And while I think of it Ghost, I think you also find an certain Youtube critic of the local churches to be a hero? One Texas Street Preacher who sweverely cirtiticizes the local churches and the late brother Witness Lee.
I want you to know that this Youtuber seems to have a habit that he will not publish in his comment section, comments that take his errors to task.
That's convenient. Just act like nobody can take on your criticisms.
Because . . . well SEE? . . . No one has a reply. supposedly.
He will not post counter arguments in his comments last time I tried.
I know others who agree with me.
@sonship saidNot a single Christian on this site agrees with your deification nonsense.
And while I think of it Ghost, I think you also find an certain Youtube critic of the local churches to be a hero? One Texas Street Preacher who sweverely cirtiticizes the local churches and the late brother Witness Lee.
I want you to know that this Youtuber seems to have a habit that he will not publish in his comment section, comments that take his errors to task.
...[text shortened]... l not post counter arguments in his comments last time I tried.
I know others who agree with me.
That speaks volumes.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
Ad populum fallacy won't do the job you CANNOT do.
How many Christians here say "Amen" to your atheism?
Apply the same ad populum logic and where do you stand then?
@sonship saidIf your deification nonsense had a genuine biblical basis then this would be recognized by the Christians who post here, many of who have a far better grasp of scripture than yourself. You present yourself as a forum preacher when in reality should be quiet and learn from the Christians who know what they are talking about.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
Ad populum fallacy won't do the job you CANNOT do.
How many Christians here say "Amen" to your atheism?
Apply the same ad populum logic and where do you stand then?
Folks it is hardly worth the time to try to reason with an atheist who excludes God every step along the way of musing on the Bible.
If a horse gives birth to a little colt horse, is it outlandish to say the new creature has undergone . . . "horseification?"
If a whale gives birth to a baby whale, is it all that outlandish to say the new creature has undergone . . . "whaleification?"
If a human being gives birth to a baby human, is it altogether unreasonable to say the new living thing has undergone . . . "humanification?"
Now God the Father begets children who are sons of God and brothers to the Firstborn Son of God Jesus in resurrection.
Is it altogether unreasonable to account this begetting as thier . . . "deification?"
I would not be the first to see to conceivable basis for employing such a term as this with the proper theological understanding.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
You've failed to gather your lynch mob.
And failed more to show deification as defined some Christians have as unbiblical.
Mostly you've failed to garner widescale Forum support from Christians for your alternative of atheism.
@sonship saidYou've failed to convince a solitary soul you will be deified.
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
You've failed to gather your lynch mob.
And failed more to show deification as defined some Christians have as unbiblical.
Mostly you've failed to garner widescale Forum support from Christians for your alternative of atheism.
@sonship saidHow can one man be so stupid?
@Ghost-of-a-Duke
You've failed to gather your lynch mob.
And failed more to show deification as defined some Christians have as unbiblical.
Mostly you've failed to garner widescale Forum support from Christians for your alternative of atheism.
Here is the scoreboard so far-
Supporting the doctrine of 'being deified'
- Sonship.
Recognizing the foolishness of the doctrine of 'being deified'
- Everybody else.
Sir, need I remind you that the first of Jesus' students were not bookish people?
They were read in the Hebrew Bible which was the Scripture they had.
They circulated the letters of the apostles in the churches and read them.
Is it necessary that we today be exactly the same as the first century Christians in all respects?
You could remind me that they had no microwaves, seatbelts, Xerox machines, or maybe speed reading courses and microfiche too. But is it necessary to artificially force ourselves to employ only customs they possessed?
Read Psalm 119 as to how David served as a example of loving God's word.
Jesus reminded the disciples of what needed to be recalled in the Law and the Prophets and the Psalms.
"And He said to them, These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all the things written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and Psalms concerning Me must be fulfilled. Then He opened their mind to understand the Scriptures." (Luk 24:44,45)
@sonship
Folks it is hardly worth the time to try to reason with an atheist who excludes God every step along the way of musing on the Bible.
Is it not remarkable that atheists and Christians are in complete agreement that your deification thesis is humbug?
If a horse gives birth to a little colt horse, is it outlandish to say the new creature has undergone . . . "horseification?" [sic]
If a whale gives birth to a baby whale, is it all that outlandish to say the new creature has undergone . . . "whaleification?" [sic]
If a human being gives birth to a baby human, is it altogether unreasonable to say the new living thing has undergone . . . "humanification?" [sic]
You're inventing outlandish words here, two steps short of psychotic babbling. But, I'll let that pass for a moment. You have a penchant for spinning out long convoluted illogic which actually disproves the point you think you are making. To deify is to make someone or something into a god which was not so before.
When a colt is born, it is not horseified -- something which was not a horse before is not made into a horse at birth.
When a baby whale is born, it is not whaleified -- something which was not a whale before is not made into a whale at birth.
When a human is born, it is not humanified -- something which was not a human (fetus) before is not made into a human (baby) at birth.
So, actually, your argument defeats your point.
Christ was not deified; he was not made into God later, he was incarnated that way -- that is mainstream Christian doctrine.
So, actually, your analogies with horses and whales defeats your point.
Now God the Father begets children who are sons of God and brothers to the Firstborn Son of God Jesus in resurrection.
Is it altogether unreasonable to account this begetting as thier [sic]. . . "deification?"
Do not speak of this as reasonable; there is nothing reasonable about the incarnation. It is a miracle; miracles defy reason.
Jesus was conceived and born sinless, whereas humans are conceived in sin and born sinful; not merely what they do, but what they are, is sinful by nature -- that is mainstream Christian doctrine. The begetting of humans (in sin and sinfulness) is not their deification, not their being made God (sinless) ("in nature but not in Godhead", as your mentors would have it). Humans are sinful by nature and salvation does not make them not sinners any more, it just makes them forgiven -- that is mainstream Christian doctrine.
So, actually, your analogy between Jesus and humans defeats your point.
I would not be the first to see to conceivable basis for employing such a term as this with the proper theological understanding.
Even atheists recognize that you have come seriously off the rails. Get thee to a proper theologian and let him set your carriage straight on the rails.
Is it not remarkable that atheists and Christians are in complete agreement that your deification thesis is humbug?
I won't spend much time on the exaggeration.
What else would you offer here?
If a horse gives birth to a little colt horse, is it outlandish to say the new creature has undergone . . . "horseification?" [sic]
I don't think it is outlandish.
It expresses that life is begotten after its own kind as is repeated in Genesis
1 a number of times.
I'll give you that "horsification" is a perculiar made up word.
Me:
If a human being gives birth to a baby human, is it altogether unreasonable to say the new living thing has undergone . . . "humanification?" [sic]
You're inventing outlandish words here, two steps short of psychotic babbling.
If you object to a new expression being coined then just consider the way the Bible says that various life forms begat "according to their kind.
"fruit trees bearing fruit according to thier kind" (v.11)
"herbs yielding seed according to thier kind" (v.12)
"fruit trees bearing fruit according to their kind" (v.12)
"every living animal . . . according to their kind" (v.21)
"winged birds according to their kind" (v.21)
"creeping things and animals . . . according to their kind" (v.24)
"animals of the earth according to their kind" (v.24)
"everything that creeps on the ground according to its kind" (v.25)
But, I'll let that pass for a moment. You have a penchant for spinning out long convoluted illogic which actually disproves the point you think you are making.
Man is suernaturally begotten again of God, guess what? - according to God's kind.
This makes them eventually to become "like Him".
The limits of that have been explained.
This makes the born again human to be grown "into the same image, from glory to glory" (2 Cor. 3:17,18). The limitations of this have been outlined.
This results in Christ having in eternity future a Wife and a Bride to MATCH what He is. And He is God-man. The limits of this have also been outlined for you.
So you have no case that being begotten of the life of the begetting Father eventuates in a maturity after the kind of the Progenitor. The limits of this have been explained.
And exaggerated boasts that virutally all Christians do no agree with some presentation of deification or theosis or divinization not withstanding, you lose that case that I have concocted something with which no one concurs in Church history in some form.
And you lose the case that "partakers of the divine nature" cannot mean partakers of the nature with is divine - belonging to the divine God.
To deify is to make someone or something into a god which was not so before.
This I assume refers to Jesus Christ Who was God in eternity past before incarnation.
Yes and No. For when God incarnated and put upon Himself flesh and human nature, He came into that which is part of His CREATION.
You would have to argue that man is NOT a item of CREATION.
A case which you cannot win, for "God CREATED man" (Gen. 1:27)
So the situation is not that simple.
God is eternally UNCREATED - YES. And God does not need to become God in
that senze. I agree.
Yet, He clothed Himself in His creation - "The word became flesh" (John 1:14) . And that which He was resurrected with and wearing FOREVER on the eternal throne of God DID need to be deified. That which was CREATED was uplifted, sanctified, glorified, enthroned forever in eternity future, AND become the standard model for DUPLICATION of many sons of God making the RESURRECTED God-man "the Firstborn among many brothers." (Rom. 8:29)
So YES and NO.
God from eternity past did noit require to be deified.
But God in the created flesh as ONE PERSON needed to deify that part of Him in
which He clothed Himself.
And in DOING this He took an additional status to "only begotten" Son of God to Firstborn Son of God - Firstborn among many brothers.
When a colt is born, it is not horseified -- something which was not a horse before is not made into a horse at birth.
Do you deny that there is a maturing process in which a colt becomes a full grown horse?
Genesis says all living things begat "according to their kind".
The New Testament speaks of children of God maturing into sons of God. It speaks of growing up into Him [Christ the Head] in all things.
The New Testament speaks of PERFECTING - or that they may be PERFECTED.
Many times we see GROWTH mentioned.
There is grow in grace and in the knowledge of the Son of God.
That is BIRTH followed normally by GROWTH.
That is regeneration followed by transformation and transfiguration.
You lose the case here also.
For GROWTH of that life begotten according to God is evident in all of the New
Testament.
This is the responsibility of the gospel preaching and church edifying if all things are normal.
"[Christ] Whom we announce . . . that we may present every man FULLGROWN in Christ." (See Col. 1:29)
Again the apostles planted and watered that life that God could cause that life to GROW.
"I [Paul] planted, Apollos watered, but God caused te growth. So then neither is he who plants anything nor he who waters, but God who causes the growth." (1 Cor. 3:6,7)
This is about PLANTING the divine life of God in people, and watering that living seed, that God may grow His life within those begotten according to His kind to be His sons.
Limitation of being deified have been explained many times above.
When a baby whale is born, it is not whaleified -- something which was not a whale before is not made into a whale at birth.
It is a baby whale. If all things else are normal it will GROW into an adult whale.
If you don't like "whale-ification" to show the begetting and maturing of a whale just remember the many times Genesis says life begets life "according to their kind."
When a human is born, it is not humanified -- something which was not a human (fetus) before is not made into a human (baby) at birth.
As soon as the sperm unites with the egg you have the conception of a human being.
And the Apostle John says concerning the GROWING believers - NOW we are children of God and it does noit yet appear what we shall be. But we will be like Him when He is manifested given that we are in normal spiritual growth.
"Behold what manner of love the Father has given to us, that we should be called children of God, and we are. Because of this the world does not know us, because it did not know HIm.
Beloved, NOW we are children of God, and it has not yet been maniofested what we will be. We know that if He is manifested, we will be like Him because we will see Him even as He is." (1 John 3:1,2)
He is the Firstborn Son of God, the God-man Jesus Christ in resurrection.
The many brorthers will be like HIm the Firstrborn Son of God as the Elder Brother of MANY brothers to follow.
By the time of the new heaven and new earth ALL who have been begotten of God will have been matured to be LIKE HIM.
Unless you think "we will be like Him" means primarily things like we will have perhaps a beard and wear sandals. "Like HIm" means the divine nature of which we have become PARTAKERS has grown, matured, developed, and been perfected into God-men LIKE THE Godman to be corporate expression of God dispensed into humanity.
So, actually, your argument defeats your point.
No, actually the Bible confirms itself. So you have lost your case.