We are all G!ds.

[wil]

Let me explain ... by cherry-picking I mean selecting 'delicacies' from the text, and ignoring the content and the whole.

One can hardly accuse me of that.

God bless,

Thomas

So are you hopping around on one foot, trying to button your shirt with one hand and without depth perception?

Matt 5:30
Matt 9:43
Matt 18:18

He said it numerous times....have you obeyed?

 

[Thomas]

So are you hopping around on one foot, trying to button your shirt with one hand and without depth perception?
Matt 5:30
Matt 9:43
Matt 18:18
He said it numerous times....have you obeyed?

There you go ... precisely my point ... this is the kind of erroneous interpretation that happens when you cherrypick, and cite verses with no reference to traditional commentary — context is everything — which I've been saying from the beginning.

Have you? And if not, why not?

God bless,

Thomas
(PS The is no Matthew 9:43 in my Bible, and Matthew 18:18 asserts the authority of the Church, which I'm sure is not one of your cherry-picks.)

 

[wil]

There you go ... precisely my point ... this is the kind of erroneous interpretation that happens when you cherrypick, and cite verses with no reference to traditional commentary — context is everything — which I've been saying from the beginning.

Have you? And if not, why not?

God bless,

Thomas
(PS The is no Matthew 9:43 in my Bible, and Matthew 18:18 asserts the authority of the Church, which I'm sure is not one of your cherry-picks.)

There was no church....but please provide the appropriateness in context of when we should and shouldn't pluck out our eyes, cut off our feet or hands...

 

[Thomas]

So are you hopping around on one foot, trying to button your shirt with one hand and without depth perception?
He said it numerous times....have you obeyed?

Let's be clear ... cherry-picking is not about obeying the text or not, cherry-picking is about taking materials out of context.

And my point is, I receive the text with the commentary of the tradition that gave rise to it, that commentary being the only reliable key to deciphering the meaning of text according to the understanding of the community.

So no, I have not cut off my hand, nor plucked out my eye, have you?
And for the same reason, I do not declare myself a god. But you do.

It's the inherent contradiction of your position that I challenge ... why do you choose to ignore some texts, but stand by others absolutely?

Oh, and there was a church by the time these texts were written, and Jesus was giving instructions with regards to how it should conduct itself.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[wil]

So no, I have not cut off my hand, nor plucked out my eye, have you?

of course not, I do not read metaphor as literal. hence don't stone adultresses or homosexuals either.

And for the same reason, I do not declare myself a god. But you do.

No, you say I say I am G!d, I say I am part of G!d and my connection to G!d is within, but you knew that.

It's the inherent contradiction of your position that I challenge ... why do you choose to ignore some texts, but stand by others absolutely?

the exact same reason you do.

Oh, and there was a church by the time these texts were written, and Jesus was giving instructions with regards to how it should conduct itself.

exactly why I asked you to explain these three texts (they are all about the same thing) in the context of the surrounding texts (they all differ) was the church worried about going to the fire of hell with an offending eye, foot or hand???

So, there was a church by the time these were written? Or are you saying there was a church when Jesus said them? Interesting, it almost sounds like these words are not his, but the authors speaking to the church claiming these were his words....

 

[Thomas]

of course not, I do not read metaphor as literal. hence don't stone adultresses or homosexuals either.

But that Scripture is not metaphorical. The Jews had every right, according to their Law, to do just that, and they did. Here again, you're missing the context, the Sitz im leben of the text, and the commentary.

Jesus didn't suddenly render Jewish Law metaphorical, as something not actually to be done, but rather illuminated the spirit within it.

No, you say I say I am G!d, I say I am part of G!d and my connection to G!d is within, but you knew that.

I know, and the only point I argue is the 'part of God' bit — but you know that.

the exact same reason you do.

I think our reasoning is different. You 'write off' the miracle accounts, for example, as the exaggerations of old men sitting round the fire?

My argument is, once you start selecting, then the process becomes completely arbitrary ... you say this, the JWs say that, and there are as many denominations as there are interpretations, and as many contradictions.

exactly why I asked you to explain these three texts (they are all about the same thing) in the context of the surrounding texts (they all differ) was the church worried about going to the fire of hell with an offending eye, foot or hand???

Well they had the Apostolic commentary, didn't they? There is no evidence of anyone ever cutting off his hand, etc., so we might assume they understood the message as figuratively speaking.

Remember that the Gospel authors organised their materials in accordance with their aim and vision, hence we have inconsistencies between the accounts. Notably, John, who is widely regarded as an eye-witness, offers a different view of many things, and John's Gospel is full of incidental detail that suggests his chronology is more accurate.

John, for example, says Jesus went up to Jerusalem three times. Luke presents his materials as a single journey, most of his gospel is set on the road to Jerusalem, using the well-known journey motif as a structure around which to build his testimony.

We know the author of Matthew was writing to Jewish converts coming under increasing pressure from the Jewish authorities, so his aim is to assure his audience in their faith. Luke is writing to a wider audience who are also coming under pressure. Mark's rather breathless account revolves around the Messianic Secret as its theme, John's reasoned testimony is a mature and inspired reflection upon the events he witnessed for the benefit of the community of Ephesus.

Much of the above is standard historical-critical text redaction, but one cannot escape the fact that the text was produced within a community, for the community, by the community — Luke states upfront that his gospel is gathered from various sources — and the authentic commentary on the text will reside with the community.

So, there was a church by the time these were written?

Yes. The Church was founded at Pentecost.

Or are you saying there was a church when Jesus said them?

There was a Church from the moment Christ said 'follow me' to the first disciple; the intention to found a Church was evident when Christ went to John to be baptised, He had no need of it for himself, and John was well aware of that fact.

Interesting, it almost sounds like these words are not his, but the authors speaking to the church claiming these were his words....

Well that's the skeptic's opinion of course, or a 'let out clause' for those who want to water down the text, but then it always will be — the same applies to your 'ye are gods', doesn't it — follow that line and eventually there is nothing left to believe in.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[wil]

I know, and the only point I argue is the 'part of God' bit — but you know that.

Then why do you choose to constantly repeat that I say I am G!d? When you mean differently. Be still, and know that you are G!d...

I think our reasoning is different. You 'write off' the miracle accounts, for example, as the exaggerations of old men sitting round the fire?

Tis the intent to make the stories repeated, and compare with all the other virgin birth, never died, miracle creating godmen...what would a religion be based on reality and without these stories today?....oh...it would be viable understandable, and respected...but I digress.

My argument is, once you start selecting, then the process becomes completely arbitrary ... you say this, the JWs say that, and there are as many denominations as there are interpretations, and as many contradictions.

so we should all stick to the one and only true religion...

Well they had the Apostolic commentary, didn't they? There is no evidence of anyone ever cutting off his hand, etc., so we might assume they understood the message as figuratively speaking.

was he also figuritively speaking about hell then? and about his fights with the devil...can you highlight a bible for me of the portions we should take litlerally and what we should take figuratively....imagine how those highlights have changed over the years.

There was a Church from the moment Christ said 'follow me' to the first disciple; the intention to found a Church was evident when Christ went to John to be baptised, He had no need of it for himself, and John was well aware of that fact.

brings up something interesting doesn't it....Jesus walked the earth for 30 years...years of time we can only have conjecture of....but most interesting, during all that time he found no one worthy to join his inner circle...and then at 30 he picked 12 to walk with him, judas being one of them...and just as Jesus knew that Peter would deny him three times, he knew what Judas would do is the implication....an indication that Judas was more worthy of being in his inner circle than any of those he worked with, studied with or walked with his first three decades of life.

Well that's the skeptic's opinion of course, or a 'let out clause' for those who want to water down the text, but then it always will be — the same applies to your 'ye are gods', doesn't it — follow that line and eventually there is nothing left to believe in.

I love how you regularly add that. Without tradition there is nothing to believe in. Without the trinity there is nothing to believe in, without ....there is nothing to believe in.

And you wonder how hyperbole and exagerations start?

I'm a blissful follower of my elder brother and wayshower, part and parcel of G!d, I and the father are one with the Christ within .... and I've got nothing to believe in.

 

[Thomas]

Then why do you choose to constantly repeat that I say I am G!d?

Because you constantly bang on about it ... look at the end of your post!

Tis the intent to make the stories repeated ...

Better theologians than you and I have made the same logical error:
A is a myth,
B reads like A,
therefore B is a myth.
The logic is flawed, it's an assumption without proof.

Famously Rudolf Karl Bultmann (1884–1976), a towering figure in 20th century theology, was undone by it, and equally famously, C.S. Lewis, who believed like Bultmann, was converted when confronted with the idea: 'what if it's not a myth?'

so we should all stick to the one and only true religion...

As opposed to what, everyone inventing one that suits themselves?

brings up something interesting doesn't it....Jesus walked the earth for 30 years...years of time we can only have conjecture of....but most interesting, during all that time he found no one worthy to join his inner circle...

Unless, of course, by the time He was ready to begin, He had decided on who His inner circle would bend called them when He decided to commence His public ministry?

and then at 30 he picked 12 to walk with him, judas being one of them... and just as Jesus knew that Peter would deny him three times, he knew what Judas would do is the implication...

Yes, He knew what had to be accomplished.

an indication that Judas was more worthy of being in his inner circle than any of those he worked with, studied with or walked with his first three decades of life.

How d'you arrive at that conclusion?

Looking at Scripture, the 'more worthy' were Peter, James and John, who were called on especially to witness the pivotal events in Christ's life and ministry. Judas was never in the 'inner circle', and following your speculation that Jesus foreknew His betrayal, then Judas would be viewed as the least worthy, but necessary, so that prophecy might be fulfilled ('keep your friends close, but your enemies closer').

I love how you regularly add that. Without tradition there is nothing to believe in...

Doesn't make it any less true. Whether you love it or not is immaterial, the facts speak for themselves.

And you wonder how hyperbole and exagerations start?

Not at all ... just look at what you write!

I'm a blissful follower of my elder brother and wayshower, part and parcel of G!d, I and the father are one with the Christ within .... and I've got nothing to believe in.

God bless,

Thomas

 

[wil]

Time for me to get off the merry go round for a bit... It is so much easier to just enjoy life with spirit than circumambulate 2,000 years of unsolved arguements...

 

[taijasi]

Jesus didn't suddenly render Jewish Law metaphorical, as something not actually to be done, but rather illuminated the spirit within it.

Remember, wil, we must stone homosexuals in the proper SPIRIT! I want to hear more about what that's like.

There was a Church from the moment Christ said 'follow me' to the first disciple; the intention to found a Church was evident when Christ went to John to be baptised, He had no need of it for himself, and John was well aware of that fact.

Who was that first disciple again Thomas?

And by the way, WHY did Christ instruct John to go ahead and baptize him? WHAT prophecy was he referring to again?

Well that's the skeptic's opinion of course, or a 'let out clause' for those who want to water down the text, but then it always will be — the same applies to your 'ye are gods', doesn't it — follow that line and eventually there is nothing left to believe in.

There is indeed someone who is seeking to water down the text, changing the significance of "ye are gods" to suit his own agenda and that of the *particular* tradition to which HE belongs, the beliefs to which HE subscribes; but it is neither wil, nor gatekeeper, nor myself.

Thomas, you would reinterpret Hebrew Scritpure to suit the RC tradition, and this is unacceptable. Let us look at what is said in Psalms:

1. God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.

~ immediately we are reminded that the Lord is a GOD among GODS; either accept this and deal with it, or - if you can't stand the heat, get outta the kitchen!
~ the point is, however, that there is a Hierarchy, an established ORDER, within which both Humanity, and the Angels, as well as Gods, and then finally [Transcendent of all] the One GOD exists; but deny the plurality of `Elohim,' and you pull the rug out from under the Judeo-Christian TRADITION entirely!
~ we would do well to consider WHO and WHAT these `Gods' are, "AMONG WHOM & WHICH" the One GOD judgeth; get this part wrong, and you're pretty well gonna screw up the rest

2. How long will ye judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked? Selah.

~ who is being addressed here? who is the YE? do not make the mistake that simply because of our placement in the hierarchy, we are unimportant, or that we are not intended to ENTER God's Kingdom
~ but also remember that this KINGDOM consists of those who PROGRESS INTO IT
~ Hierarchy is not static; as some have pointed out it is DYNAMIC
~ Perhaps it is time to PONDER [`Selah']

3. Defend the poor and fatherless: do justice to the afflicted and needy.

~ As discussed on another thread, there is good reason for our intervention in Libya's affairs currently, regardless as to their distance from us geographically, regardless as to their religious beliefs, and even thought it is clear we must avoid colonialism.

"Inaction in a deed of mercy becomes an action in a deadly sin."
~The Voice of the Silence

~ I should think that if there is no CHRIST WITHIN, we would be INCAPABLE of doing this.
~ Compare to John ch. 14, where Philip asks Christ to "show us the Father," so that the question of the Christhood of Jesus may be settled. Christ answers, "the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works."

~ It is a difficult realization, even for the Apostles at this point, but in John 14:10, we have Christ's OWN Teaching regarding what it means to have the `Christ within;' we see that the `Hope of Glory' is VERY MUCH something residing within us, spoken PLAINLY as such by the Apostle Paul, who was Initiate into the Mysteries ... although the modern churchman and even the learned theologian misses these points, because he has his own agendas, and wishes to conform what was Taught [by the CHRIST] into his OWN, carefully carved littles boxes.

~ Christ taught the APOSTLES to be Good Christians, if ever He taught ANYONE. These, the 12, He sent out to teach and bring the Gospel to the world. Now I can assure you, as can millions more in the world today, that the Ministry was successful, but not simply because most of the world has HEARD of Jesus of Nazareth. Let that churchman who teaches otherwise, whether he know his falsehood or not, STAND and be accountable for his errors. And likewise, let those who can testify [in the truest sense] to the Presence of Christ, in the world today, show what nonsense is preached by the man who refuses the Christ within. For while he may adore a plastic or wooden statue, he REJECTETH the Spirit when he speaks from so much conjecture, so much rhetoric, so much speculation [on matters 2100 years ago which he clearly does not remember, even though he himself was there and participated therein] ... and, as I myself tend to do, from so much SPLEEN!

4. Deliver the poor and needy: rid [them] out of the hand of the wicked.

~ if this doesn't speak to the situation in Libya, I don't know what does. It also addresses situations which exist in pretty much every major American city. Let's not cookie-cutter those Libyans into Americans, Brits, or any of the rest of us `enlightened' folk TOO hastily!

5.They know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness: all the foundations of the earth are out of course.

~ This is reference to Mysteries which Thomas will not explain to you. It is not because he knows, yet cannot, or will not; it is because he does not understand, and therefore cannot.
~ Otherwise, I *challenge* you, Thomas, to make plain what is being said here. SURELY you can do this, if you know. And if it is something which is allowed, you will only be doing us all a favor.
~ Of course, if you knoweth not, then you will either speculate, or you will remain silent. But if it is forbidden to speak of these things, then your tongue will be halted; and so, if I make the attempt, will mine be, likewise.
~ Now let us see who is the fool.

6. I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.

~ Thus, here, as well ... when we come to the phrase in question in its original context, which Christ directly references, we should be able to SHED LIGHT. For it is said that if we possess understanding, or otherwise have the capacity to help elucidate, then we are CALLED UPON to do so. Hide what would bring clarification and the fulfilment of the Law ... and you abnegate Responsibility, you obstruct Divine Progress.

~ "Children of the most High [GOD]" is clear; yet a man with little or no understanding of this concept, the Responsiblity and consequences which are entailed ... will quibble, argue and insist that we must LIFT this portion of the text OUT of CONTEXT. Naturally, we will see no such cherry-picking among those who have understanding. Let us see whether we are asked to descend to literalism for a consensus of understanding, whether METAPHOR allows us to recognize and acknowledge what being `God's CHILDREN' suggests ... or whether there are those who are really that SHUT OFF and SHUT DOWN to the `Christ within' among us that they will prowl along and crawl among us, as wolves among sheep, or as adders within a nursery.

~ "I have said, Ye [are] gods" also leaves NO ROOM for denial. It leaves all the room in the world for discussion, yet we shall see who is most determined here to REMOVE this passage from context and insert a new meaning, or provide an interpretation which suits an agenda. The confusion which Thomas has is one which I would be most happy to address and discuss, since he has made the error of confounding the word `gods' with `GOD' [the MOST HIGH] ... and taken wil to task for it. Thomas, I shall take you to task for your own errors, if this is how the discussion is to proceed.

~ What I think is far more hospitable, charitable, and likely to foster discussion, is to return to a consideration of what Humanity's ROLE is, within the Hierarchy or Divine ORDER ... which both wil and Thomas believe in, and which *I* believe in, as well as gatekeeper, I should imagine. In fact, I will put forth the question directly, in case there is any doubt:

Does ANYONE following this thread doubt that there is a Divine Plan, a Cosmic ORDER which God keeps, follows and intends for all the Universe, our little planet included?
​

~ I speculate that what we shall find, is that if we accept this, then it becomes ABSURD to suggest that Christ did not want us to KNOW about this, to HELP us to UNDERSTAND it, and that He would therefore have done everything He was able to instruct the Apostles regarding God's Plan & Purpose. THIS, if anything, has to do with the founding of the New Church at Pentecost, which Thomas mentions ... and it also has to do with the return of Christ now, which He told us would occur [see Luke 22:10 & Mark 14:13].

~ This, then, is the proper context for understanding, and for discussing the significance of "ye are gods" ... plus "ALL of you are children of the most High God."

7. But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.

~ Hang on a second .. WHO is being addressed here?
~ Why is it that "ye" shall die "LIKE" men? Hmmm ....
~ What could be meant by "FALL like one of the princes?"
~ Sounds like more Pondering might be in order.

8. Arise, O God, judge the earth: for thou shalt inherit all nations.

~ What does it mean to "inherit all nations?"
~ If there's some judging going on, or going to be going on ... could it be that we ought to be among those who are RIGHTEOUS vs. those referenced in verses 2-5?

~ The point where I will agree with Thomas is that no person's birthright automatically counts him among the JUST, the Redeemed ... for these have truly been initiated into the Mysteries, yet theirs [ours, for all here are initiates of one degree or another] becomes the Responsibility to continue what Christ Himself began. Consider what v. 3 & 4 ASK of us; from God's perspective, none of this is OPTIONAL. Anyone who tells you otherwise, lies ~ whether intentionally, in a deception, or simply through ignorance [nescience].
​

I certainly had no idea I'd be typing such a long post when I began, but I decided that if we're going to talk about context, it would be helpful to go back and look at Psalms, where the passage in question is originally referenced [later, by Christ Jesus]. As you can see, I'm not cracking a dozen Biblical commentaries, so those who lean on the authority of tradition alone may fail to see what Light [if any] I have brought to the subject. The latter, however, has been my aim. I would like to see more discussion on what is certainly one of the most important passages to occur - both in the Hebrew Scriptures, and in the Gospels. I hope there is some.

 

[Thomas]

Time for me to get off the merry go round for a bit... It is so much easier to just enjoy life with spirit than circumambulate 2,000 years of unsolved arguements...

Agreed ... was beginning to get like 'The Wil 'n' Tom Show' (fancy it, Youtube? ) let's meet for coffee, clear the air, shake hands, slap backs (which my beloved insists is a cuddle with added testosterone to make it male-acceptable) before we start the next hootenanny!

God bless, bro,

Thomas

 

[Ben Masada]

I believe Jesus answered when challenged...So we start a new thread.

How did the Jews understand it....before Jesus said it, and after Jesus used it in response?

And how do you interpret it today?

Was Jesus being a smart ass? Or was he making a point about us all?

Well, let us see what point he was trying to make. To begin with, he declared in John 4:22 that salvation comes from the Jews. From the Jews, he said, and not from one among the Jews. Never mind for now, what kind of salvation is the one that comes from the Jews.

Jesus knew from Isaiah 8:8 that Isaiah had identified Judah as Immanuel, which means God with us, meaning the Gentiles. And from Psalm 82:6, the Psalmist says "You are gods; all of you children of the Most High." Then, Jesus confirmed the Psalmist's statement in John 10:34,35 by saying that gods, who are all the children of the Most High, are the ones whom the Word of God was given.

Where is it written that the Word of God was given to the children of the Most High? In Psalm 147:19,20. That the Word of God was given to Israel only and to no other people on earth.

But then again, we are free not to believe that the man who spoke in John 10:34 was even Jewish, let alone Jesus because, if you focus on what you read, he asks in the following words: "Isn't written in YOUR law, 'I said, you are gods?'" A Jew, talking to other Jews, would never refer to God's Law as "your law" but "our law." So much for NT creditation!

So, the point that Jesus was trying to make is that the Jews are the means by which God reveals His glory in the sight of the nations, according to Ezekiel 20:41.
Ben

 

[wil]

@ ben, surely you are aware the authors of the NT had an agenda?

@ tom and andrew, so appreciate you both, as we enter this season and the new year I am greatful for your posts and patience.

he hee wil and tom show! I think we could have something there...

 

[luecy7]

How does the joke go:

Scratch a dog and it says, "You must be God, because this is heaven."
Play with a cat and it says, "I am God, because this is heaven."

Put the two in a room together to see if either one of them were right?

 

[Persona]

And how do you interpret it today?

Was Jesus being a smart ass? Or was he making a point about us all?

We are "like (but not actually) gods - knowing good from evil."
Although we're born into somewhat established circumstances, we also have free will (even if it's just the belief in free will which is free)... & we have potential.

Are we immortal, all-knowing & all-powerful? Of course not. God is a word to describe power, experiences & feelings that we don't completely understand. God represents hope & love... but to some God may represent a cruel disciplinarian. We don't see things as they are, we see things as we are, or how we were taught & believed.

Jesus said, "The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you." -Luke 17: 20,21
How can you experience or feel spirituality except within you?
How can you interpret such feelings except within you?