For those who believe man cannot become Gods...

[rhinomelon]

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."

He also says He's the only God, before whom there was no God formed (note that doesn't necessarily mean God was formed, Mola ) and after whom no God will be formed. How does that fit into your interpretation? I don't think you can simply ignore it.

And Kerry, interesting stuff on the Greek. This is the stuff I should be doing, but am too lazy right now...

[e=mc2]

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?There's the numerical "one", and the unity "one". John 17 is clearly about the latter, while plenty of other passages speak of the former. There is only one God, and we are called to be united with each other as one. "One" is used in different senses, and both of them are compatible with trinitarian monotheism. LDS theology, on the other hand, is only compatible with the latter, in my opinion. It's the Achilles heel of the whole interpretative structure.All hail Lord Kerry! By the way, did I tell you I'm taking those books you foisted on me to England to do some PhD work on Mormonism and patristics? They might actually pay themselves off...

Oh good! I hope things work out for you! And your interpretation of 1 Corinthians is wrong. Again, Robertson's Word Pictures - "And when all things have been subjected (hotan de hupotag

[a5m5a5d]

He also says He's the only God, before whom there was no God formed (note that doesn't necessarily mean God was formed, Mola ) and after whom no God will be formed. How does that fit into your interpretation? I don't think you can simply ignore it.

To me it says " I am the only savior, there was no savior before me nor after me"

[e=mc2]

rhinomelon:

There is only one God

Not true. Paul taught there are lords many and gods many, but to us there is one God. That is not the same at all to what you said.

[rhinomelon]

To me it says " I am the only savior, there was no savior before me nor after me"

Then why does it say "God"?

Oh good! I hope things work out for you! And your interpretation of 1 Corinthians is wrong.

HA!! I cracked up reading this first line. Anyway, I don't recall offering an interpretation of I Corinthians myself; I was merely pushing Zak's approach to the logical conclusion. Personally, I really liked the Greek exposition you posted.

Nah, yer fine. There is always time for Greek..... later......

Later's a great time for most anything, I've found. Like this paper I'm supposed to be working on at this very moment, for instance.

[e=mc2]

rhinomelon:

He also says He's the only God, before whom there was no God formed (note that doesn't necessarily mean God was formed, Mola ) and after whom no God will be formed. How does that fit into your interpretation? I don't think you can simply ignore it.

Uh, you ain't tryin ta sneak a little Isaiah in under the radar screen here are ya? If you are, you are simply wrong in miscontexting him in this manner, and I strongly suspect you already know it. There was no god formed before or after Jehoavah. The gods he is talking abot are the idols the people are making. The idols are not, nor ever have been gods, properly. This has nothing to do with actual other gods, which Israel knew about, and even worshipped, such as Asherah, to name one.

Then why does it say "God"?HA!! I cracked up reading this first line. Anyway, I don't recall offering an interpretation of I Corinthians myself; I was merely pushing Zak's approach to the logical conclusion. Personally, I really liked the Greek exposition you posted. Later's a great time for most anything, I've found. Like this paper I'm supposed to be working on at this very moment, for instance.

Dude! Get with it on the paper! We'll all be here tomorrow....... do your homework young man!

[Zakuska]

rhinomelon:

Uh, you ain't tryin ta sneak a little Isaiah in under the radar screen here are ya? If you are, you are simply wrong in miscontexting him in this manner, and I strongly suspect you already know it. There was no god formed before or after Jehoavah. The gods he is talking abot are the idols the people are making. The idols are not, nor ever have been gods, properly. This has nothing to do with actual other gods, which Israel knew about, and even worshipped, such as Asherah, to name one.

Billy is who tried to sneak in Isaiah.

The "Formed" in the verse causes all kinds of problems interpreting it the way they are trying to. It would have to be speaking of Idols made of stone and wood and iron something that could be "Formed".

[Cold Steel]

I am an Evangelical Christian that doesn't think we will become God's, because Scripture seems to enforce that there is and will be only one God. However, this verse in particular excites me.... A lot!

But what if God is like Family? There's only one Family, but there can be many members. I say this because the first word for God used is a plural form (as mentioned in my post above). I rely on common Christian theology on this. Again, "...that they be One, even as we are One...." How can there be One God if the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are all a part of it?

If you speak to someone else somewhere and say that you come from one family, that can include you, your parents, your children, your brothers and so forth. What if God is the same sort of word? If we know that three individual Beings are all part of that God, just as three individual people can be part of a family, then the mystery of the Trinity goes up in a puff of smoke. Is not the word "God" inclusive in Christianity (with a good case being there for Judaism)? How can God say that there's only one God, but then come the Christians and say, "Well, no, there's actually three of 'em." All together, we're informed, they are God.

The only problem with this Trinity concept is that it doesn't work any other way. Pick up the Bible sometimes and, beginning with Acts 1, start reading. You don't have to read long until you see that's it's being written for a Jewish-oriented audience. They don't talk about God and Jesus being One at all, but rather, that God is the only one, and that He sent His Son Jesus Christ into the world. In other words, there's an ever present distinction made between God and Jesus. Jesus is God's Son. Then you get to the stoning of Stephen, and the theophany that's presented is one of one standing to the side of the other.

Note: [stephen] gazed intently into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God; and he said, Behold, I see the heavens opened up and the Son of Man standing at the right hand of God.

Here, God and Jesus are distinct in their portrayal. Why? Because the writer knew that there is, to the Jews, only one God. The question is, why?

• They didn't know any better
  
• They didn't believe that Jesus was God
  
• They knew it but they wanted to present milk before meat
  

Reading these passages, I don't think anyone can say that the writer equated Jesus with God. Frankly, I think number three was the reason. Just as we LDS don't teach advanced theology to our investigators, the writer wanted to take one thing at a time.

The thing that strikes me, is that our God is everlasting. He doesn't quit, die or retire. This would mean to me that we are heirs to infinity. We have all the rights of the Royal Family, as has been given us. But for us to become God, wouldn't the current throne have to be displaced?

See, you're actually helping me out a bit here. In the Book of Moses, the Lord says that His works never end. They go on forever and ever and ever and ever, etc. So why would it be so terrible if you, as a Son of God, were a part of that work and dedicated the rest of your existence to helping Him accomplish it. If it's His work and His glory, to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of manâ??and if that work never ends, and if that work is added not only to your own eternal glory but to His forever and ever, where's the sacrilege in that?

Joseph Smith said that to comprehend God, you had to stretch your mind to expand to eternity. God is involved in a real work. Christ died for you so that you can play a part in that. It's not some aimless quest; man isn't a spontaneous creation of God, but is an ongoing work. If God didn't need assistants, why are there angels? If He can speak to the heart of each man, why did he need prophets? Why did He had a real, actual church with appointed apostles? And if He needed a real organization with a real top-down chain of command, then what does that say about the notion of a body of believers?

To me it makes sense. I'm just curious as to why it doesn't connect with other Christians. This one aspect of the Restoration is the single most criticized as being not only anti-Christ, but the notion that we worship "another Jesus." I just don't get it. It all goes together like a beautiful, intricate puzzle. It doesn't depend on mysticism, but only common sense. But if not, where's the fallacy? Does any other theology answer it better?

--------------------

[Bernard Gui]

And then there's the little matter of 2 Peter 1:3-4....

His divine power has bestowed on us everything that makes for life and true

religion, enabling us to know the One who called us by his own splendor and might.

Through this might and splendor he has given us his promises, great beyond all

price, and through them you may escape the corruption with which lust has

infected the world, and come to share in the very being of God.

Bernard

[a5m5a5d]

Then why does it say "God"?

Jehova is the God of the OT

[rhinomelon]

Jehova is the God of the OT

But if Jehovah is the God of the OT, and there are indeed other Gods (as you suggest), why is he lying here and saying there are no others?

And then there's the little matter of 2 Peter 1:3-4...

Yup, which doesn't state that we'll become exactly like God, only that we'll participate in His nature in some way. By the way, what translation is that?

But what if God is like Family? There's only one Family, but there can be many members. I say this because the first word for God used is a plural form (as mentioned in my post above). I rely on common Christian theology on this. Again, "...that they be One, even as we are One...." How can there be One God if the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit are all a part of it?

What if God isn't like a human family?

Anyway, these issues are all addressed by the doctrine of the Trinity. I would also point out that the first word for God (a plural form) is paired up with singular verb forms, suggesting that a "multiple God" reading does not account for the actual complexity of the passages.

The gods he is talking abot are the idols the people are making. The idols are not, nor ever have been gods, properly. This has nothing to do with actual other gods, which Israel knew about, and even worshipped, such as Asherah, to name one.

Even granting this interpretation of Isaiah, would Jesus and the apostles and the Jews of the NT have the same interpretation? In any case, I would read the I Corinthians 8 passages about gods and lords in much the same way as you read the Isaiah passages. Paul is referring to gods and lords that have no real existence, as the one true God does.

Take care, everyone

[Deborah]

But if Jehovah is the God of the OT, and there are indeed other Gods (as you suggest), why is he lying here and saying there are no others?

Because to those to whom he is speaking ther are no other Gods and never will be.

What if God isn't like a human family?

Then why would Christ over and over refer to his "Father". And why do the scriptures refer to his only "begotten" son?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

But if Jehovah is the God of the OT, and there are indeed other Gods (as you suggest), why is he lying here and saying there are no others?

Take care, everyone

Nice loaded question. God is lying???

lets look at it this way?

If we replace the word God to Mother.

"before me there was no Mother formed, neither shall there be after me."

It is a fact that both you and I have a mother, biologically speaking. And nothing is going to change that.

It is also a fact that your mother is not my mother, but they are both mothers none the less.

I think it is similar to this verse.

Also we know nothing will be formed before or after, what about during?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Yup, which doesn't state that we'll become exactly like God, only that we'll participate in His nature in

Take care, everyone

The scriptures state we will be as the master.

The scriptures also dont state that we wont become exactly like God.

I know of zero verses that state taht we will only (only being the operative word here) participate in His nature.

Just keeping it real.

[rhinomelon]

Because to those to whom he is speaking ther are no other Gods and never will be.

So Elohim was never God for the Jews? How does this jive with the New Testament?

Then why would Christ over and over refer to his "Father". And why do the scriptures refer to his only "begotten" son?

That's the way God chose to reveal Himself. It's one thing to say that God revealed Himself as Father and Son. It's quite another to equate "God" with "family". "Father" and "Son" were titles used by God to frame the relationship between them in a way human beings could understand and relate to. Familial relationship are familiar to human beings, as well as being God-ordained. But the fact remains that there is no "Mother" revealed in God, nor is there any need for one. The relationship of the Son to the Father is qualitatively different from the relationships human fathers have with their sons. John 1 and Philippians 2 are some examples of the different kind of relationship, just off the top of my head.

Nice loaded question. God is lying???

Thank you.

lets look at it this way?

If we replace the word God to Mother.

"before me there was no Mother formed, neither shall there be after me."

It is a fact that both you and I have a mother, biologically speaking. And nothing is going to change that.

It is also a fact that your mother is not my mother, but they are both mothers none the less.

I think it is similar to this verse.

Two problems with this approach. First of all, it doesn't say "mother", and there's no biblical reason to make the switch. Secondly, all these passages are missing the vaunted "for you" or "to you" that is absolutely critical for the LDS case. For example, the passages do not say, "before me there was no God formed for you, neither shall there be any after me for you." These are strong, definition statements, without any nuances about "for you" in there.

I can see the analogy you're driving at, and why it makes sense in an LDS point of view. I just don't see how it is compatible at all with the biblical witness.

Take care, everyone

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Then why would Christ over and over refer to his "Father". And why do the scriptures refer to his only "begotten" son?

This is a great point.

I also strugle over the verse in Genisis. Let US make man in out image.

IS God now a skizo?? Us??? Why would He use the word US if there really is only one??

[rhinomelon]

The scriptures state we will be as the master.

Yes, which means that a human disciple will be like his human master when he has learned all the master has taught him and has fully matured in the sense of morality and knowledge. This is precisely what the Luke passage is referring to.

The scriptures also dont state that we wont become exactly like God.

Not precisely in those words, but Scripture does list attributes that God has that we do not have and will never have. Omnipresence, for example, or omniscience, or eternity. Heck, the Bible speaks about God's nature as something we will participate in, which means that it will not be ours by nature. The Bible also speaks of Christ as the only express image of God's being in human form. There is simply a clear distinction between God's nature and human nature in scripture.

Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

I also strugle over the verse in Genisis. Let US make man in out image.

IS God now a skizo?? Us??? Why would He use the word US if there really is only one??

As I pointed out earlier, the passages in Genesis use a plural noun for God, then pair it with singular verb forms. It's kind of like saying "we am" or "they is". It's not a simply plurality, but something more complex. I don't think it's an obvious sign of the Trinity, but it is also certainly not evidence of multiple Gods.

Take care

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Two problems with this approach. First of all, it doesn't say "mother", and there's no biblical reason to make the switch. Secondly, all these passages are missing the vaunted "for you" or "to you" that is absolutely critical for the LDS case. For example, the passages do not say, "before me there was no God formed for you, neither shall there be any after me for you." These are strong, definition statements, without any nuances about "for you" in there.

I can see the analogy you're driving at, and why it makes sense in an LDS point of view. I just don't see how it is compatible at all with the biblical witness.

Take care, everyone

You are straining here.

I didn't say lets replace mother. I did that so you could see the point easier. BUt I guess you wont.

THat isnt my problem.

2nd. I only quoted the scriptures and gave an explination to them. YOu are makeing more out of then what is the text says.

The scriptures state we will be as the master.

The scriptures also dont state that we wont become exactly like God.

I know of zero verses that state taht we will only (only being the operative word here) participate in His nature.

[PacMan]

But if Jehovah is the God of the OT, and there are indeed other Gods (as you suggest), why is he lying here and saying there are no others?

Yup, which doesn't state that we'll become exactly like God, only that we'll participate in His nature in some way. By the way, what translation is that?

What if God isn't like a human family?

Anyway, these issues are all addressed by the doctrine of the Trinity. I would also point out that the first word for God (a plural form) is paired up with singular verb forms, suggesting that a "multiple God" reading does not account for the actual complexity of the passages.

Even granting this interpretation of Isaiah, would Jesus and the apostles and the Jews of the NT have the same interpretation? In any case, I would read the I Corinthians 8 passages about gods and lords in much the same way as you read the Isaiah passages. Paul is referring to gods and lords that have no real existence, as the one true God does.

Take care, everyone

Rhino,

Long time, no see [write]! How are the studies coming? Well, I hope.

It seems that we could agree that the plain reading of the text is certainly not clear. Eh? At that point, it's a clear preference of interpretation and which seems more compelling.

I'd like to proffer Psalms 83:

18 That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.

This is clearly not dispositive, but I think it makes a point: The attributes of God the Father are well-reflected in the Son, undoubtedly. Isaiah talks of God's role as a judge, the savior, redeemer, etc. Once we put it together with the theme of unity, as described in the NT, I find it rather clear that these attributes are titular (the Father is no less grand because the Son is "Almighty"). In other words, if the Father delegates to the Son, then referencing the Son is appropriate. There is "a" god to whom to look, and that is the order of delegation--taking nothing from the delegator.

I do not believe that the term "God" is so static as we've generally held it to be due to orthodoxy. It connotates not only deity, but also authority. Those two terms are not interchangeable. Accepting the presumption that there are many "exalted" deities, that doesn't make them Gods, per se; and the reason is because they've no authority over the sphere strictly delegated to the Son--earth (and this universe, etc.).

In other words, when LDS talk of other gods, like the Father, I think we may be a little sloppy in terms. Perhaps they are not "gods" because they haven't the authority over this earth (the definition of "God"). But they are exalted and like God, w/in their own spheres of influence.

I believe that we may have conflated terms. But I think that this is precisely what the Bible does as well (Psalms, Corinthians, etc.) and why the clear reading isn't really all that clear.

PacMan

[rhinomelon]

You are straining here.

I didn't say lets replace mother. I did that so you could see the point easier. BUt I guess you wont.

THat isnt my problem.

I can see your point, but why replace it with "mother"? Couldn't I replace it with "tree" and have about the same amount of biblical support? My point is that such a replacement drastically changes the plain meaning of the text, so it's not really an interpretation of it so much as a complete alteration of it.

2nd. I only quoted the scriptures and gave an explination to them. YOu are makeing more out of then what is the text says.

I happen to think that is what you're doing, but I think we both know that;)

The scriptures state we will be as the master.

No, the scriptures state that the disciples will be as the master when they are mature in terms of knowledge and morals. That's what the Greek points to. There is nothing in view about human beings changing into God, especially when the passage is read in its context.

The scriptures also dont state that we wont become exactly like God.

Scripture states several ways in which we will always be different from God. Scripture also states that we are to be made in the image and likeness of God, which by definition does not mean "exactly like" God. A picture is not the thing itself, it only bears resemblance in certain ways, while being dissimilar in others.

So there are plain limitations. Add to this the fact that there are no passages that state we will be exactly like God, and you arrive at my conclusion. We will be like God in certain ways, and unlike Him in others. God will always be the only Being truly called "God" in every sense.

Take care, everyone

[PacMan]

As I pointed out earlier, the passages in Genesis use a plural noun for God, then pair it with singular verb forms. It's kind of like saying "we am" or "they is". It's not a simply plurality, but something more complex. I don't think it's an obvious sign of the Trinity, but it is also certainly not evidence of multiple Gods.

Take care

You prove the point of how unclear and opaque the Bible is on this point. There is not the consistency that we might wish for. What tips me intellectually, however, is Stephen's account (surprise!). The poems of Isaiah are (apparently) beautiful in the Hebrew. I'm not much of Hebrew scholar, but I am well acquainted with translation. Straining at words as we are all prone to do is somewhat dangerous. Parsing Isaiah (and any other author for that matter) is always going to leave some accuracy to be desired. That's why I trust the fairly explicit narrative in Acts which seems to put the issue to rest.

Cheers,

PacMan

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I can see your point, but why replace it with "mother"? Couldn't I replace it with "tree" and have about the same amount of biblical support? My point is that such a replacement drastically changes the plain meaning of the text, so it's not really an interpretation of it so much as a complete alteration of it.

I happen to think that is what you're doing, but I think we both know that;)

No, the scriptures state that the disciples will be as the master when they are mature in terms of knowledge and morals. That's what the Greek points to. There is nothing in view about human beings changing into God, especially when the passage is read in its context.

Scripture states several ways in which we will always be different from God. Scripture also states that we are to be made in the image and likeness of God, which by definition does not mean "exactly like" God. A picture is not the thing itself, it only bears resemblance in certain ways, while being dissimilar in others.

So there are plain limitations. Add to this the fact that there are no passages that state we will be exactly like God, and you arrive at my conclusion. We will be like God in certain ways, and unlike Him in others. God will always be the only Being truly called "God" in every sense.

Take care, everyone

Sorry for my tone of the my last post.

I appreciate your view and respect it.

I am glad we can discuss things civily.

I think Pack man has mad a very good point. Better than I could do.

[a5m5a5d]

That's the way God chose to reveal Himself. It's one thing to say that God revealed Himself as Father and Son. It's quite another to equate "God" with "family". "Father" and "Son" were titles used by God to frame the relationship between them in a way human beings could understand and relate to. Familial relationship are familiar to human beings, as well as being God-ordained. But the fact remains that there is no "Mother" revealed in God, nor is there any need for one. The relationship of the Son to the Father is qualitatively different from the relationships human fathers have with their sons. John 1 and Philippians 2 are some examples of the different kind of relationship, just off the top of my head.

So you don't believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, literally?

Do you not believe that we are children of God, literally?

There never was a Mr. God without a Mrs. God.

[rhinomelon]

So you don't believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, literally?

Not in the human sense, no.

Do you not believe that we are children of God, literally?

Not in the human sense, no.

There never was a Mr. God without a Mrs. God.

Is there any biblical support for this at all? In any sense? Where does one ever hear any mention whatsoever of a "Mrs. God"? I doubt one could even support this using the Standard Works, but I could be wrong. Anyway, this statement has absolutely no foundation in the biblical text whatsoever.

Sorry for my tone of the my last post.

I appreciate your view and respect it.

I am glad we can discuss things civily.

I didn't see anything wrong with your tone, honestly. That's interreligious dialogue for ya! But thanks, all the same.

Rhino,

Long time, no see [write]! How are the studies coming? Well, I hope.

It seems that we could agree that the plain reading of the text is certainly not clear. Eh? At that point, it's a clear preference of interpretation and which seems more compelling.

Hey Pac, good to hear from you! Studies are going all right, I suppose. I'm trying to jumpstart a big paper at the moment, and it's just not cooperating. But this is my last big paper before I jump to PhD work at Durham University, so I should just push on through.

I definitely agree that there is plenty of ambiguity on certain issues. The problem is, for me, is that there are other areas which are not ambiguous, which any interpretation has to take into account. God's fundamental uniqueness is one of those areas. There are over two dozen explicit references in the OT regarding the existence of only one God, an emphasis which is carried over into the NT. Jesus himself stated there was only one God (and then accepted Thomas' calling him Lord and God--hello Trinity! ). It's a foundational tenet that I believe must therefore shape any interpretation of the more ambiguous stuff.

This is clearly not dispositive, but I think it makes a point: The attributes of God the Father are well-reflected in the Son, undoubtedly. Isaiah talks of God's role as a judge, the savior, redeemer, etc. Once we put it together with the theme of unity, as described in the NT, I find it rather clear that these attributes are titular (the Father is no less grand because the Son is "Almighty"). In other words, if the Father delegates to the Son, then referencing the Son is appropriate. There is "a" god to whom to look, and that is the order of delegation--taking nothing from the delegator.

I'm a bit fuzzy on what you're getting at here. Could you maybe rephrase it or something so I can be sure what you're saying?

Take care, everyone