Praise to the Man!

[Toms777]

Toms777,
I actually referred to the New Testament reference that Jesus gave. I am well aware of judges and other such ways of looking at this verse. I have shown you that until the Bible was selectively interpreted by Luther, Christians did not see what you see. You see one thing, I see another. Except for those who embrace the Reformation, nobody agrees with you.

The NT reference that he gave refers directly back to Psalm 82.

As for nobody agreeing with me, I disagree entirely and if I choose to argue on the writings and traditions of men, I could do so, but we know from the NT that Paul was warning that even then men were trying to corrupt the gospel, so how do you know what is right and wrong? Not by the teachings of men but the word of God.

Still waiting for the verse where we are told that men become gods or God.

 

[TOmNossor]

The NT reference that he gave refers directly back to Psalm 82.

As for nobody agreeing with me, I disagree entirely and if I choose to argue on the writings and traditions of men, I could do so, but we know from the NT that Paul was warning that even then men were trying to corrupt the gospel, so how do you know what is right and wrong? Not by the teachings of men but the word of God.

Still waiting for the verse where we are told that men become gods or God.

Toms777,

I have given you three verses. You misinterpret them.

I said:

I asked you were the Bible says that men cannot become gods. It does not say this. You failed to answer. Is this because you recognize it does not say this? Or is this because you know that I will say that the Prophet of God, the LDS, the Pope, the Catholics, and the Easter Orthodox, and me all disagree with your unique interpretation of some scripture you reference. The Bible does not say, “Men do not become gods.” It is your read that tells you this, but history disagrees with the read of Toms777.



TOm (now):

Again you fail to point to your scriptures.



Charity, TOm

 

[DCP 32° K.T]

I don't know what the ancient fathers would have intended or thought and neither do you....but it matters none to me. What does matter is what the Bible says.

I do not take my doctrine from the traditions of men but from the word of God.

The author of 2 Peter did not need to say that it did not refer to us becoming gods because the Bible speaks so clerarly against it elsewhere. Thus that is the one interpretation which is not permitted by the Bible (and the one which you presume it to mean). For you to hold to that view, you must do two things:

1) Show us a verse in the Bible which says that we can become gods.
2) Explain the multitude of verses which speak so forcefully against it.

Certainly we can know what the Fathers intended. We can read what they wrote! We can see for ourselves what they thought about certain passages of scripture simply by reading what they wrote about it!

The Bible as we have it now does not contain everything ever written or spoken by prophets and apostles of God. All that we have now are those things that were for public reading. There were times when things were taught or done that could not be done with parchment or papyrus and ink. Read the Bible. You will find if you seek. John only went so far as to say that we did not know yet what we would be. But, he also was clear that whatever we would be, we would be like God. I had an interesting experience with the passage that states that we would be like God in 1 John. I once had a meeting with someone who had rejected Orthodoxy and became a Protestant Evangelical. He rejected the Orthodox doctrine of Theosis. He also could read Greek, being a native Greek. When I confirmed that, I asked him to read 1 John 3:2-3 aloud. You should have seen the look on his face as he read! It was one of dismay. He read aloud into English as he read and when he came to the word that most translate as 'like', he translated it 'the same' and really looked upset! Fact is, 'same' is indeed one meaning of the word. So, if one is to be like God or the same as God, what does that mean?

As I said, the Bible is clear that we will share the nature that makes God what he is, that we will be united with God into one spirit, that we will obtain the same glory as God and be transformed into the same image, that we will attain to his holiness, that we will become as God, that we will be brought into the same realm of power as Christ (whom I might add has all power and authority given him of the Father), that we will rule over angels and the cosmos as God does, and so on. What does all that mean if we will not become divine?

You see, it is not one verse that teaches all the fundamental tenets of the Orthodox doctrine of Theosis, there are many! And, you most certainly take your doctrine from among the traditions of men, namely the Reformers! Through them, you have come to read the Bible as they chose to read it rather than as the Greek Fathers understood the Greek text. The Protestants (but not all!) have rejected the root and have become withered branches who no longer know the meaning of the Bible, redefining passages at will in order to escape the truth of scripture.

Now, as to scriptures that you claim speak so forcefully against it please be sure that you are taking them for what they say and not what you want them to say. For instance, one can twist Isaiah any way they want. For instance, Isaiah has God say that he will not share his glory with another. But, when the context is examined, it is graven images with which he will not share glory. Jesus and Paul both were very clear that God will share his glory with his Saints and share with them his very being and nature. If that does not make them divine, what does it do?

 

[Toms777]

Certainly we can know what the Fathers intended. We can read what they wrote! We can see for ourselves what they thought about certain passages of scripture simply by reading what they wrote about it!

So what? You entirely are ignoring my point. Even if what you said were correct (and I dispute it), the words of the Apostle Paul himself were considered subject to testing by scripture which means that they did not accept what he said just because he said it. tell me why the writings of anyone else should differ? Thus, get off this track and get into teh Bible and let';s see what it says. Don't try to distract the discussion away from God's word.

As a comment...

Note that we started out with me pointuing out that the hymn "Praise to the Man" tried to equate Joseph Smioth to God. Mormon vehemntly denied that they would do such a thing.

Now we have the same Mormons arguing exactly that point....that man can become God.

So my original premise has been shown to be accurate, now we are debatingw hether the doctrine of the Mormon church that led to Smith being equate to God is accurate.

Now let's carry on - shown me the verse in the Bible which says that we can become God or gods.

 

[Toms777]

Toms777,

I have given you three verses. You misinterpret them.

And your basis for establishing proper interpretation is.....??

I asked you were the Bible says that men cannot become gods. It does not say this. You failed to answer. Is this because you recognize it does not say this?

It is you claiming that man can become God. Doctrine is established upon what the Bible says, not what it does not say.

The Bible does not say that you are not an ugly 16 foot tall guinea pig, who is 1000 years old, therefore it must be true, right?

 

[TOmNossor]

Toms777:

Note that we started out with me pointuing out that the hymn "Praise to the Man" tried to equate Joseph Smioth to God. Mormon vehemntly denied that they would do such a thing.

Now we have the same Mormons arguing exactly that point....that man can become God.

So my original premise has been shown to be accurate, now we are debatingw hether the doctrine of the Mormon church that led to Smith being equate to God is accurate.

Now let's carry on - shown me the verse in the Bible which says that we can become God or gods.

TOm:

Toms777, for someone who claims to have read the BOM and read books on the CoJCoLDS you continually demonstrate that you do not understand much about our beliefs. That men may become gods has nothing to do with equating Joseph Smith with Jesus Christ, nor with worshiping men. I tell you this. Others tell you this. You would think you could learn this from reading, but you continue to say things like this. You may next post that you see where you have misunderstood. Please?



Toms777:

And your basis for establishing proper interpretation is.....??



TOm:

The ordained authority from God to interpret scripture. The Bible makes it clear that this is the way God’s church works. This authority is either possessed by the Bishops of the EO Church, the Bishops and Pope of the Catholic Church, or the Prophet and General Authorities of the CoJCoLDS. History and the Bible makes this clear. Regardless of which of the only three plausible and logical answers, the proper interpretation is the same. You simply do not have any logical position.



Toms777:

It is you claiming that man can become God. Doctrine is established upon what the Bible says, not what it does not say.

The Bible does not say that you are not an ugly 16 foot tall guinea pig, who is 1000 years old, therefore it must be true, right?



TOm:

You stated:

Toms777 (post 193 this thread):

2) Explain the multitude of verses which speak so forcefully against it.



TOm:

I just ask you to back up your words with these “multitude of verses.”



And actually, I am not 16 ft tall, 1000 years old, or a guinea pig.



Charity, TOm

 

[Toms777]

Toms777, for someone who claims to have read the BOM and read books on the CoJCoLDS you continually demonstrate that you do not understand much about our beliefs. That men may become gods has nothing to do with equating Joseph Smith with Jesus Christ, nor with worshiping men. I tell you this. Others tell you this. You would think you could learn this from reading, but you continue to say things like this. You may next post that you see where you have misunderstood. Please?

I never said anything about worshipping men, thopugh now that you raise it as a point, Mormon do believe that god was once a man and still has flesh and bones, don't they?

You can tell me what you like, but chjuirch documents and the leaders of the church dispute what you say.

The ordained authority from God to interpret scripture. The Bible makes it clear that this is the way God’s church works. This authority is either possessed by the Bishops of the EO Church, the Bishops and Pope of the Catholic Church, or the Prophet and General Authorities of the CoJCoLDS. History and the Bible makes this clear. Regardless of which of the only three plausible and logical answers, the proper interpretation is the same. You simply do not have any logical position.

Two points:

1) Do you believe that the Bereans erred to test what Paul said using the Bible, since these were simply the men of Berea and he was an Apostle?

2) The Bible does not state that the authorityu to speak infallibly was delegated by God to anyone, but since you raise this, and it is not in concert with teh topic of this thread, let's start a different thread to discuss this point, okay?

Regardless, I do agree that you told me that the basuis for your interpretation is the teachinghs of men through the church, the same teaching of the JWs and the Roman Catholics. That is why we find differences because I follow the approach given in the Bible and demonstrated by the men of Berea.

And actually, I am not 16 ft tall, 1000 years old, or a guinea pig.

The the approach of arguing what scripture does not say usually gives the wrong answer - so let's go by what the Bible does say.

 

[TOmNossor]

[/size][/font]

I never said anything about worshipping men, thopugh now that you raise it as a point, Mormon do believe that god was once a man and still has flesh and bones, don't they?

You can tell me what you like, but chjuirch documents and the leaders of the church dispute what you say.

[/size][/font]

Two points:

1) Do you believe that the Bereans erred to test what Paul said using the Bible, since these were simply the men of Berea and he was an Apostle?

2) The Bible does not state that the authorityu to speak infallibly was delegated by God to anyone, but since you raise this, and it is not in concert with teh topic of this thread, let's start a different thread to discuss this point, okay?

Regardless, I do agree that you told me that the basuis for your interpretation is the teachinghs of men through the church, the same teaching of the JWs and the Roman Catholics. That is why we find differences because I follow the approach given in the Bible and demonstrated by the men of Berea.


[/size][/font]

The the approach of arguing what scripture does not say usually gives the wrong answer - so let's go by what the Bible does say.

Toms777:

I never said anything about worshipping men, thopugh now that you raise it as a point, Mormon do believe that god was once a man and still has flesh and bones, don't they?

TOm:

Some do. I believe that God never was not God. This is scriptural.

"There is a God in heaven who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God...." (D&C 20:17).

I personally have extra non-doctrinal ideas that explain the non-doctrinal comments that you post, but the fact is that it is not doctrine that God was once man.



Toms777:
You can tell me what you like, but chjuirch documents and the leaders of the church dispute what you say.



TOm:

You still fail to realize that all the things you so enjoy to quote are not doctrinal. When you present your interpretation of the Bible, you have as much right to your opinion as I do. But when you tell me that the song “Praise to the Man” mean LDS place Joseph Smith equal to or above Christ, you are stepping beyond logic and reason into polemical mischaracterization.



Toms777:

1) Do you believe that the Bereans erred to test what Paul said using the Bible, since these were simply the men of Berea and he was an Apostle?



TOm:

No, the scriptures are for the testing, but so is the Holy Spirit. You know the comforter. Jesus Christ was tested by the Old Testament and the Pharisees decided he failed. Paul was tested by the Old Testament and somehow passed. Can you get all of your Christian doctrines from the Old Testament? This of course is all that was available to the Bereans.

I have seen no LDS doctrine that fails the test of the scriptures.

It is not the interpretation of men that I rely on it is the ordained authority of God. This was the method left by the Apostles. This was the way of the church until the reformists rebelled. The ordained authority ultimately apostatized (and Peter’s authority was never passed on), so there was something to rebel against, but only a restoration would be sufficient to be in accordance with the Bible. Sola Scriptura condemns all of Protestantism as internally inconsistent.



Toms777:

2) The Bible does not state that the authorityu to speak infallibly was delegated by God to anyone, but since you raise this, and it is not in concert with teh topic of this thread, let's start a different thread to discuss this point, okay?



TOm:

Again, you demonstrate that you do not understand LDS theology. We do not embrace an infallible authority.



Toms777:

Regardless, I do agree that you told me that the basuis for your interpretation is the teachinghs of men through the church, the same teaching of the JWs and the Roman Catholics. That is why we find differences because I follow the approach given in the Bible and demonstrated by the men of Berea.



TOm:

And I have been saying that the Bible speaks of deification. The Bereans certainly would see this. LDS do not subscribe to Catholic authority. It is only recently that the Catholic Church is admitting to the words of deification in the Bible and the ECF. So LDS and Catholic INDEPENDANTLY come to the same conclusions.



BTW, I was unaware that the JWs believe in deification.



Toms777:

The the approach of arguing what scripture does not say usually gives the wrong answer - so let's go by what the Bible does say.



TOm:

This you said in response to me point out that you said the Bible speaks against deificaiton. Let us review.



Toms777 (before):

It is you claiming that man can become God. Doctrine is established upon what the Bible says, not what it does not say.

The Bible does not say that you are not an ugly 16 foot tall guinea pig, who is 1000 years old, therefore it must be true, right?



TOm (before):

You stated:

Toms777 (post 193 this thread):

2) Explain the multitude of verses which speak so forcefully against it.

TOm (before):

I just ask you to back up your words with these “multitude of verses.”



TOm:

So it was you who claimed the Bible speaks against deification, but this is my third time asking you to show what you mean. 2-3 posts ago I accused you of recognizing the futility of doing this. I still await your “multitude of verses.”



Charity, TOm

 

[Toms777]

Some do. I believe that God never was not God. This is scriptural.

I agree that there never was a time that God was not God. I am glad to find a point of common ground. The Mormon church teaches that God was once a man, so I am pleased to see that you do think for yourself.

"There is a God in heaven who is infinite and eternal, from everlasting to everlasting the same unchangeable God...." (D&C 20:17).

One of the problems with Mormonism is the inconsistency in the texts, and this demonstrates that well.

I personally have extra non-doctrinal ideas that explain the non-doctrinal comments that you post, but the fact is that it is not doctrine that God was once man.

There are some interesting quotes here. Now I am sure that you wikll argue that each and every one is not official doctrine, but if it were not inc oncert with the teaching of the Mormon church on such a critical topic, they would have to have been censured. please show me where there false teachinsg were refuted if that is your claim.

[url="http://www.i4m.com/think/leaders/god_was_man.htm"]http://www.i4m.com/think/leaders/god_was_man.htm[/url]

Joseph Smith even called it a “gospel doctrine”. If Smith and these other leaders were wrong on such a basic and essential matter, then what else have they been wrong on?

No, the scriptures are for the testing, but so is the Holy Spirit.

The Holy Spirit authored the Bible therefore these cannot contradict. We are to test every spirit (1 John 4:1) anmd therefore we must be sure that it is the Holy Spirit and not depend upon feelings.

You know the comforter. Jesus Christ was tested by the Old Testament and the Pharisees decided he failed. Paul was tested by the Old Testament and somehow passed. Can you get all of your Christian doctrines from the Old Testament? This of course is all that was available to the Bereans.

Yet the Bereans were commended for being more noble for using the Bible.

I have seen no LDS doctrine that fails the test of the scriptures.

Then you haven’t looked too hard!

And I have been saying that the Bible speaks of deification. The Bereans certainly would see this. LDS do not subscribe to Catholic authority. It is only recently that the Catholic Church is admitting to the words of deification in the Bible and the ECF. So LDS and Catholic INDEPENDANTLY come to the same conclusions.

The Roman church accepted deification several centuries ago, well before the Book of Mormon was written and before Joseph Smith was even a future consideration.

I have been asking for that verse in the Bible which says that men become God or gods, and am still waiting.

BTW, I was unaware that the JWs believe in deification.

JW documents state that the 144,000 are gods, along with God the Father being a separate god from Jesus who they say is a lesser god.

I have also studied the JW religion.

 

[MormonFriend]

Thanks for reminding me. It is a beautiful passage. You might be interested in some of its directly preceding context I have in a note I typed:

Without contrition of the heart it is altogether impossible to rid ourselves of evil. Now the heart is made contrite by threefold self-control: in sleep, in food and in bodily relaxation. For excess of these three things leads to self-indulgence; and this in turn makes us accept evil thoughts, and is opposed to prayer and to appropriate work.

All the penalties imposed by divine judgment upon man for the sin of the first transgression - death, toil, hunger, thirst and the like - He took upon Himself, becoming what we are, so that we might become what He is.

DCP, I am very grateful for you sharing this. I too typed out personal thoughts regarding "understanding by the Spirit" I posted the whole of it on my CF homepage, but it is long, and I am not a great writer. But your thoughts, to me, compliments this:

Understanding Is Discerned Spiritually. Understanding is achieved by accessing the heart. That is a spiritual application, and the scriptures emphasize repeatedly the necessity to apply the heart in understanding. (Proverbs 2:1-10) This simply means to apply our spiritual senses instead of our physical senses.

Explanation: Everyone has a spirit, and a body. We live in a physical world where our physical senses are spontaneously exercised daily. The spiritual realm is just as real as the physical, and is all around us. Since our physical side naturally dominates, our spiritual side is pushed to the "back burner" because of the constant priorities naturally given to the physical. Our first and strongest input is received through our physical sensory system. The spirit acts as an interface when we learn to listen to it. Some call it a conscience, and that probably best describes it. When followed it yields a warm or peaceful feeling to the heart. When ignored it gets pushed off the burner altogether and becomes cold. (See Matt; 24: 12)

When consistently ignored the individual becomes callused, or "past feeling" (Eph. 4:19). Free choice is a test of true character and the choice is ours as to which "impulse" we act on, spiritual or physical. (Josh. 24: 15) When we learn to give priority to our spirit self, then we can dominate the physical self. Our own spirit can have power over the actions of the physical, through the exercise of choice. The spirit then is placed on the "front burner," and the physical is put on the "back burner," ready for appropriate use to enhance our spiritual life. (The focus of most is to enhance their physical life.)

Perhaps the most profound definition of slavery is one who is ruled by his passions. On this theme Jesus proclaimed " . . . the truth shall make you free." Understanding by spiritual discernment is achieved through faith, by acting on feelings of some purpose that the physical senses do not always understand, and probably protest. Sacrifice and even denial are key essentials to higher understanding.
This is the process by divine design that develops Christ-like love, as we follow Jesus in His example of the same.

Understanding Grows With Love.
Jesus said: "If you love me, keep my commandments." A genuine love of Christ is the only source of strength that will enable one to overcome all evil. Consider the strong urge by any individual to do any wrong. A thief, for example, can postpone his deed when he sees the risk of being caught. The fear of punishment is the motivating force that provides the ability to temporarily curb the action. He made the right choice, but not for the best reason. The important factor here is that the ability to control behavior was proven. It was “temporary” because the next opportunity, where being caught is not a risk, he will succumb.

God also, presents punishment for our misdeeds, but if that is all which motivates us, we too will eventually succumb to temptations. But what if the motivation to choose the right was generated by honor, respect and love for the Savior instead of a fear of punishment? Love is an eternal principle, and thus with love, instead of fear as the motivation to exercise one's ability to control behavior, self-control would also be eternal. (Is this not the infrastructure of a Heavenly society?)

When we sin, our love for Jesus is obviously not our greatest motivation. When we sin, it is a simple indicator that our love is not yet up to our potential. We do not even “yet” understand the beginnings of our own potential, until we learn to apply this level of love. The essence of true Christianity is to love God with all our hearts, might, minds and strength.

 

[TOmNossor]

[/font]

I agree that there never was a time that God was not God. I am glad to find a point of common ground. The Mormon church teaches that God was once a man, so I am pleased to see that you do think for yourself.

[/font]

One of the problems with Mormonism is the inconsistency in the texts, and this demonstrates that well.



There are some interesting quotes here. Now I am sure that you wikll argue that each and every one is not official doctrine, but if it were not inc oncert with the teaching of the Mormon church on such a critical topic, they would have to have been censured. please show me where there false teachinsg were refuted if that is your claim.

[url="http://www.i4m.com/think/leaders/god_was_man.htm"]http://www.i4m.com/think/leaders/god_was_man.htm[/url]

Joseph Smith even called it a “gospel doctrine”. If Smith and these other leaders were wrong on such a basic and essential matter, then what else have they been wrong on?

[/font]

The Holy Spirit authored the Bible therefore these cannot contradict. We are to test every spirit (1 John 4:1) anmd therefore we must be sure that it is the Holy Spirit and not depend upon feelings.



Yet the Bereans were commended for being more noble for using the Bible.



Then you haven’t looked too hard!

[/font]

The Roman church accepted deification several centuries ago, well before the Book of Mormon was written and before Joseph Smith was even a future consideration.

I have been asking for that verse in the Bible which says that men become God or gods, and am still waiting.



JW documents state that the 144,000 are gods, along with God the Father being a separate god from Jesus who they say is a lesser god.

I have also studied the JW religion.

Toms777:

There are some interesting quotes here. Now I am sure that you wikll argue that each and every one is not official doctrine, but if it were not inc oncert with the teaching of the Mormon church on such a critical topic, they would have to have been censured. please show me where there false teachinsg were refuted if that is your claim.



TOm:

First, I am glad that you recognize that I can think. I want to make it clear that I said, “God was never not God.” Our scriptures demand this.



About 2 months ago I taught a lessen I titled, “A Lesson Loosely on Deification.” After sighting 2 Peter 1:4 (the lesson of course was on 1st and 2nd Peter). In accordance with my plan I then sighted my favorite deification scripture 2 Cor 8:9. I felt compelled to then share how LDS can look at Lorenzo Snow’s couplet in light of 2 Cor 8:9.



Jesus Christ became man so that men may become gods. God was once as we are now so that we may be as God is now. I pointed out that there can be much more to this couplet, but at the very least we can know that Jesus was man and we are to be as Jesus is now.



Present at this lesson was the current Bishop and the former Bishop of our ward. Neither saw any need to demand that Lorenzo Snow must have meant more. I do not suggest that Lorenzo Snow’s comments couldn’t or even didn’t/don’t mean more, but I do suggest that LDS do not have to believe they mean more. For my Catholic friends when I related this particular lesson, I added what Irenaeus said, “Jesus Christ, through his transcendent Love, became what we are, that we might be even as he is himself”. (Ante-Nicene Fathers Vol I, pg. 26)



After this lesson, I spoke with the former Bishop. I explained to him that whatever Lorenzo Snow’s couplet means, it does not mean that God was ever not God, because our scriptures demands this is not true. He agreed. It looks like I still have not managed to get called into some disciplinary court for heretical beliefs.



Toms777:

Then you haven’t looked too hard!



TOm:

Oh, but I have.



Toms777:

The Roman church accepted deification several centuries ago, well before the Book of Mormon was written and before Joseph Smith was even a future consideration.



TOm:

Yes, but the doctrine of deification within the Catholic Church is only recently being resurrected due to the somewhat recent proliferation of the ECF’s writings. Your Catholic neighbors today will likely have no idea about CCC #460. If Joseph Smith happened to have Catholic neighbors it is highly unlikely that they would have had any concept of deification since the CCC didn’t speak of this back then. Joseph Smith copied no one and was and has been ridiculed for deification for many years. That the ECF and the Catholic and Orthodox churches provide some support has only come to light in the last 50 years.



Toms777:

I have been asking for that verse in the Bible which says that men become God or gods, and am still waiting.



TOm:

You have the two above and the third where Jesus quoted Psalms.

You have claimed that you can show where the Bible shows that I have misunderstood 2 Peter and 2 Cor, but you have not show these anti-deifications scriptures yet.



Toms777:

JW documents state that the 144,000 are gods, along with God the Father being a separate god from Jesus who they say is a lesser god.

I have also studied the JW religion.



TOm:

Interesting. They visit every month. I will need to ask them more about this.



Charity, TOm

 

[Toms777]

Jesus Christ became man so that men may become gods. God was once as we are now so that we may be as God is now. I pointed out that there can be much more to this couplet, but at the very least we can know that Jesus was man and we are to be as Jesus is now.

With the exception that Jesus is God and we can never be God or gods. There is only one.

Isa 44:8 Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock; I know not one.'" NKJV

After this lesson, I spoke with the former Bishop. I explained to him that whatever Lorenzo Snow’s couplet means, it does not mean that God was ever not God, because our scriptures demands this is not true. He agreed. It looks like I still have not managed to get called into some disciplinary court for heretical beliefs.

I heard a bishop and missionaries who were denying many things, even things which are captured right in D&C. I even showed him things on the Mormon website that he did not or denied were taught.

That proves nothing.

Yes, but the doctrine of deification within the Catholic Church is only recently being resurrected due to the somewhat recent proliferation of the ECF’s writings. Your Catholic neighbors today will likely have no idea about CCC #460.

Just because they do not know does not mean that it is not taught. Just as many Mormons likely do not know much of what is and has been taught, many Roman Catholics also do not know what their religion teaches. Ignorance does not change reality.

Now, how about a verse which specifically states that men can become God or gods.

 

[TOmNossor]

With the exception that Jesus is God and we can never be God or gods. There is only one.

Isa 44:8 Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock; I know not one.'" NKJV



I heard a bishop and missionaries who were denying many things, even things which are captured right in D&C. I even showed him things on the Mormon website that he did not or denied were taught.

That proves nothing.



Just because they do not know does not mean that it is not taught. Just as many Mormons likely do not know much of what is and has been taught, many Roman Catholics also do not know what their religion teaches. Ignorance does not change reality.

Now, how about a verse which specifically states that men can become God or gods.

Toms777:

With the exception that Jesus is God and we can never be God or gods. There is only one.
Isa 44:8 Is there a God besides Me? Indeed there is no other Rock; I know not one.'" NKJV



TOm:

But as I have pointed out, 2 Pet and 2 Cor, definitely say that we can become gods.

As Isaiah said, there are not Gods besides God, but this does not mean that through God we cannot be united and be God. The doctrine of the Trinity does not result in multiple Gods. If the doctrine of the Trinity does not violate Isa 44:8 then neither does the Christian and Biblical doctrine of deification.



Toms777:

I heard a bishop who was denying many things, even things which are captured right in D&C. I even showed him things on the Mormon website that he did not or denied were taught.



TOm:

I would be interested to hear what this Bishop denied. Are you sure it was not something like, “LDS place Joseph Smith above Jesus Christ?”

If the Bishop said that the scriptures do not mean what you think they mean, that would likely be fine.

I imagine there are some Bishops who hold beliefs that I would not think make sense based on the scriptures and the current teachings, so perhaps you found one. I do not think my ward is particularly liberal or conservative. We are not in Utah, but the city 5 miles from here has parts of three stakes so we are also not out in the boonies either.



Toms777:

Just because they do not know does not mean that it is not taught. Just as many Mormons likely do not know much of what is and has been taught, many Roman Catholics also do not know what their religion teaches. Ignorance does not change reality.



TOm:

My point is that Joseph Smith came up with deification independent of the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church did not teach this at all then. And the Catholic Church barely teaches it now.



Toms777:

Now, how about a verse which specifically states that men can become God or gods.



TOm:

I have provided three Biblical passages. I have no reason to accept your interpretation over mine. The Bible is really quite clear in my mind.



Charity, TOm

 

[Toms777]

But as I have pointed out, 2 Pet and 2 Cor, definitely say that we can become gods.

They say nothing of the sort. If you believe so, then rezspond tyo my responses and show me, in the context of the Bible, where it says this. 2 Cor was not even speaking about this topic - you had to alter the words.

As Isaiah said, there are not Gods besides God, but this does not mean that through God we cannot be united and be God. The doctrine of the Trinity does not result in multiple Gods. If the doctrine of the Trinity does not violate Isa 44:8 then neither does the Christian and Biblical doctrine of deification.

Show me where we find this in the Bible. The Bible is abundantly clear what "one" means.

You claim that there is such a thing as a Christian and Biblical deification, show me the verse!! Don't alter words, don't take verses out of context, btu show me where the Bible says what you claim.

I would be interested to hear what this Bishop denied. Are you sure it was not something like, “LDS place Joseph Smith above Jesus Christ?”

Let's keep this thread as on topic as we can.

My point is that Joseph Smith came up with deification independent of the Catholic Church because the Catholic Church did not teach this at all then. And the Catholic Church barely teaches it now.

Heresy is still heresy no matter whether arrived at independently or from an existing source.

Still waiting.....

 

[DCP 32° K.T]

They say nothing of the sort....

Oh, but they do, Mr. 777. The word insertions for 2 Corinthians 8:9 only made more explicit what is implicit in the passage. In point of fact, there is general consensus that the first part of the verse definitely concerns the Kenosis of the Christ, wherein he descended from the richness of his glory and manifestation of the nature of Deity and emptied himself, taking upon himself the nature of man. The nature of man is the poverty of the passage. The passage is an encouragement for the saints to assist others with offerings, remembering the most costly offering of all--that of the Christ being rich but becoming poor for our sakes. So, if the first part referred to the Kenosis or transition from his high estate to a lower estate, the second part absolutely must be taken as the polar opposite or the sense of the passage is lost. The structure of the passage is clearer from the Greek than from the English, sad to say it.

  rich	 poor = Christ's Kenosis
	X
 poverty rich = Exaltation of the Saints through Christ's deification of his human nature

The Orthodox Christian formulary of Theosis is:

  God	 man
	X
 manhood God

Thus, the chiastic structure of the passage shows that the two parts are interrelated and that if the first part means emptying, the second means the opposite. The first part concerns the Christ; the second concerns his Saints. I know you want desperately to avoid the full meaning and implications of this passage. It behooves you to do so. Otherwise, you would have to discard much of the postreformation theology you cherish.

 

[DCP 32° K.T]

...JW documents state that the 144,000 are gods...I have also studied the JW religion.

I do not know of a single document that states that the 144,000 are gods. Please cite your sources for this. You may have 'studied' the religion but that does not make your interpretation thereof accurate. JWs do not believe in the deification of man or Theosis.

 

[Toms777]

Oh, but they do, Mr. 777. The word insertions for 2 Corinthians 8:9 only made more explicit what is implicit in the passage.

Only if you make the alteration and choose to interpret it according to your theological system.

Where does it state this in teh context of the Bible? Unless you can show that, all you have done is bend the Bible and change teh words to force it to agree with what you have already decided. Thus it is circular reasoning.

 

[Toms777]

I do not know of a single document that states that the 144,000 are gods. Please cite your sources for this. You may have 'studied' the religion but that does not make your interpretation thereof accurate. JWs do not believe in the deification of man or Theosis.

It is explicitly stated on page 301 of Watchtower dated December 1881, using the same or similar arguments and same Bible reference (divine nature) used by mormons.

If you wish to discuss further, either open a new thread or ask me privately - if you wish, I can provide a scan of the page in question.

Before you state something with such absolute certainty, you should at least check out the facts first....I do!

 

[DCP 32° K.T]

...They say nothing of the sort....

And on the matter of 2 Peter 1:3-4, the logic is rather simple.

Human nature = what makes man man.

Nature of angels = what makes angels angels.

Divine Nature = what makes God what he is.

Being united to God in one spirit, being as God, and sharing the Divine nature makes Christians, who overcome through Christ, into what?

Colossians 2:9 is clear that Christ has all the fulness of the Deity dwelling within him. If we are to be united to God in one spirit, to share the nature of God, and also to be filled with all the fullness of God, what does that make us? Come on, Mr. 777, the teaching of the New Testament as a whole is clear. Why will you be so blind to it?

P.S.: Remember, Mormons are not the only ones who believe in the deification of man through the divinized manhood of the Holy Christ.

 

[DCP 32° K.T]

Only if you make the alteration and choose to interpret it according to your theological system....

Nope. Not at all. The first part = Kenosis of Christ. This you cannot deny.

If the first part = Kenosis, what must the second part be since it is the positive of the negative in the first part, and that the second part pertains to man?

Answer these questions. You cannot divorce the second part from the meaning of the first. Let go of your false postreformation interpretation of this passage and embrace it for what it says and implies.