Re: [TruthTalk] Mormon Related #2

[Dave Hansen]

DAVEH:   My current comments are in RED......... Slade Henson wrote: Woops...I just noticed this post. I seem to miss posts on a regular basis.....I'll go to this shade of purple: Slade Henson wrote: Scripture is very clear there are other gods, I would agree, however, I would say they're false gods. DAVEH:  If the gods spoken of in Ps 82 were false (and I would be curious to hear your thoughts about what Ps 82 is conveying when using that term), then what would be their logical pertinence to Jesus' use of them as a defense in the accusations against him that he was making himself God?  I worded that rather awkwardly, Kay....does my question make any sense to you?     No, the question itself...you lost me. But, I have PS. 82 open and my translation (Complete Jewish Bible) says...Elohim [gods, judges]. I think what you're referring to is the .....you are gods part, right? DAVEH:  Yes, that is how I read it as well.  Perry mentioned that it was referring to judges who judge in behalf of God (I hope I've got that right, Perry).  But if that were the case, I don't understand why Jesus would refer to theos (Jn 10:34&35), suggesting a deity to be worshiped, to be used in his defense.  DavidM seemingly gave a pretty good logical explanation yesterday that I will ponder when I have more time.    I'm just not sure labeling them as judges quite does justice to the meaning of Ps 82.  Why would the author do that IF he could have used judges instead.  Maybe I should be asking the question....would judges have been a better term to use....if not, why not?  Had PS 82 used judges, I doubt Jesus would have referenced it in his defense. First thing that comes to mind is that Benny HaHA Hinn says the same thing it seems you're saying. DAVEH?   Hmmmmmm........that's curious.  I guess BH hasn't much credibility here in TT, but how does the Protestant world in general treat him for suggesting gods refers to plural deity in PS 82? Am I totally off base and confused? DAVEH:  Not nearly as much as most TTers attribute to me!   :-) That's where I thought you were going with this. Rachel stole her father's gods and brought them with her when she left with Jacob. There are other instances where we see the people cursed for their idolatry. Anything that takes your mind off of God I guess could be considered idolatry. Money, material possessions, etc.   I think some dude was trying to help people understand God better and gave a midrash/parable of the three-in-One. I've heard the egg theory, too....the egg is ONE object, but contains the shell, the yolk and the white stuff. Three rolled into one. I think it was nice to give people more of an understanding, but I think it has gone overboard. You can't put God in a box. DAVEH:  Do you think one can understand the nature of God?  Should we try?    I don't think one can understand the nature of God 100%. I don't think it's humanly possible. I think we can have some understanding (in some people's minds, only little, depending on their minds and what may or not be in them!) Yes, I think we should try knowing our minds are limited. I think that by trying this would include praying for wisdom and understanding. I think that the more we understand, the more we can respect (fear) God and be more grateful to Him for what He did...the price He chose to pay for jerks like us. Will we attain it 100%? I don't so think in this life and I don't know about in the one to come...eternity is a long time to sit at His feet and learn... I would hope we would eventually understand! DAVEH: Thank you for responding to my question, Kay.  I appreciate knowing a little more about your relationship with him now.    Are the things others are saying you believe truly what you believe? DAVEH:   Some are.  Many are taken out of context, and really don't mean much when framed that way.  I suspect you and other TTers find a lot of what has been said about my beliefs to be troubling due to the contrasting background with which many of you have grown up, and also considering the manner in which a lot of what has been posted is presented.  From my perspective, the negative comments about LDS theology is not a problem at all, as it answers many questions that I see Protestantism avoiding.  I'm sure some would say that Protestantism has already answered those questions....and, maybe it has.  But when I have trouble getting a definition from a Christian (present company excluded, of course!) of Christian, it kinda makes me wonder why the reticence?  And that's just a simple question.      I've tried to answer most of the questions posed to me, with the exception of those that are intended to be disruptive (to my sleep, time or family by making busy work for me to do), or to make light of my beliefs in an attempt to embarrass me, or sometimes I simply don't know the answer or have the time to study up on it to find out.  As you may know....TT traffic can be brutal at times, and it is impossible to respond to every post and question.      But....if you wish to ask me anything about what I believe, feel free to do so.  If I don't get back to you within a few days....ask again rather than belittle me as some have done for not responding to a question that was asked less than 48 hours prior.  If you don't want to agitate other TTers, you are welcome to post me off-Forum.   FWIW....I try not to bite!    :-)   Kay -- ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Dave Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.langlitz.com ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ If you wish to receive things I find interesting, I maintain six email lists... JOKESTER, OPINIONS, LDS, STUFF, MOTORCYCLE and CLIPS.