180 replies to this topic

[enummaelish]

Hello FAIR Board.  This post is designed as a response to Johnny from the thread on Psalm 89.  As always, it would be nice to hear what others have to say.  I�?¢â?¬â?¢m stepping out of my realm of expertise on this one, so any help that others could offer would be appreciated.

Quote

Show me where my theology is non-Biblical.
Show me where my perspective is not consistent with the Bible.
Show me where my perspective is irrational.

Ok.  But in order to do so, it�?¢â?¬â?¢s time for a new thread.  Johnny, your perspective on Biblical theology derives from later Jewish and Christian traditions directly influenced by Hellenization i.e. Greek philosophy mingled with scripture.  Notice that the New Testament clearly presents the doctrine of apotheosis:

�?¢â?¬�??Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is�?¢â?¬�? (1 John 3:2).

�?¢â?¬�??That by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature�?¢â?¬�? (2 Peter 1:4).

�?¢â?¬�??To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne�?¢â?¬�? (Revelation 3:21).

�?¢â?¬�??He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son�?¢â?¬�? (Revelation 21:7).

Today, all scholars of early Christian tradition recognize that the New Testament loudly proclaims the doctrine of deification.  When you deny this fact, you deny Biblical theology:

Quote

�?¢â?¬�??The real sources of the [Christian] doctrine of divinization are found in the Bible.�??�?  In the Old Testament, the teachings of the creation of the human couple in the image and likeness of God and the call of the chosen people through the covenant of a closer communion with God prepared for the theme.�??�?  The New Testament�?¢â?¬â?¢s central teaching on God�?¢â?¬â?¢s Son becoming man in order to make human beings in and through himself adopted children of God animated by God�?¢â?¬â?¢s Spirit is theologically elaborated primarily in the Pauline letters and later in the Fourth Gospel.�??�?  Whereas the doctrinal foundations of the theme of divinization are thus broad in the New Testament, the literary antecedents are limited to a few texts.�??�?  Besides 2 Peter 1:4, which speaks of becoming �?¢â?¬�??sharers of the divine nature,�?¢â?¬â?¢ one should also note John 10:34, where Jesus is presented as quoting Psalms 82:6 (LXX 81:6): �?¢â?¬�??I said: �?¢â?¬�??You are gods.�?¢â?¬â?¢�?¢â?¬�?�??�?  David L. Balas, �?¢â?¬�??Divinization,�?¢â?¬�? Encyclopedia of Early Christianity; Everett Ferguson ed. (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1997): 338.

While you claim to accept that as a Christian you will be like God and sit upon the Father�?¢â?¬â?¢s throne inheriting all things, you defend your argument against LDS theology with the following statement:

Quote

No creature has the infinite power necessary to "create" in the proper sense of the word, that is, to produce and give being to that which had in no way possessed it (to call into existence "out of nothing")�?¢â?¬�?¦ The problem I find with Mormonism is that a creature can progress into being a creator.
Do you think this is consistent with Biblical theology?

This argument however does not derive from the Bible.  The beginnings of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo serve as the underlying assumption in the Letter of Aristeas, a Hellenized Jewish text that dates sometime between the 3rd century BC to the 1st century A.D.  

In the following statement, the Hellenized author discusses the human tendency to make gods like themselves.  The author contrasts human inventors with the true God.  Using Greek philosophy, the author maintains that inventors simply take existing objects already created and combine them together whereas God creates the actual substance:  

Quote

�?¢â?¬�??For if the existence of any god depended on the criterion of invention, it would be absolutely foolish, because in that case the inventors would have taken some of the created things and given an added demonstration of their usefulness without themselves being their creators.�?¢â?¬�? Letter of Aristeas 136 as cited in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (New York: Doubleday, 1985): 1:22.

Thus we can see exactly where your reasoning derives, straight from the Hellenized world of late Second Temple Judaism.

When you state that �?¢â?¬�??The Catholic Bible does [teach creation ex nihilo]�?¢â?¬�?  this is also incorrect.  The Catholic Bible does no such thing.

Begin with Genesis.  God�?¢â?¬â?¢s first creative act appears in verse three: �?¢â?¬�??God said, �?¢â?¬�??Let there be light.�?¢â?¬�?  However, prior to the first creative act, the text describes earth, water, and wind as representations of unorganized matter (v. 2).  Note the commentary offered by Biblical scholar Jon D. Levenson:

Quote

To modern people, the opposite of the created order is nothing, that is, a vacuum.�??�?  To the ancients, the opposite of the created order was something much worse than �?¢â?¬�??nothing.�?¢â?¬â?¢�??�?  It was an active, malevolent force we can best term �?¢â?¬�??chaos.�?¢â?¬â?¢�??�?  In this verse, chaos is envisioned as a dark, undifferentiated mass of water�?¢â?¬�?¦ In the midrash, Bar Kappara upholds the troubling notion that the Torah shows that God created the world out of preexistent material.�??�?  But other rabbis worry that acknowledging this would cause people to liken God to a king who had built his palace on a garbage dump, thus arrogantly impugning His majesty.�??�?  In the ancient Near East, however, to say that a deity had subdued chaos is to give him the highest praise�?¢â?¬�? The Jewish Study Bible (New York Oxford Press, 2004): 13

Therefore, like every other creation account preserved from the ancient Near East, the book of Genesis does not include the Hellenized doctrine of creation ex nihilo.  

Now, I assume that your comment refers to II Maccabees 7:28, an Apocryphal book included in the Catholic cannon, but not in Protestant Bibles.  People unfamiliar with the Hellenized doctrine of creation ex nihilo have frequently misread this verse:

Quote

�?¢â?¬�??I beg you, my child, to look at the heaven, and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed.�??�?  And in the same way the human race came into being�?¢â?¬�?

Sorry to disappoint, but even this Apocryphal verse does not teach the non-biblical doctrine of creation ex nihilo.   It is quite clear to scholars who specialize in Second Temple Judaism that by paralleling the creation of the human race with the creation of heaven and earth, the author does not preach creation from nothing.  

Renowned scholar Jonathan Goldstein renders the relevant phrase from verse 28 as �?¢â?¬�??not after they existed.�?¢â?¬�?; II Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1983): 307.  The actual statement suggests that �?¢â?¬�??though no individual things existed, God created the world from undifferentiated raw matter�?¢â?¬�? (Ibid.).  

This interpretation however, ought to be clear to careful readers through context.  Clearly the author of II Maccabees knew that the book of Genesis presents the creation of the human race from the dust of the earth (Gen 2:7; 3:19), and that the Bible presents heaven and the earth, and all that is in them, made from a pre-existence matter; see F. M. Abel, Les Livres des Maccabees (Paris: Gabalda, 1949).  

The key to understanding the statement in verse 28 is the mother�?¢â?¬â?¢s comment presented in verse 22:  �?¢â?¬�??I do not know how you came into being in my womb.  It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you.�?¢â?¬�?  Thus, the woman recognized that elements were used to create humans and that heaven and earth was created �?¢â?¬�??in the same way.�?¢â?¬�?

As you can see, the views endorsed by Hellenized Christianity are non-biblical, not consistent with the Bible, and I would submit irrational.

I find it irrational to assume that one would become like God and not continue his work and glory.   If the Bible teaches that humans become deified, in what way is LDS theology incongruent with Biblical theology?

Edited by enummaelish, 14 March 2005 - 07:48 PM.

[dacook]

Well, I was just thinking of chiming in here with some good information on this topic from Chapter 17 of "The Disciple as Scholar..." (FARMS 2000 pg 471) entitled "Ye Are Gods: Psalm 82 and John 10 as Witnesses to the Divine Nature of Humankind", when I noticed who the author is.  Since Dr. Peterson posts here often I'll just stand back and let him speak for himself on this topic if he wishes.  It's an excellent chapter, with a lot of good information, including on the plurality of gods in the Old Testament.  I would highly recommend it to our Catholic friends, especially.

Good summary, though, Enummaelish.  I like your sig, too.

[Elihu]

Those scriptures are absolutely true.

There is only one God.  We will be like God but not be a God, for there is only one God.  Can you show me where it says man can become a God?  Jesus said those worthy will be as the angels, but angels are clearly not Gods.  Perhaps in a sense 'sons of God', but not Gods.  What is your point?  Can you show from the Scripture that God was a man before He became God?  Can you show from the Scripture that God said we will become Gods?  That we will have His Power?

Image and likeness is a similatude and not a state of equal being.

[1dc]

enummaelish, on Mar 14 2005, 08:05 PM, said:

If the Bible teaches that humans become deified, in what way is LDS theology incongruent with Biblical theology?

IMO, Johnny seems to define only his interpretation as "biblical" and any which deviate from his seems to be considered non-bibilcal, even when supported by a different interpretation of scripture.  While suggesting he believes in additional revelation, it seems that is only for teachings for which the answer is already established by tradition rather than the Bible itself.  You may want to examine this premise first, before holding other candles out . . .

[LDS4EVER]

1dc, on Mar 14 2005, 08:12 PM, said:

enummaelish, on Mar 14 2005, 08:05 PM, said:

If the Bible teaches that humans become deified, in what way is LDS theology incongruent with Biblical theology?

IMO, Johnny seems to define only his interpretation as "biblical" and any which deviate from his seems to be considered non-bibilcal, even when supported by a different interpretation of scripture.  While suggesting he believes in additional revelation, it seems that is only for teachings for which the answer is already established by tradition rather than the Bible itself.  You may want to examine this premise first, before holding other candles out . . .

One must understand that Johnny doesn't give his interpretation of the bible but rather the Catholic interpretation of the bible. He's well indoctrinated.

[enummaelish]

Quote

IMO, Johnny seems to define only his interpretation as "biblical" and any which deviate from his seems to be considered non-bibilcal, even when supported by a different interpretation of scripture. While suggesting he believes in additional revelation, it seems that is only for teachings for which the answer is already established by tradition rather than the Bible itself. You may want to examine this premise first, before holding other candles out . . .

This is a very good point.  In reality, Johnny�?¢â?¬â?¢s interpretation of the Bible is not biblical at all.  I find it quite strange that so many Catholics have abandoned the early Christian doctrine of deification professed so clearly by both New Testament authors and the Early Church Fathers.  

As I read it, the book of Revelation presents major problems for most branches of Christianity.  In addition to the example of deification portrayed in 3:21, John describes similar scenes in 4:4 and 20:4,6.

Edited by enummaelish, 14 March 2005 - 08:29 PM.

[Zakuska]

Contrary to popular Christian beleif (As I encounter on an other boards) the big bang theory does not support creation ex nihilo. In actuallity the big bang theory follows Mormon interpretation.  God created everything from pre-existant chaotic matter. Known as the "Primal Atom".

http://www.daviddarl...L/Lemaitre.html

It already existed.

Edited by Zakuska, 14 March 2005 - 10:17 PM.

[emaughan]

The new and improved theories also go against creation ex nihlo.  Multidimensional membranes and string theory indicate that matter is far more complex then we imagined.  This universe is a result in the motion of higher dimensions as two membranes collided.

To the ex nihiloist I would simply say don't panic yet - theories in science on the creation keep shifting - so just wait awhile and it will swing back your way.

[Zakuska]

Life, Don't talk to me about Life!

42

:thumb:

[BCSpace]

Quote

Life, Don't talk to me about Life!

42

:thumb:

"It committed suicide."

[Tanyan]

enummaelish, on Mar 14 2005, 07:05 PM, said:

Hello FAIR Board.  This post is designed as a response to Johnny from the thread on Psalm 89.  As always, it would be nice to hear what others have to say.  I�?¢â?¬â?¢m stepping out of my realm of expertise on this one, so any help that others could offer would be appreciated.

Quote

Show me where my theology is non-Biblical.
Show me where my perspective is not consistent with the Bible.
Show me where my perspective is irrational.

Ok.  But in order to do so, it�?¢â?¬â?¢s time for a new thread.  Johnny, your perspective on Biblical theology derives from later Jewish and Christian traditions directly influenced by Hellenization i.e. Greek philosophy mingled with scripture.  Notice that the New Testament clearly presents the doctrine of apotheosis:

�?¢â?¬�??Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is�?¢â?¬�? (1 John 3:2).

�?¢â?¬�??That by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature�?¢â?¬�? (2 Peter 1:4).

�?¢â?¬�??To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne�?¢â?¬�? (Revelation 3:21).

�?¢â?¬�??He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son�?¢â?¬�? (Revelation 21:7).

Today, all scholars of early Christian tradition recognize that the New Testament loudly proclaims the doctrine of deification.  When you deny this fact, you deny Biblical theology:

Quote

�?¢â?¬�??The real sources of the [Christian] doctrine of divinization are found in the Bible.�??�?  In the Old Testament, the teachings of the creation of the human couple in the image and likeness of God and the call of the chosen people through the covenant of a closer communion with God prepared for the theme.�??�?  The New Testament�?¢â?¬â?¢s central teaching on God�?¢â?¬â?¢s Son becoming man in order to make human beings in and through himself adopted children of God animated by God�?¢â?¬â?¢s Spirit is theologically elaborated primarily in the Pauline letters and later in the Fourth Gospel.�??�?  Whereas the doctrinal foundations of the theme of divinization are thus broad in the New Testament, the literary antecedents are limited to a few texts.�??�?  Besides 2 Peter 1:4, which speaks of becoming �?¢â?¬�??sharers of the divine nature,�?¢â?¬â?¢ one should also note John 10:34, where Jesus is presented as quoting Psalms 82:6 (LXX 81:6): �?¢â?¬�??I said: �?¢â?¬�??You are gods.�?¢â?¬â?¢�?¢â?¬�?�??�?  David L. Balas, �?¢â?¬�??Divinization,�?¢â?¬�? Encyclopedia of Early Christianity; Everett Ferguson ed. (New York: Garland Publishing, Inc., 1997): 338.

While you claim to accept that as a Christian you will be like God and sit upon the Father�?¢â?¬â?¢s throne inheriting all things, you defend your argument against LDS theology with the following statement:

Quote

No creature has the infinite power necessary to "create" in the proper sense of the word, that is, to produce and give being to that which had in no way possessed it (to call into existence "out of nothing")�?¢â?¬�?¦ The problem I find with Mormonism is that a creature can progress into being a creator.
Do you think this is consistent with Biblical theology?

This argument however does not derive from the Bible.  The beginnings of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo serve as the underlying assumption in the Letter of Aristeas, a Hellenized Jewish text that dates sometime between the 3rd century BC to the 1st century A.D.  

In the following statement, the Hellenized author discusses the human tendency to make gods like themselves.  The author contrasts human inventors with the true God.  Using Greek philosophy, the author maintains that inventors simply take existing objects already created and combine them together whereas God creates the actual substance:  

Quote

�?¢â?¬�??For if the existence of any god depended on the criterion of invention, it would be absolutely foolish, because in that case the inventors would have taken some of the created things and given an added demonstration of their usefulness without themselves being their creators.�?¢â?¬�? Letter of Aristeas 136 as cited in The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha (New York: Doubleday, 1985): 1:22.

Thus we can see exactly where your reasoning derives, straight from the Hellenized world of late Second Temple Judaism.

When you state that �?¢â?¬�??The Catholic Bible does [teach creation ex nihilo]�?¢â?¬�?  this is also incorrect.  The Catholic Bible does no such thing.

Begin with Genesis.  God�?¢â?¬â?¢s first creative act appears in verse three: �?¢â?¬�??God said, �?¢â?¬�??Let there be light.�?¢â?¬�?  However, prior to the first creative act, the text describes earth, water, and wind as representations of unorganized matter (v. 2).  Note the commentary offered by Biblical scholar Jon D. Levenson:

Quote

To modern people, the opposite of the created order is nothing, that is, a vacuum.�??�?  To the ancients, the opposite of the created order was something much worse than �?¢â?¬�??nothing.�?¢â?¬â?¢�??�?  It was an active, malevolent force we can best term �?¢â?¬�??chaos.�?¢â?¬â?¢�??�?  In this verse, chaos is envisioned as a dark, undifferentiated mass of water�?¢â?¬�?¦ In the midrash, Bar Kappara upholds the troubling notion that the Torah shows that God created the world out of preexistent material.�??�?  But other rabbis worry that acknowledging this would cause people to liken God to a king who had built his palace on a garbage dump, thus arrogantly impugning His majesty.�??�?  In the ancient Near East, however, to say that a deity had subdued chaos is to give him the highest praise�?¢â?¬�? The Jewish Study Bible (New York Oxford Press, 2004): 13

Therefore, like every other creation account preserved from the ancient Near East, the book of Genesis does not include the Hellenized doctrine of creation ex nihilo.  

Now, I assume that your comment refers to II Maccabees 7:28, an Apocryphal book included in the Catholic cannon, but not in Protestant Bibles.  People unfamiliar with the Hellenized doctrine of creation ex nihilo have frequently misread this verse:

Quote

�?¢â?¬�??I beg you, my child, to look at the heaven, and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed.�??�?  And in the same way the human race came into being�?¢â?¬�?

Sorry to disappoint, but even this Apocryphal verse does not teach the non-biblical doctrine of creation ex nihilo.   It is quite clear to scholars who specialize in Second Temple Judaism that by paralleling the creation of the human race with the creation of heaven and earth, the author does not preach creation from nothing.  

Renowned scholar Jonathan Goldstein renders the relevant phrase from verse 28 as �?¢â?¬�??not after they existed.�?¢â?¬�?; II Maccabees: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (New York: Doubleday, 1983): 307.  The actual statement suggests that �?¢â?¬�??though no individual things existed, God created the world from undifferentiated raw matter�?¢â?¬�? (Ibid.).  

This interpretation however, ought to be clear to careful readers through context.  Clearly the author of II Maccabees knew that the book of Genesis presents the creation of the human race from the dust of the earth (Gen 2:7; 3:19), and that the Bible presents heaven and the earth, and all that is in them, made from a pre-existence matter; see F. M. Abel, Les Livres des Maccabees (Paris: Gabalda, 1949).  

The key to understanding the statement in verse 28 is the mother�?¢â?¬â?¢s comment presented in verse 22:  �?¢â?¬�??I do not know how you came into being in my womb.  It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you.�?¢â?¬�?  Thus, the woman recognized that elements were used to create humans and that heaven and earth was created �?¢â?¬�??in the same way.�?¢â?¬�?

As you can see, the views endorsed by Hellenized Christianity are non-biblical, not consistent with the Bible, and I would submit irrational.

I find it irrational to assume that one would become like God and not continue his work and glory.   If the Bible teaches that humans become deified, in what way is LDS theology incongruent with Biblical theology?

  May I add II Corinthians 8:9 ?.

[johnny]

Quote

enummaelish   writes,
Johnny, your perspective on Biblical theology derives from later Jewish and Christian traditions directly influenced by Hellenization i.e. Greek philosophy mingled with scripture.

My perspective on Biblical theology derives from the teachings of the Catholic Church.

Quote

  Notice that the New Testament clearly presents the doctrine of apotheosis:

Notice the Catholic Doctrine clearly teaches:

http://www.vatican.v.../p122a3p1.htm#I

The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature": [2 Pt 1:4] "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." [St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939] "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." [St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B] "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods." [St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57, 1-4] (CCC460).

Quote

Today, all scholars of early Christian tradition recognize that the New Testament loudly proclaims the doctrine of deification. When you deny this fact, you deny Biblical theology:

I do not deny the doctrine of deification.  What I deny is the Mormon teaching that a creature can become a creator like the Father.

Quote

This argument however does not derive from the Bible. The beginnings of the doctrine of creation ex nihilo serve as the underlying assumption in the Letter of Aristeas, a Hellenized Jewish text that dates sometime between the 3rd century BC to the 1st century A.D.

It derives from  2Macc 7:28)

http://www.usccb.org...2maccabees7.htm

Quote

Sorry to disappoint, but even this Apocryphal verse does not teach the non-biblical doctrine of creation ex nihilo. It is quite clear to scholars who specialize in Second Temple Judaism that by paralleling the creation of the human race with the creation of heaven and earth, the author does not preach creation from nothing.

Sorry to disappoing you the Catholic Church does not derive it's teachings on bible only.  Here is more on the teaching that God creates "out of nothing"

http://www.vatican.v...p1s2c1p4.htm#IV

Quote

As you can see, the views endorsed by Hellenized Christianity are non-biblical, not consistent with the Bible, and I would submit irrational.

The Mormon view that a creature can be a creator like God is non-biblical, not consistent with the Bible, and I would submit irrational.

Quote

I find it irrational to assume that one would become like God and not continue his work and glory. If the Bible teaches that humans become deified, in what way is LDS theology incongruent with Biblical theology?

The Catholic Church clearly teaches that men will continue his work and glory.  What the Catholic Church and the Bible does not teach is that we are the source of the work and glory.

LDS theology is inconsitent with Bible theology because it teaches that men can become a creator like the Father.

http://www.lds.org/l...1-13-59,00.html

Men can partake of the divine nature but they do not become the origin and source of the divine nature.

[Del March]

Johnny,

isn't being a creator an inherent quality of being a god? So if we can become gods, doesn't that necessarily imply that we can also become creators? If not, how do you explain God's creating quality? Where does it come from, if it doesn't come from His being a god? Is He something more than a god? What is a god then, and why does God describe Himself as only a god if He is more than a god? Why use the same word to describe God and to describe what we can become, if those two things are in fact not the same thing?

Del

[urroner]

When is David Waltz going to come out with his book about deification?  

HURRY UP DAVID!!!!!!  I'm getting to be an old man, a really old man!!!!

[johnny]

Quote

Del March   writes,
isn't being a creator an inherent quality of being a god?

What do you mean by "being a creator"?

Quote

So if we can become gods, doesn't that necessarily imply that we can also become creators? 

  
The ultimate purpose of creation is that God "who is the creator of all things may at last become "all in all" (1 Cor 15:28)

Quote

If not, how do you explain God's creating quality? Where does it come from, if it doesn't come from His being a god? Is He something more than a god?

God's creating quality comes from the fact that he is God.  God is the origin and source of creatioin. This quality comes from him being God.  He is something more than a man, he is the creator of the creature called man.

Quote

What is a god then, and why does God describe Himself as only a god if He is more than a god? Why use the same word to describe God and to describe what we can become, if those two things are in fact not the same thing?

A "god" partakes of the divine nature".  God is the divine nature and the origin of the divine nature.  The same word is used because both have the divine nature but men can "partake" of this divine nature (2Pet 1:4) when they are born again.  God is source of man's divine nature.

Don't be fooled by the word "god" ... Satan is called "god" of this world (2Cor 4:4).

[LDS4EVER]

Quote

The Mormon view that a creature can be a creator like God is non-biblical, not consistent with the Bible, and I would submit irrational.

You critizise our doctrine as being non-biblical and yet you say:

Quote

Sorry to disappoing you the Catholic Church does not derive it's teachings on bible only.

Yet another double standard.

[Rtifs]

The EO teaches deification.  However, not in the same way as the Mormons.  Remember that the Bible teaches us that we become adopted sons and daughters of God (don't remember the verse.  It's in one of the epistles talking about baptism).  Just as I can adopt a child and he/she will become mine, he will never be my biological child.  The EO teaches that we will not share the divine essence (we will always be human, not His �?¢â?¬�??biological�?¢â?¬â?¢ child like Jesus).  Rather we will become by grace what He is by nature.  An analogy is a piece of iron placed in a fire.  It will grow hot and begin to glow.  It takes on the properties of fire, but does not become fire.  I would describe it as the difference between God (big G) and god (little g).  

Quote

You critizise our doctrine as being non-biblical and yet you say:

Yet another double standard.

I think what he meant was that your doctrine contradicts the Bible.  While it is not necessarily wrong to have traditions that do not come from the Bible, it is wrong to contradict it.

[urroner]

Does it contradict the Bible or does it contradict your interpretaion of the Bible?

[Tanyan]

urroner, on Mar 15 2005, 06:35 AM, said:

When is David Waltz going to come out with his book about deification?  

HURRY UP DAVID!!!!!!  I'm getting to be an old man, a really old man!!!!

  Oh hush up and get in line, I was in line FIRST !!! .

[Zakuska]

Johnny,

Quote

The ultimate purpose of creation is that God "who is the creator of all things may at last become "all in all" (1 Cor 15:28)

So if God becomes "ALL" in me and God becomes "ALL" in you and God becomes "ALL" in eveybody else.  What does that make All of us... but fully God?

Edited by Zakuska, 15 March 2005 - 09:37 AM.