Did Jesus Misinterpret "the Word Of God?"

[Tyson]

Anyone who is an objective student of the Bible and knows the regional myths of the biblical world that helped to shape some of the stories and theology of the bible is aware that the early Hebrews/Israelites were henotheists (lots of gods exist but only one is worshiped) and later monolatrists (only one god deserves worship even though others may exist).

 

In early Israelite theology, borrowed from older surrounding cultures, it was believed that there was one supreme deity who had sons (70 to be exact). These 'sons' were known as the "sons of god" and were, in the early days, considered gods themselves. They in turn made up the heavenly-divine court/council of El (God).

 

These "lesser" gods governed the various ancient nations by order of the father god. Each nation paid homage to their respective gods and seems to have also had no problems paying similar homage to the gods of neighboring people. The early Israelite leader, Moses, as told by the storytellers*, appears to have been the first to push for a swearing off of all other gods in favor of one. This was an admission other gods existed, but he swore his people to the worship of one god, which in their case, was the desert god, YWH (Yahweh). Other people could worship their gods or as many as they wanted, but the early Israelites were to worship one god.

 

As theologies evolved amongst the populations of people, it was believed that when the kings and their nations went to war against other kings and their peoples, so did their gods. Naturally, victorious nations believed their gods were more powerful than the gods of those they defeated. We see this in the Bible as early as Exodus 15:11 where Moses sings a song declaring that Yahweh ("the LORD") is best and most powerful "amongst the gods" after it was believed Yahweh delivered the Israelites from the Egyptians and their gods.

 

Later we read where Solomon, in his prayer of dedication of the temple, declaring that Israel's god was unrivaled amongst the gods and a Psalm begins to show how this belief became core to Jewish theology and a stepping stone toward classic monotheism.

 

Psalm 82 reflects this change in theology, showing the ascent of Yahweh within the court of the gods. He is clearly shown as the presiding deity who condemns the other gods for not doing their jobs in properly governing their nations especially in regard to the oppressed and exploited. Their punishment was to lose the one thing that made them gods - their immortality.

 

In light of the CONTEXT of the pre-New Testament world's polytheistic theology, the subject of Psalm 82 is clearly about gods people believed lived in the heavens and ruled respective nations. However, after monotheism took root amongst the Jews after the Babylonian exile, the idea that Yahweh was just another god amongst other viable gods was no longer accepted in the Jewish community. As far as they were concerned, Yahweh, their god, was the ONLY god in existence and all others were the works of men's hand. This new theology no doubt is reflected in Jesus' interpretation (assuming he actually said anything) of the same passage where he points to the mere mortals around him claiming THEY were the gods Psalm 82 was speaking about. Modern theologians, in keeping with the monotheistic theme, claim the mention of gods in Psalm 82 refers to ancient mortal "judges" who supposedly represented "god" on earth. Why mortal men were condemned to "die like men" is beyond me considering the redundancy and the obvious.

 

Your thoughts?

 

 

* Some Jewish rabbis and scholars believe Moses never existed. The figure of Moses was supposedly a later symbolic invention who was needed to build the early elements of monotheism around.

[Shyone]

Your thoughts?

 

 

* Some Jewish rabbis and scholars believe Moses never existed. The figure of Moses was supposedly a later symbolic invention who was needed to build the early elements of monotheism around.

 

Very well done analysis. I think so too, but (not that I'm really interested in Jesus, but..) how does that relate to Jesus' misinterpretation? That there was one God?

[Tyson]

Your thoughts?

 

 

* Some Jewish rabbis and scholars believe Moses never existed. The figure of Moses was supposedly a later symbolic invention who was needed to build the early elements of monotheism around.

 

Very well done analysis. I think so too, but (not that I'm really interested in Jesus, but..) how does that relate to Jesus' misinterpretation? That there was one God?

 

The ancient world (INCLUDING the Israelites) had no problems believing other gods existed even if their holy men felt only one god deserved or was to receive their worship. Psalm 82 ("the word of god") is clearly keeping WITHIN this concept, however, in the New Testament (John 10:34-35), Jesus (supposedly god himself) uses the "ye are gods" phrase in reference to mortal men. He (Jesus) and Psalm 82 are on 2 different interpretations.

 

Psalm 82's cultural and theological context = "gods"

 

Jesus' cultural and theological context = "mortal men" (human judges)

[★ Citsonga ★]

Good points.

 

It is interesting to look at how christian theology is imposed on the OT. NT authors also took multiple OT texts out of context in order to fabricate prophetic fulfillments. Things like that and the example in this thread show that reading christian concepts into nonchristian texts was being done already when the NT books were being written.

 

So going back and reading the original texts for what they actually say instead of for what christian theology wants us to think they say can be quite revealing (such as the talking serpent, for another example).

 

I need to read through the whole bible again (I haven't done so since deconverting), because when I do read things in the bible now I often pick up on things that I didn't pick up on before. It's pretty much inevitable.

[Ouroboros]

Tyson

[Shyone]

Your thoughts?

 

 

* Some Jewish rabbis and scholars believe Moses never existed. The figure of Moses was supposedly a later symbolic invention who was needed to build the early elements of monotheism around.

 

Very well done analysis. I think so too, but (not that I'm really interested in Jesus, but..) how does that relate to Jesus' misinterpretation? That there was one God?

 

The ancient world (INCLUDING the Israelites) had no problems believing other gods existed even if their holy men felt only one god deserved or was to receive their worship. Psalm 82 ("the word of god") is clearly keeping WITHIN this concept, however, in the New Testament (John 10:34-35), Jesus (supposedly god himself) uses the "ye are gods" phrase in reference to mortal men. He (Jesus) and Psalm 82 are on 2 different interpretations.

 

Psalm 82's cultural and theological context = "gods"

 

Jesus' cultural and theological context = "mortal men" (human judges)

OOooooohhhh, now I see.

 

Thanks.

[dagnarus]

Your thoughts?

 

 

* Some Jewish rabbis and scholars believe Moses never existed. The figure of Moses was supposedly a later symbolic invention who was needed to build the early elements of monotheism around.

 

Very well done analysis. I think so too, but (not that I'm really interested in Jesus, but..) how does that relate to Jesus' misinterpretation? That there was one God?

 

The ancient world (INCLUDING the Israelites) had no problems believing other gods existed even if their holy men felt only one god deserved or was to receive their worship. Psalm 82 ("the word of god") is clearly keeping WITHIN this concept, however, in the New Testament (John 10:34-35), Jesus (supposedly god himself) uses the "ye are gods" phrase in reference to mortal men. He (Jesus) and Psalm 82 are on 2 different interpretations.

 

Psalm 82's cultural and theological context = "gods"

 

Jesus' cultural and theological context = "mortal men" (human judges)

 

Does the believe in multiple Gods, automatically mean that Psalm 82 can't be referring to human judges. It's not really clear to me that the NT concept is that there is strictly speaking only one God. Just that their is one all-powerful God, their God. And a whole bunch of lesser gods, which are basically just fallen angels/demons.

[Neon Genesis]

Wasn't there another passage where Jesus is quoting a story where he claims King David entered the temple and broke a law to eat food but it was really some other king that did it? I've read before that being from the peasant class, Jesus likely wouldn't have known how to read, so if Jesus didn't know how to read, it would make sense that Jesus might not have gotten his quotations from scripture correctly.

[mwc]

I had a different thought on this until just today.

 

One thing that is frequently forgotten are kings. Once they're taken into account then humans can be divine. We usually only tend to believe that the Egyptian Pharaoh was thought of in this way but it doesn't take any time at all to discover this just wasn't the case at all. Kings were quite commonly the "hybrid" god-men. So "ye are gods?" You bet they were. See sacred kings.

 

So to have a passage where "gods" are told they're going to die off like men could indicate that this passage is addressed to kings.

 

The Legend of Keret is the reason I've changed my opinion on this:

King Keret of Hubur (or Khuburu), despite being reputed to be a son of the great god El himself, was struck with many misfortunes. Although Keret had seven wives, they all either died in childbirth or of various diseases or deserted him, and Keret had no surviving children. While his mother had eight sons, Keret was the only one to survive and he had no family members to succeed him and saw his dynasty in ruin.

...

The goddess Athirat grew angry at Keret's broken promise and struck him with a deadly illness. Keret's family wept and prayed for him. His youngest son, Elhu, complained that a man, who was said to be the son of the great god El himself, should not be allowed to die. Keret asked for only his daughter, Tatmanat, whose passion was the strongest, to pray to the gods for him. As Tatmanat prayed and wailed, the land first grew dry and barren but eventually was watered by a great rain.

I got ahold of "Canaanite Myths and Legends" by J. C. L. Gibson and this story made me think about other ways to see that passage. This story is almost like a Job. It also got me thinking that YHWH may have been just some guy, a human king, that eventually made god (good for him...the original "jesus" story) and that's why tracing the origin of his name is so damn hard.

 

Anyhow, there seems to be little difference between the immortal offspring of El and the mortal offspring of El in the telling of the story. Kind of how it works in so many other mythologies. Like when Zeus has kids it's just because that's how he is. It's part of that story. So now the story deals with it but the offspring is no less his offspring.

 

mwc

[NotBlinded]

The ancient world (INCLUDING the Israelites) had no problems believing other gods existed even if their holy men felt only one god deserved or was to receive their worship. Psalm 82 ("the word of god") is clearly keeping WITHIN this concept, however, in the New Testament (John 10:34-35), Jesus (supposedly god himself) uses the "ye are gods" phrase in reference to mortal men. He (Jesus) and Psalm 82 are on 2 different interpretations.

 

Psalm 82's cultural and theological context = "gods"

 

Jesus' cultural and theological context = "mortal men" (human judges)

Maybe he was saying that motal men are gods and that he wasn't the only son of god. More of a Hinduistic view.

 

Or, maybe he did know about they were henotheists in the beginning and agreed with that and saw himself as one also.

 

In my opinion based on limited knowledge, I think he may have thought others were also sons of God.

 

Going with the king idea, maybe this is why the Christians tried very hard to link him with royal lineage.

 

I loved your OP. It was very informative.

[Shyone]

The ancient world (INCLUDING the Israelites) had no problems believing other gods existed even if their holy men felt only one god deserved or was to receive their worship. Psalm 82 ("the word of god") is clearly keeping WITHIN this concept, however, in the New Testament (John 10:34-35), Jesus (supposedly god himself) uses the "ye are gods" phrase in reference to mortal men. He (Jesus) and Psalm 82 are on 2 different interpretations.

 

Psalm 82's cultural and theological context = "gods"

 

Jesus' cultural and theological context = "mortal men" (human judges)

Maybe he was saying that motal men are gods and that he wasn't the only son of god. More of a Hinduistic view.

 

Or, maybe he did know about they were henotheists in the beginning and agreed with that and saw himself as one also.

 

In my opinion based on limited knowledge, I think he may have thought others were also sons of God.

 

Going with the king idea, maybe this is why the Christians tried very hard to link him with royal lineage.

 

I loved your OP. It was very informative.

One of the difficult things about scripture of any variety is that there are in fact many possible interpretations, and it would seem that people use whatever interpretation they want depending on their particular position at the time.

 

Men are gods, gods are men, we are gods, He is god, it's figurative, literal metaphorical, has a double or triple meaning, etc.

 

It's flabbergasting.

[NotBlinded]

One of the difficult things about scripture of any variety is that there are in fact many possible interpretations, and it would seem that people use whatever interpretation they want depending on their particular position at the time.

 

Men are gods, gods are men, we are gods, He is god, it's figurative, literal metaphorical, has a double or triple meaning, etc.

 

It's flabbergasting.

You left out spiritual.

 

I agree though. Much, much confusion when hearing, listening, writing or reading anything of a spiritual nature. I have no idea what was meant other than what I bring from it. I could absolutely be wrong too. Or, maybe it's all parts of that same damn elephant that keeps getting felt up all the time.

[mwc]

Maybe he was saying that motal men are gods and that he wasn't the only son of god. More of a Hinduistic view.

 

Or, maybe he did know about they were henotheists in the beginning and agreed with that and saw himself as one also.

 

In my opinion based on limited knowledge, I think he may have thought others were also sons of God.

 

Going with the king idea, maybe this is why the Christians tried very hard to link him with royal lineage.

I noticed the reference to what I posted in here so I thought I'd respond. That's just my personal take on the whole thing from what I read today. The tie-in to the royal lineage would have likely come from any messianic expectations the group may have had.

 

As for what was being said in John 10 that's different. I'm not saying that's what the author of G.John may have been thinking. His explanation is a failure since they try to take him but he gets away. Apparently they don't accept the idea that when "god" says something in one place it applies to every idiot that wants to apply it to himself.

 

mwc

[Tyson]

Man oh man, guys. Thanks for the feedback.

 

Keep in mind that after the Babylonian captivity, the Jews became monotheists and became even more strict with it as time went on. A New Testament Jew would consider it the height of blasphemy to consider anyone or anybody else a god. As far as they were concerned, no such thing existed except theirs. It has even been noted that the gods their forefathers once believed existed were downgraded to angels or "princes" during the time of the Persians who introduced the idea of angels and demons (daevas) into Jewish theology (long story, but consider Persian holymen = Parsis/Farsis and Jewish holymen = Phar-i-see. Coincidence???).

 

Going back to the old Israelite belief in many gods, take a careful look at Deuteronomy 32:8-9. It is a passage that is often overlooked by most including many of us who were former Christians. This is how it is written in the King James Version Bible which is based on the 10th century C.E Jewish Masoretic Text which reflects Jewish monotheism:

 

When the Most High divided to the nations their inheritance, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the people according to the number of the children of Israel. For the LORD's portion is his people; Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

 

On the surface it looks innocent enough, right? Take a look again. Note a few things.

 

1. According to the Bible, the (70) nations were divided before the time of Abraham

 

2. This passage is saying the nations were divided according to the NUMBER of the children of Israel.

 

3. Israel was NOT a nation at the time the nations were divided

 

4. How is Jacob (Israel) an inheritance to God. How does one give an inheritance to themself. Such is given to or handed down to another, right?

 

 

Now, if we look at the very same passage from the Revised Standard Edition Bible which is based on the Dead Sea Scrolls which is older than the Masoretic Text by about 1,000 years (pre-New Testament) notice how it reads. I'll add a few thins in parenthesis for better clarity:

 

When the Most High (El Elyon) apportioned the nations,

when he divided humankind,

he fixed the boundaries of the peoples

according to the number of the gods;

the Lord’s (Yahweh's) own portion was his people,

Jacob his allotted share.

 

Notice a few things:

 

1. The 'Most High' is El (Elyon), the father god/supreme god.

 

2. The nations are divided/fixed according to the number of gods (70)and NOT according to Israel's population.

 

3. 'The LORD' (Yahweh) is a different entity from 'El' (the Most High) and thus 'the LORD' receiving Israel as an inheritance makes sense.

 

 

Why did the Masoretic Text/King James Bible make the change from "sons of god" (gods) to 'children of Israel,' the OLDER reading of the passage?

 

 

Here's yet another reading as written in the Greek Septuagint (Jewish scriptures in Greek) and notice yet another subtle change to remove the notion that the ancient Israelites believed other gods existed.

 

When the Most High divided the nations, when he separated the sons of Adam, he set the bounds of the nations according to the number of the angels of God. And his people Jacob became the portion of the Lord, Israel was the line of his inheritance.

 

 

Again we see, the ancient belief was that the ancient Hebrews/Israelites believed other gods existed and that their nation was given to their god (Yahweh - one of these gods) as his nation to rule over. However, we can see either a deliberate cover up or a careless mistranslation that made it into English bibles.

[NotBlinded]

Maybe he was saying that motal men are gods and that he wasn't the only son of god. More of a Hinduistic view.

 

Or, maybe he did know about they were henotheists in the beginning and agreed with that and saw himself as one also.

 

In my opinion based on limited knowledge, I think he may have thought others were also sons of God.

 

Going with the king idea, maybe this is why the Christians tried very hard to link him with royal lineage.

I noticed the reference to what I posted in here so I thought I'd respond. That's just my personal take on the whole thing from what I read today. The tie-in to the royal lineage would have likely come from any messianic expectations the group may have had.

 

As for what was being said in John 10 that's different. I'm not saying that's what the author of G.John may have been thinking. His explanation is a failure since they try to take him but he gets away. Apparently they don't accept the idea that when "god" says something in one place it applies to every idiot that wants to apply it to himself.

 

mwc

Damn it! Just when I thought it was the elephants ear I was feeling!

[NotBlinded]

 

Tyson, that is awesome. Thank you so much for that.

 

Since we are able to discern these things, is it not possible that the more informed "writers" of the New Testament were also, or even Jesus (if historical) himself? It may be possible and it may be that he just made the reference to save his ass. I can understand that the belief at the time was monotheism, yet it seems the words would be even more true to the original meaning than what has been translated. But, were these writings kept from him? Wasn't it in 2-300 AD or so that the OT (or Tanakh) was finalized?

 

I would love to see you post more on this.

[Neon Genesis]

 

 

 

Again we see, the ancient belief was that the ancient Hebrews/Israelites believed other gods existed and that their nation was given to their god (Yahweh - one of these gods) as his nation to rule over. However, we can see either a deliberate cover up or a careless mistranslation that made it into English bibles.

You may be interested in this documentary which covers the history of the Abrahamic faiths and their shift from polytheism to monotheism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2iO0fyp53I

[Tyson]

 

Tyson, that is awesome. Thank you so much for that.

 

Since we are able to discern these things, is it not possible that the more informed "writers" of the New Testament were also, or even Jesus (if historical) himself? It may be possible and it may be that he just made the reference to save his ass. I can understand that the belief at the time was monotheism, yet it seems the words would be even more true to the original meaning than what has been translated. But, were these writings kept from him? Wasn't it in 2-300 AD or so that the OT (or Tanakh) was finalized?

 

I would love to see you post more on this.

 

Thank you Not Blinded. I'm sure I'm quite understanding what you are asking. Can you ask again, please?

[Tyson]

 

 

 

Again we see, the ancient belief was that the ancient Hebrews/Israelites believed other gods existed and that their nation was given to their god (Yahweh - one of these gods) as his nation to rule over. However, we can see either a deliberate cover up or a careless mistranslation that made it into English bibles.

You may be interested in this documentary which covers the history of the Abrahamic faiths and their shift from polytheism to monotheism: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2iO0fyp53I

 

 

Thanks a lot. Off to watch it.

[mwc]

Keep in mind that after the Babylonian captivity, the Jews became monotheists and became even more strict with it as time went on. A New Testament Jew would consider it the height of blasphemy to consider anyone or anybody else a god. As far as they were concerned, no such thing existed except theirs. It has even been noted that the gods their forefathers once believed existed were downgraded to angels or "princes" during the time of the Persians who introduced the idea of angels and demons (daevas) into Jewish theology (long story, but consider Persian holymen = Parsis/Farsis and Jewish holymen = Phar-i-see. Coincidence???).

I'm going to say "yes" on the coincidence (I'd have to see something more than an English transliteration to be convinced and the etymologies I've seen don't include anything of this sort). The Jews were barely around prior to Babylon and they were still polytheists afterward. The proof is written in the books of the "prophets." The transition to henotheism was in effect though. Monotheism was still a ways off.

 

[snip]

Hey? Didn't I just post something about Deuteronomy, DSS and LXX just recently? As well as it's relationship to Psalm 82 and even Ugaritic texts? I think I did. Neat.

 

Again we see, the ancient belief was that the ancient Hebrews/Israelites believed other gods existed and that their nation was given to their god (Yahweh - one of these gods) as his nation to rule over. However, we can see either a deliberate cover up or a careless mistranslation that made it into English bibles.

And this is where we part ways. It's an older Canaanite belief that becomes incorporated into the Jewish system is how I interpret all of this. The Jews incorporated it into their belief system for their purposes.

 

mwc

[mwc]

Damn it! Just when I thought it was the elephants ear I was feeling!

Could have been? But do elephants stand around in dark caves and let themselves be groped a lot? If they don't stand in caves do they just stand around letting a bunch of blind people grope them in open fields? How does a group of blind people even manage to locate an elephant in the wild on their own? I think these are some questions that need to be answered...

 

mwc

[Tyson]

 

And this is where we part ways. It's an older Canaanite belief that becomes incorporated into the Jewish system is how I interpret all of this. The Jews incorporated it into their belief system for their purposes.

 

mwc

 

 

I don't I am saying anything different from you here, MWC. The Hebrews/Israelites incorporated earlier myths into their theology. The later Jews tried to weed it out as they moved toward monotheism.

[mwc]

I don't I am saying anything different from you here, MWC. The Hebrews/Israelites incorporated earlier myths into their theology. The later Jews tried to weed it out as they moved toward monotheism.

Okay. Then I must have misunderstood what you were saying.

 

mwc

[Tyson]

I don't I am saying anything different from you here, MWC. The Hebrews/Israelites incorporated earlier myths into their theology. The later Jews tried to weed it out as they moved toward monotheism.

Okay. Then I must have misunderstood what you were saying.

 

mwc

 

 

No problem.

[NotBlinded]

 

Tyson, that is awesome. Thank you so much for that.

 

Since we are able to discern these things, is it not possible that the more informed "writers" of the New Testament were also, or even Jesus (if historical) himself? It may be possible and it may be that he just made the reference to save his ass. I can understand that the belief at the time was monotheism, yet it seems the words would be even more true to the original meaning than what has been translated. But, were these writings kept from him? Wasn't it in 2-300 AD or so that the OT (or Tanakh) was finalized?

 

I would love to see you post more on this.

 

Thank you Not Blinded. I'm sure I'm quite understanding what you are asking. Can you ask again, please?

Sure. Sorry to be so vague.

 

I was just pondering the possiblity that Jesus (and/or the writers of the NT) could have known about the earlier beliefs of what "sons of Gods" meant in Psalms. If he understood that they were immortal, this thought could be reflected (as interpreted) in the NT as eternal life. And if he saw himself as one of these sons of God, I think it can be understood that other people are also sons of God and will have eternal life also. The problem came across when Jesus was taken to be the unique Son of God because of the beliefs at the time, but he may have had some "primitive" insight into the original understanding of those scriptures you mention that show henotheism. He may have wanted to extend that title to all mankind, but others became sons of God "by adoption" instead of being a direct descendent. I think he was trying to bring the kingdom of heaven into the mortal realm and combining them. Mortals would actually be immortal.

 

I'm just toying with this information. I have no idea what went through the man's mind.