Do Mormons go to Hell?

[happyinhisgrace]

I will read on that site you posted Tom but I still have to tell you that what you are claiming and what your "catholic" friend says goes totally against what my Catholic preacher friend said...and considering he did study at the Vatican and has been a practicing preist for 54+ years, I would think he would know a bit about what the catholic church teaches and believes. Also, I feel it is important to point out that just because a couple of early so called christians believed that man can become God, that definitly does not prove that it was a Christian belief. For example, I know people who claim to be Christian but embrace forms of witchcraft, sorcery and use of a medium. They also claim that the first Christians practiced such things but they are sorely mistaken.

God Bless-
Grace

 

[TOmNossor]

I will read on that site you posted Tom but I still have to tell you that what you are claiming and what your "catholic" friend says goes totally against what my Catholic preacher friend said...and considering he did study at the Vatican and has been a practicing preist for 54+ years, I would think he would know a bit about what the catholic church teaches and believes. Also, I feel it is important to point out that just because a couple of early so called christians believed that man can become God, that definitly does not prove that it was a Christian belief. For example, I know people who claim to be Christian but embrace forms of witchcraft, sorcery and use of a medium. They also claim that the first Christians practiced such things but they are sorely mistaken.

God Bless-
Grace

Happyinhisgrace:

I will read on that site you posted Tom but I still have to tell you that what you are claiming and what your "catholic" friend says goes totally against what my Catholic preacher friend said...and considering he did study at the Vatican and has been a practicing preist for 54+ years, I would think he would know a bit about what the catholic church teaches and believes. Also, I feel it is important to point out that just because a couple of early so called christians believed that man can become God, that definitly does not prove that it was a Christian belief. For example, I know people who claim to be Christian but embrace forms of witchcraft, sorcery and use of a medium. They also claim that the first Christians practiced such things but they are sorely mistaken.



God Bless-

Grace



TOm:

I will get into this with Der Alter in a post shortly, but the Catechism of the Catholic Church is what Catholics profess to believe when they claim to be in communion with the Catholic Church. I am sure your Catholic Priest friend will acknowledge the importance of the CCC. If you read #460 (posted above) you will see what Catholics claim to believe. Also, in my list of quotes I included one from Pope John Paul II.



Are you investigating the Catholic Church? If God ever told me that to be a LDS was an abomination, I would be Catholic within a week (actually in a couple of seconds because I am already baptized and confirmed). I do not see the Catholic Church as the most likely answer to the question, “Which is God’s church on earth?” But without the CoJCoLDS it is at least a possible answer in my mind.



You would be surprised what actually did happen in early Christianity. The walk from 33AD to the reformation is not some straight simple path. After the reformation it is obvious that the path is not straight and simple, but there were opposing opinions to keep records. The records from the early church are quite scant, but the picture that emerges is not one of simple orthodoxy occasionally challenged by a heretic here or there.



That a few, some, or all early Christians believe that men can become Gods is important to the claims of the CoJCoLDS concerning being a Restoration. How could Joseph Smith have known about these beliefs?



Charity, TOm

 

[happyinhisgrace]

Are you investigating the Catholic Church? If God ever told me that to be a LDS was an abomination, I would be Catholic within a week (actually in a couple of seconds because I am already baptized and confirmed). I do not see the Catholic Church as the most likely answer to the question, “Which is God’s church on earth?” But without the CoJCoLDS it is at least a possible answer in my mind.

I am only investigating it as far as comparing what you have claimed they believe to what my friend the priest says they believe. I have no interest in becoming Catholic. While I do believe it is a Christian church because it teaches of and worships the Triune God, they have (from what I can tell) added much extra biblical teachings to their beliefs which I don't care to be any part of...ie praying to saints, praising and praying to mother mary, absolution through priests...ect.

No, I would never become a Catholic.

God Bless-
Grace

 

[TOmNossor]

TOm,

Opinions of man are not the point. What is important is what the Bible says.

Where in the Bible does it endorse the doctrine that man can become God or gods?

Toms777:

TOm,

Opinions of man are not the point. What is important is what the Bible says.

Where in the Bible does it endorse the doctrine that man can become God or gods?



TOm:

Two things here.

First, I read the Bible. I let the Bible interpret itself. I still see deification. I recognize that you do not see deification. The question is what did Peter and Paul mean when they wrote what they wrote. You and I disagree. That is fine. I know that I have preexisting biases. I know that you have preexisting biases. I appeal to others to show that my interpretation is not unique to me. I suggest that pre-reformists believed as I do and that this is more important than the reformist views, because theoretically those closest to the Apostles will know more about what Peter and Paul meant when they wrote of deification.

Where I Catholic, I would believe in the authority of the Pope, the ordained bishops, and the magisterium. Despite the fact that I believe the Bible almost precluded the perpetual virginity of Mary, I would embrace this doctrine upon the God given authority of the Catholic Church (were I Catholic). Deification is different. I believe deification not because of the authority of the Catholic Church or the CoJCoLDS, but because it is the message I get from the Bible and from God.



Second, Der Alter and others do point to the ECF to understand history. Cardinal Newman was once a member of the Church of England, but his study of history and the ECF lead him to leave this church and become Catholic. Newman’s conclusions concerning the witness of history and the validity of the reformation are what I read in history too. So when I point to the writings of the ECF it does matter to people like Newman and Der Alter. They may have studied to different degrees, and they may hold different conclusions, but the ECF do matter to them. LDS apologists use the ECF to show that LDS beliefs have roots in the early church. This is quite a powerful witness for a group that claims to be God’s restoration of apostolic Christianity.



Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Are you investigating the Catholic Church? If God ever told me that to be a LDS was an abomination, I would be Catholic within a week (actually in a couple of seconds because I am already baptized and confirmed). I do not see the Catholic Church as the most likely answer to the question, “Which is God’s church on earth?” But without the CoJCoLDS it is at least a possible answer in my mind.

I am only investigating it as far as comparing what you have claimed they believe to what my friend the priest says they believe. I have no interest in becoming Catholic. While I do believe it is a Christian church because it teaches of and worships the Triune God, they have (from what I can tell) added much extra biblical teachings to their beliefs which I don't care to be any part of...ie praying to saints, praising and praying to mother mary, absolution through priests...ect.

No, I would never become a Catholic.

God Bless-
Grace

Happyinhisgrace:

added much extra biblical teachings to their beliefs which I don't care to be any part of...ie praying to saints, praising and praying to mother mary, absolution through priests...ect.

TOm:

Catholic pray to saints and Mary to ask them to intercede with God for them. Catholics of course pray directly to God too. But they have a respect for Mary and the saints and feel that these individuals are with God. They honor the gifts God bestowed upon the saints and Mary by asking these former men and women to commune with God on their behalf. Our ward regularly prays for other people and other groups. Many protestant churches have prayer lists where people request that others pray for them. This is the proper parallel to draw here. Godly worship is reserved for the Triune God.

Catholic believe that the power to “bind and loose” was passed from the apostles to the Catholic bishops. It is this binding and loosing that allows the absolution of sins. A properly understood confession requires just as much personal repentance before God as does a protestant or LDS repentance (whether the LDS seeks aid of the LDS Bishop or not).



There are extra Biblical things in the Catholic Church, but again it was the reformist who came up with “sola scriptura.” The Catholic Church descended from the early church. They have always held to the Bible and the Tradition handed down from the Apostles. I do not believe history vindicates this position entirely, but their claims are not beyond reason.



Charity, TOm

 

[happyinhisgrace]

How could Joseph Smith have known about these beliefs?

The way all the pagans, egyptian god worshippers and Hindeus did before him. He heard about it, read about it, imagined it or took the writings of man and tried to turn them into scripture. The belief that man can become a god is not a new belief, it was around in antient times. This is one of the reasons that Christianity is so different than the other religions of the world....we believe in only one God...ONE period, yesterday, today and forever and we don't believe that man can become a God.

God Bless-
Grace

 

[happyinhisgrace]

Catholic pray to saints and Mary to ask them to intercede with God for them. Catholics of course pray directly to God too. But they have a respect for Mary and the saints and feel that these individuals are with God. They honor the gifts God bestowed upon the saints and Mary by asking these former men and women to commune with God on their behalf. Our ward regularly prays for other people and other groups. Many protestant churches have prayer lists where people request that others pray for them.

Yes, of course Christian churches ask people in the congergation to pray for the needs of others in the church but we pray to God, not to saints who pass the messege on to God. Jesus is our direct link to the father, not saints or mother mary. To pray to someone who has died or even someone who still alive and expect them to interceed for you is totally not biblical. Twist the dough all you want to make it fit the pan but in the end you will still be left with nothing more than a pretzel.

God Bless-
Grace (todays queen of eufimisms...lol)

 

[TOmNossor]

Der Alter,

First, let me reiterate that it is wholly inappropriate for you to question my honesty as you have done. I believe one of two things caused this and you may provide third if I am wrong. One possible cause (which I do not think is most likely) is that your questioning of my honesty speaks volumes about your honesty and integrity. The other possible cause that I think is more likely, is that you have a great deal of trouble understanding that honest, intelligent people do not see your words as proof like you see them. I believe I was in my twenties when I realized that what I see so clearly may not be embraced by others and this does not mean they are dishonest or stupid.



Easter Orthodox belief in deification.

First, I have never said that EO, Catholic, and LDS deification is identical. I do not believe this nor have I said it. I have said that all three believe that men may become gods. I have also said that properly understood, LDS deification is a uniting with God. There is a oneness that must be maintained and therefore is also part of LDS deification.



Now here are some words concerning EO deification. Nothing I will post comes from LDS sources. In truth, I have studied the Catholic Church extensively, but have not concentrated on the EO church.







From the Orthodox Church in America:

Man was created with the potential to be a "partaker of the divine nature," to refer to the Apostle Peter once more (2 Pet 1:4). It is this participation in divinity, called theosis (which literally means deification or divinization) in Orthodox theology, that the ascension of Christ has fulfilled for humanity. The symbolical expression of the "sitting at the right hand" of God means nothing other than this. It does not mean that somewhere in the created universe the physical Jesus is sitting in a material throne.

http://www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/orthodox-faith/doctrine/ascension.html



From the Greek Orthodox Archdiocese of America:

Theosis describes the spiritual pilgrimage in which each person becomes ever more perfect, ever more holy, ever more united with God. It is not a static relationship, nor does it take place only after death. On the contrary, theosis is a movement of love toward God which begins for each Christian with the rites of Baptism and which continues throughout this life, as well as the life which is to come. Salvation means liberation from sin, death, and evil. Redemption means our repossession by God. In Orthodoxy, both salvation and redemption are within the context of theosis. This rich vision of Christian life was expressed well by Saint Peter when he wrote in the early pages of his second Epistle that we are called "to become partakers of the Divine nature." It was also affirmed by Saint Basil the Great when he described man as the creature who has received the order to become a god.

http://www.goarch.org/en/ourfaith/articles/article7114.asp



TOm:

Note the last phrase, “to become god.” LDS deification is a unification with God the Father, too.

I have thought of another way to highlight a difference that I have not in the past. LDS do not believe that God created ex nihilo. For men to become the creator ex nihilo is impossible for EO, Catholics, and post Justinian Christians (and LDS/pre-Justinian Christians for that matter! For the discussion where I proved that St. Justin Martyr’s and Hermogenes’ believed in eternal matter see this thread (ok, perhaps Der Alter still disagrees): http://christianforums.com/t2215&page=7). It is logically impossible to achieve this aspect of God (if it is a true aspect of God). Since LDS do not assign this to God, there is a greater communion that is possible. No tradition points to an equality, but the LDS do not believe that God created ex nihilo so when we say that we become gods, we do not mean we become one who creates ex nihilo. God will always be God above us. It is only through him that we can become gods.



Here is another source of Orthodox doctrine:

St Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyons, in refuting the heresy of the Gnostics of the second century, described the divine purpose succinctly thus: "f the Word is made man, it is that men might become gods" (1).

And the champion of Nicene Orthodoxy, Athanasius the Great, writing in the fourth century, reaffirms the Biblical and Irenaean position: "God became human," he says, "that we might be made gods" (autos gar enenthrop-esen, ina emeis theopoiethomen) (2).

"God became human that we might be made gods." What a daring statement! But what exactly does it mean for us to become gods? Can we created mortals become uncreated and immortal? Is this not an impossibility? An impiety? Or even a blasphemy? In what, then, does our becoming gods, our deification or divinization — our theosis — consist?

http://sophrony.narod.ru/texts/c_veniamin1.htm



TOm:

This source goes on to maintain that men will always be created creatures and never be uncreated. I concede that the majority of Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians believe that man will never become uncreated, but this is not universally held. Nor does it really matter, because I have always acknowledge that LDS deification does not involve becoming uncreated at all since we are fallen but homoousian with God already.



To some the below quote references becoming uncreated. LDS should give pause to this idea to because we believe that “the glory of God is intelligence.” (and as eternal intelligences we are eternal, not as organized spirits necessarily).



"Spiritual Canticle" of St John of the Cross:

Quote:

The soul united to God and transformed in him draws from within God a divine breath, much like the most high God himself. And God, abiding in the soul, breathes forth the life of the soul as its exemplar. This I take to be what Paul meant when he said: Because you are children of God, God has sent the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, "Abba, Father"; this is what takes place in those who have achieved perfection.

One should not wonder that the soul is capable of so sublime an activity. For if God so favors he that she is made God-like by union with the most Holy Trinity, I ask you then, why it should seem so incredible that the soul, at one with the Trinity and in the greatest possible likeness to it, should share the understanding, knowledge, and love which God achieves in himself.



TOm:

I am sure I can provide more EO’s statement on becoming gods if you really like. I never said Catholic, EO, LDS, and EarlyChurch deification are identical. I merely said that it is Biblical and historical Christianity to believe that men can become gods.
Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

How could Joseph Smith have known about these beliefs?

The way all the pagans, egyptian god worshippers and Hindeus did before him. He heard about it, read about it, imagined it or took the writings of man and tried to turn them into scripture. The belief that man can become a god is not a new belief, it was around in antient times. This is one of the reasons that Christianity is so different than the other religions of the world....we believe in only one God...ONE period, yesterday, today and forever and we don't believe that man can become a God.

God Bless-
Grace

But despite the environment in which Joseph Smith lived where deification was rejected, Joseph Smith claimed not that pagans believe in deification, but that the early church did. Many scholars acknowledge that the early church did in fact believe this. Father Vajda five years after comparing the early church to the supposed restored church left the Catholic Church and became a LDS. This is not some coincidence to be lightly brushed to the side.



Charity, TOm

 

[TOmNossor]

Der Alter (post #486):

Proof? And you and I both know that the very few ECF who mention deification have a completely different definition than LDS. There is not one ECF who wrote that men could become gods. (emphasis mine)



TOm:

Jerome - Homily 14:

...That we are gods, not so by nature, but by grace. "But as many as received him he gave power of becoming sons of God." I made man for that purpose, that from men they may become gods. "I said: You are gods, all of you sons of the most High."(The Fathers of the Church 48.106, emphasis mine).



Der Alter:

Every piece of writing which came out of the early centuries was not scripture. Prove that any God inspired scripture was omitted from the Bible



TOm:

A non-sequitur?

What does this have to do with what we are discussing?



Der Alter:

Same response as above neither the ECF nor EO ever state that deification means men becoming gods.



TOm:

Actually, they use the words “become gods” on a number of occasions.

Never have I suggested equality with the CoJCoLDS.



Der Alter:

I would suggest that you also read the Bible with honesty and integrity.



TOm:

I would suggest that those who are so free to tell others they lack “honesty and integrity” would do well to read the Bible as well.

I have told you in the past that your use of terms such as “NONSENSE!” and other such derogatory things do not improve the reception of your ideas.



Charity, TOm

 

[gort]

TOm:

Jerome - Homily 14:

...That we are gods, not so by nature, but by grace. "But as many as received him he gave power of becoming sons of God." I made man for that purpose, that from men they may become gods. "I said: You are gods, all of you sons of the most High."(The Fathers of the Church 48.106, emphasis mine).

Hello TOm,

Upon reading this quote , I would understand it say that "You are Gods,"( a posession of God because we are purchased by the Blood of Christ) all of you sons of the Most High.


That we have become His Posession, not that we would becomes Gods

I think this is a more correct interpretation as it harmonizes with the Word of God.


<><

 

[TOmNossor]

Hello TOm,

Upon reading this quote , I would understand it say that "You are Gods,"( a posession of God because we are purchased by the Blood of Christ) all of you sons of the Most High.


That we have become His Posession, not that we would becomes Gods

I think this is a more correct interpretation as it harmonizes with the Word of God.


<><

Responding to this quote:

Jerome - Homily 14:

...That we are gods, not so by nature, but by grace. "But as many as received him he gave power of becoming sons of God." I made man for that purpose, that from men they may become gods. "I said: You are gods, all of you sons of the most High."(The Fathers of the Church 48.106, emphasis mine).



Daneel said:

Upon reading this quote , I would understand it say that "You are Gods,"( a posession of God because we are purchased by the Blood of Christ) all of you sons of the Most High.That we have become His Posession, not that we would becomes Gods



TOm:

That would change “gods” to “God’s.” I am sure Der Alter will correct me if I am wrong, but it is English that uses the “’s” to connote possessiveness. In Latin Jerome would have used different terms and then the translators would have been blatantly changing the meaning. Even if Latin does have a simple difference between plural noun and possessive singular noun, we still have the capital G problem.

It is incorrect to not realize that the process of becoming gods results from becoming God’s. I am thrilled you pointed that out, but the above passage must be done much mis-justice to come up with this meaning.



Daneel:

I think this is a more correct interpretation as it harmonizes with the Word of God.



TOm:

And that is fine, but I keep saying that St. Jermoe and other early Christians are not strapped by this NEW way of interpreting the Bible, the Word of God. That is what this whole exchange is about. It is not blasphemy to say that men can become gods. It is in accordance with the Bible. It is in accordance with Early Christians. It is in accordance with modern Catholics, EO, and LDS.



Charity, TOm

 

[gort]

TOm, quote:

Jerome - Homily 14:

...That we are gods, not so by nature, but by grace. "But as many as received him he gave power of becoming sons of God." I made man for that purpose, that from men they may become gods. "I said: You are gods, all of you sons of the most High."(The Fathers of the Church 48.106, emphasis mine).

Then perhaps they also misunderstood John 1:12 which shows a more accurate reading of scripture. And rather as a one liner, it should of been taken in context of verse and context of the entire NT.

Joh 1:8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

Joh 1:9 He was the true Light; He enlightens every man coming into the world.

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, and the world did not know Him.

Joh 1:11 He came to His own, and His own received Him not.

Joh 1:12 But as many as received Him, He gave to them authority to become the children of God, to those who believe on His name,

Joh 1:13 who were born, not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but were born of God.

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us. And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and of truth.


I have seen many on this board who use the english "little g" when referring to God. I cannot see how I could refer to myself as god, or a group of us as gods, but rather Sons and Daughters of God. We are His posession.

Thanx

<><

 

[TOmNossor]

Then perhaps they also misunderstood John 1:12 which shows a more accurate reading of scripture. And rather as a one liner, it should of been taken in context of verse and context of the entire NT.

Joh 1:8 He was not that Light, but was sent to bear witness of that Light.

Joh 1:9 He was the true Light; He enlightens every man coming into the world.

Joh 1:10 He was in the world, and the world came into being through Him, and the world did not know Him.

Joh 1:11 He came to His own, and His own received Him not.

Joh 1:12 But as many as received Him, He gave to them authority to become the children of God, to those who believe on His name,

Joh 1:13 who were born, not of bloods, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but were born of God.

Joh 1:14 And the Word became flesh, and tabernacled among us. And we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and of truth.


I have seen many on this board who use the english "little g" when referring to God. I cannot see how I could refer to myself as god, or a group of us as gods, but rather Sons and Daughters of God. We are His posession.

Thanx

<><

Daneel,

I do not see deification in John 1:12. I do see how you see becoming God’s in the passage from John. I do however see deification in the two passages I pointed to in the beginning of this exchange.



Also, part of my testimony is associated with deification. The logical component goes something like this.

As a father I want my son to be perfect or as close as possible to perfect. If I where perfect I would want everything I had for my son. I cannot view God differently than this. Man becoming as God is seems the only rational thing a loving Father would want for his children. If God loves us enough would he not want this for us? And he does love us enough. If God has the power to raise us to be even as he is himself, would he not do this? And he does have the power.



Catholics do not believe that men will ever be the one who creates ex Nihilo. And of course it is logically impossible that they could be. So for a Catholic deification cannot be becoming a god who created all ex nihilo. LDS do not believe that to become gods is to become a god who creates/created ex nihilo either. This and the created vs. uncreated aspects of mankind (which is closely related but not identical) will continue to be differences between Catholic and LDS deification.



I have already seen an Evangelical scholar suggest that Evangelical Christians believe in a deification like belief, but the LDS belief is still wrong due to XYZ. I believe I will see more of this rather than less. I believe that one day many and perhaps most Evangelical Christians will say that in a certain sense, men can become gods. We will see if I am correct in 40-50 years.



Charity, TOm

 

[happyinhisgrace]

First, let me reiterate that it is wholly inappropriate for you to question my honesty as you have done. I believe one of two things caused this and you may provide third if I am wrong. One possible cause (which I do not think is most likely) is that your questioning of my honesty speaks volumes about your honesty and integrity.

LOL, you just did the same thing that you told him he had no right to do.

Grace

 

[Der Alte]

Yes, I am well aware that Evangelical Christians do not see deification in the phase, “partakers of the divine nature.”

I am a partaker of water but I am not a river, lake, or ocean. I am a partaker of meat but I am not a cow. I am a partaker of nuts but I am not a nut. That last part is debatable.

What I am saying and what I have shown with comments from the ECF and the Catechism of the Catholic Church is that pre-reformist Christians, modern Catholics, LDS, Early Church Fathers, and (I intend to show) Eastern Orthodox Christians see deification in this verse.

Virtually every one of the ECF you have quoted, are out-of-context. And I have shown by quotes from Eastern Orthodox sites that EO does not believe that men can become gods.

It is the Reformists while ignoring whole books/sections of the bible in forming their unique doctrine, who do not see deification in this quote.

Utter nonsense!

It is not I who follow in the traditions of the new and unique, but you.

Complete rubbish!

 

[Der Alte]

Jerome - Homily 14:

...That we are gods, not so by nature, but by grace. "But as many as received him he gave power of becoming sons of God." I made man for that purpose, that from men they may become gods. "I said: You are gods, all of you sons of the most High."(The Fathers of the Church 48.106, emphasis mine).

Another out-of-context quote from “Mormons-&#1071;-Us.” I will shortly be linking to my previous posts concerning this endless laundry list of partial, out-of-context, quotes. Most people who cut and paste them have never read the primary sources.

Observe that Jerome quotes Psalm 82 to document his statement. When read in context this Psalm is addressed to corrupt human judges who, “judge unjustly, and accept the persons of the wicked, [they] know not, neither will they understand, they walk on in darkness:” Somebody please explain to me how men who have become perfected, and progressed and were made gods, by the Father, (according to LDS) can be corrupt? If the subject of this Psalm are actually gods, how can God demote them and cause them to die like ordinary men?

Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye are gods; [Elohim] and all of you are children of the most High.
7 But ye shall die like men, and fall like one of the princes.​

This Psalm refers to ordinary men, judges, who were called “Elohim,” and the majority of ECF who speak of deification quote this Psalm. Note that the Jewish scholars never interpreted this Psalm to mean deification or that men can becomes gods.

John Gill, Exposition of the Whole Bible,-Psa 82:1 - God standeth in the congregation of the mighty,.... The Syriac version renders it, "in the congregation of angels"; they are mighty, and excel in strength, and there is a large company of them, even an innumerable one, and who surround the throne of the Majesty on high. Christ, who is God over all, was among those on Mount Sinai, and when he ascended to heaven; and with these he will descend when he comes a second time, Psa_68:17. The Targum [Aramaic translation during the Babylonian captivity. DA] interprets it of the righteous thus,

"God, whose majesty (or Shechinah) dwells in the congregation of the righteous that are strong in the law.'' . . .

he judgeth among the gods: which the Syriac version renders "angels" again; and so Aben Ezra interprets it of them, who are so called, Psa_8:5, but rather civil magistrates are meant, the rulers and judges of the people, who go by this name of "elohim", or gods, in Exo_21:6, and are so called because they are the powers ordained of God, are representatives of him, are his vicegerents and deputies under him; should act in his name, according to his law, and for his glory, and are clothed with great power and authority from and under him; and therefore are before styled the "mighty".

reign, and princes decree justice; by whom princes rule, and nobles, even all the judges of the earth; and to whom they are all accountable, and will be themselves judged by him another day, Pro_8:15 so the Targum,

"in the midst of the judges of truth he judges.''

(a)&#1489;&#1506;&#1491;&#1514; &#1488;&#1500; "in congregatione Dei", Pagninus, Cocceius, Gejerus, Michaelis; so Vatablus, Junius & Tremellius, Piscator, Ainsworth.

Psa 82:6 - I have said, ye are gods,. . .The Targum is, "I said, as angels are ye accounted"; and so judges and civil magistrates had need to be as angels, and to have the wisdom of them; see 2Sa_14:20. Jarchi interprets it of angels, but magistrates are undoubtedly meant:

and all of you are children of the most High; the Targum here again renders it,

"the angels of the most High:''​

​

As for the other ECF quotes, here are posts where I have discussed many of these that are quoted here, partially and out-of-context. Very, very few if any ECF in the 1st three centuries of the church wrote of men becoming gods, without qualification. The teaching of the LDS church on this is unBiblical, unhistorical heresy.

http://www.christianforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1308395&postcount=117

http://www.christianforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1284684&postcount=97

http://www.christianforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1281414&postcount=93

 

[happyinhisgrace]

But despite the environment in which Joseph Smith lived where deification was rejected, Joseph Smith claimed not that pagans believe in deification, but that the early church did. Many scholars acknowledge that the early church did in fact believe this. Father Vajda five years after comparing the early church to the supposed restored church left the Catholic Church and became a LDS. This is not some coincidence to be lightly brushed to the side.
Charity, TOm

Joseph Smith embraced many things that the people in his area rejected. Peep stones, treasure hunting, divination etc. What is your point? Are you saying that because he embaced pagan beliefs and others didn't, that makes him somehow more reliable?

Many scholors also say there is no God. Many scholors say there is only one God. Many scholors say that DNA proves that native americans came from Eastern Asia and not at all from the middle east. Many scholors say that evolution is the only answer to how man came into being. Do you also believe all of these things because many scholors say it is so?

I believe the Bible, the Word of God. If what an says does not match up with what the word of God teaches, then it is of no use to me. I have made the choice to follow God, not man.

God Bless-
Grace

 

[MormonFriend]

First, let me reiterate that it is wholly inappropriate for you to question my honesty as you have done. I believe one of two things caused this and you may provide third if I am wrong. One possible cause (which I do not think is most likely) is that your questioning of my honesty speaks volumes about your honesty and integrity.

LOL, you just did the same thing that you told him he had no right to do.

Grace

However, he could do so with Biblical endorsement.

1THEREFORE thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things.

(Romans2:1)

 

[Wrigley]

Utter nonsense!



Complete rubbish!

Did you expect anything else?