Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
telnetd

The Fate of the Unredeemed

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
On 7/24/2020 at 12:10 PM, theplains said:

I looked at the link you provided but there is no indication that a resurrected human on the throne of God means an exaltation to godhood. I agree with the several different meanings that a throne could represent (given the correct context).  My preferences are a position and the status of an individual.

What is the correct context with respect to Revelation 3:21 where it is talking about men sitting with God in God’s throne?  What “position” is represented by a person sitting in God’s throne?  What is the “status” of a person sitting in God’s throne?  Isn’t that the status and position of God himself?   What else could it possibly be?

On 7/24/2020 at 12:10 PM, theplains said:

Isaiah says "For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north."

From this we know that Satan has a throne, but he is not transcendent and he is not a deity.

But we aren’t talking about Lucifer’s throne or anyone else’s throne.  We are talking about God’s throne and what God’s throne represents.   Revelation 3:21 says humans who overcome will sit in God’s throne, the same as Jesus overcame and sits in the throne of his Father.  Why do you keep trying to divert this discussion to talk about someone else’s throne when the verse is clearly about men sitting in God’s throne? 

On 7/24/2020 at 12:10 PM, theplains said:

Matthew 5:34 gives a more expansive view of God's throne - "Swear not at all; neither by heaven; for it is God's throne:

Matthew 19:28 and Luke 22:30 says the 12 disciples would sit upon thrones judging the twelve tribes of Israel.  There is no such thing for the Nephite disciples.

Revelation makes another reference to many in the Millenium who will sit on thrones but they are not deities.

These are all very nice references to other types of thrones, but this has nothing to do with God’s throne in Revelation 3:21.  Who sits in God’s throne according to that verse?  God?  Jesus?  Mere men?  Or gods?

On 7/24/2020 at 12:10 PM, theplains said:

In the Bible, Moses and Satan are referred to as gods.  Do you believe Moses and Satan are deities?

The contexts of both of those references have nothing to do with sitting with God on God’s throne.  People make Satan their own “god”.  Moses was made a “god” to Pharaoh because Moses was God’s representative and had God’s authority, and Aaron was his “prophet”.  But neither of these carries the same meaning as men who sit with God in God’s throne.

On 7/24/2020 at 12:10 PM, theplains said:

Are you able to find one example of 'exalt' or 'exalted' in the Book of Mormon or Bible where becoming a deity is the intended meaning?

Are you able to find the word “Trinity” in the Bible?  As you consider how you might answer such a question, ask yourself why are you inquiring about a specific usage of “exalt” in the Book of Mormon?   The answers to both questions could be the same.  But who really cares as long as the meaning is there?  

And since you brought up the usage of “exalted” in texts other than the one we were discussing, you might appreciate what the earliest Christians believed on this topic with this example from Origen, one of the early Christian fathers who lived around 185-254 AD.  This is from his Commentary on the Gospel of John, for John 1:1, from Book II chapter 2, under the chapter heading:  IN WHAT WAY THE LOGOS IS GOD. ERRORS TO BE AVOIDED ON THIS QUESTION:

Quote

To such persons [who are afraid of proclaiming two Gods] we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype.

Do you see how Origen viewed exaltation within the doctrine of early Christianity?

On 7/24/2020 at 12:10 PM, theplains said:

I don't mind using the word "gods" in application to certain people (see above) as long as the proper context is applied.

Would the quote I provided above from the teachings of the early Christians be one of those “proper contexts”?

On 7/24/2020 at 12:10 PM, theplains said:

Even the 1997 Gospel Principles refers to Heavenly Father as being a god.

https://ia800509.us.archive.org/27/items/GospelPrinciples1997/Gospel Principles 1997.pdf

"All good things come from God. Everything that he does is to help his children become like him-a god. He has said, "Behold, this is my work and my glory-to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man" (Moses 1:39) (page 9).

The current version of Gospel Principles removed the reference the Heavenly Father as 'a god.'

Very nice.  I can tell that you like to study changes in texts like I do.   So here’s a fun one for you:  The current version of the Massoretic Hebrew text of the Old Testament changed Deuteronomy 32:8 to “according to the number of the children of Israel” from what it says in the older manuscripts like those found among the Dead Sea Scrolls, which read something like the NRSV translation of these verses:   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;  the Lord's own portion was his people, Jacob his allotted share." (Deut 32:8-9, New Revised Standard Version)   It’s interesting to see where changes were made, isn’t it?   Of course a change in a lesson manual isn’t quite the same as one in ancient scripture, but the important thing is to try to understand why the changes were made.   But isn’t pointing out changes in texts just another diversion to the real topic?  What is the point?

On 7/24/2020 at 12:10 PM, theplains said:

Israelite judges were regarded as gods but God pronounced judgment on them (Psalm 82:6).

Yet, this is the same verse that Jesus quoted in John 10:34.  The argument that Jesus is making in the context of John 10 is that he in his human state is claiming to be divine.  His point is that since other humans have been made divine through God by receiving the word in scripture (“If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken”), then how much more so is the Son of God, who John points out is the very Word himself?   This would fit the context of how the Jews and early Christians understood the passage in Psalm 82:6 at that time, and you’ll see how that plays out in early Christian belief in the next quote I provide below.

On 7/24/2020 at 12:10 PM, theplains said:

Yes.  The sheep inherit eternal life; the goats do not.  According to what I have read in LDS theology, eternal life is exaltation - living life as a god (but I guess this does not apply to a god in embryo - which a former LDS President teaches humans currently are).

Since you brought up the “god in embryo” idea, you’ll probably really like this quote from the early Christian teachings too.  This comes from Irenaeus (c. 175 – c. 195 AD), Against Heresies, Book 4, chapters XXXVIII and XXXIX.  Chapter XXXVIII has the chapter heading, “WHY MAN WAS NOT MADE PERFECT FROM THE BEGINNING”, and you really should consider reading the whole two chapters (or more) because it fits with the point of this discussion perfectly.  Here are two brief excerpts: 

Quote

For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods; although God has adopted this course out of His pure benevolence, that no one may impute to Him invidiousness or grudgingness. He declares, "I have said, Ye are gods; and ye are all sons of the Highest."  But since we could not sustain the power of divinity, He adds, "But ye shall die like men," setting forth both truths--the kindness of His free gift, and our weakness, and also that we were possessed of power over ourselves” (Chapter 38).

How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man?  Or how can he be perfect who was but lately created?  How, again, can he be immortal, who in his mortal nature did not obey his Maker?  For it must be that thou, at the outset, shouldest hold the rank of a man, and then afterwards partake of the glory of God. For thou dost not make God, but God thee. “ (Chapter 39)

 

On 7/24/2020 at 12:10 PM, theplains said:

The letters to the 7 churches are specifically for them.   The words to the church of Philadephia are applicable only to them.  That's why I limited my comments to only that church.  For example, the word to the church of Ephesus was "Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love."  This is not applicable to the Philadelphia church.  Then we see the word to the church of Pergamos - "But I have a few things against thee, because thou hast there them that hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balac to cast a stumblingblock before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed unto idols, and to commit fornication."  This is not applicable to the Philadelphia church.   

We should listen to all the messages given to all the 7 churches but each received their own commendation and their own rebuke.

So do you think that no other Christian in some other place and time could possibly “leave their first love” as happened with the church of Ephesus?   Do you think that no other Christian in any other era of time could hold the symbolic equivalent of the doctrine of Balaam, as it was the church of Pergamos?  These messages with their corresponding blessings or condemnations apply where those circumstances exist, not just to these specific places.  Otherwise, why is John sending it to all of the “seven” churches?

On 7/24/2020 at 12:10 PM, theplains said:

"Behold, I will make them of the synagogue of Satan, which say they are Jews, and are not, but do lie; behold, I will make them to come and worship before thy feet, and to know that I have loved thee."

They are worshipping *before* them; they are not worshipping them.

Oh?  So what’s the difference then in these verses?:

“All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.” (Psa 22:27)

“Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.” (Rev 15:4 )

On 7/24/2020 at 12:10 PM, theplains said:

Who is worthy of worship?  Only God.  Does God approve of worship of a man or a false god?  No. See Exodus 20:1-5.

In Exodus 20 it says not to make graven images or bow down to or serve false gods.  We are not to put anything or anyone else above the one God who is above all.  But in Revelation 3:8-9, it is Jesus that makes these people come to worship before them.  They are not false gods, nor are they taking the place of the one God who is above all, the “God of gods”.  Apparently Jesus found it appropriate to make men to do that.   This is the same as what Isaiah prophesies will happen as well.

On 7/24/2020 at 12:10 PM, theplains said:

I have received many a Christmas gift which I did not use, but I accepted them all. I did nothing of my own merits to get them.  I just accepted them.  Fortunately God knows better and he knows we need the gift of eternal life.  But I can never ever do anything to merit it, but just to accept it by faith.

I have also received Christmas gifts.  Here are two real life examples:

  1. Many years ago my cousin gave me a $20 coupon for a Mexican food dinner at really good restaurant.  I accepted his free gift gladly because I love Mexican food.  I put it in my wallet but I forgot about it.  I have never used that coupon, probably because it required me to go do something to fully receive what the gift was offering.
  2. When I was 14 years old my dad gave me the gift of a complete Scuba certification package.  I also accepted this gift, but I embraced the opportunity with enthusiasm.  My dad and I took the Scuba courses together and we did what was required to prepare for the certification.  As the end of the course we did our final check out dive in the ocean near Guaymas, Mexico.  It was awesome because my dad was with me the whole time.  It was a great experience and as a result I became a Scuba diver with a certification that allows me to repeat that experience whenever I choose to do so.

In both the examples above I accepted the gift that was freely given to me.  But for the first gift I never got the Mexican food dinner because I was lazy or forgetful.  But the second gift was different.  I received a free opportunity that I responded to with all my heart and I became something that has lasted my entire life.

This illustrates why your false dichotomy doesn’t work when it comes to “gifts”.  You think that if you have to work in order to receive something then it’s not a gift.  That’s just plain false because it depends on the nature of the gift.  Just look at my two examples above.  You view eternal life like a key chain that you can just accept and do nothing with it (or otherwise why provide that example?)  But the scriptures describe eternal life as an opportunity to become something – for life, eternal life.  And it is a process that begins at the moment a person receives the gift and is not complete until the final judgment when Jesus separates the sheep from the goats depending on what the person did with their life (and you agreed to this point as well).  And if you do nothing with the gift after you accept it you won’t get the Mexican food dinner, nor will you become a certified diver, and you certainly won’t be sitting in God’s throne with Jesus and his Father.  

On 7/24/2020 at 12:10 PM, theplains said:

I'll bold some key words and phrases below.

Romans 8:14  For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.  ... but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.  The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. 

Do you see any people other than Christ's sheep in those verses?

Isn’t this what we’ve been talking about this whole time?  If a person is led by the Spirit of God (meaning they follow the Spirit rather than living after the flesh), then they are heirs of God, “if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together”.  And Paul continues:

Quote

For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.  For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.  For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope,  Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of God.  (Romans 8:18-21)

The final fulfillment of the complete gift comes at a future time after enduring to the end:

"Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father.  And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life." (1 John 2:24-25) 

Edited by InCognitus

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/24/2020 at 5:03 PM, Ahab said:

The best reason I can think of for believing in any idea is because I want to know and believe what is true.  Until I know, an idea is either true or not true, and I don't know how to tell the difference unless God helps me to know what is true.

I mean, sure, without God I could just guess I suppose and I would then have a 50% chance that what I choose to believe is true, but why settle for guess work when with God I can know for sure?

Start with why believe there's a god?

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/24/2020 at 5:04 PM, Islander said:

My invitation is His invitation. I am His disciple, one call to proclaim His Gospel.  

I have 6 children whom I love beyond words. They have and will make mistakes but I love them no less on account of their shortcomings.  Trial and error,  but my love is constant and not dependent on their choices.  And that is the evidence of my love. Life is designed to provide a learning and a proving ground and faith the evidence of our love for our Father in Heaven.

The relation with a supernatural Being will only be proven by faith. It is up to you to decide if you want experience that relationship. Those are His terms. The invitation remains and is open to your response-abilty. 

Given what we know about the universe, it is quite reasinable to believe that it was set in motion by a superior intelligence.  

What is the reason to believe the universe was set in motion by a superior intelligence?  Why assume that's god?

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, stemelbow said:

What is the reason to believe the universe was set in motion by a superior intelligence?  Why assume that's god?

The argument here can be long. But, in the most simple of terms; something (the universe) can not come from nothing. Based on the rate of expansion, we know the universe had a point of origin. So, a first uncaused cause HAD to exist outside time and space in order to create it. There are a number of arguments for the existence of God. It should make for interesting reading.  

"Philosophy of Religion" by N. Geisler is one of the most articulate texts on the subject. 

Edited by Islander

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Islander said:

The argument here can be long. But, in the most simple of terms; something (the universe) can not come from nothing.

There is not nothing.  Perhaps the multiverse model works.  

1 hour ago, Islander said:

Based on the rate of expansion, we know the universe had a point of origin.

I don't think that's true at all.  We do not know there was an origin.

1 hour ago, Islander said:

So, a first uncaused cause HAD to exist outside time and space in order to create it.

I don't think that's true either.  But assuming it is why assume God?  Why assume a christian God?  

1 hour ago, Islander said:

There are a number of arguments for the existence of God. It should make for interesting reading.  

"Philosophy of Religion" by N. Geisler is one of the most articulate texts on the subject. 

Thanks. I don't find the kalam cosmological argument convincing--too many problems and certainly does not get us to god but would only get to a cause.  The big issue of course is the premises do not hold up under scrutiny.

Share this post


Link to post
38 minutes ago, stemelbow said:

There is not nothing.  Perhaps the multiverse model works.  

I don't think that's true at all.  We do not know there was an origin.

I don't think that's true either.  But assuming it is why assume God?  Why assume a christian God?  

Thanks. I don't find the kalam cosmological argument convincing--too many problems and certainly does not get us to god but would only get to a cause.  The big issue of course is the premises do not hold up under scrutiny.

This forum is probably not the best conduit for a philosophical debate. However, I most note that the multiverse hypothesis runs, rather quickly, into issies of coherent explanatory hypothesis and testability. You move away from observable and testable experimentation and into pure speculation in order to accommodate a counter argument to a position you reject. 

This article by Marcelo Gleiser, a leading physicist, points to the limits of science and the unwillingness of some to accept such limitations.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/atheism-is-inconsistent-with-the-scientific-method-prizewinning-physicist-says/

 

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Islander said:

This forum is probably not the best conduit for a philosophical debate. However, I most note that the multiverse hypothesis runs, rather quickly, into issies of coherent explanatory hypothesis and testability. You move away from observable and testable experimentation and into pure speculation in order to accommodate a counter argument to a position you reject. 

That's odd, you being that up, since a god model is purely speculative too.  Of course the point to raise another model is to point out your claims were false, since they are both speculative.  

4 hours ago, Islander said:

This article by Marcelo Gleiser, a leading physicist, points to the limits of science and the unwillingness of some to accept such limitations.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/atheism-is-inconsistent-with-the-scientific-method-prizewinning-physicist-says/

 

Thanks.  I'll check it out.  Sounds like hes running into many logical problems trying to convince his colleagues.  That might suggest something about his take but well see.  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

That's odd, you being that up, since a god model is purely speculative too.  Of course the point to raise another model is to point out your claims were false, since they are both speculative.  

Thanks.  I'll check it out.  Sounds like hes running into many logical problems trying to convince his colleagues.  That might suggest something about his take but well see.  

The difference is that we have thousands of documents and copies of documents that relay accounts of the dealings of deity with man. Many of those documents were written by eyewitness during the lives of other witnesses. I think the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ is compelling and unquestionable. What he did and said is a matter of record. We affirm that certain (secular, non-religious) events in history occurred even when we have ONLY one or two references. We really don't have evidence that Homer or Pythagoras actually existed. But most people will never question it. I shared with you the article where a man of science, a laureate recognized in his field, posits that atheism ignores basic tenets of the scientific model while alluding to "science" as a counter argument for the existence of God. You have not read it in detail and already you are finding fault in his argument? It tells me that you already made up your mind and refuse to be confused by the facts. 

At the end, my friend, the quest to inquire, learn about and find the God of the bible has to be undertaken number one: in faith. And number two: not from an intellectual perspective but with the heart felt desire to pierce the veil of mystery of the universe for that is, after all, the quest of humanity since the world began.

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Islander said:

The difference is that we have thousands of documents and copies of documents that relay accounts of the dealings of deity with man. Many of those documents were written by eyewitness during the lives of other witnesses. I think the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus Christ is compelling and unquestionable. What he did and said is a matter of record. We affirm that certain (secular, non-religious) events in history occurred even when we have ONLY one or two references. We really don't have evidence that Homer or Pythagoras actually existed. But most people will never question it. I shared with you the article where a man of science, a laureate recognized in his field, posits that atheism ignores basic tenets of the scientific model while alluding to "science" as a counter argument for the existence of God. You have not read it in detail and already you are finding fault in his argument? It tells me that you already made up your mind and refuse to be confused by the facts. 

At the end, my friend, the quest to inquire, learn about and find the God of the bible has to be undertaken number one: in faith. And number two: not from an intellectual perspective but with the heart felt desire to pierce the veil of mystery of the universe for that is, after all, the quest of humanity since the world began.

You linked an interview, which, as far as I can see has absolutely zero evidence for the existence of God.  He claims he's agnostic on the God proposition, perhaps because he has no evidence for the existence of God.  He does say he finds an atheistic position problematic.  His explanation:

 

Quote

I honestly think atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method. What I mean by that is, what is atheism? It’s a statement, a categorical statement that expresses belief in nonbelief. “I don’t believe even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I don’t believe.” Period. It’s a declaration. But in science we don’t really do declarations.

Fine.  But again, it's not an effort to give an explanation for God.  Declaring I believe in God is a declaration too.  "I believe in God even though I have no evidence for or against, simply I believe."  So his argument against atheist, works the same against theism.  The question posed here is not is atheism the correct position?  The question is what reason or evidence is there for God.  

  I'm simply asking for any evidence.  You provided, what seemed to amount to, the Kalam Cosmological argument.  If that is your take, then I'm not seeing an answer, since the Kalam Cosmo argument is weak and faulty, at least as I tried to explain.  I'll try again:

  • Premise one: Everything that begins to exist has a cause;
  • Premise two: The universe began to exist;
  • Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause.

I"ll take Cosmic Skeptic's position detailed here for convenience:

https://cosmicskeptic.com/2020/04/04/the-sly-circularity-of-the-kalam-cosmological-argument/

Additionally, The Kalam argument fails to get to God, it stops at a "cause".  So even if we grant the faulty premises we're still no where near God.  A new argument with a whole new set of premises need to be taken up to find God.   But the problem is found in the premises.  And if you play it out, it's simply a circular argument that fails to be an argument at all.  It amounts to an assertion.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 7/26/2020 at 6:21 AM, stemelbow said:

Start with why believe there's a god?

i started with the word "God" as defined in a dictionary, which I summarize as the most supreme kind of being in all of existence.  I figured that among all of the kinds of beings there are, there must be one kind that is most supreme in at least one way, so then I wondered for a while about which being that could possibly be.  Then one day I realized that our kind of being must the one that is the most supreme.  Or at least that is what I believe.  I know of no other kind of being that is better than our kind. What do you think? Do you know of any other kind of being that is better than us?

Edited by Ahab

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/26/2020 at 9:07 AM, Islander said:

The argument here can be long. But, in the most simple of terms; something (the universe) can not come from nothing. Based on the rate of expansion, we know the universe had a point of origin. So, a first uncaused cause HAD to exist outside time and space in order to create it. There are a number of arguments for the existence of God. It should make for interesting reading.  

"Philosophy of Religion" by N. Geisler is one of the most articulate texts on the subject. 

I don't want to throw off your belief in God but believing that there must have been someone or some persons who created the universe is not the best basis for believing in God.  As you said, something can not come from nothing, so there is no good reason to believe the universe ever started at some time when there was nothing.  There are good reasons to believe the universe has always existed, however, and that what God has done and continues to do is organize what already exists, sometimes also creating things from other things that already exist.  We do not believe God started with nothing, and we also do not believe there was ever only 1 or 2 or 3 persons who were the kind of being we refer to as God.

The number of persons who are God is as infinite as the expanse of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Ahab said:

I don't want to throw off your belief in God but believing that there must have been someone or some persons who created the universe is not the best basis for believing in God.  As you said, something can not come from nothing, so there is no good reason to believe the universe ever started at some time when there was nothing.  There are good reasons to believe the universe has always existed, however, and that what God has done and continues to do is organize what already exists, sometimes also creating things from other things that already exist.  We do not believe God started with nothing, and we also do not believe there was ever only 1 or 2 or 3 persons who were the kind of being we refer to as God.

The number of persons who are God is as infinite as the expanse of the universe.

That is a philosophical black hole. The bible speaks of a beginning and in the beginning there was God; masculine plural. Based on traditional theological interpretations and scripture there was a beginning. You are free to believe what you will. At the end the subject is well beyond the mark and far away from what the Lord has point to as the way to salvation. So, thank you for your observation and I wish you the best. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Islander said:

That is a philosophical black hole. The bible speaks of a beginning and in the beginning there was God; masculine plural. Based on traditional theological interpretations and scripture there was a beginning. You are free to believe what you will. At the end the subject is well beyond the mark and far away from what the Lord has point to as the way to salvation. So, thank you for your observation and I wish you the best. 

"In the beginning" refers to the beginning of this world, when this world was created from matter that already existed.  This world was not God's first creation (from matter that already existed). There is no beginning to everything, collectively..  There is only a beginning to each individual thing, and something never comes from nothing.

We also believe women can receive as much glory as men can receive and everything our Lord and our Father in heaven have, too... while remaining women.  So God, as a kind of being, includes women as well as men.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Ahab said:

i started with the word "God" as defined in a dictionary, which I summarize as the most supreme kind of being in all of existence.  I figured that among all of the kinds of beings there are, there must be one kind that is most supreme in at least one way, so then I wondered for a while about which being that could possibly be.  Then one day I realized that our kind of being must the one that is the most supreme.  Or at least that is what I believe.  I know of no other kind of being that is better than our kind. What do you think? Do you know of any other kind of being that is better than us?

I"m not sure what you're saying.  What is "the most supreme kind of being" mean?  If you do not know of a kind of being that is better than our kind, why do you assume there's a "most supreme kind of being"?  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

I"m not sure what you're saying.  What is "the most supreme kind of being" mean? 

Which word are you having trouble understanding?  To me it means the best kind of being there is in all of existence. 

1 hour ago, stemelbow said:

If you do not know of a kind of being that is better than our kind, why do you assume there's a "most supreme kind of being"?  

Logical deduction and common sense, not an assumption.  Unless all kinds of being are equally wonderful, which is an idea I do not subscribe to, then there must be one kind of being that is better than all of the others. 

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Ahab said:

Which word are you having trouble understanding?  To me it means the best kind of being there is in all of existence. 

I understand the words.  I'm asking what you mean by the concept you mentioned.  

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

Logical deduction and common sense, not an assumption. 

Ok.  Can you state the deductive argument?  

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

Unless all kinds of being are equally wonderful, which is an idea I do not subscribe to, then there must be one kind of being that is better than all of the others. 

Why is there not one even greater than that one?  Or is there?

Share this post


Link to post
14 hours ago, stemelbow said:

I understand the words.  I'm asking what you mean by the concept you mentioned.  

I explained, as you might have noticed.

14 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Ok.  Can you state the deductive argument?  

I stated it, as you might have noticed.

14 hours ago, stemelbow said:

Why is there not one even greater than that one?  Or is there?

Ah, an interesting query, and I was reflecting on that, again, just the other day.  Reality is an interesting thing.  There is what is real, whatever is real, and there isn't anything other than that.  Kinds of beings, for example.  There are particular kinds of beings that exist in reality, whatever those kinds of beings are and however many kinds of beings there are in reality, and that is it...  there are no other kinds of beings than those that exist.  Even if we can conceive of some other kind of being, like a 6-headed hydra dragon that breathes out fire and ice, if that kind of being doesn't exist in reality then it simply does not exist.  Or as in our case here, if there is no greater or more supreme kind of being than our kind of being, then no greater kind exists.  We are it, even if we can conceive a greater kind of being in our imaginations. Because that is just how reality is.

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/25/2020 at 9:03 PM, InCognitus said:

What is the correct context with respect to Revelation 3:21 where it is talking about men sitting with God in God’s throne?  What “position” is represented by a person sitting in God’s throne?  What is the “status” of a person sitting in God’s throne?  Isn’t that the status and position of God himself?   What else could it possibly be?

I believe it is a position of exaltation for glorified human beings.  But I don't believe these 
human beings are Deities.


But we aren't talking about Lucifer's throne or anyone else's throne.  We are talking about God's throne and what God's throne represents.   Revelation 3:21 says humans who overcome will sit in God's throne, the same as Jesus overcame and sits in the throne of his Father.  Why do you keep trying to divert this discussion to talk about someone else's throne when the verse is clearly about men sitting in God's throne?

I'm not diverting discussion away from God's throne, but I was mentioning that Satan was trying 
to exalt his throne above the stars of God.

Does the fact that Satan has a throne that he was trying to exalt mean he wanted to change from
an angel to become a God or already was a God?

In the case of glorified human beings, being seated on thrones is representative of our rulership 
(that we will have in some capacity) and our exalted position.


These are all very nice references to other types of thrones, but this has nothing to do with God's throne in Revelation 3:21.  Who sits in God's throne according to that verse?  God?  Jesus?  Mere men?  Or gods?

I believe it is referring to glorified men and women (who are not Deities).

What do you mean by 'god'?  Are you meaning like Moses and Satan were gods (as the scripture I provided 
earlier said) or do you mean a god (like the 1997 Gospel Principles refers to "like Heavenly Father – a 
god"?).

This will help me understand you better.

There are several mentions of 'throne and thrones' in the Book of Revelation, but I do not see any 
of them where someone other than God is worshipped.

Rev_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.

Rev_4:10  The four and twenty elders fall down before him that sat on the throne, and worship him 
that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne,

Rev_5:13  And every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and such 
as are in the sea, and all that are in them, heard I saying, Blessing, and honour, and glory, and 
power, be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and ever.

Rev_7:9-11  After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all 
nations, and kindreds, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, 
clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands; And cried with a loud voice, saying, Salvation 
to our God which sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb.  And all the angels stood round about 
the throne, and about the elders and the four beasts, and fell before the throne on their faces, 
and worshipped God,

Rev_19:4  And the four and twenty elders and the four beasts fell down and worshipped God that sat 
on the throne, saying, Amen; Alleluia.

Rev_20:4  And I saw thrones, and they sat upon them, and judgment was given unto them ... and they 
lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years.

But I don't see an indication of the people on their thrones being worshipped.

In the scripture, it is said that Adam and Eve became as gods (Genesis 3:5) as one of us (Genesis
3:22) but they were not deities.

In the 1981 Book of Mormon, Alma 12:31 says they became as Gods.  The newer Book of Mormons says
they became as gods.  But in either case, did Adam and Eve become deities?

In Doctrine and Covenants 132:16, the humans who don't get exalted become ministering angels 
to those who become gods - not sure why they don't use the word Gods instead.  But it doesn't
say these angels will worship those gods.


The contexts of both of those references have nothing to do with sitting with God on God's throne.  People make Satan their own "god".  Moses was made a "god" to Pharaoh because Moses was God's representative and had God's authority, and Aaron was his "prophet".  But neither of these carries the same meaning as men who sit with God in God's throne.

There are references to sitting with God in God's throne and individuals sitting on their 
own thrones, but in neither case do I believe these refer to human beings who are Deities, 
but rather exalted human beings.

That's why I made mention of the word 'exalt' or 'exalted'; which does not mean one person 
becoming a Deity.  I know LDS theology teaches Jesus and Heavenly Father became Gods, but 
my church does not believe this.

When the scriptures speak of Satan being the god of this world, is Satan a deity?

When the scriptures speak of Moses being made a god to Aaron, is Moses a deity?


Are you able to find the word "Trinity" in the Bible?  As you consider how you might answer such a question, ask yourself why are you inquiring about a specific usage of "exalt" in the Book of Mormon?   The answers to both questions could be the same.  But who really cares as long as the meaning is there?

 

The word Trinity is not in the Bible but looking at several verses, one can see the meaning.

Do you see the word 'exalt' or 'exalted' in the Book of Mormon meaning a human can become 
a God?


And since you brought up the usage of "exalted" in texts other than the one we were discussing, you might appreciate what the earliest Christians believed on this topic with this example from Origen, one of the early Christian fathers who lived around 185-254 AD.  This is from his Commentary on the Gospel of John, for John 1:1, from Book II chapter 2, under the chapter heading:  IN WHAT WAY THE LOGOS IS GOD. ERRORS TO BE AVOIDED ON THIS QUESTION

I prefer to stay with what the scripture says instead of what Origen mentioned.


Would the quote I provided above from the teachings of the early Christians be one of those "proper contexts"?

I believe God (the Creator) is of a different nature than his creations.  I don't believe 
the quote of Origen has the support of scripture because he equates gods with deities, but 
then does not explain how Moses and Satan are both gods (non-deities).


Yet, this is the same verse that Jesus quoted in John 10:34.  The argument that Jesus is making in the context of John 10 is that he in his human state is claiming to be divine.  His point is that since other humans have been made divine through God by receiving the word in scripture ("If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken"), then how much more so is the Son of God, who John points out is the very Word himself?   This would fit the context of how the Jews and early Christians understood the passage in Psalm 82:6 at that time, and you'll see how that plays out in early Christian belief in the next quote I provide below.

I don't believe Jesus is defending his Deity in this statement but rather turning the tables 
on his hearers and pronouncing judgment on them.


"How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man?  Or how can he be perfect who was but lately created?  How, again, can he be immortal, who in his mortal nature did not obey his Maker?  For it must be that thou, at the outset, shouldest hold the rank of a man, and then afterwards partake of the glory of God. For thou dost not make God, but God thee. " (Chapter 39)

I make the same comment about Origen as I do for Ireneaus.  See earlier.  They made claims 
of humans being divine but then don't explain if Moses and Satan (called gods) are deities?


So do you think that no other Christian in some other place and time could possibly "leave their first love" as happened with the church of Ephesus?   Do you think that no other Christian in any other era of time could hold the symbolic equivalent of the doctrine of Balaam, as it was the church of Pergamos?  These messages with their corresponding blessings or condemnations apply where those circumstances exist, not just to these specific places.  Otherwise, why is John sending it to all of the "seven" churches?  

As I mentioned before, we can learn from the letters sent to the church.  But what is said 
about one church cannot be applied to *everyone*.  For instance, I do not hold to the 
doctrine of the Nicolaitans.


Oh?  So what's the difference then in these verses?:

"All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee." (Psa 22:27)

"Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest." (Rev 15:4 )

Based on what we know about not worshipping other gods, we know that these people are 
worshipping God.


In Exodus 20 it says not to make graven images or bow down to or serve false gods.  We are not to put anything or anyone else above the one God who is above all.  But in Revelation 3:8-9, it is Jesus that makes these people come to worship before them.  They are not false gods, nor are they taking the place of the one God who is above all, the "God of gods".  Apparently Jesus found it appropriate to make men to do that.   This is the same as what Isaiah prophesies will happen as well.

Moses and Satan are referred to as gods.   I keep using them in my example but I was wondering 
if you believe they are deities?


This illustrates why your false dichotomy doesn't work when it comes to "gifts".

From what I know of LDS theology, resurrection seems to be an unmerited gift/blessing and
eternal life (exaltation) is an earned reward.

Is that accurate?


Isn't this what we've been talking about this whole time?  If a person is led by the Spirit of God (meaning they follow the Spirit rather than living after the flesh), then they are heirs of God, "if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together".  And Paul continues

Yes, we have been talking about this passage several times.  Romans says that only those who 
are led by the Spirit of God are the sons of God, heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ.  
In LDS theology, 'joint-heirs' is a reference to exalted beings (gods) - so the non-gods are 
not the children of God.    Only the sheep are the joint-heirs.  The others are the children 
of the devil.

Do you believe the LDS church definition of joint-heirs; that they are exalted beings?

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-18?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/new-testament-student-manual/romans/chapter-36-romans-4-8?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/teachings-joseph-smith/chapter-3?lang=eng
https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/new-testament-study-guide-for-home-study-seminary-students/introduction-to-romans/unit-21-day-1-romans-8-11?lang=eng

 

Share this post


Link to post

Answering the same questions over and over and over is getting tedious, so I’m going to group this post by category, and I will at times be referencing back to prior posts where the questions were answered previously:

On 8/1/2020 at 7:04 AM, theplains said:

I believe it is a position of exaltation for glorified human beings.  But I don't believe these human beings are Deities.

And:

On 8/1/2020 at 7:04 AM, theplains said:

In the case of glorified human beings, being seated on thrones is representative of our rulership (that we will have in some capacity) and our exalted position.

And:

On 8/1/2020 at 7:04 AM, theplains said:

I believe it is referring to glorified men and women (who are not Deities).

And:

On 8/1/2020 at 7:04 AM, theplains said:

There are references to sitting with God in God's throne and individuals sitting on their own thrones, but in neither case do I believe these refer to human beings who are Deities, but rather exalted human beings.

So those who “overcome” in Revelation 3:21 and sit with God in his throne are exalted and glorified human beings.  I agree with that.   That’s essentially the same way that we would describe it except you don’t like them to be called “gods” or “deities” for some reason.  The early Christians called them “gods”, so why don’t you like using that word?

On 8/1/2020 at 7:04 AM, theplains said:

I'm not diverting discussion away from God's throne, but I was mentioning that Satan was trying to exalt his throne above the stars of God.

Does the fact that Satan has a throne that he was trying to exalt mean he wanted to change from an angel to become a God or already was a God?

As you already pointed out, there are many kinds of “thrones”, but only God’s throne represents the position and status of God.  Whatever was Lucifer’s position, it wasn’t the same as sitting with God in God’s throne.   And as I mentioned previously, Lucifer was trying to exalt himself, by putting his own status above Jesus.   He did not want to follow God’s plan which would have required him to submit to Jesus and be humble.  Satan wanted to do it his own way.  Only those who sit with God in God’s throne would truly be “gods”.

On 8/1/2020 at 7:04 AM, theplains said:

What do you mean by 'god'?  Are you meaning like Moses and Satan were gods (as the scripture I provided earlier said) or do you mean a god (like the 1997 Gospel Principles refers to "like Heavenly Father – a god"?).

This will help me understand you better.

And:

On 8/1/2020 at 7:04 AM, theplains said:

When the scriptures speak of Satan being the god of this world, is Satan a deity?

When the scriptures speak of Moses being made a god to Aaron, is Moses a deity?

And:

On 8/1/2020 at 7:04 AM, theplains said:

Moses and Satan are referred to as gods.   I keep using them in my example but I was wondering if you believe they are deities?

I answered this question previously here:   

Quote

The contexts of both of those references have nothing to do with sitting with God on God’s throne.  People make Satan their own “god”.  Moses was made a “god” to Pharaoh because Moses was God’s representative and had God’s authority, and Aaron was his “prophet”.  But neither of these carries the same meaning as men who sit with God in God’s throne.

Do you not read my responses?  Neither Exodus 7:1 nor 2 Corinthians 4:4 have a context usage of the word “god” that implies that they are deities, as my answer explains above.  It would not be the same thing as sitting with God in God’s throne.

My answer above correlates with how Lexicons define the word for “God” or “god” in scripture.   Here’s a link to Thayer's Greek Lexicon definition for Theos (Θεός) on Bible Hub.  https://biblehub.com/str/greek/2316.htm   The lexicon breaks down the definition into four categories, of which the forth one has a sub category that I will assign a separate number for clarity (Thayer’s #4 is divided into my #4 and #5). 

  1.  “A general appellation of deities or divinities”.  This could be either false gods or gods that exist in reality.
  2.  In application to Christ as God
  3.  Spoken of the only and true God: with the article… and very often; with prepositions
  4.   Θεός is used of whatever can in any respect be likened to God, or resembles him in any way: Hebraistically, equivalent to God's representative or vicegerent, of magistrates and judges
  5.   Of the devil  (“the god of this age”), 2 Corinthians 4:4; the person or thing to which one is wholly devoted, for which alone he lives, e. g. the belly in Philippians 3:19.

So the Exodus 7:1 passage in application to Moses fits with #4, and the 2 Corinthians 4:4 verse in application to Satan fits #5, neither one of which would be considered deities in the real sense.   Definition #1 could be applied to false gods or to real deities, gods who exist in reality like those who would be sitting with God in God’s throne.  And #2 and #3 are most certainly Divine. 

On 8/1/2020 at 7:04 AM, theplains said:

There are several mentions of 'throne and thrones' in the Book of Revelation, but I do not see any of them where someone other than God is worshipped.

I’ve been over this with you many times.  A throne (in general) is a symbol of power and authority.  The kings of the earth sit on thrones.  Other people may sit on thrones for different reasons, and one throne may be figuratively “higher” than another when it comes to the position of authority.  That is why the scriptures describe Jesus as the “King of kings”, because he is above all other “kings”.  But we were talking about God’s throne in Revelation 3:21, which is a position of authority, power and glory higher than any other throne.   As your favorite web site explained, God’s throne represents power and authority, majesty and honor, perfect justice, sovereignty and holiness, praise, purity, eternal life, and grace, all of which would be associated with those who sit with God in God’s throne.   They have everything that God has and it is “granted” to them by God.

On 8/1/2020 at 7:04 AM, theplains said:

In the scripture, it is said that Adam and Eve became as gods (Genesis 3:5) as one of us (Genesis 3:22) but they were not deities.

In the 1981 Book of Mormon, Alma 12:31 says they became as Gods.  The newer Book of Mormons says they became as gods.  But in either case, did Adam and Eve become deities?

You’ve brought up Alma 12:31 at least twice before, and both times I answered.  The second time I referred you back to the first response (here and here).  Do you not remember that?

But why are you even asking this question, i.e.  “But in either case, did Adam and Eve become deities?”  You know better than that.  The context should always tell us what’s going on, and neither Genesis 3:5 or Alma 12:31 says Adam or Eve “became deities” (gods).    The verses are all clear in saying that Adam and Eve only gained one attribute of Deity, which was to know good and evil:

Genesis 3:5  “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.”

And God himself affirms the result of this in Genesis 3:22:  “And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil”.

They didn’t become “gods” at that point, but they did become like God in that one attribute.

On 8/1/2020 at 7:04 AM, theplains said:

In Doctrine and Covenants 132:16, the humans who don't get exalted become ministering angels to those who become gods - not sure why they don't use the word Gods instead.  But it doesn't say these angels will worship those gods.

I’ve explained to you why it uses the word “gods” instead of “Gods” previously (in case you forgot already, see here and here).

Angels always minister to those who are “heirs”:    “But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?  Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?”  (Hebrews 1:13–14)

But since you seem to be interested in the differences between the capitalization or lowercase usage of “God” or “god”, you might find this quote from the early Christian writings interesting too.  I have often wondered why the translators of their works made a particular case choice in their translations.  This quote is from Hippolytus (c. 170-235 AD), from his work, THE REFUTATION OF ALL HERESIES, Book 10, Chapter XXX, and it fits completely with the topic of our discussion:

Quote

And thou shalt possess an immortal body, even one placed beyond the possibility of corruption, just like the soul. And thou shalt receive the kingdom of heaven, thou who, whilst thou didst sojourn in this life, didst know the Celestial King. And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast become God: for whatever sufferings thou didst undergo while being a man, these He gave to thee, because thou wast of mortal mould, but whatever it is consistent with God to impart, these God has promised to bestow upon thee, because thou hast been deified, and begotten unto immortality. This constitutes the import of the proverb, “Know thyself;” i.e., discover God within thyself, for He has formed thee after His own image. For with the knowledge of self is conjoined the being an object of God’s knowledge, for thou art called by the Deity Himself. Be not therefore inflamed, O ye men, with enmity one towards another, nor hesitate to retrace with all speed your steps. For Christ is the God above all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings, rendering regenerate the old man. And God called man His likeness from the beginning, and has evinced in a figure His love towards thee. And provided thou obeyest His solemn injunctions, and becomest a faithful follower of Him who is good, thou shalt resemble Him, inasmuch as thou shalt have honour conferred upon thee by Him. For the Deity, (by condescension,) does not diminish aught of the divinity of His divine perfection; having made thee even God unto His glory!

The original language of this text is in Greek, and I’m pretty sure that upper and lower case letters weren’t used in that language until a short time after Hyppolytus was around, so it makes me wonder who made the choice to capitalize “God” in the translation of this document.

On 8/1/2020 at 7:04 AM, theplains said:

The word Trinity is not in the Bible but looking at several verses, one can see the meaning.

Do you see the word 'exalt' or 'exalted' in the Book of Mormon meaning a human can become  a God?

Why do you ask me this question when you just answered it yourself to my question on the Trinity?  Each of the nine times that the word “exalt” or “exalted” is used in the Book of Mormon is in a quotation from the prophet Isaiah, so it’s not a word commonly used by the people in the Book of Mormon.  But the fact that a specific word isn’t used doesn’t mean the meaning isn’t found in the text, just as you claimed for the doctrine of the Trinity.  And I already addressed this by showing you where the Book of Mormon teaches that concept.   So what is the point?

On 8/1/2020 at 7:04 AM, theplains said:

I prefer to stay with what the scripture says instead of what Origen mentioned.

But Origen was staying with scripture according to his presentation, didn’t you notice?  Both the quotes I provided from the early Christians used scripture to back up the teachings, but it appears that you simply disagree with their version of Christianity and the way that they understood the scriptures (see more below).  And as a Latter-day Saint I will say without reservation that our doctrines and teachings are completely in harmony with scripture. 

So which one of us is right and how will we know?  You could try to understand how the earliest Christians viewed the verses that you have issues with.   But since so many people disagree on how the scriptures should be interpreted the only way to really sort this out is by revelation from God.   But then that’s exactly how the restoration of the gospel came about, through someone who was asking those same questions, and the original teachings were restored by God through revelation.

On 8/1/2020 at 7:04 AM, theplains said:

I believe God (the Creator) is of a different nature than his creations.

We are distinct from God in our mortal state in the sense that God is the creator of our material world.  But the scriptures also tell us that God is the “Father of spirits” (Heb 12:9) and that we are all the “offspring” [genos] of God (Acts 17:28-29).  The Greek word “genos” in that verse is the root of our English word “genes”.  The Greek word refers to the “kind” of being, and it is the same word used in the Greek Septuagint to translate the Hebrew word miyn (species), in verses like Genesis 1:25, “And God made the beast of the earth after his kind [genos], and cattle after their kind [genos], and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind [genos]: and God saw that it was good.”   So according to the Bible, we are the “kind” of being that God is, he is the “Father of spirits” and we are his “genos”.

On 8/1/2020 at 7:04 AM, theplains said:

I don't believe the quote of Origen has the support of scripture because he equates gods with deities, but then does not explain how Moses and Satan are both gods (non-deities).

On the contrary.  Origen says, “Scripture distinguishes between those gods which are such only in name and those which are truly gods, whether they are called by that name or not”, and he uses scripture to demonstrate his case.  This is from Origen, Contra Celsus, BOOK VIII, chapters III and IV:

Quote

Chapter III.

Before proceeding to the next point, it may be well for us to see whether we do not accept with approval the saying, “No man can serve two masters,” with the addition, “for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other,” and further, “Ye cannot serve God and mammon.”[1]  The defence of this passage will lead us to a deeper and more searching inquiry into the meaning and application of the words “gods” and “lords.Divine Scripture teaches us that there is “a great Lord above all gods.”[2]  And by this name “gods” we are not to understand the objects of heathen worship (for we know that “all the gods of the heathen are demons” [3]), but the gods mentioned by the prophets as forming an assembly, whom God “judges,” and to each of whom He assigns his proper work.  For “God standeth in the assembly of the gods: He judgeth among the gods.”[4]  For “God is Lord of gods,” who by His Son “hath called the earth from the rising of the sun unto the going down thereof.”[5]  We are also commanded to “give thanks to the God of gods.”[6]  Moreover, we are taught that “God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.”[7]  Nor are these the only passages to this effect; but there are very many others.

Chapter IV.

The sacred Scriptures teach us to think, in like manner, of the Lord of lords. For they say in one place, “Give thanks to the God of gods, for His mercy endureth for ever. Give thanks to the Lord of lords, for His mercy endureth for ever;”[8]  and in another, “God is King of kings, and Lord of lords.” For Scripture distinguishes between those gods which are such only in name and those which are truly gods, whether they are called by that name or not; and the same is true in regard to the use of the word “lords.” To this effect Paul says, “For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, as there are gods many, and lords many.”[9]  But as the God of gods calls whom He pleases through Jesus to his inheritance, “from the east and from the west,” and the Christ of God thus shows His superiority to all rulers by entering into their several provinces, and summoning men out of them to be subject to Himself, Paul therefore, with this in view, goes on to say, “But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by Him;” adding, as if with a deep sense of the marvellous and mysterious nature of the doctrine, “Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge.” When he says, “To us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things,” by “us” he means himself and all those who have risen up to the supreme God of gods and to the supreme Lord of lords. Now he has risen to the supreme God who gives Him an entire and undivided worship through His Son—the word and wisdom of God made manifest in Jesus. For it is the Son alone who leads to God those who are striving, by the purity of their thoughts, words, and deeds, to come near to God the Creator of the universe. I think, therefore, that the prince of this world, who “transforms himself into an angel of light,”[10] was referring to this and such like statements in the words, “Him follows a host of gods and demons, arranged in eleven bands.” Speaking of himself and the philosophers, he says, “We are of the party of Jupiter; others belong to other demons.” [12]   

Footnotes:

[1]  Matt 6:24,  [2] Psa 97:9, [3] Psa 96:5, [4] Psa 82:1, [5] Psa 50:1, [6] Psa 136:2, [7] Matt 22:32, [8]   Psalm 136:2-3, [9] 1 Cor 8:5 etc., [10] 2 Cor 11:14, [12]  Plato, Phaedrus, p. 246.

As you can see, Origen uses scripture to distinguish between those who are “truly gods” from those who aren’t.

But if you want to consider the views of modern Christians instead and see if they are afraid of using the word “gods” in the translation of scripture, what did you think about the quote I provided from Deuteronomy 32:8 from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible?  I noticed that you didn’t comment on that.

In reference to John 10:23-39 (34-36), you said:

On 8/1/2020 at 7:04 AM, theplains said:

I don't believe Jesus is defending his Deity in this statement but rather turning the tables on his hearers and pronouncing judgment on them.

I’d like to see you demonstrate that position from the context. 

On 8/1/2020 at 7:04 AM, theplains said:

From what I know of LDS theology, resurrection seems to be an unmerited gift/blessing and eternal life (exaltation) is an earned reward.

Is that accurate?

Both are free gifts, and the resurrection is provided to all without qualification.  But as we have discussed already (over and over and over) and as you agreed, you can’t receive eternal life if you haven’t been giving food to the hungry, drink to the thirsty, providing accommodations to strangers, clothing to the naked, and visiting the sick and the captives. Eternal life comes to those who receive the gift and “by patient continuance in well doing” use it to bless the lives of others and become the kinds of individuals that God will trust to sit with him in his throne.   And, as I have said since the beginning of this discussion (to quote a previous post):  “It’s a free gift and a promise to inherit the kind of life that God enjoys. There’s simply no way that anyone can earn it on their own accord or boast in their ability to do so because all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.  Consequently the only way to receive the promised inheritance is through the grace of God, by faith in his Son Jesus Christ and through his atonement.”  

On 8/1/2020 at 7:04 AM, theplains said:

Only the sheep are the joint-heirs.  The others are the children of the devil.

This is not a black and white situation where a person is either a joint-heir or they are the children of the devil.  I explained that previously in this post here.

On 8/1/2020 at 7:04 AM, theplains said:

Do you believe the LDS church definition of joint-heirs; that they are exalted beings?

The “joint-heirs” are those who receive eternal life and they are exalted beings.  Others will inherit a lesser kingdom as I discussed previously.

Edited by InCognitus
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...