortal, they could not have died....the consequences of disobeying the command concerning the forbidden fruit would have been a meaningless. "The tree of life" guaranteed unending life as long as they obeyed that one command.
Only after they ate, were they banished from paradise and barred from the tree of life. They could have lived forever along with all their children....but they selfishly threw it away.

Eve's bearing of children (something she had not experienced before) can be understood on the level of experiencing the pains of giving birth, as something less than desirable. I must stop here and say something about our marvelous Mother Eve. I think somehow Eve came to the conclusion (however vaguely) that in order to fulfill the commandment to multiply and replenish the earth, she had to partake of the forbidden fruit. Eve was able to convince Adam to partake because at that moment, there was a disparity now between them; she being mortal and he being still immortal.

Where does it ever say in the Bible that Adam and Eve had to disobey God in order to have children? Where does it even hint that the disobedience of Adam and his wife was anything other than a slap in the face to their Creator? It was not a noble deed or else God would not have punished them.

There is not one mention of remorse on their part, nor a sacrifice offered by them in symbol of repentance. There was no basis on which to forgive them....they did not make a mistake...they deliberately took what did not belong to them and condemned themselves and their children to death in the process. I am afraid that our "marvellous mother Eve" was nothing more than a selfish temptress.

Adam understood that in order for them as a couple to fulfill the commandment to multiply, he had to remain with Eve; so he partook. Please understand that Adam loved Eve. I think he also understood why she did what she did and loved her all the more for it. Adam and Eve understood that death would come into the world. God had said as much and Adam did die in the day he partook, albeit the Lord's Day of a thousand years; Adam lived to 930. That was the only penalty assigned to that particular sin. But I think they also understood that in order for us, you and I, to have the chance to have physical bodies and experience mortality for ourselves; that it had to be.

I have no doubt that Adam loved his wife...but he loved her more than he loved his God. It cost him dearly to join her in rebellion, because both of them suffered the stated penalty and sentenced all their offspring to what could have become an endless cycle of sin and death. (Rom 5:12)

Was it God's plan for them to sin? That would mean that God intended death and suffering to be part of our lives all along.....How could that ever be?

It was God's plan for us (including Adam and Eve) to experience mortality in order for us to know good from evil for the reasons expressed in my first quote. Death and suffering are a part of the mortal experience.

I believe that humans were created to be mortals, but they were given the circumstances to live forever in paradise on earth. They did not come from heaven nor do they return there, according to the Bible. It was never God's plan for us to know evil, because he kept it from the first humans under penalty of death.

The good news is: 1 Corinthians 15:21: "For since by man [Adam] came death, by man [Jesus Christ] came also the resurrection of the dead." Even though we commit sin (in varying degrees), because of the atonement of Jesus Christ, we can repent and return home to our Heavenly Parents. We will again be unconditionally immortal and conditionally exalted on condition of repentance and obedience to the commandments and endurance of faith until the end of our mortal lives.

The Bible teaches that Adam was responsible for the death of all his children by one act of disobedience. Christ came to pay a ransom for them. Laying the basis for forgiveness of their sins and giving them hope of a kingdom that would bring us back to God....not in heaven, but here on earth as God first intended.

I am interested in your response. I would like to understand what you see the likely result of such an outcome.

If Adam had not sinned, he never would have died. There was only one cause of death in the garden and satan used it to "become like God" himself. According to Revelation, satan and all who follow him will come to nothing. Hurled into the lake of fire...never to be seen again.

As far as I can see, there were three likely outcomes in Eden. As free-willed beings, God allowed them to choose which one.

1) Adam and his wife refuse satan's temptations and God punishes the rebel and dispatches him.

2) Eve succumbs to the devil's offer but Adam refuses to join her. God carries out the penalty for disobedience on Eve and perhaps provides Adam with another more educated wife.

3) Both are tempted and choose disobedience and both face the death penalty. We are living in the outcome of #3 but it could have played out in any of those ways. God would have been prepared to deal with the situation, no matter what they chose.

It is interesting to explore the possibilities I think.

 

[Norman]

I just noticed one of your sentences and thought I would comment.

You say that Jesus quoting Psalm 81:6 - with that "I said" - means he Jesus said it originally.

That is NOT correct. The verse he quotes says, - I said. He is just quoting the text.

Norman: Jesus was the God of the Old Testament and he did give them Psalms 82:6

Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.

Also - as said before - this "god" is Elohiym - which also means elect, chosen Judges, etc.

*
Psa 82:1 A Psalm of Asaph: The ELOHIYM/gods/MAGISTRATES/Judges stand in the assembly of the mighty/powerful, among the magistrates to judge/execute.
Psa 82:2 For how long will you judge unjustly, and by reason of, advance the wicked?
Psa 82:3 Defend the weak and bereaved, needy and destitute; be righteous!
Psa 82:4 Deliver the weak and destitute from the hand of the wicked.
Psa 82:5 Of a truth, they observe and don't understand. In misery they walk. Rotten is the whole foundation.
Psa 82:6 I said Elohiym/Judges thou are; and sons elevated above all others!
Psa 82:7 Nevertheless as human beings, shall die, and of a certainty, as all leaders fall.
Psa 82:8 Arise o Elohiym/Judges, execute judgment on the land/nation; for you shall inherit the whole nation/people/land.

*

Norman: Let us examine the passage from the Hebrew Bible that underlies John 10:34. Jesus identified the passage Ye are gods as coming from the "law" (Greek nomos) of the Jews. Strictly speaking, of course, this is not entirely accurate, if the term law is taken to refer, as it often does, solely to the Pentateuch. For the passage is actually to be found in Psalm 82:6, which would place it not in the Law or the Prophets, but in the Writings (Hebrew ketûbim). It is to this psalm that I now turn.

1. God [ʾĕlōhîm] standeth in the congregation of the mighty [ʿădat ʾēl]; he judgeth among the gods [bəqereb ʾĕlōhîm].
2. How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.
3. Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4. Deliver the poor and needy: rid them out of the hand of the wicked.
5. They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.
6. I have said, Ye are gods [ʾĕlōhîm]; and all of you are children of the most High [bənê ʿelyôn].
7. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.
8. Arise, O God [ʾĕlōhîm], judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

The question is, to whom is Psalm 82 addressed? This is not the easiest of questions. This poem is apparently very old, and its conceptual world is quite foreign to us.

In my opinion the 'gods' cannot be human judges for their punishment is to die 'like men. If they were already mortals, this would hardly be a serious penalty. I feel correct in my judgment that "Verse 7, with its simile, like men, seems fatal to the view that these are human judges.

Moreover, those who insist that the ʾĕlōhîm of Psalm 82 are simply mortal humans typically point to Exodus 21:6 and 22:8–9, where the term has frequently (e.g., in the King James Bible) been translated as "judges."

But there seems no particular reason, other than theological squeamishness, to prefer such a translation. What these verses seem to describe is a divinatory practice where a case is brought before "God" or "the gods" for decision. Rendering ʾĕlōhîm literally in these passages makes perfectly good sense. In fact, the ancient Latin Vulgate does exactly that (deos), as does the ancient Greek Septuagint (theos). These are, by a great distance, the most important and influential translations of the Old Testament in antiquity.

Martin Luther's 1545 translation, so central to the Protestant Reformation, has Götter ("gods"), and the standard modern Jewish version has "God." That interpretation seems to be a rather late, rabbinic one, and, has been approved, so far as I can see, by only one modern scholar, Kittel, and has been definitively rejected by all others on ample grounds." "Nor can it be denied that the fundamental meaning of 'elohim is 'gods,' and that only by a long stretch of the imagination and rather devious and uncertain hermeneutics can the meanings, 'rulers, kings' or 'judges,' be ascribed to it. The dominant view among contemporary scholars when they declare of Psalm 82 that it "refers to 'gods' . . . and not 'angels,' 'rulers,' 'judges,' or 'tenured professors.

There is a perfectly good Hebrew word for judge (shaphat). If Ps 82 meant to condemn wicked judges, why in the world didn't God inerrantly inspire the psalmist to use the word for judge? Why all this language about elohim, the council of el, and the bene elyon?

Other examples shed light on this. In Genesis 6:2, 4, and Job 1:6; 2:1, the members of the divine council are designated as bənê hā-ʾĕlōhîm ("the sons of God"). Psalm 97:7 addresses kōl-ʾĕlōhîm ("all [ye] gods").

Psalms 82:6…From an LDS Christian perspective, this all makes perfect sense, since the the sons of God are, just as described here, celestial beings who become human (like Adam), fall, and die. (In the NT, Christ allows these sons of God to become immortal again, and become like Christ, joint heirs, and one with the Father, but that is another discussion.)

The translation will never make elohim/judges, work in the hebrew of pslams 82:6, it is elohim/gods, or "bene elyon gods", the sons of Elyon, it forever will stand as it stands in the pure rabbinic statement, that it is, it will forever be what it says in the hebrew, u can dance around it, and try to twist the hebrew of it, but it will stand forever as "Elohim'gods'.........Jesus himself said, this scripture cannot be broken. John 10: