Hello Bob,



Thanks for responding to my last post. I don?t know about you, but message board dialogue can be frustrating at times; understanding exactly what someone is attempting to communicate can be very difficult. So, forgive me if my following comments seem redundant, and/or unclear. (In this post I am going to restrict myself to just one topic, and continue to do so until we fully understand each other.) You posted:



>>

DW wrote:

But, it is not just Jesus Christ to whom God will give His glory. Note the following words of our Lord: John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:



And, I never said Jesus Christ will not give His glory to His children.>>



But you did post:



>>There is, and can only be one ALL powerful God, one Most High God, one "I AM," and God has already said He will not give His glory to another: Is. 42:8 "I am the LORD (jehovah): that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images.">>



Jesus words as recorded by the apostle John seem clear to me; the glory that God the Father gives to His Son is the same glory that the Son gives to His faithful disciples.



Here is John again:



John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:



Conclusion: the glory that God the Father gives to the Son is the exact same glory that the Son gives to the saints; as such, God?s glory is given to the saints.



Grace and peace,



David

Hello David:



And welcome to the forum. I wonder if you might want to take a stab at the question I asked TOm....

QUOTE:
If the LDS concept of making "men gods"--as you define it--is such that the final state of deified man is basically no different than the current state of the Biblical God, how do you reconcile that concept with Isaiah 43:10?

Thank you, DW, for your patience, and your persistence to understand my point. You're right about this form of communication. I'm fairly certain that if we could sit down face to face, we could come to an understanding (not necessarily an agreement) in a matter of minutes. Anyway, I'm happy to try again.

QUOTE:
Jesus words as recorded by the apostle John seem clear to me; the glory that God the Father gives to His Son is the same glory that the Son gives to His faithful disciples.



Here is John again:



John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:



Conclusion: the glory that God the Father gives to the Son is the exact same glory that the Son gives to the saints; as such, God?s glory is given to the saints.

QUOTE:
Glory (Gr. doxa) "of the nature and acts of God in self-manifestation, i.e., what He essentially is and does, as exhibited in whatever way he reveals Himself in these respects, and particularly in the person of Christ, in whom essentially His "glory" has ever shone forth and ever will do, John 17:5, 24;" (Vine's Dictionary).

This is one of four definitions of glory. If we use this definition in context with John 17:22, then Joseph Smith was right: we would have the same glory as that of God; we could arrive at the Station of a God just like heavenly Father. The problem with this definition in the context of John 17:22 is that Jesus spoke in past tense on the first half of the verse and present tense in the second half: "the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one even as we are one." Are we, as Christians, by the above (Vine's) definition, already "of the nature and acts of God in self-manifestation"? Are we already "what He essentially is and does"? I think you'll agree that we are not. Yet, Jesus said we are already one with God, even as Christ and the Father are one. Have we, as JS taught, "inherited the same glory...power...exaltation"? Have we already arrived "at the station of a God"? I think you'll agree that we have not. So this definition, which would make JS's teaching correct, does not apply. A different definition must apply. How about this definition: "of the state of blessedness into which believers are to enter hereafter through being brought into the likeness of Christ, e.g., Rom 8:18, 21; Phil 3:21." No. The "glory" in this definition is future tense, and John 17:22 is clearly not future tense. How about this one: "natural, as of the heavenly bodies, 1 Cor. 15:40, 41." No, this is a totally different subject. Then, how about this one: "of the character and ways of God as exhibited through Christ to and through believers, 2 Cor. 3:18 and 4:6." Yes, this fits. This is the correct definition and tense of "glory." But, it obviously doesn't help LDS doctrine as taught by JS.



So, your conclusion misses the mark, when you say "the glory that God the Father gives to the Son is the exact same glory that the Son gives to the saints; as such, God?s glory is given to the saints." By definition, the glory Christ gives to current believers which makes them one with God, is not at all the exact same glory that JS was talking about.

Here's something interesting I found at MRM:

QUOTE:
Conclusion



To Mormons who think they will someday become Gods of their own realms, we ask, "Did you make the heavens and the earth?" If not, consider the following passages from Jeremiah 10:10, 11:



"But the Lord is the true God, He is the living God, and an everlasting king: at His wrath the earth shall tremble, and the nations shall not be able to abide his indignation. Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens."



If the Lord is the only true God then will you be a false god? If He is the only living God, will you be a dead God? If you hope to become a God but did not make the heavens and the earth, according to the above passages, you can expect to perish. It may be argued that this verse refers to pagan idols. However that may be, let us not forget Psalm 96:5, which says that God considers all the gods of the nations as idols, whether they are hewn from wood, or stone, or "exalted" through good works. All will perish.



http://www.mrm.org/multimedia/text/as-man-is.html

QUOTE:
TOm:

QUOTE:
This if fine, but after publishing Becoming Gods he has not denied that God desires to ?make men gods.?

Perhaps I missed your definition of "God", however I seem to remember certain discussions between you and me where the God you describe as the one you put your faith in is quite similar in many respects to my "evangelical" version--at the cost of moving away from the concept held by Joseph Smith and other early Mormon authorities... possibly to the extent of abomination.



If the LDS concept of making "men gods"--as you define it--is such that the final state of deified man is basically no different than the current state of the Biblical God, how do you reconcile that concept with Isaiah 43:10?

The same way the ECFs, a number of Catholic scholars, and a small but increasing number of evangelicals do.



To become gods is to be united to God the Father through the atonement of God the Son, the witness of God the Holy Spirit, and more generally through divinely gifted Grace.

We do not become gods before, after, beside, above, or in additions to God the Father. Instead we become gods who are one God. We enter into the deifying relationship that makes men gods. From God we are given the great-making properties. In the end we will know that we are the deified and God is the deifier (the position A.N. Williams attributes to Athansasius in Grounds of Union: Deification in Aquinas and Palamas Thought), but we will be fully part of the divine community and be rightfully called gods.

Richard Abanes calls it ?monotheistic deification? and speaks approvingly of it.



BTW, for the purposes of this thread the above is not something I want to concerned with at this juncture.



Instead:

Can it be seen that the Bible teaches that men can become gods? And by ?gods? I mean possessors of at least a share of actual deifying divinity, not judges or corrupt ? but possessors of divinity. ????



Charity, TOm

QUOTE:
I do want to steer you away from senseless polemics though. I have tried to make the topic of this thread clear. It is about deification and the Bible. I happen to be a LDS and allow the teachings of Joseph Smith to INFORM my view of scripture, but concerning deification I do not think much informing is necessary, the Bible teaches deification!

If the Bible teaches the deification of man as taught by JS, then you didn't make that case from the Bible verses you used. And, I'm pretty sure I addressed every verse you offered into evidence for that LDS doctrine. And, you certainly have not countered with any additional defense to my examination of those verses.

QUOTE:
I want you to answer this!

Can you see that the Bible teaches that men can become gods? And by ?gods? I mean possessors of at least a share of actual deifying divinity, not judges or corrupt ? but possessors of divinity. ????

Since that is not the terminology used by any NT writer, I would not use that terminology. I think it's misleading, if not out-n-out inaccurate. Paul said "that by these (exceeding great and precious promises) ye might be partakers of the divine nature." So, that is the only terminology I would use. And, I would be sure to point out the definition of "partakers." And, I would be sure to point out that what JS taught doesn't come close to matching what Peter said in light of the definition of "partakers."



Like I said in a previous post, the closest you get in the Bible to the belief that "as God is, man may be," is 2 Peter 1:4. But, the definition of "partakers" is not a match with the couplet or JS's teaching about inheriting the same power, glory and exaltation until we arrive at the station of a God. And, as I said to David, your use of lower case "god," in contrast to JS's use of upper case "God" is apparent. I'm not sure if this is inadvertant or deliberate. But, it makes a difference. JS's "God" assumes equality, your use of "gods" assumes something less than equal.

QUOTE:
You who are not a LDS, who refuse to allow scholarly LDS to explain what our scriptures teach, and ? are not qualified to tell me what Joseph Smith taught.

First, if the scholar is a GA or a prophet, I'm perfectly willing to hear his explanation of JS's teachings. Second, this is a different tone from you TOm :? . I don't recall telling you what JS taught, I've simply quoted him. Did I misquote him? What are you objecting to?

QUOTE:
I am sure you have an above average non-LDS understanding of Mormonism, but I find your insistence to quote Joseph Smith and attack his ideas distracting.

First, based on the Biblical defense you've offered to date, the Bible doesn't teach what JS taught. In my counter-interpretation, using context and defining terms, your interpretation hasn't stood up. You misdefined "image" in its context and failed to define "partakers" in 2 Pet. 1:4. Second, I have told you from day one not to bother quoting ECFs. I even told you at one point that it was distracting. Yet, you have persisted. I only keep the quotes of JS and the couplet in the fore of my posts, in case my reference to it is unclear to other readers.

QUOTE:
David is not a LDS, what is your message to him? It seems your message is, ?Since Joseph Smith taught ?, deification cannot be part of the Bible.?

My message to David, you and anyone else, is that what JS taught is not what Christ and His Apostles taught. Your posts were supposed to refute that. I've countered with definitions of terms and an exegetical interpretation. You seem to be practicing eisegesis, by trying to read LDS doctrine into the scriptures. When terms are defined and in context, then the intended meaning can be extracted.



What your issue with Richard Abanes has to do with this discussion, I don't know. I'm not here to defend, explain or otherwise speak on his behalf, any more than ECFs.



I hope my discussion with David, will indeed help with your understanding of what I'm saying. Perhaps any miscommunications can be cleared up through his and my discussions. :~)

TOm:

QUOTE:
The same way the ECFs, a number of Catholic scholars, and a small but increasing number of evangelicals do.



To become gods is to be united to God the Father through the atonement of God the Son, the witness of God the Holy Spirit, and more generally through divinely gifted Grace.

We do not become gods before, after, beside, above, or in additions to God the Father. Instead we become gods who are one God. We enter into the deifying relationship that makes men gods. From God we are given the great-making properties. In the end we will know that we are the deified and God is the deifier (the position A.N. Williams attributes to Athansasius in Grounds of Union: Deification in Aquinas and Palamas Thought), but we will be fully part of the divine community and be rightfully called gods.

Richard Abanes calls it ?monotheistic deification? and speaks approvingly of it.



BTW, for the purposes of this thread the above is not something I want to concerned with at this juncture.

Well apparently you feel this is a separate question from the topic of this thread... so I'm at a loss at how to proceed. I'm going to respond here, but if you don't feel this post is relevant then feel free to copy it and respond on a new thread.



I think this is relevant to the topic of this thread, because the whole premise rests on the possibility of men becoming "gods" and it would appear to me that Isaiah 43:10 specifically nullifies that concept regardless of how the ECF's, LDS or you want to spin it.



Now having said that I found this statement to be... I don't know how to put it... shocking actually...

QUOTE:
Instead we become gods who are one God.

This just blows me away. My eyebrows are definitely raised. I think I am finally grasping what you are saying here...



In other words--and please do correct me if I'm misunderstanding your position--when it comes right down to it, you are not actually saying that you believe the Bible teaches that "men can become gods;" rather, you are actually claiming the Bible teaches that men can become God. ! ! ? ?



As Hank the Cowdog would say: Holy smokes Drover!



What am I missing?

QUOTE:
Instead we become gods who are one God.

This just blows me away. My eyebrows are definitely raised. I think I am finally grasping what you are saying here...



In other words--and please do correct me if I'm misunderstanding your position--when it comes right down to it, you are not actually saying that you believe the Bible teaches that "men can become gods;" rather, you are actually claiming the Bible teaches that men can become God. ! ! ? ?



As Hank the Cowdog would say: Holy smokes Drover! [/quote]

Yeah, that is pretty blasphemous.

Hi Bob,



Once again, thanks for getting back to me. You posted:



>>You posted:

[DW]Jesus words as recorded by the apostle John seem clear to me; the glory that God the Father gives to His Son is the same glory that the Son gives to His faithful disciples. Here is John again: John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: Conclusion: the glory that God the Father gives to the Son is the exact same glory that the Son gives to the saints; as such, God?s glory is given to the saints.

Quote:



Glory (Gr. doxa) "of the nature and acts of God in self-manifestation, i.e., what He essentially is and does, as exhibited in whatever way he reveals Himself in these respects, and particularly in the person of Christ, in whom essentially His "glory" has ever shone forth and ever will do, John 17:5, 24;" (Vine's Dictionary).



[BB]This is one of four definitions of glory. If we use this definition in context with John 17:22, then Joseph Smith was right: we would have the same glory as that of God; we could arrive at the Station of a God just like heavenly Father. The problem with this definition in the context of John 17:22 is that Jesus spoke in past tense on the first half of the verse and present tense in the second half: "the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one even as we are one." Are we, as Christians, by the above (Vine's) definition, already "of the nature and acts of God in self-manifestation"? Are we already "what He essentially is and does"? I think you'll agree that we are not. Yet, Jesus said we are already one with God, even as Christ and the Father are one.>>





Me: Excellent response Bob, I truly think we are beginning to arrive at a better understanding of the complex issues at hand. The New International Dictionary of the New Testament concurs with the definition you provided from Vine?s (although it has 6 definitions in total instead of 4). And one of my favorite NT commentators, R.C.H. Lenski (also noted for his Greek skills) is in agreement. He wrote:

QUOTE:
It is impossible to dissociate the glory the Father has given to Jesus from the glory mentioned in v.1 and 5. This is the eternal glory which the Logos had before the world was, the uncreated and essential glory of God, consisting of the sum of the divine attributes. This glory was given to Jesus in his human nature at the incarnation when the Logos assumed that nature. This glory the apostles beheld in Jesus, shining through the veil of his flesh (1:14). (The Interpretation of John, p. 1159.)

Lenski goes on to state that the same glory that was given to Jesus was then given by Jesus to ?all believers??and this is exactly what the passage in John 17:22 relates. But such a straight-forward interpretation seems to a create a problem: if believers receive the same glory from Jesus that God gave to him then why are we not already "what He essentially is and does"?



In an attempt to resolve this apparent paradox you wrote (quoting part of this again):



>>Are we, as Christians, by the above (Vine's) definition, already "of the nature and acts of God in self-manifestation"? Are we already "what He essentially is and does"? I think you'll agree that we are not. Yet, Jesus said we are already one with God, even as Christ and the Father are one.>>



Me: First, once again, we are clearly not already "what He essentially is and does". But then, I think you make an error with ?Jesus said we are already one with God, even as Christ and the Father are one.? This is not what the text says, rather it states, ?that they may be one, even as we are one?. I think this is a very important distinction and shall shortly attempt to demonstrate why.



You continued with:



>>Have we, as JS taught, "inherited the same glory...power...exaltation"? Have we already arrived "at the station of a God"? I think you'll agree that we have not. So this definition, which would make JS's teaching correct, does not apply. A different definition must apply. How about this definition: "of the state of blessedness into which believers are to enter hereafter through being brought into the likeness of Christ, e.g., Rom 8:18, 21; Phil 3:21." No. The "glory" in this definition is future tense, and John 17:22 is clearly not future tense. How about this one: "natural, as of the heavenly bodies, 1 Cor. 15:40, 41." No, this is a totally different subject. Then, how about this one: "of the character and ways of God as exhibited through Christ to and through believers, 2 Cor. 3:18 and 4:6." Yes, this fits. This is the correct definition and tense of "glory." But, it obviously doesn't help LDS doctrine as taught by JS.



So, your conclusion misses the mark, when you say "the glory that God the Father gives to the Son is the exact same glory that the Son gives to the saints; as such, God?s glory is given to the saints." By definition, the glory Christ gives to current believers which makes them one with God, is not at all the exact same glory that JS was talking about.>>



Me: Second, if I am reading your comments correctly, it is your belief that because of the different tenses involved, the glory which God gave to Jesus must be different than the glory which Jesus gave to His believers (i.e. a ?different definition must apply?). But this certainly seems to contradict the text itself for it emphatically states that, ?the glory which thou gavest me I have given them??Jesus does not make a distinction between the two!



Now to the paradox: if the glory which God gave to Jesus is then given to believers then why are we not already "what He essentially is and does"? I believe that the solution lies in the degree in which the same glory is given. It was given in its complete fullness to Jesus, but not so with believers. Believers will not receive the fullness of God?s glory until heaven. This concept fits very well with other Biblical texts. For instance in Rom. 8:30 we read:



Romans 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.



All the tenses are past, and yet, though believers have been already fully justified, they have not been fully glorified. But Paul, as he does in others instances, speaks of a future event as if it has already happened.



God?s glory is one, but the process by which believers are glorified is by degrees. Paul also wrote:



2 Cor. 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.



The ?now yet future? motif is all over the NT, and applies to many aspects of the believer?s life, including glorification.



Anyway, I fear this post may be getting a bit too long; I sincerely hope that I have cogently conveyed my thoughts to you, and would like to end this post by saying that I am of the opinion that our dialogue has not only been stimulating, but more importantly, productive.



Grace and peace,



David

QUOTE:
First, once again, we are clearly not already "what He essentially is and does". But then, I think you make an error with ?Jesus said we are already one with God, even as Christ and the Father are one.? This is not what the text says, rather it states, ?that they may be one, even as we are one?. I think this is a very important distinction and shall shortly attempt to demonstrate why.

While what you say of verse 22 is correct, we must consider it in the context of verses 21 and 23 in which Christ clearly prayed, "...that they may also be one in us..." and "I in them, thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one."

QUOTE:
But this certainly seems to contradict the text itself for it emphatically states that, ?the glory which thou gavest me I have given them??Jesus does not make a distinction between the two!

But, if we apply the definition that fits the tense ("of the character and ways of God as exhibited through Christ to and through believers", then I'm not seeing a problem with the lack of distinction.



In the first (Vine's) "glory" definition I presented in my previous post ("of the nature and acts of God in self-manifestation, i.e., what He essentially is and does, as exhibited in whatever way he reveals Himself in these respects, and particularly in the person of Christ, in whom essentially His "glory" has ever shone forth and ever will do, John 17:5, 24;", I made the point that this definition could not apply to us. Let me now say that that definition could apply to Christ because of His God incarnate status. However, the context of verse 22, indeed the entire context of Christ's prayer for the disciples, doesn't lend itself to apply this definition to Christ, any more than it does to us. However, the other definition which fits us ("of the character and ways of God as exhibited through Christ to and through believers", can certainly also apply to Christ.



I don't know if I'm making myself clear. What I'm trying to say is that, the latter doxa definition fits for both the glory God gave Christ and the glory Christ gave us. But, the former (first) doxa definition, since it could only apply to Christ, is not applicable to either in this case of the context of verse 22. I hope I'm making sense.



So, your "reading" my comments wasn't exactly correct, since I'm not saying "that because of the different tenses involved, the glory which God gave to Jesus must be different than the glory which Jesus gave to His believers (i.e. a ?different definition must apply?)." What I AM trying to say is that because of the different tenses, and because the first definition cannot apply to us, and because the latter definition can apply to both the glory which God gave Jesus and the glory Jesus gave us, therefore the latter definition is the only applicable definition in the case of verse 22.

QUOTE:
Now to the paradox: if the glory which God gave to Jesus is then given to believers then why are we not already "what He essentially is and does"? I believe that the solution lies in the degree in which the same glory is given. It was given in its complete fullness to Jesus, but not so with believers. Believers will not receive the fullness of God?s glory until heaven. This concept fits very well with other Biblical texts.

Based on my above explanation, I'm not able to see that "degree" has anything to do with it. From the wording and context with surrounding verses, it appears that we are already in full receipt of the glory and oneness that Christ prayed for His disciples. There is nothing in this passage, the prayer of Jesus for the disciples, which indicates a more complete fullness of God's glory in heaven.

QUOTE:
For instance in Rom. 8:30 we read:



Romans 8:30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.



All the tenses are past, and yet, though believers have been already fully justified, they have not been fully glorified. But Paul, as he does in others instances, speaks of a future event as if it has already happened.

While it is true that our salvation, justification, glorification, etc., won't be fully realized until we're in heaven, all NT scripture on the subject consistently indicates, by use of past and present tenses, that believers are presently in full possession of them. There is no reason to believe Paul is using past and present tenses only in the abstract. Believers are truly, fully and securely saved, justified, and glorified. The only thing separating believers from fully realizing what they already fully possess, is the resurrection. Jesus, whenever He taught the salvation gospel, also spoke of these things as being fully possessed in the present. I don't see Jesus praying in John 17 for us to have received a degree of His glory. I can't be any more saved, justified, glorified, one with my brethren in Christ and God than I already am. In heaven, I can fully realize the possession I had on earth, but while on earth, could only taste it and see it through a dark glass. "Degrees" of anything is not taught in the Bible.

QUOTE:
Paul also wrote:



2 Cor. 3:18 But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory, even as by the Spirit of the Lord.



The ?now yet future? motif is all over the NT, and applies to many aspects of the believer?s life, including glorification.

2 Cor. 3:18 is making my case. My salvation, justification, glorification, the glory of the Lord...are beheld as in a glass (see also, 1 Cor. 13:12), but are nevertheless, beheld. And, we are being changed into the image of Christ, even by the Spirit of the Lord (who is in us, John 17:23), from the present glory that we fully possess to the glory we will fully realize at the resurrection.



You "now yet future" motif description "all over the NT," is correct. I just don't find any "degree" principle included.

QUOTE:
Anyway, I fear this post may be getting a bit too long; I sincerely hope that I have cogently conveyed my thoughts to you, and would like to end this post by saying that I am of the opinion that our dialogue has not only been stimulating, but more importantly, productive.

Compared to TOm's, Roger's and several of mine, your posts are short. I, too, hope you have made sense of my tome. I agree that we seem to be making progress.



But, let me ask you: are you, at this point, in light of your defense, still possibly seeing TOm's LDS doctrine that "as God is, man may be," is the Biblically-based privilege of LDS?

Bob:



You beat me to the punch. I had the following post all typed out and then my c.p.u. crashed and I had to restart which takes about as long as waiting for service at the post office. luckily I had saved it...



Interestingly, it seems to me that we probably agree on this--imagine that--except you obviously have a better grasp of the whole thing. I think I like your logic and application, yet I'm still reluctant to argue for anything too emphatically in this regard since it appears to me that no matter what, it comes down to human interpretation of divine attributes, which, at best, can only be educated speculation.



Your interpretation relies on Vine's definition of "glory" and while I don't think I disagree with it, I also don't think Vine is necessarily di-vine (haha, lame pun intended). The point is no matter what we're relying on human reasoning here. So my conclusion is: we simply can't know for sure.



But as my previously written post will point out, the concept of human beings--or I guess I should say "men"--which brings up the whole "what about the women?" discussion--becoming, not just little "gods" (whatever that is), but actually one with God or in other words becoming God (which I shudder to even write!)--something about that just does not ring of truth to me. Anyway, here's my post:







David:



When it comes to discussions about the nature of God I tend to feel way out of my league, however I'd like to offer a couple observations for whatever they're worth...



Doesn't this whole debate rest on the concept that "glory" and "divinity" are the same thing? Isn't it possible that "glorification" could refer to an "exalted" state above present humanity but still below--even well below--omniscience and omnipotence?



Isn't it also possible that the "glory" obtainable by humans is something on the level of purity or holiness--something we are not capable of at present, but when actualized will indeed permit a "oneness" of fellowship with God without actually transforming us into being God (or gods)?



Wouldn't that also fit nicely with John 17:22? (He has given us the means of obtaining holiness which will allow us to become one in fellowship with God?)



When I consider the sheer awesomeness of a being capable of creating all that is; of unlimited knowledge; of unlimited power; of unlimited essence... a being never created but always existing... it is next to impossible for me to consider that any finite created being could ever reach that level of "glorification." In fact, it is difficult to disassociate the concept from blasphemy in my mind, of the type Isaiah seems to be warning about in chapter 14...

QUOTE:


"I will ascend to the tops of the clouds; I will make myself like the Most High." But you are brought down to the grave to the depths of the pit. Isaiah 14:14-15

(Sorry I don't have King James nearby)



Isaiah also has God asking:

QUOTE:
"To whom will you compare me? Or who is my equal?" says the Holy One. Lift your eyes and look to the heavens: Who created all these? He who brings out the starry host one by one, and calls them each by name. Because of his great power and mighty strength, not one of them is missing.

Of course it's a rhetorical question for we know the answer: there is none to compare you with, Lord.



Further, Isaiah 43:10 is so straightforward I simply do not see a way around it, nor the need to try, except to try to squeeze a doctrine of deification out of the rest of the Bible.

QUOTE:
Before me no god was formed, nor will there be one after me.

This is as plain as day to me. I do not see how a deification doctrine can exist simultaneous to this verse. Do you not see the incompatibility? What am I missing?

I'm with you, Roger. One thing I have not stated to either TOm or David (or anyone else for that matter), which I will declare now: if we were to try to talk hypothetical percentages regarding how much of the "divine nature" we will "be partakers of" (2 Peter 1:4), neither I nor anyone else could come up with a percentage. "...it doth not yet appear what we shall be ~" Nevertheless, "we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like Him; for we shall see Him as He is."



So, it could be that believers will partake in a very high percentage of the divine nature. But, it is still clear that there is no NT verse or passage which indicates that the LDS couplet and JS's teaching about inheriting the same power, glory and exaltation until we arrive at the station of a God, has any basis in truth. So, not matter "what we shall be," exaltation to equality with God isn't taught.



I know I'm preaching to the choir on this matter with you, Roger. I just took this opportunity to add these comments to the mix.



I will also take this opportunity to reiterate a previous comment which is very important, and I don't want it to be missed or blown off by the Mormon posters or anyone else:

QUOTE:
Mormonism has lowered Almighty God to the status of an exalted man. In fact, by doing so, Mormonism has made God the same species as man. He's simply a spiritually advanced, progressed version of us. Mormons aren't even theists. They worship a created (or birthed) exalted man and call him God the Father, because he's allegedly OUR natural, exalted parent. So, godhood is no more than advanced manhood, in Mormonism. This theology couldn't get any further from the teachings of the prophets, Christ and His apostles in the Bible.

And, as I'm resubmitting and rereading my own quote, I've had an additional thought regarding the previously raised (by TOm) topic of "divine investiture." My above assertion may shed more light on the LDS belief in divine investiture. They teach that God's name (Elohim) was placed on Jehovah. This keeps the LDS doctrine alive, that Elohim and Jehovah are two separate Gods. But, since Mormons have reduced Almighty God to the status of an exalted man, a spiritually advanced, progressed version of us, it may be said that the God of Mormonism, their exalted man, is called God the Father by human (Mormon) investiture. Because, if He's one of an incalculable number of Gods before Him, and of an infinite number of Gods yet to follow through eternity, then He's nobody special. Anybody who wants to jump through the Mormon hoops can become one.



To reemphasize, Mormons aren't theists, they worship men as Gods.



Just some thoughts in embryo :wink: .