Does the LDS church teach that men can evolve into a God?

[dberrie2020]

Why do you ignore the rest of Scripture, like all of the verses that say there is ONLY ONE TRUE GOD,

And why do you ignore the verses which separates out God the Son from the "one God" of the Biblical NT--and assigns the "one God" as the God and Father of God the Son?

1 Corinthians 8:6---King James Version (KJV)
6 But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

1 Timothy 2:5--King James Version (KJV)
5 For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus;

Ephesians 4:4-6--King James Version (KJV)
4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
5 One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
6 One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

John 17:3---King James Version (KJV)
3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

Matthew 22:44 ---King James Version (KJV)
44 The Lord said unto my Lord, Sit thou on my right hand, till I make thine enemies thy footstool?

1 Peter 1:3--King James Version (KJV)
3 Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, which according to his abundant mercy hath begotten us again unto a lively hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,

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

Ephesians 1:17---King James Version (KJV)
17 That the God of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of glory, may give unto you the spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him:

Hebrews 1:9---King James Version (KJV)
9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

So--how does any of that somehow annul the testimony of the Biblical writers--which confirm there is a Divine Council of gods?

Psalm 82:1---English Standard Version
1 God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:

 

[dberrie2020]

Almost nothing you wrote is the truth. The core of the NT--the 4 Gospels, Paul's letters, and Acts--were accepted as canon by around 200 AD or so. It took a little longer for the rest of the NT books to be accepted, but they were. It was not something done quickly or lightly, but with care and discernment. Much more carefully than the folks that accepted your founding prophet's pious fairy tale, the BoM.

Then perhaps you wouldn't mind relating to us what you find in the Book of Mormon--which isn't found in the Biblical text?

Crickets.

 

[dberrie2020]

Almost nothing you wrote is the truth. The core of the NT--the 4 Gospels, Paul's letters, and Acts--were accepted as canon by around 200 AD or so. It took a little longer for the rest of the NT books to be accepted, but they were.

It was around 300 years after the death of the apostles when the church accepted the Biblical NT--as we have it today. That isn't a "little longer"--it's two centuries longer than 200 A.D.

 

[Theo1689]

It was around 300 years after the death of the apostles when the church accepted the Biblical NT--as we have it today. That isn't a "little longer"--it's two centuries longer than 200 A.D.

That's simply false.
What do you think the Apostolic Fathers were quoting for the first 400 years of the church?
They were quoting the BIBLE!

 

[Theo1689]

Almost nothing you wrote is the truth. The core of the NT--the 4 Gospels, Paul's letters, and Acts--were accepted as canon by around 200 AD or so. It took a little longer for the rest of the NT books to be accepted, but they were. It was not something done quickly or lightly, but with care and discernment. Much more carefully than the folks that accepted your founding prophet's pious fairy tale, the BoM.

Correction... . They were (officially) "recognized" as canon by that time.
They were always canon, however, and were quoted frequently by the Apostolic Fathers, and ECF's.

And before they try to twist your words, they were never "voted" upon.

 

[Theo1689]

Again, you missed the point, the nice thing about having copies of copies is that you can see that the ERRORS were preserved and the original content left completely unknown.

That's simply false, of course.
There were copyist errors, to be sure, they are inevitable in manuscripts (ie. manually, handwritten copies). But we have enough manuscripts to know that they are errors, and to know what the original readings were.

It's noteworthy that BoJ can only speak in vague terms, and can never give any CONCRETE examples.

Those who are interested in the transmission of the NT text would do well to take Dan Wallace's Credo Course on "Textual Criticism".

It's also amusing that one of the most well-known critics of the text of the Bible, Bart Ehrman, was on one of those night time shows (Stephen Colbert, or something similar), promoting his book, "Misquoting Jesus". When the host asked Ehrman what he thought the Bible REALLY said originally, Ehrman responded, "pretty much what it says today".

 

[brotherofJared]

Your corruption argument (actually your church's argument) fell flat when the Dead Sea scrolls were unearthed and they found a nearly intact scroll of Isaiah 1000 years older than anything else they had previously. Hmmmmm..........

Uh. No. If anything the DSS confirmed that changes have been made to the Isaiah text since the DSS version and the DSS version is still well after Isaiah's time, so. If there are changes there and it's not an original text, then like the New Testament text, it is quite likely that there are a lot more changes and we're just copying the errors.

 

[brotherofJared]

Almost nothing you wrote is the truth.

Almost nothing you wrong is true.

The core of the NT--the 4 Gospels, Paul's letters, and Acts--were accepted as canon by around 200 AD or so.

Prove it. If they were accepted as canon, why don't we have a complete set from that period? We don't. Some of the manuscripts we have don't show up until 300AD

You are entitled to your own opinions but you are not entitled to your own facts:

The earliest known complete list of the 27 books of the New Testament is found in a letter written by Athanasius, a 4th-century bishop of Alexandria, dated to 367 AD. The 27-book New Testament was first formally canonized during the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North Africa. (Wikipedia)

And you have proof that Acts 5 never happened...?

What did I say? It's common sense. The story is just dumb. The Holy Ghost isn't going to kill anyone. I said something did happen, I'm sure it did, but what's written didn't happen. That's a clear embellishment to scare children and simple-minded adults. This is, of course, my opinion. You can believe whatever you want, but I don't accept it as an inerrant text.

 

[brotherofJared]

That's simply false.
What do you think the Apostolic Fathers were quoting for the first 400 years of the church?

Fragments. personal notes. Journals.

 

[Theo1689]

If there are changes there and it's not an original text, then like the New Testament text, it is quite likely that there are a lot more changes and we're just copying the errors.

Words like "if", and "likely", demonstrate that your bogus claims are based on nothing but self-serving speculation, because your cult REQUIRES you to believe the Bible has been corrupted.

Like I said, you are unable to provide any CONCRETE evidence for your false claims.


You can't point to, "(1) here's a verse, and (2) here's what it currently says, and (3) here's proof that it used to say something completely different".

 

[Theo1689]

Fragments. personal notes. Journals.

We have enough "fragments" from the ECF's to confirm the ENTIRE New Testament.
As usual, you simply have no clue what you're talking about.

And you have ZERO concrete evidence.
All you have are vague, self-serving ASSUMPTIONS.

 

[Theo1689]

Almost nothing you wrong is true.

Prove it. If they were accepted as canon, why don't we have a complete set from that period?

Um, because papyrus doesn't last forever?
We are fortunate to have as many papyri as we currently do, since they were found in arid environments, which preserved them longer.

As usual, you demonstrate that you have no clue about the topic you're trying to discuss.

The earliest known complete list of the 27 books of the New Testament is found in a letter written by Athanasius, a 4th-century bishop of Alexandria, dated to 367 AD. The 27-book New Testament was first formally canonized during the councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397) in North Africa. (Wikipedia)

The keyword here is FORMALLY.
They were ACTUALLY (and "in practice") recognized from the first century.
That's why the AF's QUOTED from them!

What did I say? It's common sense.

<Chuckle>

"Common sense" is what someone says when they have no EVIDENCE for their bogus claims.

 

[organgrinder]

Umm, Yea. "that" is your error.

Isn't Jesus a "man god"? Was he not a man and is a god?

The idea that we may become one is taught in the scriptures. It is what a "joint-heir" is. That's what it means to sit on the throne with Him. What else would John mean when he says we will be "like him"?

So sorry, but the Bible does teach that we "may become one". It appears that you disbelieve the biblical scriptures and try to rationalize them to fit your theology. That is your error.

Jesus is and was and always will be eternal God. He chose to become a man and divest himself of all power and authority of being God, but had the nature of both God and man. as Bonnie has said, it was critical he become fully man to live a perfect life 100% in tune with the Holy Spirit to do the father's will and never sin, thus becoming the perfect Lamb of God sacrificed for our sins at Passover. He rose and broke the power of sin and death and opened the gates of heaven to the believers OT and NT.

Being a joint heir does not mean we will be "gods". We will be servants and priests in the kingdom. You can see that in Revelation.

Here is the context of the scripture you meant to quote but incorrectly said "may become one", whatever you meant by that. Perhaps becoming a god I guess. Here is the actual quote in context:


"I do not pray for these alone, but also for those who will believe in Me through their word; 21 that they all may be one, as You, Father, are in Me, and I in You; that they also may be one in Us, that the world may believe that You sent Me. 22 And the glory which You gave Me I have given them, that they may be one just as We are one: 23 I in them, and You in Me; that they may be made perfect in one, and that the world may know that You have sent Me, and have loved them as You have loved Me.
(John 17:20-23 NKJV)

Do you even understand what was written? He is talking unity of the believers in John 17. Jesus lives within the born-again believer. Not sure you believe that because it is what Jesus said and it is, after all, a Bible verse. It is very easy to understand, unless, of course, you have to twist and disbelieve what the scriptures say, just as you did in an earlier post about the Holy Ghost (KJV) killing Ananias and Sapphira. What is wrong with you? The word is explicit that they lied to the Holy Spirit and they died. You say it is an error but you pulled that out of you back pocket (I will be nice here) with zero substantiation. You are a Mormon that simply rejects the written word of God for any number of reasons-- mostly because you don't like what it says and runs counter to what you church teaches.

 

[Bonnie]

Can we say diversionary tactic? Yes, we can...hey, guys, reread my Mormon apologetic tactics in my signature.

 

[brotherofJared]

Um, because papyrus doesn't last forever?

Lame. We have papyrus that is much older than 200 AD.

The keyword here is FORMALLY.

Sorry, if they weren't formally canonized, they were not canonized.

They were ACTUALLY (and "in practice") recognized from the first century.
That's why the AF's QUOTED from them!

Prove it. Where are these scriptures?

 

[brotherofJared]

Words like "if", and "likely", demonstrate that your bogus claims are based on nothing but self-serving speculation, because your cult REQUIRES you to believe the Bible has been corrupted.

The fact is, we have no original manuscripts and therefore you are speculating. The fact is, there have been changes to the text that has been copied, some intentional and some from apparent mistakes. The fact is, if there are mistakes in what we have, it is likely that there are mistakes in the documents since the originals and all we have been doing is copying the mistakes 99,5% accurately. Without originals everyone is speculation. I'm speculating based on the facts that we have. As we've gotten closer to the originals, we have discovered mistakes and changes that were intentionally made. I suspect that as older manuscripts are uncovered we will learn of other errors. But I further suspect that it will make no difference to mainstream Christianity if it doesn't agree with their theology.

 

[brotherofJared]

We have enough "fragments" from the ECF's to confirm the ENTIRE New Testament.

 

[The Prophet]

Retort was to Organgrinder:

Something has been brought to the table--

Psalm 82:1---English Standard Version
1 God has taken his place in the divine council;
in the midst of the gods he holds judgment:

Crickets.

 

[brotherofJared]

Jesus is and was and always will be eternal God.

So? That doesn't answer my question. Was Jesus a man and is Jesus God? If so, doesn't that make Jesus a man god?

Being a joint heir does not mean we will be "gods"

Why not? What does "joint-heir" mean? In legal terms, it means to inherit everything the person has should they die. Well, Christ will never die and neither with we, but the meaning is obvious. We will have the right to everything the Savior has in its totality as though we were Him.

I'm not sure what your issue with being a god is, but that's what joint-heir is, the right to his throne with him. That's what the verse says, why don't you believe it?

We will be servants and priests in the kingdom. You can see that in Revelation.

No. In Revelations, it states that we will be kings and priests, big difference.

Here is the context of the scripture you meant to quote but incorrectly

I didn't quote a scripture, I used one word in the scripture.

Here is the context of the scripture you meant to quote but incorrectly said "may become one", whatever you meant by that. Perhaps becoming a god I guess. Here is the actual quote in context:

Nope. I wasn't quoting scripture. You totally missed that one. No need to address it.

 

[Theo1689]

The fact is, we have no original manuscripts and therefore you are speculating.

If I have a copy of a driver's license, we don't need the original to know what is on the D.L.

We don't have the autographs, but we have MORE than enough copies to know that we can know what was in the original.

The fact is, there have been changes to the text that has been copied, some intentional and some from apparent mistakes. The fact is, if there are mistakes in what we have, it is likely that there are mistakes in the documents since the originals and all we have been doing is copying the mistakes 99,5% accurately.

You have offered ZERO evidence for this self-serving speculation.

Without originals everyone is speculation.

Not at all.
Just like footprints is evidence,
just like fingerprints are evidence,
just like tire prints are evidence,
copies of the originals are evidence.

I'm speculating based on the facts that we have. As we've gotten closer to the originals, we have discovered mistakes and changes that were intentionally made.

And you continue to offer ZERO evidence for your self-serving SPECULATION.

I suspect that as older manuscripts are uncovered we will learn of other errors.

Quite the contrary.
The more manuscripts we discover, the more we see that we DO have the original rendering.
You've obviously never studied textual criticism, you have no clue what you're talking about.