InCognitus

Yes, by being raised from the dead and taken to heaven, Jesus was declared to be the Son of God. Jesus is the "special case" in several ways, including the fact that he atoned for the sins of all men (1 John 2:2). But Jesus is the "first" in other things, such as: He is the "firstbegotten" of the Father (Hebrews 1:6) He is the "firstfruits" of the resurrection (1 Cor 15:20, 23), the "firstborn from the dead" (Col 1:18). He was "exalted" and sits at the right hand of God on his throne (Acts 2:33, Hebrews 12:2) But by being the "first" in these things, it means that others may follow. That goes for everything you listed for Jesus as the "special case": Being raised form the dead, taken to heaven, being declared as a son of God: Through Jesus, those who receive him shall become the sons of God (John 1:12). They are "conformed to the image of his [God's] Son, that he [Jesus] might be the firstborn among many brethren". (Romans 8:29) Through Jesus, he "shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body" (Phil 3:21) Through Jesus, those who overcome will sit with God in his throne, the same way Jesus sits in God's throne (Revelation 3:21) So the things you say for Jesus that are a "special case" really aren't a special case in the long run. "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one" (John 17:22). They receive the same "glory" that Jesus received from the Father in the beginning (noted in John 17:5) He "shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body" (Phil 3:21). Same kind of resurrected body of flesh and bone as Jesus had when he was resurrected. They are God's "children", and "if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together." (Romans 8:16-17). A "joint-heir" inherits equally, they have the same inheritance. And this verse also indicates that they have the same glorification. "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." (Revelation 3:21) They sit on the same throne of God as Jesus. This is clear evidence that these believers are put on equal status with Jesus in the coming kingdom. They have the same glory, the same kind of resurrected body, the same inheritance, the same glorification, and sit on the same throne, the throne of God. You didn't answered my question about the symbolism of sitting with God in his throne. What do you think it means when believers get to sit with God in his throne and rule with him in the same way Jesus sits in the throne of his Father? You also didn't answer my question about believers receiving the same "glory" that Jesus received from his Father. What do you think it means to receive the same "glory" that God gave to Jesus in the beginning? No, "having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires" is what it means to "overcome the world". This verse is saying that those who overcome are the ones who get to receive the very great and precious promises of partaking of the divine nature. They may partake of the divine nature because they have escaped the corruption of the world caused by evil desires. It is incorrect to interpret "spiritual body" as non-corporeal. That's a quirky interpretation that came up later. The phrase "spiritual body" doesn't mean spirit body, but rather it is influenced by the Spirit. We may sing "spiritual songs" (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16), we may receive "spiritual blessings" (Ephesians 1:3), or we may receive "spiritual understanding" (Colossians 1:9), none of which mean that we are no longer corporeal when doing these things. But all of these things are by participating in the Spirit. A "spiritual body" is one raised up by the Spirit. Paul explained elsewhere that when we are raised from the dead, it is done by the Spirit: "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you." (Rom 8:11) And that is what is meant by "spiritual body". That the resurrected body is corporeal is also indicated when Paul taught that it will be the same kind of body as that of Jesus Christ in Philippians 3:21. It makes human beings into having the same glory, same kind of body, the same inheritance, the same glorification, and same position of power on the throne of God as Jesus Christ. What do you think that means? That's why I linked the Wikipedia article in my post that says that. But the same article also describes the Hebrew/Israelite view of Yahweh presiding over a great assembly of Heavenly Hosts. What passage are you referring to? The quotes from the early Christians I provided earlier when speaking of God as the "God of gods". What proof do you have that Paul lived and died before the doctrine of theosis became part of Christianity? From what I noted above, he was right on board with showing the equality with Jesus that humans will share in the time to come. So, like angels? No. Angels are ministers to those who are heirs of salvation (Hebrews 1:13-14). But the heirs of salvation are joint-heirs with Christ, equal with him. Yes, which is why I posted the link describing the introduction of the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo in my prior posts. The changes that were made pushed humans and God further apart, while Jesus in the New Testament brought humans and God together in the same family as God. This is according to your interpretation. I disagree. You forgot to include the part where the saints are preserved forever (verse 28) and the righteous dwell in the land forever (verse 29). Except Sheol is the same place as the New Testament Hades, which is translated as "hell". And they did live again: "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead." (Isaiah 26:19) And as I said previously, the goal of the righteous is not heaven, not even in the New Testament.

You were asserting that Jesus was a "special case" when it came to being exalted. That's obviously not true for all who are "joint heirs" with him. What do you think God's throne represents? What do you think it means to become "partakers of the divine nature"? What do you think it means to receive the same "glory" that God gave to Jesus in the beginning? What do you think it means when believers get to sit with God in his throne and rule with him in the same way Jesus sits in the throne of his Father? They did really exist. There was a divine council in heaven. And the early Christians taught that those who follow Jesus get to join in the divine council. Paul wasn't acknowledging the existence of gods of other religions, he was simply acknowledging the existence of other gods. The early Christians recognized this, and taught that those who follow Jesus become part of that. Except that men become exalted along with Jesus and receive the same glory that Jesus received, partake of the divine nature and sit with Jesus on God's throne. They were among the earliest Christians who taught those things (Justin Martyr taught it, and he lived around 150 AD). The doctrine was widespread out of the gate. Where did they get the doctrine other than from the apostles? The doctrine was early, and then it became unpopular after other changes were made (like those made at the First Council of Nicaea). This is different than other doctrinal changes that can be traced over time, doctrines that clearly didn't exist at first (the opposite was taught) but sprang up later, like the doctrine of creation out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo, which was first introduced at around 177 AD by Tatian and Theophilus of Antioch, and later adopted in Judaism - see Hubler, James Noel, "Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy Through Aquinas" (1995). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 980. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/980) So what about those who inherit the earth in Psalm 37?

If Jesus is the "special case" (as coming to be God), then why do those verses that I referenced in my post state that believers will receive the same glory and same position on God's throne as Jesus did? Jesus is the "special case" in the sense that he prepared the way: His atonement and his example made it possible for everyone who follows him to receive the same things that he did. That's what's included in being a "heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ": They sit with God in his throne, in the same way Jesus overcame and sits with God in his throne (paraphrasing Revelation 3:21) and receiving the same "glory" that Jesus received from his Father (as it says in John 17:20-23). But this isn't new stuff. As mentioned earlier in this thread, the Old Testament refers to God as the "God of gods, and Lord of lords" (Deut 10:17). The early Christians understood verses like this one to be applicable to the teaching that men become gods and that those other gods are actually existing beings (not false gods). The same is true of Paul's statement about there being "gods many, and lords many" in 1 Corinthians 8:4-6. See for example Origen: "For Scripture distinguishes between those gods which are such only in name and those which are truly gods, whether they are called by that name or not; and the same is true in regard to the use of the word 'lords.' To this effect Paul says, 'For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, as there are gods many, and lords many.'" (Origen, Against Celsus, book 8.3-5) "There are some gods of whom God is God, as we hear in prophecy,[Psalms 136:2] 'Thank ye the God of gods,' and [Psalms 50:1, LXX and in the Hebrew] 'The God of gods hath spoken, and called the earth.' Now God, according to the Gospel, [Matt 20:2] 'is not the God of the dead but of the living.' Those gods, then, are living of whom God is god. The Apostle, too, writing to the Corinthians, says: [1 Cor 8:5] 'As there are gods many and lords many,' and so we have spoken of these gods as really existing." (Origen's Commentary on John, book 1 chapter 34, verse references added) And Irenaeus: "And again: 'God stood in the congregation of the gods, He judges among the gods.' He [here] refers to the Father and the Son, and those who have received the adoption; but these are the Church. For she is the synagogue of God, which God—that is, the Son Himself—has gathered by Himself. Of whom He again speaks: 'The God of gods, the Lord hath spoken, and hath called the earth.' Who is meant by God? He of whom He has said, 'God shall come openly, our God, and shall not keep silence;' that is, the Son, who came manifested to men who said, 'I have openly appeared to those who seek Me not.' But of what gods [does he speak]? [Of those] to whom He says, 'I have said, Ye are gods, and all sons of the Most High.' To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the 'adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father.'” (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III Ch. 6–6) The "great apostasy" didn't happen overnight. Even though the organization of Christ’s church and loss of priesthood keys was nearly immediate upon the extinction of the quorum of apostles, the loss of some truths and changes in doctrines were gradual. Some of the changes happened over a long period of time, even centuries and millennia. And not every truth was lost completely. But because changes in doctrine happened gradually, you can hopefully see why the earliest teachings of the Christian Fathers, those closest to Jesus and the apostles, should give us the best picture of what the New Testament Christians really taught and how they interpreted scripture. Related to your statement about doing more reading, one study that you might find interesting that is related to the Jewish point of view on this topic is Peter Hayman's 1991 Journal of Jewish Studies article, Monotheism-A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?. And Daniel McClellan, who posts on this board, explores that same topic further in this article: Monotheism—Still a Misused Word in Jewish Studies? I quoted the Jewish view from Psalms 37. What date do scholars assign to that text? Is it earlier than the third century BCE? The latest date I could find for the writing of this psalm is 539 BCE (during the Babylon captivity).

Although not used in a future tense, "everlasting to everlasting" has the same meaning in application to God in the Bible.

Everyone (except those who commit the unpardonable sin) will repent eventually, and every knee shall bow, even those going to the telestial kingdom. They even acknowledge the Holy Spirit.

A rabbi, a priest, and a minister are discussing when life begins. The priest says: “In our religion, life begins at conception.” The Minister says: “We disagree. We believe that life begins when the fetus is viable away from the mother’s womb.” The rabbi responds: “You are both wrong. In our religion life begins when the kids graduate college and the dog dies.”

"Then shall they be gods, because they have no end; therefore shall they be from everlasting to everlasting, because they continue; then shall they be above all, because all things are subject unto them. Then shall they be gods, because they have all power, and the angels are subject unto them." (Doctrine and Covenants 132:20)

There are many details that fit into this view, but to be as brief as possible: The New Testament completes the story of man's redemption through Jesus Christ, providing a way for us to become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ (Rom 8:16-17, Gal 4:7). And there are promises given to those who overcome the world that have to do with participation in God's kingdom at the same level as God the Father and Jesus Christ. 2 Peter 1 hints at this, speaking of Jesus: The promises given to those who "overcome" are explained in the book of Revelation. Those who "overcome" will “eat of the tree of life” (Rev 2:7), will “not be hurt of the second death” (Rev 2:11), they will "eat of the hidden manna" (Rev 2:17), and will receive power over the nations (Rev 2:26). They will be clothed in white raiment (Rev 3:5), and they will have the name of God written upon them and the "new name" of Jesus (Rev 3:12), and they will sit with Jesus and the Father in the throne of God (Rev 3:21), and will "inherit all things" (Rev 21:7). Revelation 3:21 deserves a closer look: "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". The throne of God represents his place of power and his position of authority as God, and those who "overcome" are thus granted the exact same position. I also believe this expectation for those who truly follow Jesus was made evident by Jesus in his intercessory prayer, when he prayed for the believers in him to be "one" even in the same way Jesus is one with his Father, and they were also given the same "glory" that was given to Jesus by the Father (John 17:11 and 20-23). By the way, I don't think people named Jesus should be excluded from these promises Can you give me a few specific examples? I've posted examples of these on this board before (i.e. here, and elsewhere), but here are a few brief excerpts: Irenaeus (c. 175 - c. 195): "For we cast blame on Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods . . .He (God) declares: "I have said, Ye are gods, and ye are all sons of the Highest." (Irenaeus, "Against Heresies", Book IV, Chapter 38, 3 & 4) Also from Irenaeus: "How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man? Or how can he be perfect who was but lately created? How, again, can he be immortal, who in his mortal nature did not obey his Maker? For it must be that thou, at the outset, shouldest hold the rank of a man, and then afterwards partake of the glory of God. For thou dost not make God, but God thee." (Irenaeus, "Against Heresies", Book IV, Chapter 39, 1 & 2) Both chapters 38 and 39 from him are teaching that doctrine. Clement of Alexandria (c. 155 - c. 220 AD): "But that man with whom the Word dwells does not alter himself, does not get himself up: he has the form which is of the Word; he is made like to God; he is beautiful; he does not ornament himself; his is beauty, the true beauty, for it is God; and that man becomes God, since God so wills. Heraclitus, then, rightly said, "Men are gods, and gods are men. For the Word Himself is the manifest mystery: God in man, and man God." (Clement of Alexandria, "The Instructor", Book III, Chap. 1) Origen (185-254 AD): "To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods..." (Origen, Commentary on John, Book II) Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235 AD): "And thou shalt possess an immortal body, even one placed beyond the possibility of corruption, just like the soul. And thou shalt receive the kingdom of heaven, thou who, whilst thou didst sojourn in this life, didst know the Celestial King. And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast become God: for whatever sufferings thou didst undergo while being a man, these He gave to thee, because thou wast of mortal mould, but whatever it is consistent with God to impart, these God has promised to bestow upon thee, because thou hast been deified, and begotten unto immortality. This constitutes the import of the proverb, “Know thyself;” i.e., discover God within thyself, for He has formed thee after His own image. For with the knowledge of self is conjoined the being an object of God’s knowledge, for thou art called by the Deity Himself. Be not therefore inflamed, O ye men, with enmity one towards another, nor hesitate to retrace with all speed your steps. For Christ is the God above all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings, rendering regenerate the old man. And God called man His likeness from the beginning, and has evinced in a figure His love towards thee. And provided thou obeyest His solemn injunctions, and becomest a faithful follower of Him who is good, thou shalt resemble Him, inasmuch as thou shalt have honour conferred upon thee by Him. For the Deity, (by condescension,) does not diminish aught of the divinity of His divine perfection; having made thee even God unto His glory!" (Hippolytus—Refutation Book 10 Ch. 29–30) Heaven isn't really the goal in the New Testament either (although most Christian denominations perceive it that way). If you read the book of Revelation to the end, the earth is renewed and the righteous inherit the earth. And this was taught in the Jewish view as well:

Yes! I was focused on the first century Christians, so I forgot to include Old Testament sources in that. And don't forget Deuteronomy 10:17: "For the Lord your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward" (Deuteronomy 10:17)

The New Testament texts support that idea quite well. But by "earliest Christians" I mean those who wrote earliest in the second century. The teaching that men become gods was widespread in second century Christianity. I'm not sure why you say it wasn't widespread (it was taught by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus [quite extensively], Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hippolytus of Rome, Novation, and several other slightly later Christian writers). But the introduction of the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo at around 175 AD gradually changed the way that Christians viewed God from that point forward. Eventually the teachings about other gods became incompatible with the new view of God.

So you don't agree with the early Christians teachings on this. Why do you suppose that the earliest Christians (those who lived closest to the time of Jesus and the apostles) taught that men become gods, but most Christians today don't teach those things anymore? This verse doesn't mean what you think it means. We've already discussed Isaiah 43:10, remember? See this post from me to you on 09/16/2019. And you may want to read this thread from June 21, 2011. Except Jesus was given this power from his Father, he didn't always have that power. What scripture says this about Jesus? And don't quote the "from everlasting to everlasting" verses. We've already discussed that "from everlasting" can't possibly mean from all eternity past (see 07/09/2022, 07/25/2022, 08/10/2022, 10/30/2022, and probably several other places). That's not the same kind of "power" in that verse. 2 Thes 2:9 uses the Greek word dynámei, which refers to miraculous power or "mighty deeds" (as it is used in Matthew 7:22). But when Jesus said that "all power is given unto me in heaven and in earth", it is the Greek word exousía, which refers to magisterial power or authority. There is a difference. They taught that men become "gods", or even "God" (as my prior quotes showed). They taught that there are many "gods". Do you dispute that they taught those things? Or do you just disagree with what they taught? Actually, the pre-Nicene early Christians taught that Jesus is the "second God" (Origen Against Celsus, book V chapter XXXIX, Lactantius, The Divine Institutes - Book IV, Chap. VI), or that Jesus is "another God and Lord subject to the Maker of all things” (Justin Martyr, Dialog of Justin with Trypho, a Jew, ch LVI ). Or that "the nature of the Son, which is nearest to Him who is alone the Almighty One, is the most perfect, and most holy, and most potent, and most princely, and most kingly, and most beneficent." (Clement of Alexandria, The Stromata, Book VII, Chapter 2). Or even that Jesus, "the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him" (Origen, Commentary on the Gospel of John, Book II, Chapter 2). That sounds very similar to what Joseph Smith taught, doesn't it? False gospels also arise when true teachings that are found in the Bible are ignored while other teachings are emphasized. The teachings of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are completely in harmony with doctrines found in the Bible.

Are you asking for examples of Evangelical prayers where they use the word "just" frequently? If so, just Google the phrase "we ask that you just", and you'll find several examples. Like, "Father God, we ask that you just touch us right now...", "And so we ask that you just wrap your arms around all of them...", "Lord we ask that you just begin to bring financial security to them...", "we ask that you just touch them and cure them..." (etc. etc.)

I have noticed the same thing (some Evangelicals using the word "just" repeatedly in a prayer). That usage tries to drive me crazy too, but I try even harder to avoid going crazy by it, and I "just" let it slide.

I'm not sure why this is a question. It should be obvious. Those in the first resurrection have no part at all in the "second death". This is a comparison, illustrating the extremes on both sides of the scale. It's like the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25, where Jesus set the sheep on his right hand, and the goats on the left, showing the two extremes of righteousness and wickedness, even though various other Bible passages make it clear that there are varying degrees of salvation or damnation in between those two extremes (we have discussed this before, here). The righteous extreme is on the right, and for them the "second death hath no power" over them. And on the opposite extreme, for the most wicked on the left, they are the "only ones on whom the second death shall have any power... the only ones who shall not be redeemed in the due time of the Lord, after the sufferings of his wrath" (D&C 76:37-38). The "power" of the second death is eternal for the sons of perdition, and for the most righteous it has "no power". But as we discussed before, there are varying degrees of salvation in between these two extremes, and there are those who suffer a temporary second death because they will be "redeemed in the due time of the Lord". For those who inherit the telestial kingdom, the Lord has the power of their salvation and their redemption from the grasp of the second death (in his own due time), and they will not be left in that awful state.

We were doing this occasionally in our ward (having a husband and wife say the opening and closing prayer in Sacrament meeting), but when a member of the Stake Presidency was visiting our ward (and we had a husband and wife say the opening and closing prayer), he pointed out to us that the Church Handbook says to "avoid always" doing that: So we avoided it after that. (Interesting wording, "avoid always" )

The sons of perdition are the only ones cast into the lake of fire of which the "second death shall have any power" (Doctrine and Covenants 76:37). Others may suffer the wrath of God in the "second death" as it says in Doctrine and Covenants 63:17 and elsewhere (i.e. those of the Telestial kingdom), but the sons of perdition are the only ones who remain in that state eternally (the second death has "power" over them). The others are redeemed from that place after a period of time (76:106).

I understand what you're trying to say here (and I tend to agree with you about Dan), but as it is often stated in investment strategy, "Past performance is no guarantee of future results." This is true of scholarship too. We should always be looking at the data presented by the scholars and decide for ourselves if their assertions or interpretations are the best or only way to explain all of the data. There may be other possible ways to explain the data. And I don't think there is any true scholar who would ever say their explanation is the final word on the subject, since the discovery of more data could change the way things are interpreted.

The article I referred to in my post is the same one referenced in the opening post. The bullet point in the article (relevant to your comment) says (of the early Christians): "1. They taught that becoming like God begins in this life." Latter-day Saints also teach that becoming like God begins in this life. But if you are trying to claim that the early Christians didn't teach that men could "become Gods", then you should read the other two links (from Irenaeus) and the quotes from him that I included in my post. What did Irenaeus mean when he asked: "How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man?" He goes into great depth in those two chapters (Against Heresies, Book IV, chapter 38 and chapter 39), about how men are to become "gods", or to "be a God". They become "gods", or "Gods". It could be written either way. It's explained in similar ways in the writings of the early Christians. This is what Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235 AD) wrote: "And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast become God" (Hippolytus - Refutation Book 10 Ch. 30) What is "omnipotence" to you? Is Jesus omnipotent? When one receives "all power" from the Father (as Jesus did from his Father - Matthew 28:18, Rev 5:12), doesn't that make that being omnipotent? Those who overcome will sit with God in his throne and they are given power over the nations (Rev 3:21 and 2:26). What's the difference here? Do you agree with what the article in the opening post is saying?

That's just a train wreck.

I'm an Arizona native, and grew up in the Phoenix area, and I was 18 years old before I ever saw snow falling in real life (it was while on an elk hunt close to Meteor Crater near Flagstaff, Arizona). But I moved from Arizona to Utah last May, and it has snowed a LOT in northern Utah over the last week. I was listening to Zechariah 2 on one of my daily walks recently, with snow falling around me, and I really thought that verse was speaking to me personally. "Ho, ho, come forth, and flee from the land of the north, saith the Lord". I really understand the logic of that verse.

For Christmas, I think that's church wide: https://newsroom.churchofjesuschrist.org/article/latter-day-saints-to-attend-sacrament-meeting-only-on-christmas-day 10 November 2022 "On Christmas Day, Latter-day Saints to Attend Sacrament Meeting Only" But it says this about New Year's day: "In addition, because New Year’s Day on January 1 also falls on a Sunday this year, stake and district presidents may consider setting an alternative Sunday for observing fast day, but other regular meetings will be held. Any New Year’s Eve Church-sponsored socials such as dances or other activities should conclude at midnight on Saturday, December 31."

Or a better question, what does the lack of an uppercase "E" mean in the original history copies? History, circa 1841, draft [Draft 3]: See also: History, circa 1841, fair copy, History, circa June 1839–circa 1841 [Draft 2], Revelation, circa Summer 1829 [D&C 19] (1833 Book of Commandments), 1835 Doctrine and Covenants, TIMES AND SEASONS Vol. III. No. 24.,OCT. 15, 1842, 1844 Doctrine and Covenants, and probably more. I just checked a 1891 Doctrine Covenants, and it still says "endless is my name" (lowercase). It is capitalized in my 1928 Doctrine and Covenants. So someone, between the printing of the 1891 and 1928 Doctrine and Covenants, decided that it should be capitalized.

From the article: It is definitely true that Athanasius had a different understanding regarding what it meant to become like God. And Irenaeus did too, but his views were less developed on this (it seems to me), because he was living at a time (c. 175 - c. 195 AD) when the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo (creation out of nothing) had just been adopted as a way to explain the greatness of the Christian God. Some of what Irenaeus taught on men becoming gods sounds like he hadn't fully stepped over the edge after adopting the doctrine of creation out of nothing. Even though he refers to the difference between men and God to be the "created" compared to the "uncreated" (we even hold a similar view with respect to our current existence), he discusses the differences in purely relative terms. For example: And in the next chapter he continues the same line of thought: It's fascinating to see what doctrines were taught in early Christianity.