Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 And the crowns that go with thrones2 Tim. 2: 5, 2 Tim. 4: 8, James 1: 12, 1 Pet. 5: 4, Rev. 2: 10, Rev. 3: 11, Rev. 6: 2Very good what do the Thrones and Crowns represent??
rhinomelon Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 We don't become God, we become A God or LIKE God. Our Heavenly Father will still have his throne and his glory.The verse in Luke says "every one shall be AS his master." It says nothing about replacing him, or displacing the throne. Read it as it is please.If we are supposed to "read it as it is", then wouldn't you have to agree that none of these verses speak of becoming A God or LIKE God? Sauce for the goose, and all that. In any case, I think a very important question that is begged by these verses is simply, "in what respect?" In what respect do we sit on the throne? In what respect does the disciple become like the master, if one takes God to be the focus of the analogy? LDS cannot make the case, based on these verses alone, that we become like God in every respect. Furthermore, such LDS interpretation suffers when it ignores the many verses that speak of unique aspects of God's nature, which are never spoken of as man's. As to the early church fathers quoted, what they meant by "gods" is far different from what is meant by us modern types. For the first couple centuries (as well as centuries before Christ), anything immortal could be called "theos". As the glorified believer was considered to be immortal, there was no problem with calling them "gods" in this sense, while still preserving the distinction between immortal humans and the unique, uncreated God. Irenaeus is especially strong on this point. There is only one God, in the sense that the one God is God. All others called "gods" are, according to Irenaeus, "shown by a certain addition or subtraction to be no gods at all." In order to understand the early church fathers, you have to understand the language and terms they used often carried different understandings and connotations than they do today. Simply because some of the same words pop up does not indicate they mean the same things we mean today. This should be common sense; after all, LDS and non-LDS use the same words even today, with admittedly different meanings attached. The same is certainly true when comparing widely different cultures speaking in different languages 2000 years apart.Take care, everyone
Billy Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 BillyGod the Father's Father is not our God. Only God the Father is our God. But that doesnt mean that God the Father's Father isnt a God.Jesus is our advocate with the Father. We get to the Father through the Son.I understand YOUR POV but that is not what that scripture says." . . .before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."It there are more Gods than one, this scripture is not true.
Zakuska Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 I understand YOUR POV but that is not what that scripture says." . . .before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."It there are more Gods than one, this scripture is not true.Or could it be your interpretation of the scripture that isnt true... Just a thought. "Let us make man in our own image" and all...
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 I understand YOUR POV but that is not what that scripture says." . . .before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."It there are more Gods than one, this scripture is not true.If you want to take a literal interpretaion of this verse the God was formed from something. There is no way around that.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 If we are supposed to "read it as it is", then wouldn't you have to agree that none of these verses speak of becoming A God or LIKE God? Sauce for the goose, and all that. In any case, I think a very important question that is begged by these verses is simply, "in what respect?" In what respect do we sit on the throne? In what respect does the disciple become like the master, if one takes God to be the focus of the analogy? LDS cannot make the case, based on these verses alone, that we become like God in every respect. Furthermore, such LDS interpretation suffers when it ignores the many verses that speak of unique aspects of God's nature, which are never spoken of as man's.What is interesting is that none of the verse quoted specifically say " you will become like God" "In what respect do we sit on the throne"Has been the entire aspect I have been trying do discuss. What does it mean to inherit a crown and a throne. What does it mean to be a join heir? Almost all of these verse are in conjuction of Christ inheriting something form the Father that we will also inherit. It is a matter of if "A" = "B" and "B"= "C" then "A" = "C". Just follow the logic of the verses.
Zakuska Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 What is interesting is that none of the verse quoted specifically say " you will become like God" "In what respect do we sit on the throne"Has been the entire aspect I have been trying do discuss. What does it mean to inherit a crown and a throne. What does it mean to be a join heir? Almost all of these verse are in conjuction of Christ inheriting something form the Father that we will also inherit. It is a matter of if "A" = "B" and "B"= "C" then "A" = "C". Just follow the logic of the verses.Also of intrest... for Rhinos explanation to hold weight... (ie Us vs The Ancients) he has to explain away CS Lewis. CS Lewis wasn't an Ancient so he would be using the same terms we use.
rhinomelon Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 "In what respect do we sit on the throne"Has been the entire aspect I have been trying do discuss. What does it mean to inherit a crown and a throne. What does it mean to be a join heir? Almost all of these verse are in conjuction of Christ inheriting something form the Father that we will also inherit. It is a matter of if "A" = "B" and "B"= "C" then "A" = "C". Just follow the logic of the verses.I think it's clear that the verses in question are referring to authority and judgment, which fits in just as well with a trinitarian understanding of scripture as the LDS one. These verses simply cannot be stretched to mean, "We'll be just like God in terms of our being and our nature." Even in terms of power and authority, these things are given to us by God; they are not ours by nature. God alone truly possesses all power and authority, and He graciously shares it with us. Take care, everyone
rhinomelon Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 Also of intrest... for Rhinos explanation to hold weight... (ie Us vs The Ancients) he has to explain away CS Lewis. CS Lewis wasn't an Ancient so he would be using the same terms we use.C.S. Lewis was an unabashed trinitarian monotheist, as his writings clearly demonstrate. Therefore, his use of "gods" is qualified when applied to humans. In other words, Lewis doesn't use "god" in the same way he uses "God". There, a simple explanation. And I didn't have to explain anything away, merely put it in the proper context.Take care
Zakuska Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 I think it's clear that the verses in question are referring to authority and judgment, which fits in just as well with a trinitarian understanding of scripture as the LDS one. These verses simply cannot be stretched to mean, "We'll be just like God in terms of our being and our nature." Even in terms of power and authority, these things are given to us by God; they are not ours by nature. God alone truly possesses all power and authority, and He graciously shares it with us. Take care, everyone Which basically is exactly what some one said on the thread earlier... "My Mother will always be my Mother even when I become a Mother."If it looks like a God and it Acts Like a God... at what point does it cease being what it is and become a God.
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 I think it's clear that the verses in question are referring to authority and judgment, which fits in just as well with a trinitarian understanding of scripture as the LDS one. These verses simply cannot be stretched to mean, "We'll be just like God in terms of our being and our nature." Even in terms of power and authority, these things are given to us by God; they are not ours by nature. God alone truly possesses all power and authority, and He graciously shares it with us. Take care, everyone So if God shares His nature with us "power and authority" then how is that not being like Him? How is not being perfect being like God? Im sorry you lost me. The only way that verse of scripture connot be streched "that far" is if they specifically said that we wont be just like God. Since they never come close to saying any thing in the negetive, then there is no case in just stating it. It doesnt do any good to just assert it.I nor any LDS I know have ever made a case that we will be equal with God the Father or replace God the Father or surpass Him for that matter.
rhinomelon Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 Which basically is exactly what some one said on the thread earlier... "My Mother will always be my Mother even when I become a Mother."Not at all, basically because that whole statement comes entirely from a human perspective instead of a biblical one. Where does the Bible say we'll become divine Fathers and Mothers, Zakuska? If you guys want non-LDS to stick to the biblical language, I can only ask you to do the same. If it looks like a God and it Acts Like a God... at what point does it cease being what it is and become a God.That depends on if it even looks or acts like a God in the first place, a point which is simply assumed by LDS without backing it up in scripture. God gives us certain authority. That's a far cry from saying we're just like God in every sense all of a sudden. Take care
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 Not at all, basically because that whole statement comes entirely from a human perspective instead of a biblical one. Where does the Bible say we'll become divine Fathers and Mothers, Zakuska? If you guys want non-LDS to stick to the biblical language, I can only ask you to do the same. That depends on if it even looks or acts like a God in the first place, a point which is simply assumed by LDS without backing it up in scripture. God gives us certain authority. That's a far cry from saying we're just like God in every sense all of a sudden. Take care Who said anything about "all of the sudden".FYI I got to get the kids in bed so I am probably done. take care.
Zakuska Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 C.S. Lewis was an unabashed trinitarian monotheist, as his writings clearly demonstrate. Therefore, his use of "gods" is qualified when applied to humans. In other words, Lewis doesn't use "god" in the same way he uses "God". There, a simple explanation. And I didn't have to explain anything away, merely put it in the proper context. Take care Which is basiclly exactly how mormons... well... I interpret it.
rhinomelon Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 So if God shares His nature with us "power and authority" then how is that not being like Him? How is not being perfect being like God?Oh, it's certainly being "like God" in certain respects. We are made in His image and likeness, after all. There will definitely be similarities. But there are also large differences. That's what makes us images and not the thing itself. The large statue of Lincoln here in DC certainly bears similarities to the real Abraham Lincoln, but they are not the same. Likewise, a picture of me may look like me, but it's an unmoving, two-dimensional piece of paper and ink. Not the same, but with similarities. It's the same with us and God. We are similar in some ways, and dissimilar in others. We are created, for example, while God is the Creator (this doesn't change in eternity). There are other examples.Take care
Zakuska Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 Not at all, basically because that whole statement comes entirely from a human perspective instead of a biblical one. Where does the Bible say we'll become divine Fathers and Mothers, Zakuska?Where did I say that?It was an Analogy, to Show that even when we become Divinized it wont displace God off his throne.That depends on if it even looks or acts like a God in the first place, a point which is simply assumed by LDS without backing it up in scripture. God gives us certain authority. That's a far cry from saying we're just like God in every sense all of a sudden. Take care Which isnt a bibilical concept. The Bible is full of "gods"... falling from heaven... as well as "men" becoming "sons of God" who, as Paul says, by Nature weren't sons of God, riding Jacobs escelators to the Heavenly eschelons on high.
rhinomelon Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 Who said anything about "all of the sudden".FYI I got to get the kids in bed so I am probably done. take care.Have a good night. I'm actually supposed to be working on a thirty page paper, myself! Which is basiclly exactly how mormons... well... I interpret it.There's a world of difference there. Just read the whole of Mere Christianity. God is unique, one of a kind, and we are His creatures. This never changes. Lewis calls God a three-dimensional Being, while we are stuck in two dimensions. Lewis defending the concept of God in Trinity by itself negates a Mormon reading of him. If God is a trinitarian being, then humans cannot be exactly like Him by definition.Take care
e=mc2 Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 Now that is one that I over looked. That one is real good. They might as well just have said, "You shall be a god like Jesus".Robertson's Word Pictures also shows this - "Luke 6:40 - The disciple is not above his master (ouk estin math
Zakuska Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 Have a good night. I'm actually supposed to be working on a thirty page paper, myself! There's a world of difference there. Just read the whole of Mere Christianity. God is unique, one of a kind, and we are His creatures. This never changes. Lewis calls God a three-dimensional Being, while we are stuck in two dimensions. Lewis defending the concept of God in Trinity by itself negates a Mormon reading of him. If God is a trinitarian being, then humans cannot be exactly like Him by definition.Take care Who says that God is a Trinitarian Being? Certianly not the Bible.John 17 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. Thats an aweful lot of God running around.
rhinomelon Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 Who says that God is a Trinitarian Being? Certianly not the Bible.C.S. Lewis does. That was my point.Which isnt a bibilical concept. The Bible is full of "gods"... falling from heaven... as well as "men" becoming "sons of God" who, as Paul says, by Nature weren't sons of God, riding Jacobs escelators to the Heavenly eschelons on high.And how many of these "gods" are spoken of in terms just like the one true God? The Bible does speak of the "one true God", by the way. How many fit into "one"? I'm with Irenaeus on these references. Anything referred to as a "god" is shown by a certain addition or subtraction not to be God in the same sense that God is God.It is not a question of if we will be perfected.... we will be. BUT does that place us above God? Not at all. Joseph Smith never taught that. Brigham Young never taught that! But that is an accusation we are presented with from time to time. Interesting how the Greek completely bears out the theological understanding of Joseph Smith isn't it...... Thayers continues - "ethically, to strengthen, perfect, complete, make one what he ought to be."I wouldn't say LDS posit human beings passing God, I think that's pretty well established (although LDS don't rule out Gods above God, but that's for another thread;) ). But I don't think this verse speaks to a human being exactly like God in terms of nature or being, either. The context (as well as the Greek you've posted) clearly points to moral development and training. Trinitarians also believe that glorified man will be morally perfect and sinless, having become like God in this respect. Take care
e=mc2 Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 rhinomelon:How many fit into "one"?As many as believe and do what Jesus teaches. Whaddya think John 17 is all about otherwise? Robertson's Word Pictures sets the stage - "That they also may be in us (hina kai autoi en h
Zakuska Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 C.S. Lewis does. That was my point.And how many of these "gods" are spoken of in terms just like the one true God? The Bible does speak of the "one true God", by the way. How many fit into "one"? I'm with Irenaeus on these references. Anything referred to as a "god" is shown by a certain addition or subtraction not to be God in the same sense that God is God.I wouldn't say LDS posit human beings passing God, I think that's pretty well established (although LDS don't rule out Gods above God, but that's for another thread;) ). But I don't think this verse speaks to a human being exactly like God in terms of nature or being, either. The context (as well as the Greek you've posted) clearly points to moral development and training. Trinitarians also believe that glorified man will be morally perfect and sinless, having become like God in this respect. Take care Lets let the Bible answer the question...1 Cor. 15: 28 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. When God's ultimate goal is reached... All men will become ALL God... Other wise God isn't ALL in ALL.Moses 139 For behold, this is my work and my gloryâ??to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man.
a5m5a5d Posted March 27, 2009 Author Posted March 27, 2009 I understand YOUR POV but that is not what that scripture says." . . .before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me."It there are more Gods than one, this scripture is not true.Jehova is talking. He is saying he is the savior of the world and that "beside me there is no savior, ye are my witness."
rhinomelon Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 Lets let the Bible answer the question...1 Cor. 15: 2828 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. When God's ultimate goal is reached... All men will become ALL God.Actually, if you take this verse that literally, all creation becomes ALL God. That's the context, "all things being subdued unto him." Are you a pantheist, Zakuska?As many as believe and do what Jesus teaches. Whaddya think John 17 is all about otherwise? Robertson's Word Pictures sets the stage - "That they also may be in us (hina kai autoi en h
e=mc2 Posted March 27, 2009 Posted March 27, 2009 Lets let the Bible answer the question...1 Cor. 15: 28 28 And when all things shall be subdued unto him, then shall the Son also himself be subject unto him that put all things under him, that God may be all in all. When God's ultimate goal is reached... All men will become ALL God... Other wise God isn't ALL in ALL.Moses 139 For behold, this is my work and my gloryâ??to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. Hey, since I have Robertson's Word Pictures up and available tonight, here is the take on this scripture you bring up Zak! "That God may be all in all (hina
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.