For those who believe man cannot become Gods...

[Zakuska]

You mean... Im somebodies homework?!

[e=mc2]

You mean... Im somebodies homework?!

Spookie ain't it?!

[Sevenbak]

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

I don't portend to know wither or not God the Father has DNA. I can only assume that he does, given that he provided half the lineage for Jesus, who was his begotten son.

Mr. Rhino answered it quite well.

I'm still not getting it, I guess.

[Sevenbak]

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

Mary at the tomb...

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Did Jesus ascend to himself? Why did he call the Father his God if he were the same being?

While I'm at it, who did he plead with and pray to in the Garden and on the Cross?

Where did the voice from heaven come from at his baptism? Was he a ventriloquist?

How did he expect his apostles to become "one, even as I am with the Father"? They were 12 separate beings?

Why did Stephen see Jesus standing on the right hand of God his stoning death?

The answer, is found here.

[rhinomelon]

Okay, so I had a reply ready to go last night when I got home from work, but when I got to the metro stop I found out that my bike had been stolen, so I had to wait for about an hour for the cop to get there and file a report. Bleh. City life.

So here we go now:

You know better than that Rhino.

Do I? I don't think I do. I'll stick with what I originally posted.

I donâ??t think itâ??s a problem. I think itâ??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 thatâ??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, weâ??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 Stephenâ?¦I donâ??t remember that explanation).

Yes, it all comes down to interpretation, as usual;). And I didn't post an explanation for Stephen's vision, but here's the cliffnotes version. Stephen's vision was a symbolic one that spoke to God's favoring and honoring of Christ, the very thing he'd castigated the Sanhedrin for rejecting. "Standing on the right hand of God" was a fairly common expression that did not refer to geographical location, but to a position of honor or favor. And left hand commonly denoted the opposite. We see these expressions scattered throughout scripture. So yes, I would interpret that somewhat figuratively, given the language used and the occurence of similar expressions elsewhere.

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

How would things look to you if you started with the assumption that there is only one God? You know, like Jesus and the apostles.

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

Honestly, this is the first big paper I've written that did NOT start as a FAIRboard discussion! My last two were on preexistence in Mormonism and Origen, and deification in Irenaeus. Seriously, this place is like an online brainstorm for me. Unfortunately, you guys don't talk about the philosophical approaches to emotions in the patristic monastics much, so I'm on my own for this one...

I don't portend to know wither or not God the Father has DNA. I can only assume that he does, given that he provided half the lineage for Jesus, who was his begotten son.

I'm saying that given that the Father created everything (including DNA) out of nothing (or for LDS, out of formless, chaotic matter), it's odd to think that He couldn't have done the exact same thing if Christ needed a second set of chromosomes.

Mary at the tomb...

John 20:17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

Did Jesus ascend to himself? Why did he call the Father his God if he were the same being?

While I'm at it, who did he plead with and pray to in the Garden and on the Cross?

Where did the voice from heaven come from at his baptism? Was he a ventriloquist?

How did he expect his apostles to become "one, even as I am with the Father"? They were 12 separate beings?

Why did Stephen see Jesus standing on the right hand of God his stoning death?

Most of these questions presume an inaccurate understanding of the Trinity. The verses you quote above are a problem for modalism, not trinitarian thought. Trinitarians believe that the Father and the Son are distinct persons, so they are perfectly capable of communicating with each other while remaining one in Being. If you'd like, you should check out Dr. Steuss' thread on the Trinity, linked in my sig line. That might clear up some of the misconceptions.

Take care, everyone

[Sevenbak]

I think you've hit the nail on the head. The inaccurate understanding of the trinity is because the scriptures don't explain it. These references I listed can't be explained in the scriptures from a Trinitarian point of view. Instead, they require councils, creeds and assemblies to vote on said meanings.

From our perspective, anyway.

[Brenda]

The beauty of the true gospel is that it shows us that everything around us teaches us about, or is a simitude of, God and his plan for us. Earthly families are the best example of this. You just have to open your eyes and see it.

We all have a mother and a father. Among the millions of parents, only one man is my father, and only one woman is my mother.

Biologically, a father always accompanies a mother. Can't do it alone.

We bear children and they carry a part of us in them. (An absolute miracle, if ever there was one.)

We are created in the image of our parents.

A loving father teaches his children to comprehend a loving Heavenly Father. (Something to think about!)

We should pattern our parenting after the example of our Heavenly Father's parenting of us. (More to think about.)

Every parent started out exactly as their children did. Children have hope of achieving all the blessings that their parents enjoy. Likewise, our Heavenly Father started out as we did and we can "grow up" to become like him.

Familial love and bonds can be/should be . . . eternal.

[ebeddoulos]

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

If you had done your homework you would know that dysfunction is not an ad homonym attack. It is only a descriptive assessment like blue, three, wet or Tuesday. Dysfunction, like blue, three, wet or Tuesday is neither good nor bad; it just is. A dysfunction articulates a disturbance or imbalance in the function of an organization, system, individual, body, organ or cell. Now what dysfunction describes can be good, bad or somewhere in between generally depending on the vantage point and subsequent reaction of the viewer. For example, medical researchers are formulating treatment swhich cause a dysfunction in cancer cells which would be considered in most quarters to be a good thing. On the other hand, ED would probably not be considered a good thing but the medical treatment for those with the dysfunction is a good thing. A roosterâ??s vocal cord dysfunction can fall anywhere on the spectrum of good to bad depending on whether or not it annoys you and to what extent is the annoyance. Personally, I think roosters make a pretty good soup but a roosterâ??s vocal cord dysfunction is the next best thing.

I merely pointed out that your dysfunction is a failure to properly do your homework which you demonstrate by your out-of-context use of proof texts. If you look inward, give some credence to my assessment and become a better student of the scriptures, correcting your dysfunction would prove to be a good thing. If you dismiss it out of hand as an ad homonym attack then your reaction may not be as beneficial. The choice is yours.

One God, the trinity Billy

The trinity? Hmmmmm â?¦ OK. It has been my experience that Christians, especially that subculture known as anti-Mormons, do not have a set definition of Trinity. They all use the term but there is a enormous variety of definitions. Some use one or a combination of the major creeds. Some come up with their own definition, which more and more are beginning to sound like the LDS definition of the Godhead, i.e., Heavenly Father, His only Begotten Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate, divine personages, united in purpose who together comprise one God. (Mormon 7:7, D&C 20:28) You appear to be relying on the definition found in the first of the major creeds (Apostles, Nicene, Chalcedon & Athanasian) to unequivocally state the equality of the three persons of the Trinity. Is that correct?

If you are, then what you are saying is that the â??usâ? referenced in Genesis 1:26 is â??not three Gods, but one Godâ?. Is that correct?

If that is not what you are saying then which Creed do you follow? If you follow no creed then provide your definition of Trinity preferably with the logic and/or scriptural basis for your definition. Just saying Trinity does not hack it without knowing how you define the word.

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.

Those who make an attempt to do their homework generally bypass my Genesis 3:4-5 question because they do not know how to address the issue. Those that do not do their homework always betray that fact by giving your answer or a reasonable facsimile. You see, Genesis 3:4-5 does not have the Hebrew word â??כּמוâ? which is the equivalent to the English â??likeâ? or â??asâ?. The phrase in question (כאלהים ידעי טוב ורע׃) quite literally reads â??you shall be elohim.â? Not â??you shall be like elohimâ? or â??you shall be as elohimâ? but simply â??you shall be elohimâ?. Translate it fully into English and it reads: â??you shall be gods.â? Genesis 3:22, is also lacking an equivalent to â??likeâ? or â??asâ?. Billy, as shown your answer was simply wrong. Do your homework.

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

See my Trinity response above. Provide your definition.

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

Yep, I really do.

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

If there is only one god, as you say, then this verse begs the question as to why more than one god is even mentioned. As you appear to interpret it, the verse becomes an oxymoron.

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.

Do not put your words into my mouth. It is unsanitary. What I am saying and what I believe has already been expressed far more eloquently than I am capable by another: â??He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, a dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine.â? (C.S. Lewis, â??Mere Christianityâ?, New York: Touchstone Books, Simon & Schuster, [1996], pg. 176)

Once again you are wrong. Do your homework, Billy.

[Mormon Dude]

These are some great scriptures, thanks!

[sleepyhead]

Hello a5m5a5d and Christian mormon,

Many times verses that don't make sense in the framework of modern Christianity do make sense when viewed from a reincarnation perspective. I would be happy to respond to any bible passages you have, however this message board is too crowded and my response would be lost. If you would like to submit any bible questions through pm or in a less crowded board I would be happy to respond.

[Tanyan]

If you had done your homework you would know that dysfunction is not an ad homonym attack. It is only a descriptive assessment like blue, three, wet or Tuesday. Dysfunction, like blue, three, wet or Tuesday is neither good nor bad; it just is. A dysfunction articulates a disturbance or imbalance in the function of an organization, system, individual, body, organ or cell. Now what dysfunction describes can be good, bad or somewhere in between generally depending on the vantage point and subsequent reaction of the viewer. For example, medical researchers are formulating treatment swhich cause a dysfunction in cancer cells which would be considered in most quarters to be a good thing. On the other hand, ED would probably not be considered a good thing but the medical treatment for those with the dysfunction is a good thing. A rooster's vocal cord dysfunction can fall anywhere on the spectrum of good to bad depending on whether or not it annoys you and to what extent is the annoyance. Personally, I think roosters make a pretty good soup but a rooster's vocal cord dysfunction is the next best thing.

I merely pointed out that your dysfunction is a failure to properly do your homework which you demonstrate by your out-of-context use of proof texts. If you look inward, give some credence to my assessment and become a better student of the scriptures, correcting your dysfunction would prove to be a good thing. If you dismiss it out of hand as an ad homonym attack then your reaction may not be as beneficial. The choice is yours.

The trinity? Hmmmmm â?¦ OK. It has been my experience that Christians, especially that subculture known as anti-Mormons, do not have a set definition of Trinity. They all use the term but there is a enormous variety of definitions. Some use one or a combination of the major creeds. Some come up with their own definition, which more and more are beginning to sound like the LDS definition of the Godhead, i.e., Heavenly Father, His only Begotten Son, and the Holy Ghost are three separate, divine personages, united in purpose who together comprise one God. (Mormon 7:7, D&C 20:28) You appear to be relying on the definition found in the first of the major creeds (Apostles, Nicene, Chalcedon & Athanasian) to unequivocally state the equality of the three persons of the Trinity. Is that correct?

If you are, then what you are saying is that the "us" referenced in Genesis 1:26 is "not three Gods, but one God". Is that correct?

If that is not what you are saying then which Creed do you follow? If you follow no creed then provide your definition of Trinity preferably with the logic and/or scriptural basis for your definition. Just saying Trinity does not hack it without knowing how you define the word.

Those who make an attempt to do their homework generally bypass my Genesis 3:4-5 question because they do not know how to address the issue. Those that do not do their homework always betray that fact by giving your answer or a reasonable facsimile. You see, Genesis 3:4-5 does not have the Hebrew word "כּמו" which is the equivalent to the English "like" or "as". The phrase in question (כאלהים ידעי טוב ורע׃) quite literally reads "you shall be elohim." Not "you shall be like elohim" or "you shall be as elohim" but simply "you shall be elohim". Translate it fully into English and it reads: "you shall be gods." Genesis 3:22, is also lacking an equivalent to "like" or "as". Billy, as shown your answer was simply wrong. Do your homework.

See my Trinity response above. Provide your definition.

Yep, I really do.

If there is only one god, as you say, then this verse begs the question as to why more than one god is even mentioned. As you appear to interpret it, the verse becomes an oxymoron.

Do not put your words into my mouth. It is unsanitary. What I am saying and what I believe has already been expressed far more eloquently than I am capable by another: "He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, a dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine." (C.S. Lewis, "Mere Christianity", New York: Touchstone Books, Simon & Schuster, [1996], pg. 176)

Once again you are wrong. Do your homework, Billy.

Well stated my Fellow LDS JEDI KNIGHT Brother In Christ Jesus.

[ebeddoulos]

These are some great scriptures, thanks!

Well stated my Fellow LDS JEDI KNIGHT Brother In Christ Jesus.

.

Thank you. When it come to plurality of gods, the subject is well attested to in the scriptures. actually, that is true for almost all LDS doctrine. Somehow, I doubt Billy will respond but if he does he had better do his homework.

[e=mc2]

Well stated my Fellow LDS JEDI KNIGHT Brother In Christ Jesus.

HEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I wanna be one of those! Oh wait a sec.....I'm already granted "Lord"ship status. That's probably O.K. with me come ta think of it.....

[ebeddoulos]

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

~~snip~~

Take care, everyone

Sorry but with my name missing is the quotation block, I somehow overlooked your response.

I think you are mistaken and I think a little noun substitution will illustrate just how mistaken you are:

â??I press toward the mark for the prize of the (high/prestigious) (calling//job) of (God/President of the United States of America) in (Christ Jesus/the electoral college).â? (Philippians 3:14 â?? KJV)

â??I press towards the mark, to the prize of the (supernal//prestigious) (vocation/job) of (God/President of the United States of America) in (Christ Jesus/the electoral college).â? (Philippians 3:14 â?? DRB)

This will work for most any translation including my own poor efforts:

â??I race to the goal for the prize of the (exalted/prestigious) (vocation/job) of (god/President of the United States of America), by (Christ Jesus/ the electoral college).â? (Philippians 3:14 â?? moi)

The prize is the calling/vocation/job of god. I think that is a pretty spiffy prize and the job title is pretty cool, too.

[rhinomelon]

The prize is the calling/vocation/job of god. I think that is a pretty spiffy prize and the job title is pretty cool, too.

Wait, so you're translating it as a possessive? The "job" of "God"? I don't anything in the context or in any of Paul's writings that would support this reading. Nor does the term "klesis" in the biblical context refer to a job or position of employment, but a calling or an invitation. This comports well with the context as well as the rest of the occurrences of the term "klesis" in scripture.

Take care

[mfbukowski]

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

On the contrary. If one analyzes Paul's use of "sarx" (flesh) repeatedly said to be a "great mystery" one might reasonably conclude that what he has in mind in in fact close but quite different to the stoic's belief-- that in fact the "seed" of the material world -- matter-- is ultimately organized into human flesh - in Adam's formation from the earth-- and then through Christ, the second Adam, is transformed again into "celestial flesh", so that God the "all in all" is actually creating himself through us. This process of transforming matter unorganized into "Godstuff" coheres very well with an LDS approach and also relates to the notion of the earth itself becoming celestialized as a great urim and thummim. This has implications also for the notion of eternal progression and the precise way in which the human family becomes one with God.

The creedal notion of the trinity as unified through "being" allows the possibility that if three persons can have one "being", many others might in principle also be able to have the same "being"; the problem of course is that no one can adequately define what "being" actually means. If we look at it from an LDS perspective the "family trinity" unified in love with one family purpose allows this possibility and defines in human terms what the creedals couldn't define as "being". So if we look at it from this perspective, the stoics were not that far off the mark at all.

Which is what I think Acts 17 is really about

[mpschmitt]

I've never received an answer from any non-LDS regarding this verse. None. Nor the Jehova's Witnesses I've introduced to it (the vast majority of EV's I've ever mentioned this to appear to have never encountered it, although I'm sure they must have, at least in a cursory way).

This, and the other verse in Revelations that mentions those who overcome the world inheriting all things, are a kind of check mate move in discussions where its been brought up. Were I not LDS, I have no idea what I'd make of it at first glance.

...And framed in the context of the following scriptures, these scriptures you've all quoted become even clearer...

Hebrews 1:

1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

Verse 4 is clearly a reference to Psalms 8:5 (and this is made plainer in the chapter 2) where man is described as being "a little lower than the angels". But we see here that Jesus by inheritance has received a more excellent name than the angels. As Romans 8 makes clear, we, being joint heirs must logically also inherit this same name since Jesus inherited it. Revelation 21:7 also affirms this by informing us: "He that overcometh shall inherit call things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my son."

Continuing in Hebrews:

6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;

12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my aright hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

Now let's go back to Revelation 3:21 for a second. "To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne even as I overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne."

It seems pretty clear that the LDS doctrine is in alignment with the Bible on this. The clearest statement of what is meant by becoming gods (note the lower case g) is found in Doctrine and Covenants 76. Compare these verses with the description from the Bible above:

50 And again we bear record—for we saw and heard, and this is the testimony of the gospel of Christ concerning them who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just—

51 They are they who received the testimony of Jesus, and believed on his name and were baptized after the manner of his burial, being buried in the water in his name, and this according to the commandment which he has given—

52 That by keeping the commandments they might be washed and cleansed from all their sins, and receive the Holy Spirit by the laying on of the hands of him who is ordained and sealed unto this power;

53 And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true.

54 They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.

55 They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things—

56 They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory;

57 And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the corder of the Only Begotten Son.

58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God—

59 Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

60 And they shall overcome all things.

61 Wherefore, let no man glory in man, but rather let him glory in God, who shall subdue all enemies under his feet.

62 These shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever.

63 These are they whom he shall bring with him, when he shall come in the clouds of heaven to reign on the earth over his people.

64 These are they who shall have part in the first resurrection.

65 These are they who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just.

66 These are they who are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly place, the holiest of all.

67 These are they who have come to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of Enoch, and of the Firstborn.

68 These are they whose names are written in heaven, where God and Christ are the judge of all.

69 These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood.

70 These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical.

Boyd K. Packer explained that this does not mean we will ever surpass God. He will always be our God and Father:

The Father is the one true God. This thing is certain: no one will ever ascend above Him; no one will ever replace Him. Nor will anything ever change the relationship that we, His literal offspring, have with Him. He is Eloheim, the Father. He is God. Of Him there is only one. We revere our Father and our God; we worship Him.

There is only one Christ, one Redeemer. We accept the divinity of the Only Begotten Son of God in the flesh. We accept the promise that we may become joint heirs with Him. (Boyd K. Packer, "The Pattern of Our Parentage," Ensign, Nov. 1984, p. 69.)

So when we Latter-day Saints say that we believe that man can become like God through Christ what we mean is what is stated above in these Biblical and extra-Biblical scriptures. We mean that we will be heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ. We will inherit what he inherits and as Sons and Daughters of God, we will be just men made perfect through Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant. When framed in this context, it takes the sting out of the fiery darts of the polemicist.

And we have not been the only Christians to feel this way. Consider these statements from prominent Christians of other eras:

“…the Word of God became man, that thou mayest learn from man how man can become God…they are called by the appellation of gods, being destined to sit on thrones with the other gods that have been first put in their places by the Savior…”

~ Clement of Alexandria (Protrepticus, 1.8.4 and Stromata 7:10)

“Men should escape from being men, and hasten to become gods. . . .Thou shalt resemble Him having made thee even God to His glory”

~Origen (Commentary on John, 29.27,29 and Refutations, X.30)

“Do we cast blame on him [God] because we were not made gods from the beginning, but were at first created merely as men, and then later as gods? Although God has adopted this course out of his pure benevolence, that no one may charge him with discrimination or stinginess, he declares, ‘I have said, ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High.’ ... For it was necessary at first that nature be exhibited, then after that what was mortal would be conquered and swallowed up in immortality."

~Irenaeus (Against Heresies, Book IV, Chapter XXXVIII)

“The command Be ye perfect [Matt. 5:48] is not idealistic gas. Nor is it a command to do the impossible. He is going to make us into creatures that can obey that command. He said (in the Bible) that we were "gods" and he is going to make good His words. If we let Him - for we can prevent Him, if we choose - He will make the feeblest and filthiest of us into a god or goddess, a dazzling, radiant, immortal creature, pulsating all through with such energy and joy and wisdom and love as we cannot now imagine, a bright stainless mirror which reflects back to God perfectly (though of course, on a smaller scale) His own boundless power and delight and goodness. The process will be long and in parts very painful; but that is what we are in for. Nothing less. He meant what he said.”

~ C.S. Lewis

(Mere Christianity the last paragraph of Chapter 9, "Counting the Cost," in Book IV)

[e=mc2]

Wait, so you're translating it as a possessive? The "job" of "God"? I don't anything in the context or in any of Paul's writings that would support this reading. Nor does the term "klesis" in the biblical context refer to a job or position of employment, but a calling or an invitation. This comports well with the context as well as the rest of the occurrences of the term "klesis" in scripture.

Take care

Here is what I found in a few minutes of searching:

The genitive noun kleseos means invitation to experience of special privilege and responsibility, call, calling, invitation. In our literature almost exclusively of divine initiative. The Greek reads t

[e=mc2]

Here is what I found in a few minutes of searching:

The genitive noun kleseos means invitation to experience of special privilege and responsibility, call, calling, invitation. In our literature almost exclusively of divine initiative. The Greek reads t

[rhinomelon]

With my most obsequious apologies and humble obeisances, Lord Kerry, I don't think anything you've gleaned about this passage conflicts with the mainstream Christian reading of it. The calling we are called to is God's, not like a job or position of God, but the invitation from God.

On the contrary. If one analyzes Paul's use of "sarx" (flesh) repeatedly said to be a "great mystery" one might reasonably conclude that what he has in mind in in fact close but quite different to the stoic's belief-- that in fact the "seed" of the material world -- matter-- is ultimately organized into human flesh - in Adam's formation from the earth-- and then through Christ, the second Adam, is transformed again into "celestial flesh", so that God the "all in all" is actually creating himself through us. This process of transforming matter unorganized into "Godstuff" coheres very well with an LDS approach and also relates to the notion of the earth itself becoming celestialized as a great urim and thummim. This has implications also for the notion of eternal progression and the precise way in which the human family becomes one with God.

I must be sleepy or something, but I really don't understand how your point related either to the Stoic beliefs that Paul was riffing on, or Paul's teachings in the NT. For just one example, where does Paul refer to flesh as a "great mystery"? And I don't understand your point about God creating Himself through us. Could you maybe rephrase that for me?

So when we Latter-day Saints say that we believe that man can become like God through Christ what we mean is what is stated above in these Biblical and extra-Biblical scriptures. We mean that we will be heirs of God and joint heirs with Christ. We will inherit what he inherits and as Sons and Daughters of God, we will be just men made perfect through Jesus, the mediator of the new covenant. When framed in this context, it takes the sting out of the fiery darts of the polemicist.

As a student of mainstream Christian theology, I don't see anything in the above paragraph that would not be equally at home in mainstream theology. We believe that we will be like God (image and likeness, after all), perfect men and women just like Jesus Christ was a perfect man. We will sit on the throne with Christ as adopted sons and daughters of God, and joint heirs with Christ. None of this needs to negate the key ontological difference between God and man, which is amply demonstrated in scripture as well as in the writings of early Christianity.

Take care, everyone

[e=mc2]

I wasn't in the least trying to contradict anything in Christianity. I was simply showing what the Greek says. I rather enjoy doing that as well.

[mfbukowski]

Heh, here I am talking to myself again, but.....BUT! ...

Now THAT'S the conversation I want in on!!!

[e=mc2]

Now THAT'S the conversation I want in on!!!

LOL! I've been in on it now for about 48 years, and trust me, you ain't missin much.......

[rhinomelon]

I wasn't in the least trying to contradict anything in Christianity. I was simply showing what the Greek says. I rather enjoy doing that as well.

In your opinion, does the Greek support ebeddoulos' extrapolation from it? In other words, can klesis be understood as a job in this context?

Just wonderin'. I'm not seeing it at all.

Take care

[e=mc2]

In your opinion, does the Greek support ebeddoulos' extrapolation from it? In other words, can klesis be understood as a job in this context?

Just wonderin'. I'm not seeing it at all.

Take care

I honestly thought it was more in looking forward to the reward, as the analogy with the Greek games indicated. The metaphor is interesting, to say the least! The games being metaphor for heaven, when we get there and get the prize, it is pure, unadulterated Deification.