For those who believe man cannot become Gods...

[ebeddoulos]

There are many verses within the scriptures, both ancient and modern, which discuss the potential diety of mankind. Personally, I believe that Paul summed it up best when he said:

"κατὰ σκοπὸν διώκω εἰς τὸ βραβεῖον τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ." (Philippians 3:14 â?? NA26/27)

â??I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.â? (Philippians 3:14 â?? KJV)

According to Spiros Zodiates, ThD., the Greek word â??κλησεως" (klesis), which is a noun translated as â??callingâ? in the KJV, also means condition, employment or vocation.

â??2821. κλῆσις klesis; from kaleo 2564; to call; A calling (Rom. 11:29; 1 Cor. 1:26; Eph. 4:1). A calling, condition, employment (1 Cor. 7:20).â? (Spiros Zodiates, ThD., â??The Complete Word Study New Testamentâ? Chattanooga, TN: AMG International, Inc., [1991] pg. 928)

Other translations:

"ad destinatum persequor, ad bravium supernae vocationis Dei in Christo Iesu." (Philippians 3:14 â?? NVLA)

â??I press towards the mark, to the prize of the supernal vocation of God in Christ Jesus.â? (Philippians 3:14 â?? DRB)

â??and run towards the sign, to obtain the victory of the high vocation of Aloha by Jeshu Meshiha.â? (Philippians 3:14 â?? Etheridge)

or my personal favorite:

â??I race to the goal for the prize of the exalted vocation of god, by Christ Jesus.â? (Philippians 3:14 â?? personal translation by moi)

[Zakuska]

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.

Who has ever stated we would become clones of God?

Even a biological child isn't exactly like it's parents.

[Obiwan]

...and explain this scripture

Revelations 3:21

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.

That scripture kills two anti-mo birds with one stone.

It makes it clear that "works" are absolutely essential, i.e. the becoming as the Father, and it makes clear that we are just as the Father and the Son, for the Son also had to "overcome", and since the Son is as the Father, well there you go....

[Billy]

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.

I agree that the idols have never been gods. But this also applies to the false gods that were made in your mind, they "are not, nor ever have been gods, properly."

No true god that has been formed by your hands or by your mind before or after the only true Eternal God.

[Zakuska]

I agree that the idols have never been gods. But this also applies to the false gods that were made in your mind, they "are not, nor ever have been gods, properly."

No true god that has been formed by your hands or by your mind before or after the only true Eternal God.

It sounds to me more like God is hinting at one of the ten commandments. To have no other Gods besides him. But that would have to mean that there are other Gods out there. Hmmmm.....

[rhinomelon]

There are many verses within the scriptures, both ancient and modern, which discuss the potential diety of mankind. Personally, I believe that Paul summed it up best when he said:

"κατὰ σκοπὸν διώκω εἰς τὸ βραβεῖον τῆς ἄνω κλήσεως τοῦ θεοῦ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ." (Philippians 3:14 â?? NA26/27)

â??I press toward the mark for the prize of the high calling of God in Christ Jesus.â? (Philippians 3:14 â?? KJV)

According to Spiros Zodiates, ThD., the Greek word â??κλησεως" (klesis), which is a noun translated as â??callingâ? in the KJV, also means condition, employment or vocation.

This passage does not define what exactly the "prize" is, which leaves this passage equally compatible with the trinitarian interpretation. If not more so;)

That scripture kills two anti-mo birds with one stone.

It makes it clear that "works" are absolutely essential, i.e. the becoming as the Father, and it makes clear that we are just as the Father and the Son, for the Son also had to "overcome", and since the Son is as the Father, well there you go....

Kind of reading a whole lot into this passage, aren't we? I agree that works are necessary (although what part they play and where they fit is where we would differ, of course). But how does any of this refer to nature, or to human beings being "as the Father". Where does it say the Father "overcame", for example? I would also point out that the Son was not raised to a new place of authority, but to the one he had with the Father before the incarnation. The Son was God before the incarnation, and while incarnate in Christ overcame and was raised back to his former place of glory. The Son received nothing new as a "reward" for being incarnate; rather, all that he'd had previously with the Father was restored. This makes our relationship to the Father qualitatively different from that of the Son to the Father.

But that would have to mean that there are other Gods out there. Hmmmm.....

I definitely agree that there are other beings referred to as "gods" in scripture. However, are any of them ever portrayed as being like the one true God, i.e. the "same species" as LDS believe?

Take care, everyone

[Zakuska]

I definitely agree that there are other beings referred to as "gods" in scripture. However, are any of them ever portrayed as being like the one true God, i.e. the "same species" as LDS believe?

Take care, everyone

Most definatley...

Genesis Angels having offspring with women... God having offspring with Mary. They have to have the same number of Chromosoms or the offspring wouldn't be viable.

Not to mention Paul claiming that we are the same species as God. (Acts 17)

[Sevenbak]

Most definatley...

Genesis Angels having offspring with women... God having offspring with Mary. They have to have the same number of Chromosoms or the offspring wouldn't be viable.

Not to mention Paul claiming that we are the same species as God. (Acts 17)

Agreed, but to play devils advocate here... Giants (wayward angels + daughters of men) wouldn't have the same DNA. And EV's would say that fruit from Mary's womb was none other than God the Father, in flesh form, so it's his own DNA and doesn't contain any of Mary's. Someone correct me if I'm wrong in this.

Despite what Paul said...

[Hoops22]

And EV's would say that fruit from Mary's womb was none other than God the Father, in flesh form,

No, we wouldn't.

[rhinomelon]

Most definatley...

Genesis Angels having offspring with women... God having offspring with Mary. They have to have the same number of Chromosoms or the offspring wouldn't be viable.

You think the God who created DNA from chaotic matter needs to have the same number of chromosomes to create a child? I don't think so. In any case, "God having offspring with Mary" assumes it was done in a human fashion, while scripture states that the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, and that the virgin birth was a miracle. The angels having children with human women does not prove that either the angels or the women are the "same species" as God.

And finally, Paul's quotation of the Stoic philosopher Aratus in Acts 17 does not state this either. Aratus, as a Stoic, did not believe that human beings were literally offspring of God as LDS do, and Paul's Greek audience would have understood that clearly. The Stoics (Aratus included) thought of God as an active force, a "seed" from which all the material world (humans included) springs. The specific quotation Paul uses is from a poem that speaks of Zeus as an omnipresent force permeating all creation. Certainly not like the LDS belief, and the Greeks would have understood this as well.

Take care, everyone

[rhinomelon]

And EV's would say that fruit from Mary's womb was none other than God the Father, in flesh form, so it's his own DNA and doesn't contain any of Mary's. Someone correct me if I'm wrong in this.

By way of correction, evangelicals don't care about Christ's DNA, as we believe the virgin birth and the incarnation to be a miracle. But if there were DNA there, it wouldn't be the Father's because the Father is not a human being, and therefore has no DNA. DNA is an aspect of God's creation, not of God's nature as creator. Christ's DNA would likely be made up of Mary's chromosomes and another set created specifically for this purpose by God. If I were to speculate, that is. As a miraculous, unique event, the incarnation of the Son through Mary doesn't require DNA in any particular combination.

Take care

[ebeddoulos]

I agree that the idols have never been gods. But this also applies to the false gods that were made in your mind, they "are not, nor ever have been gods, properly."

No true god that has been formed by your hands or by your mind before or after the only true Eternal God.

Billy, your dysfunction is that you only know a few proof texts and yet you manage to take them all out of the context of the whole Bible. So letâ??s do a word study and see what the entire Old Testament actually has to say.

Starting in Genesis 1:26, how many Gods are there?

â??And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.â? (Genesis 1:26)

According to Genesis 3:4-5 and Genesis 3:22, who became like Gods?

â??And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.â? (Genesis 3:4-5)

â??And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:â? (Genesis 3:22)

Satan was pretty sneaky, wasnâ??t he, telling only part of the truth?

How many Gods were involved in confounding the Tower of Babelâ??s languages?

â??And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one anotherâ??s speech. â?? (Genesis 11:6-7)

Who did God, make a god? (Exodus 7:1)

â?And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.â? (Exodus 7:1)

Who is different from all the other gods?

â??Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods?â? (Exodus 15:11)

This is why the Latter-day Saints do not believe that when God makes them into gods, that they will be equal to God.

Who is the greatest of all the gods?

â??Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly he was above them.â? (Exodus 18:11)

This is why the Latter-day Saints do not believe they will have all the attributes of God, i.e. omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence.

Which God should we worship exclusively?

â??Thou shalt have no other gods before me.â? (Exodus 20:3)

Who are you commanded not to revile?

â??Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.â? (Exodus 22:28)

How would you describe your God?

â??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 rewardâ? (Deuteronomy 10:17)

If you did not catch that phrase â??{i}God of Godsâ?, Joshua 22:22 repeats it not once but twice; emphasizing the concept that the Lord is the God of gods.

â??The LORD God of gods, the LORD God of gods, he knoweth, and Israel he shall know; if it be in rebellion, or if in transgression against the LORD, (save us not this day,)â? (Joshua 22:22)

Who judges among the gods?

â??God standeth in the congregation of the mighty; he judgeth among the gods.â? (Psalms 82:1)

To say that Psalms 82:1 is referring to idols or false gods, begs the question: â??If God judges among nonexistent beings, there is not much to judge, is there?â?

Before whom did David say he would praise God?

â??I will praise thee with my whole heart: before the gods will I sing praise unto thee.â? (Psalms 138:1)

Some (yes even Latter-day Saints) have said that refers to Judges. It doesnâ??t. Why use a substitute for judge which means god when a perfectly good Hebrew word for judges exists?

â??And yet they would not hearken unto their judges (shaphat), but they went a whoring after other gods (elohiym)â? (Judges 2:17)

Who is the leader of the gods and who are the gods over which he rules?

â??For the LORD is a great God, and a great King above all gods.â? (Psalms 95:3)

Again, it begs the question: â??If God is a king over nonexistent beings, it is not much of a kingdom, is it?â?

Who are the gods supposed to worship?

â??Confounded be all they that serve graven images, that boast themselves of idols: worship him, all ye gods.â?(Psalms 97:7)

The natural question follows, â??Is God to be worshiped by a congregation of nonexistent beings?â?

To which god are we to give our thanks?

â??O give thanks unto the God of gods: for his mercy endureth for ever.â? (Psalms 136:2)

Are gods that can worship a superior God formed (made by manâ??s hands); or like Christ, are they born? Isaiah 43:10 is a verse that is talking about idols and false gods.

â??Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.â? (Isaiah 43:10)

• Note: formed = Hebrew יצר (yatsor) = sculpt, construct, fashion, frame, form (Strongâ??s 3335) (James Strong, â??Strongâ??s Dictionary of the Hebrew Testamentâ?, Nashville: Crusade Bible Publishers, Inc., [no date], pg. 51)
  

God asks an interesting question in Isaiah 40:25.

â??To whom then will ye liken me, or shall I be equal? saith the Holy One.â? (Isaiah 40:25)

A few chapters later, God provides an answer. Which God has no peer, no equal?

â??Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.â? (Isaiah 44:6.)

Again in case you missed it, he repeats the answer in the very next chapter. Which God has no peer, no equal?

Fear ye not, neither be afraid: have not I told thee from that time, and have declared it? ye are even my witnesses. Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any.â? (Isaiah 44:

• Note: In Isaiah 44:8, the second god is translated from the Hebrew Tsuwr {tsoor} which means cliff, sharp rock or boulder. Of the 79 occurances of tsuwr only two are translated as god: Isaiah 44:8 and Habakuk 1:12. A literal translation might read: â??â?¦ Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no rock; I know not any. (Isaiah 44:
  H6697 צר צוּר tsûr tsûr tsoor, tsoor From H6696; properly a cliff (or sharp rock, as compressed); generally a rock or boulder; figuratively a refuge; also an edge (as precipitous): - edge, X (mighty) God (one), rock, X sharp, stone, X strength, X strong. See also H1049. (Strong, James, â??Strongâ??s Dictionary of the Hebrew Testamentâ?, Nashville: Crusade Bible Publishers, Inc., [no date], pg 99)
  

Tell ye, and bring them near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? who hath told it from that time? have not I the LORD? and there is no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; there is none beside me.â? (Isaiah 45:21)

Who among the Gods is unique?

â??For I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me.â? (Isaiah 46:9)

What will happen to false gods and idols?

â??Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens.â? (Jeremiah 10:11)

• Note: The word â??godsâ? in Jeremiah 10:11 is translated from the Aramaic â??elahâ? which is almost all cases refers to heathen deities.
  

Bottom line here, Billy, is that God can, will and has transformed humans into gods. Even though these gods are of divine origin, they are not to be worshiped. We are to only worship one God. We are definitely not to worship idols or other gods of our own making.

Now, Billy, all your little proof texting does is to brilliantly illustrate that you have failed to do your homework. So go and be indolent no more.

[Sevenbak]

No, we wouldn't.

What would you say? Does God have DNA in human form that he passed on to Jesus, and shared Mary's DNA?

And if that is the case, how does this differ with LDS theology that says just that?

[Sevenbak]

"God having offspring with Mary" assumes it was done in a human fashion, while scripture states that the Holy Spirit overshadowed Mary, and that the virgin birth was a miracle.

Why would that assumption be automatic. Yes the HG overshadowed Mary, we teach that as well. We also teach that she was a virgin. (BOM)

As well as the only begotten son.

Besides, Revelations tell us that Christ is the "offspring" of David, and that he is the "seed" of david "according to the flesh", says Paul.f Does that make Christ any less divine?

[Hoops22]

What would you say? Does God have DNA in human form that he passed on to Jesus, and shared Mary's DNA?

And if that is the case, how does this differ with LDS theology that says just that?

Mr. Rhino answered it quite well.

[Zakuska]

Any one who thinks the Bible speaks of Radical Monotheism... Should read this...

â??Listen, O Israel, Yahweh is our God, Yahweh is one.â? Does the Bible Teach Radical Monotheism?

Thus the Shema may be seen as consistent with numerous other biblical passages which clearly state or imply that there are other real gods in existence, although Yahweh is seen as supreme among them. For instance, Exodus 15.11 (NRSV, adapted) reads, â??Who is like you, O Yahweh, among the gods? Who is like you, majestic in holiness, awesome in splendor, doing wonders?â? (Compare also the following Old Babylonian hymn to the moon god Sin: â??Lord, who surpasses thee? Who can equal thee? Great hero, who surpasses thee? Who can equal thee? Lord Nanna, who surpasses thee? Who can equal thee?â? [8]) Psalm 95.3 (NRSV, adapted) says, â??For Yahweh is a great God, and a great King above all gods.â? Psalm 82.1 and 6 read, â??God stands in the divine council, among the gods he judgesâ?¦I have said, â??you are gods, all of you children of the Most Highâ??.â? Thus, the God of Israel is the Most High (God) because there are other, subordinate gods in his heavenly council. Psalm 29.1 (NRSV, adapted) further states, â??Ascribe to the Yahweh, O sons of God, ascribe to Yahweh glory and strength.â? Moreover, Psalm 89.6 (NRSV, adapted) reads, â??For who in the skies can be compared to Yahweh? Who among the sons of God is like Yahwehâ?¦?â? Psalm 99.2 (4QPsalm) declares, â??Yahweh is great in Zion, he is exalted over all the gods.â? Additionally, Deuteronomy 32.8-9 states that gods were appointed to rule over other nations just as Yahweh was appointed to rule over Israel. This text reads, â??When the Most High apportioned the nations, when he divided humankind, he fixed the boundaries of the peoples, according to the number of the gods. Yahwehâ??s portion is his people, Jacob his allotted share.â? Furthermore, Deuteronomy 32.43 (NRSV) goes on to affirm that, â??Praise, O heavens, his people, worship him, all you gods!â? Finally, Job 38.4-7 (cf. Genesis 1.26-27; 3.22) (NRSV, adapted) states: â??Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth? Tell me, if you have understanding. Who determined its measurementsâ??surely you know! Or who stretched the line upon it? On what were its bases sunk, or who laid its cornerstone when the morning stars sang together and all the sons of God shouted for joy?â? This is just a sample of biblical texts that demonstrate that the biblical authors believed that there were other gods besides Yahweh in existence. (This fact, in turn, helps make sense of Deuteronomyâ??s desire to secure Israelâ??s allegiance to Yahweh alone, since if it was held generally in Israel that these other gods were not actually real there would be no need to argue so passionately for allegience to Yahweh alone.)

http://faithpromotingrumor.wordpress.com/2...cal-monotheism/

[rhinomelon]

Did the first century Jews (including Jesus himself) believe in monotheism or not? Evidence points to the Jews being explicit monotheists; their monotheism played a large part in their relationship with Rome. If Jesus was indeed a monotheist, along with the apostles and first Jewish Christians, aren't LDS being a bit self-contradictory in accepting earlier understandings over later, revealed ones? "Latter revelation judges and supercedes former revelation (unless we like the former revelation better)."

Take care

[Zakuska]

Did the first century Jews (including Jesus himself) believe in monotheism or not? Evidence points to the Jews being explicit monotheists; their monotheism played a large part in their relationship with Rome. If Jesus was indeed a monotheist, along with the apostles and first Jewish Christians, aren't LDS being a bit self-contradictory in accepting earlier understandings over later, revealed ones? "Latter revelation judges and supercedes former revelation (unless we like the former revelation better)."

Take care

Jesus wasn't a Monotheists... "If he called them gods unto whom the word of God came and the scriptures can't be Broken"

[rhinomelon]

Jesus wasn't a Monotheists... "If he called them gods unto whom the word of God came and the scriptures can't be Broken"

And yet this statement refers to mortal men, and not to beings like God. The fact that the Pharisees didn't react to this statement, but exploded at Christ referring to himself as "I AM" demonstrates a stark difference between the two.

Take care

[Billy]

Billy, your dysfunction

Good work you are following the LDS programming by using the LDS Apologetics 101 course book, always start with an ad hominem.

Starting in Genesis 1:26, how many Gods are there?

â??And God said, Let us make man in our image,

One God, the trinity

According to Genesis 3:4-5 and Genesis 3:22, who became like Gods?

â??And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.â? (Genesis 3:4-5)

â??And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:â? (Genesis 3:22)

Remember LIKE a God does not mean become a God.

"the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil:" according to the verse that you supplied, we can become LIKE (not a god) by knowing good and evil.

How many Gods were involved in confounding the Tower of Babelâ??s languages?

â??And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do. Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one anotherâ??s speech. â?? (Genesis 11:6-7)

One God, the Trinity (are you trying to help prove the Trinity here?)

Who did God, make a god? (Exodus 7:1)

â?And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.â? (Exodus 7:1)

Do you really think that Moses is an actual God here in these verses?

Who is different from all the other gods?

â??Who is like unto thee, O LORD, among the gods?â? (Exodus 15:11)

The obvious answer that you can't see is NOBODY, because there is only one God.

If what YOU believe was true then are you saying that God the Father's Father is not like him? Of course you don't even believe this yourself.

[Zakuska]

And yet this statement refers to mortal men, and not to beings like God. The fact that the Pharisees didn't react to this statement, but exploded at Christ referring to himself as "I AM" demonstrates a stark difference between the two.

Take care

You know better than that Rhino.

[PacMan]

Rhino,

Papers. Gotta love ‘em (I’m working on two at the moment which I doubt are going to get published at the rate I’m going).

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.

I don’t think it’s a problem. I think it’s a fairly understandable way to approach the issue. And I see your point on the many references. Again, I think within the context of unity (how we are to all be one as the Father and Son are one), the oneness is explained. At that point, the delegatory titles are non-problematic, and the Acts account is easily understandable for what it expressly is.

And I think that’s about where the debate is and ends. So long as we see the unity of god explained metaphorically, and thus congruent w/ the Acts account, we’re pretty much un-budgeable. And likewise are you so long as you take those citations literally. My response is they're not used consistently (as per the Genesis plurality), so ultimately is a preference rather than a firm biblical teaching (although I need to read your explanation of Stephen…I don’t remember that explanation).

One other way to approach it (per the fuzzy part): Begin with the assumption that there are many deities. The term ‘god’ requires both this deitous state (as we call ‘exalted’), but also a designation of applicable authority. We do NOT believe that there are any number of “gods” which have authority over this earth. There is one. Thus, these deities are not “gods” anymore than Nelson Mandel is American.

The basic idea is that where the Father has delegated to the Son (i.e. creation, judgeship, savior, etc.), the Father is not lessened by that delegation. The Father is still very much a creator, and a judge, etc. Where Christ is the only god,” he is precisely that: The only deitious being w/ authority over the earth. The analogy is fairly simple: I can covenant or license you to take ‘stewardship’ over my belongings or land, and such is efficacious until I revoke it. You are the sole steward--until I simply want that responsibility back.

I believe that the law of Moses (as opposed to the first that was destroyed) simplified things. It streamlined the doctrine, and made it simple (hence preparatory). There was one god, and that was Jehova. Such was ‘licensed’ by the Father to the Son. Every other existent deitous being would not have had the requisite authority and would not have been considered “God” in this context. The were exalted, but not ‘gods.’ An English term reserved for this sphere.

Of course, there’s no way to prove it. But w/ temporal analogies of delegation and assignation of rights, it fits quite well.

Best,

PacMan

P.S.

And finally, Paul's quotation of the Stoic philosopher Aratus in Acts 17 does not state this either. Aratus, as a Stoic, did not believe that human beings were literally offspring of God as LDS do, and Paul's Greek audience would have understood that clearly. The Stoics (Aratus included) thought of God as an active force, a "seed" from which all the material world (humans included) springs. The specific quotation Paul uses is from a poem that speaks of Zeus as an omnipresent force permeating all creation. Certainly not like the LDS belief, and the Greeks would have understood this as well.

What precisely is this quote? Are we confusing causation with correlation?

[Redeemed]

Job 38:1 Then the LORD answered Job out of the whirlwind, and said,

Job 38:2 Who [is] this that darkeneth counsel by words without knowledge?

Job 38:3 Gird up now thy loins like a man; for I will demand of thee, and answer thou me.

Job 38:4 Where wast thou when I laid the foundations of the earth? declare, if thou hast understanding.

Job 38:5 Who hath laid the measures thereof, if thou knowest? or who hath stretched the line upon it?

Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

Job 38:8 Or [who] shut up the sea with doors, when it brake forth, [as if] it had issued out of the womb?

Job 38:9 When I made the cloud the garment thereof, and thick darkness a swaddlingband for it,

Job 38:10 And brake up for it my decreed [place], and set bars and doors,

Job 38:11 And said, Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further: and here shall thy proud waves be stayed?

Job 38:12 Hast thou commanded the morning since thy days; [and] caused the dayspring to know his place;

These versus have always humbled me, when I get ta thinkin I actually know something....................maybe substitute Jobs name with you own..............

be blessed,

redeemed

.

[PacMan]

Redeemed,

True.

Job 38:6 Whereupon are the foundations thereof fastened? or who laid the corner stone thereof;

Job 38:7 When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?

I think it also remarkable that we also shouted for joy at the foundation of creation when "the morning stars sang together." What a thing to witness...and one day to remember.

PacMan

[e=mc2]

I agree that the idols have never been gods. But this also applies to the false gods that were made in your mind, they "are not, nor ever have been gods, properly."No true god that has been formed by your hands or by your mind before or after the only true Eternal God.

That's accurate. But since we don't do this, what's your point?

You know better than that Rhino.

I think Rhino is actually using this topic here, to generate ideas FOR his paper!