Blasphemy or Biblical?

[_Albion]

Actually when asked by Mike Wallace on 60 Minutues about "As man is God once was; as God is man may become" didn't GBH reply: "I'm not sure we teach that. It's more a couplet than anything else."?

[_Albion]

Not a popular subject for those the church is trying to convert? So what are you saying exactly....let's not tell them about the scary stuff until they're in then we'll clue them in when they've been sucked in enough to believe it. Sounds to me like that what you are saying.

[_Themis]

Not a popular subject for those the church is trying to convert? So what are you saying exactly....let's not tell them about the scary stuff until they're in then we'll clue them in when they've been sucked in enough to believe it. Sounds to me like that what you are saying.

It is the milk before meat mentality.

[_Albion]

In my more unkind moments I tend to think bait and switch.

[_gdemetz]

Albion, you never addressed my question! You guys are critisizing the church, but it is you who keep twisting the truth! So what if those scriptures are critisizing unrighteous judges?! The scriptures are telling them that they are gods!!! Hello?!? Wake up to reality!!! Christ is answering those who are trying to stone Him in a critical manner also by reminding them that they are gods and the children of the Most High!!! What do frog eggs become (if they are not eaten, etc.) when they are grown?!? Frogs!!! What may we become?!? Immortal in the resurrection with power and authority as joint heirs of Christ...gods!!!!!

[_Albion]

I'm going to play your game for a moment, gdmetz. Your interpretation of Psalm 82 flies in the face of prevailing scholarship from both the Christian and the Jewish perspective. From my viewpoint you are using the error of your theology to simplistically interpret scripture to fit that error ignoring both tradition, history and context. I wonder if you take all scripture such a literal way ignoring all other explanations because they don't fit what you have already made up your mind to believe. I think Isaiah 43:10-ll clearly Trump's Psalm 82 in its clarity on the issue.

"You are my witnesses," declares the Lord.
"and my servant who I have chosen,
so that you may KNOW and BELIEVE me and understand that I am he.
Before me, NO god was formed, NOR WILL THERE BE ONE AFTER ME.
I, even I, am the Lord,
and apart from me there is no savior.
New International Version

Now I know you are stuck with the King James Version but the KJV renders it pretty much the same.

You have argued that I should take Psalm 82 exactly as it is written, forgoing any application of history or context, or even taking into account how the understanding of language may have changed in the hundreds of years since King James authorized the translation that bears his name and also the advancement of scholarship.

God here clearly dispels any notion of gods either before him or after him. Elsewhere in Isaiah he evens asks "are there any other gods beside me. I know not any."

[_gdemetz]

That's the problem with false religions Albion! They have to twist the truth to make sense of their false beliefs! The besides means equal!!! Are you going to call Jesus a liar also?! What do you think the gods means there?!? You need to change the "joint heirs with Christ" to means something else also! You need to change Revelation 3:21 also! Your feeble arguments make no sense whatsoever! Why don't you just make your own translation and call it the evangelical priestcraft version of the Bible?!?

[_Albion]

I note, gdemetz, that you carefully ignore the passage I quote with its very clear declaration. What part of no gods before me and none after me do you not get? Instead you got right to the quote I paraphrased attempting to explain it away with some kind of English usage interpretation. "Beside(s)" does not mean equal. I know you want it to mean that but it simply doesn't.

Oxford English Dictionary, arguably the definitive source for English usage: "at the side of, next to; in addition to, apart from. . ..Besides: in addition to; apart from; used to introduce an additional idea or explanation. "

I think I have made my point, that you resort to interpretation when it suits your position and literalism when that suits your purpose also....in this case to support a heretical and blasphemous doctrine that is at the very core of the original sin.

[_gdemetz]

Oh, now all of a sudden you seem to understand English! That means just what I said it means. There were no other Gods of Israel but Jehovah, or beside, or except Jehovah! However, one has to take ALL of the scriptures in context if he wants to understand the whole gospel! Daniel refers to the Most High God, meaning Heavenly Father. Obviously God the Father and Christ are not the same person, but yet they are both Gods, so that shoots down your argument right there! We can understand what all of the uses of God and gods mean in the Bible, but you can't! That's why you have to pretend like the "ye are gods" statement does not exist because you can't seem to take them all in context!!!

[_Albion]

Obfuscation, gdemetz as you continue to ignore the scripture I quoted. I reminder, too, that it is Mormon theology, a tiny voice in the wilderness assailing Biblical Christianity, that must prove itself and not the other way around.