Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The Most High?


  • Please log in to reply
11 replies to this topic

#1 Ankh

Ankh

    Member

  • Inactive 6+ Months
  • PipPipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 05 July 2013 - 09:52 AM

Greetings everyone, This is my first post here in quite some time. The last being in July 2008. As I make my way back into the faith I gave testimony to and followed that confirmation with Baptism (2 Nephi 9:23) in 1998, I would like to pose a question to the Latter Day Saint brethren/sisters in regards to the title "Most High." Being that, as we teach, Jesus was the LORD/Yahweh of the Old Testament, would not such Scriptures as Psalms 7:17, 9:1-2, 91:1-2, 92:1, 8...etc. be speaking of Him? Now, if this is the case, and this is my dilemma, how can we then say Yahweh is the Most High, when Elohim, who is the Father of the spirit of Yahweh and the Only Begotten in the flesh is called the "Most High" in such passages as Mark 5:7, Luke 8:28? Since, as we teach, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit comprise one Godhead, acting as one God, united in purpose and will, though they are separate beings, could this title of "the Most High" be thus used interchangeably between them being that they do comprise one Godhead? Thanks in advance ;) Ankh

Edited by Ankh, 05 July 2013 - 10:28 AM.


#2 Just_A_Guy

Just_A_Guy

    Semi-Senior Moderator, and Repentant Sea-Lawyer

  • Senior Moderators
  • 8306 posts
  • LocationUtah County, Utah, USA

Posted 05 July 2013 - 10:32 AM

As I understand it, some of the very early Hebrews acknowledged a plurality of gods but claimed that their god was the mightiest of all the pagan gods and, therefore, the only one really worth worshipping. Therefore, OT references to Jehovah as the "most high" are comparing Him to the gods worshipped by the Hebrews' peers; not to His Father Elohim. Any similar references in the NT, BoM, and D&C are simply following suit.

One of my favorite analogies is that scene in Kindergarten Cop where Arnold Schwarzeneggar screams "There is no bathroom!!!" to his whiny students. Now, in reality--sure, there's a bathroom. But the speaker's intent is that his audience understand that he, and he alone, is their appropriate lawgiver and--so far as they are concerned at present--the beginning and end of their universe.
This is one of those days that the pages of history teach us are best spent lying in bed.

--Roland Young ("Uncle Willie"), The Philadelphia Story


#3 Ankh

Ankh

    Member

  • Inactive 6+ Months
  • PipPipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 05 July 2013 - 12:08 PM

Greetings there Just_A_Guy,

In the following you wrote...

"As I understand it, some of the very early Hebrews acknowledged a plurality of gods but claimed that their god was the mightiest of all the pagan gods and, therefore, the only one really worth worshipping. Therefore, OT references to Jehovah as the "most high" are comparing Him to the gods worshipped by the Hebrews' peers; not to His Father Elohim. Any similar references in the NT, BoM, and D&C are simply following suit."


Thanks for your reply. I understand where you are coming from sir and I can concur that being that Yahweh's allotted share was Jacob/Israel (Deuteronomy 32:9) and that the people acknowledged Him so as their Most High God vs the other tribal gods surrounding them (Deuteronomy 6:13-14).

But in regards to the Father Elohim being called "the Most High" (Deuteronomy 32:8) vs Yahweh (Psalms 91:9)... again is that a shared title being they are comprised of one Godhead, or are we looking at subordination being that the Father is "the Most High", "the Highest" (Luke 1:32, 35) of Yahweh, both as the firstborn spirit child of the Father as well as the only begotten in the flesh/Jesus, and Yahweh being the "Most High" over all that the Father has given Him such as angels, authorities, and powers (1 Peter 3:22)?

Ankh ;)

#4 Just_A_Guy

Just_A_Guy

    Semi-Senior Moderator, and Repentant Sea-Lawyer

  • Senior Moderators
  • 8306 posts
  • LocationUtah County, Utah, USA

Posted 05 July 2013 - 02:15 PM

But in regards to the Father Elohim being called "the Most High" (Deuteronomy 32:8) vs Yahweh (Psalms 91:9)... again is that a shared title being they are comprised of one Godhead, or are we looking at subordination being that the Father is "the Most High", "the Highest" (Luke 1:32, 35) of Yahweh, both as the firstborn spirit child of the Father as well as the only begotten in the flesh/Jesus, and Yahweh being the "Most High" over all that the Father has given Him such as angels, authorities, and powers (1 Peter 3:22)?

Ankh ;)


Assuming I'm understanding you properly, I would venture to state:

Both.
This is one of those days that the pages of history teach us are best spent lying in bed.

--Roland Young ("Uncle Willie"), The Philadelphia Story


#5 Roseslipper

Roseslipper

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 1434 posts
  • LocationFlorida

Posted 05 July 2013 - 03:07 PM

Ankh, Hi and welcome back to the faith(the fold)...Hope that you learn and grow in the faith and stay strong all your days. Life is a journey, and we are blessed to have the Gospel...even though we dont understand it all. Jehovah of the old testament is Jesus. If I remember right Yahweh is another word for Jahovah who is Jesus Elohim is God, Heavenly Father. I hope I didnt mess u up, for Im not sure what you are really asking....

#6 Ankh

Ankh

    Member

  • Inactive 6+ Months
  • PipPipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 05 July 2013 - 04:30 PM

Greetings once again Just_A_Guy,


Assuming I'm understanding you properly, I would venture to state: Both.


I agree. In the process of writing this (supposed) dilemma out for further comments I was beginning to see this solution as both a "shared title" and a subordination issue.

Thanks Just_A_Guy and everyone for allowing me to spill my mind in type.

Please brothers/sisters continue to comment if you like.

Ankh :)

#7 Ankh

Ankh

    Member

  • Inactive 6+ Months
  • PipPipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 05 July 2013 - 04:46 PM

Greetings to you Roseslipper,

Ankh, Hi and welcome back to the faith(the fold)...Hope that you learn and grow in the faith and stay strong all your days. Life is a journey, and we are blessed to have the Gospel...even though we dont understand it all. Jehovah of the old testament is Jesus. If I remember right Yahweh is another word for Jahovah who is Jesus

Elohim is God, Heavenly Father.
I hope I didnt mess u up, for Im not sure what you are really asking....


Thanks for the warm welcome. It's great to be back. God has been opening my heart lately to take another look at the faith (LDS) I professed in 1998, but later failed miserably to nourish it allowing other weeds to choke it out, but it never entirely died.

I do understand LDS position on Jesus being Yahweh of the O.T, and Elohim being the Father. This teaching does settle a lot of misconceptions when reading the O.T, especially when you come from an "evangelical Christian" background.

I apologize if my post wasn't clear in what I was trying to convey.

Ankh :)

#8 Traveler

Traveler

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8888 posts
  • LocationSandy Utah

Posted 06 July 2013 - 05:38 PM

Greetings everyone,
This is my first post here in quite some time. The last being in July 2008.

As I make my way back into the faith I gave testimony to and followed that confirmation with Baptism (2 Nephi 9:23) in 1998, I would like to pose a question to the Latter Day Saint brethren/sisters in regards to the title "Most High."

Being that, as we teach, Jesus was the LORD/Yahweh of the Old Testament, would not such Scriptures as Psalms 7:17, 9:1-2, 91:1-2, 92:1, 8...etc. be speaking of Him?

Now, if this is the case, and this is my dilemma, how can we then say Yahweh is the Most High, when Elohim, who is the Father of the spirit of Yahweh and the Only Begotten in the flesh is called the "Most High" in such passages as Mark 5:7, Luke 8:28?

Since, as we teach, God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit comprise one Godhead, acting as one God, united in purpose and will, though they are separate beings, could this title of "the Most High" be thus used interchangeably between them being that they do comprise one Godhead?

Thanks in advance ;)

Ankh

I believe what you are experiencing and wondering about concerns differences in ancient and modern cultures; specifically the nature, culture and law of ancient “Kingdoms”. Often the Bible and other ancient text will reference terms and ideas that seem foreign to our modern culture and laws. The use of various titles is one of the stark differences. In modern times unique individuals hold titles that referred only to them and one never shares their title and on rare occasions will one share their name. Anciently names and titles were more fluid and when referencing an individual often their name and title where considered one and the same. However, when acting officially for an individual the name and title of the person they represented would often be used. Sound confusing.

To us it may seem so confusing but it is just because individuality plays such a prominent role in our society and culture. We see many reflections of the ancient culture being used in history. For example it is difficult for many to understand the difference between an ancient Egyptian G-d and ancient Egyptian kings or Pharaoh. The Pharaoh had the name of G-d imbedded in their own name and title. So in referencing or using the name of Pharaoh one would also be referencing and using an Egyptian G-d. It is interesting that this practice of name use began in Egypt about the time of Abraham. And we are told in scripture that G-d changed Abraham’s name to include the ancient reference to G-d or I Am. Thus Abraham’s name ended in the same title of Am. So we see the ancient Kingdoms following after the patterns and methods utilized by G-d in scripture.

The title of “Most High” is a very interesting title and has implications with the Hebrew temple as well as other ancient temple. We see this same term associated with the ancient Germanic cultures that also have roots in and around the time of Abraham. The title of Most High is the title of the L-rd or of G-d associated with the Holy of Holies of the temple. The title of High L-rd or G-d is associated with the Holy of the Temple as an example of contrast. Thus the title of Most High corresponds to the ancient title given to the Supreme Suzerain of the Kingdom of G-d as associated with the Celestial Kingdom or the Most High level. But this title is also used or referenced by the direct servant vassals of the Supreme Suzerain acting in the name of the Suzerain. I know that this is rather confusing – especially to Traditional Christians that confuse the entire issue of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and think of them as the same whenever one uses the title of the Father when acting as his servant vassal.

The easiest way to keep all this straight is the realization that man is fallen and that the G-d of the fallen is the Son Jesus Christ. As we progress through the different levels of holiness, as represented in the temple we are dependent on Jesus that takes upon him the name of the Father and in turn asks us to take upon us his same. Eventually all that obtain salvation will take upon them the ascending names of G-d until we reach the most Holy or Holy of Holy where the title of G-d is “The Most High” which is a name we will take upon ourselves as well. Thus the title "Most High" is the title of the Father that is given to the Son and that is also given to those that take upon them the name of G-d by covenant in his holy temple


Hope this help

The Traveler

#9 Ankh

Ankh

    Member

  • Inactive 6+ Months
  • PipPipPip
  • 45 posts

Posted 07 July 2013 - 07:06 AM

Greetings Traveler,
Thanks for your reply to "The Most High?"

In the following you wrote...

I believe what you are experiencing and wondering about concerns differences in ancient and modern cultures; specifically the nature, culture and law of ancient “Kingdoms”. Often the Bible and other ancient text will reference terms and ideas that seem foreign to our modern culture and laws. The use of various titles is one of the stark differences. In modern times unique individuals hold titles that referred only to them and one never shares their title and on rare occasions will one share their name. Anciently names and titles were more fluid and when referencing an individual often their name and title where considered one and the same. However, when acting officially for an individual the name and title of the person they represented would often be used. Sound confusing.


Traveler, no, it does not sound confusing. I understand.

To us it may seem so confusing but it is just because individuality plays such a prominent role in our society and culture. We see many reflections of the ancient culture being used in history. For example it is difficult for many to understand the difference between an ancient Egyptian G-d and ancient Egyptian kings or Pharaoh. The Pharaoh had the name of G-d imbedded in their own name and title. So in referencing or using the name of Pharaoh one would also be referencing and using an Egyptian G-d. It is interesting that this practice of name use began in Egypt about the time of Abraham. And we are told in scripture that G-d changed Abraham’s name to include the ancient reference to G-d or I Am. Thus Abraham’s name ended in the same title of Am. So we see the ancient Kingdoms following after the patterns and methods utilized by G-d in scripture.


Yes, and thanks for pointing out that "am" at the end of Abraham's name. It's amazing how you often don't see the little details outlined in scripture. There is also a significance to Yahweh adding the "h" to Abram's name when He changed it to Abraham. I have notes on it somewhere that I have to dig up in order for me to go into it with you, but it is really a blessing when you see why. I'll try in find it to post.

The title of “Most High” is a very interesting title and has implications with the Hebrew temple as well as other ancient temple. We see this same term associated with the ancient Germanic cultures that also have roots in and around the time of Abraham. The title of Most High is the title of the L-rd or of G-d associated with the Holy of Holies of the temple. The title of High L-rd or G-d is associated with the Holy of the Temple as an example of contrast. Thus the title of Most High corresponds to the ancient title given to the Supreme Suzerain of the Kingdom of G-d as associated with the Celestial Kingdom or the Most High level. But this title is also used or referenced by the direct servant vassals of the Supreme Suzerain acting in the name of the Suzerain. I know that this is rather confusing – especially to Traditional Christians that confuse the entire issue of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost and think of them as the same whenever one uses the title of the Father when acting as his servant vassal.


Interesting Traveler how this title "Most High" relates to the Hebrew Temple. Would you care to further elaborate? Are you getting these ideas from Margaret Barker's "Temple Theology?"

The easiest way to keep all this straight is the realization that man is fallen and that the G-d of the fallen is the Son Jesus Christ. As we progress through the different levels of holiness, as represented in the temple we are dependent on Jesus that takes upon him the name of the Father and in turn asks us to take upon us his same. Eventually all that obtain salvation will take upon them the ascending names of G-d until we reach the most Holy or Holy of Holy where the title of G-d is “The Most High” which is a name we will take upon ourselves as well. Thus the title "Most High" is the title of the Father that is given to the Son and that is also given to those that take upon them the name of G-d by covenant in his holy temple

Hope this help

The Traveler


Again Traveler you present some good "food for thought." It seems we are both "deep thinkers" and like to get below the surface of Scripture for the pearls ;)

Thanks again Traveler. Look forward to further correspondence with you.

Ankh

#10 Traveler

Traveler

    Senior Member

  • Members
  • 8888 posts
  • LocationSandy Utah

Posted 07 July 2013 - 08:28 AM

Greetings Traveler,
Thanks for your reply to "The Most High?"

In the following you wrote...



Traveler, no, it does not sound confusing. I understand.



Yes, and thanks for pointing out that "am" at the end of Abraham's name. It's amazing how you often don't see the little details outlined in scripture. There is also a significance to Yahweh adding the "h" to Abram's name when He changed it to Abraham. I have notes on it somewhere that I have to dig up in order for me to go into it with you, but it is really a blessing when you see why. I'll try in find it to post.



Interesting Traveler how this title "Most High" relates to the Hebrew Temple. Would you care to further elaborate? Are you getting these ideas from Margaret Barker's "Temple Theology?"



Again Traveler you present some good "food for thought." It seems we are both "deep thinkers" and like to get below the surface of Scripture for the pearls ;)

Thanks again Traveler. Look forward to further correspondence with you.

Ankh


Just a quick replay. My comments come from my own studies into ancient Near Middle Eastern Kingdoms Laws and covenants as well as personal relationships with Hugh Nibley and Dr. or Rev. Tom Newman (not LDS).

You may be interested in another term that some times brings confusion. That is the term of "first born". This does not mean oldest but rather most noble. Think in terms of traveling "first class". Also concerning covenants the title or titles given under the covenant are family references such as Son of - Daughter of - or Children of. So a covenant with the Supreme Suzerain of G-d would be the Son of G-d or the Children of G-d. A Son of G-d would also be among the Children of G-d but Son of G-d would indicate a child of G-d on a special assignment from G-d to act as G-d. The term Son of Man is also a interesting title.

By combining the titles of Son of G-d with the first Born and "Anointed" or Messiah and we have a rather interesting connection to the Supreme Suzerain.

For specific references to the term "most high" you might want to look into Norse Mythology - specifically Odin's journey to the Holy of Holy to converse with the Most High. Interesting also is the term Norse is a reference to the people, tribes or children of the North that worship G-d. The term "Saxan" according to some can also be translated as sons of Jacob. The idea of the Lost Tribes returning in the last days from the north is quite interesting and perhaps we are even seeing prophesy unfold in these latter days.

The Traveler

#11 ElectofGod

ElectofGod

    Banned

  • Banned
  • 415 posts

Posted 07 July 2013 - 10:33 PM

You are right in your considerations of this subject matter. There are many references in the book of Mormon like you mentioned. Can search lds.org for them.

From the blog of Denver Snuffer as I can't find my conference quotes at the moment. PLEASE others who do not agree with this author do not disrupt the thread.

Ether's Reference to Christ as Father
Here is a question taken from the Book of Ether. The question: "Explain Ether 4:12 where the Lord says: 'he that will not believe me will not believe the Father who sent me. For behold, I am the Father...' I understand that the Father and Son are unified in everything and I understand that the Son is the Father because he has begotten us through the atonement and that He was also the creator. How would you explain that verse to someone just reading it for the first time? It sounds like a description of the trinity as many Christian religions view that the Father and Son are literally one being."

Response: Foremost in this creation is the reality of Christ. He lived. He died, voluntarily, as a sacrifice. His death was unmerited. (1 Peter 2: 22; Alma 22: 13-14.) He died because of other's sins, not because of His own. (1 Peter 2: 21-23.) He did so to make an offering to appease the ends of the law. (2 Ne. 2: 6-7.)

Law has one purpose: It establishes required conduct that when violated requires a punishment to be imposed. Without punishment there is no law. (Alma 42: 22.) We came here to live in a fallen state where we are subject to law and knowing when violate the law the result would inevitably require punishment. (Alma 42: 18.) Christ came to suffer that punishment. (1 Peter 3: 18.)

Overarching all else in this creation are the acts of two parties. Adam fell. (Moses 6: 48.) Christ arose. (Alma 11: 42.) Adam introduced death. Christ overcame it. (Mosiah 16: 8.) Through Christ the law was made unjust because death could make no claim upon Him, but He willingly died to suffer the punishment He did not merit. That forever satisfied death's claim. (Mosiah 15: 9.) Once it had claimed the life of one who did not deserve to die, it could no longer make claim on Him or those He came to redeem. His punishment was infinite, because His sacrifice was infinite. If He did not merit death then death took from Him what was infinite and would have no end. (Heb. 4: 15.) He submitted. His death satisfied the need for dying.

Mankind still die. That is just; but after their death, Christ's sacrifice makes it possible to live again, just as He did. (Jacob 6: 4.) But you know all this already.

The "Father" of your eternal life will be Christ. (D&C 35: 2.) He is your Father who is in heaven, because your continuation after the grave will come through His sacrifice. He will literally provide you with the resurrected body you will inherit. This makes Him the Father. (See Mosiah 5: 7.)

Secondly, they are His teachings which will provide you with more than just resurrection. He will provide the further possibility of glory to you on the conditions He has made possible through obedience to Him. The one you follow, whose teachings you accept, whose ordinances you accept, is also your Father. (1 Cor. 4: 15.) The role of the Father is to raise His seed in righteousness. Christ's teachings are given in His capacity of a Father to all who will follow Him. Through His teachings you can have a new life here and now. You can be "born again" as His seed. (1 Peter 1: 23.) To do that you must first accept His role as your Father/guide. Then you must further accept His role as Father/Redeemer. When you do that, He gives you a new life by His teachings and new life by His ordinances.

Here, excluded from the presence of Heavenly Father Ahman, we have no way back except through Christ. (Mosiah 3: 12.) (For the name "Ahman" see D&C 78: 20 where Christ mentions His Father's name.) He must become our Father to bring us back again into the Ahman's presence. Christ visits here. Christ labored here, lived among us, ministers still among us, and though resurrected still walked alongside two of His disciples. He appeared in an upper room, cooked and ate fish on the lake's shore, and appeared to many. He will come to dwell here again. The Father Ahman, however, only appears in a state of glory, has not stood here since the Fall of Adam, and awaits the completion of the work of Christ before He will again take up His abode here.

Christ is not the same person as Father Ahman. Christ becomes the Father of all who are redeemed through Him. Therefore, by redeeming you Christ has become your Father in Heaven. You will have many fathers, including Christ, Adam, Noah, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and in our dispensation, Joseph Smith as well. And all these will also be children of Father Ahman.


A number of clarifications from this week
I pray to the Father in the name of the Son. In my mind I think of the Father. I let heaven speak to my heart concerning that name-title and I do not presume to have the right to tell anyone what comes into my mind. I also thank the Father for the sacrifice of His Son.

I would add that "El" is singular. "Elohim" is plural. In Abraham 3, there is a group identified as "the noble and great." The noble and great are the "we" who are to prove "them." This is in Abraham 3.

When the matter is settled, in chapter 4 of Abraham, that "we" or "the noble and great" commence the creation, and that group throughout Abraham 4 are continually referred to as "the Gods." The English term "the Gods" captures the same idea as the Hebrew word "Elohim."


Hope this helps.

There is a reference of the early book of mormon changes were Joseph Smith added a word somewhere clarifying "the son of God" when it referred to Christ as the Father. Don't know where it was. I think Hugh Nibley talks about this.

Edited by ElectofGod, 07 July 2013 - 10:45 PM.


#12 Just_A_Guy

Just_A_Guy

    Semi-Senior Moderator, and Repentant Sea-Lawyer

  • Senior Moderators
  • 8306 posts
  • LocationUtah County, Utah, USA

Posted 07 July 2013 - 10:42 PM

(Who, moi? Disrupt a thread with another Snuffer exposé ? Hey, just because the guy gets some of his key doctrines from the founders of the FLDS and other polygamous apostate groups, is no reason for me to hijack the thread. If he's right, in this context, he's right--even a stopped clck is accurate twice a day. ;) )
This is one of those days that the pages of history teach us are best spent lying in bed.

--Roland Young ("Uncle Willie"), The Philadelphia Story





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users

IPB Skin By Virteq