16 Jan 22
@ghost-of-a-duke saidPerhaps. But more accurately I think he thinks that the truth he espouses relative to the "deification of man" is "spiritual truth" that "they" have discovered is higher knowledge.
I think sonship knows full well that the deification message from his church is at odds with mainstream Christianity.
It's not a new idea. The gnostics were doing the same thing in the first century.
God has done something for man that man can't do for himself. God has lifted man out of darkness and into the light. We are being "conformed to the image of Christ". We are not "becoming God".
Once one fixes the idea in their head that the scriptures teach that man is being "deified" they will find that idea in every verse that has words in it that supports that idea.
Like "confirmation bias"? Maybe.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Philippians 3:21
Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.
You're dragging a verse out of its context and ascribing a meaning to it not supported by its context.
For our vile bodies to be "fashioned like", don't overlook the word "like", his glorious body does in no way suggest that man is "becoming God".
Ghost is eager to convince you that "becomming God in life and in nature but not in the Godhead" is saying becomming God.
This is his line of attack. This is the narrative he pushes regurgitating critics of the Lord's recovery.
If you have not read this before read it now and remember it. [my bolding]
"Moreover, all those who believe in Him have also become God-men. John 1:12-13 says, “As many as received Him, to them He gave the authority to become children of God, to those who believe into His name, who were begotten...of God.” Those who were begotten of man are men. Hence, those who were begotten of God are gods. But this does not mean that we who are begotten of God share in His Godhead. We do not have God’s person, and we cannot be worshipped as God.
However, as far as our life goes, we are the same as God is. God has regenerated us and has given His life to us. This is like being begotten of our father; we share the same life as our father. He is a man. As those begotten of him, we are also men. However, we do not have the position of the father. From this point of view, we are the same as the God who has regenerated us, and He and we are both God-men."
From A Deeper Study of the Divine Dispensing by Witness Lee
To read more - https://www.ministrybooks.org/books.cfm?n
Do you or do you not understand the words written above? [my bolding]
" But this does not mean that we who are begotten of God share in His Godhead. We do not have God’s person, and we cannot be worshipped as God. "
" God has regenerated us and has given His life to us. This is like being begotten of our father; we share the same life as our father. "
" As those begotten of him, we are also men. However, we do not have the position of the father. From this point of view, we are the same as the God who has regenerated us, and He and we are both God-men."
Do you understand these words?
16 Jan 22
@sonship saidBecause you're using it to support the idea that man is being "deified" and "becoming God" when no such thing is being taught by the scriptures.
Joseph, please explain how referring to Christ's "glorified body" is twisting the teaching of the Bible, when the Bible refers to "the body of His glory" (Phil. 3:21)
Thankyou.
You're reading into the narrative and generating a doctrinal idea that no one in the history of Christianity, the apostles and prophets and church fathers, ever knew or taught.
It's a no-brainer.
How is it that after 2000 years you and your mentors are suddenly bestowed with special knowledge.
Beware. You're treading dangerous ground.
God have mercy on me if I'm wrong.
16 Jan 22
@josephw saidYes. Witness Lee called his insights 'higher truths.'
Perhaps. But more accurately I think he thinks that the truth he espouses relative to the "deification of man" is "spiritual truth" that "they" have discovered is higher knowledge.
It's not a new idea. The gnostics were doing the same thing in the first century.
God has done something for man that man can't do for himself. God has lifted man out of darkness and into the ...[text shortened]... dea in every verse that has words in it that supports that idea.
Like "confirmation bias"? Maybe.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
Joseph, my question to you is do you or do not understand these words?
" But this does not mean that we who are begotten of God share in His Godhead. We do not have God’s person, and we cannot be worshipped as God. "
" God has regenerated us and has given His life to us. This is like being begotten of our father; we share the same life as our father. "
" As those begotten of him, we are also men. However, we do not have the position of the father. From this point of view, we are the same as the God who has regenerated us, and He and we are both God-men."
Do you understand these words?
Yes, you do?
No, you do not understand these words?
16 Jan 22
@sonship saidYes, yes. You will become a demigod, not part of the Godhead.
@josephw
[quote] Philippians 3:21
Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.
You're dragging a verse out of its context and ascribing a meaning to it not supported by its context.
For our vile bodies to be "fashioned like", don't overlook t ...[text shortened]... d who has regenerated us, and He and we are both God-men." [/b]
Do you understand these words?
That still isn't found in the NT.
16 Jan 22
@josephw saidYou sound afraid to condemn what is clearly a false doctrine.
Because you're using it to support the idea that man is being "deified" and "becoming God" when no such thing is being taught by the scriptures.
You're reading into the narrative and generating a doctrinal idea that no one in the history of Christianity, the apostles and prophets and church fathers, ever knew or taught.
It's a no-brainer.
How is it that after ...[text shortened]... ecial knowledge.
Beware. You're treading dangerous ground.
God have mercy on me if I'm wrong.
Grow some balls..
@sonship saidYes, I understand the words, and the grammar too.
@josephw
[quote] Philippians 3:21
Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.
You're dragging a verse out of its context and ascribing a meaning to it not supported by its context.
For our vile bodies to be "fashioned like", don't overlook t ...[text shortened]... d who has regenerated us, and He and we are both God-men." [/b]
Do you understand these words?
You are mixing and matching the words of man with the words of scripture to arrive at an idea, i.e. man is "becoming God".
I read in the scriptures that I am "complete in Christ". There is no more to be added to who and what I am.
I am not "becoming". I already am.
- Joined
- 03 Jan 13
- Moves
- 13080
You're reading into the narrative and generating a doctrinal idea that no one in the history of Christianity, the apostles and prophets and church fathers, ever knew or taught.
That is incorrect. Greek Orthodoxy has taught theosis for a long time.
Athanasius, though it is hard to collect a systematized presentation of deification, there is nonetheless his thought of deification, divinization.
Now, a caveat. It was proposed that some Greek philosophy was mixed with Christian theology. This is true. This not denied. Ans every instance of fathers referring to theosis or deification is [not] completely free of Greek philosophical ideas.
Having said that, Lee's presentation of deification was not derived from early church father's presentations per se. He arrived at it from virgin territory of study of the word of God as the Spirit led these brother in early 20th century in China.
To sometimes indicate to critics that the idea is NOT absolutely new, fathers and older church teachers are sometimes referred to. Ie. "This is not the first time a Christian teacher alluded to this kind of salvation."
Athanasius was a good example. And he is nicknamed by some as the father of orthodoxy.
It's a no-brainer.
The strawman argument erected by Ghost is a no-brainer. Yes.
How is it that after 2000 years you and your mentors are suddenly bestowed with special knowledge.
Beware. You're treading dangerous ground.
I protest that some sort of elite, gnostic, special knowledge is being taught by me.
It is the common portion and the faith delivered once for all to the saints that we who believe into Christ have been begotten of God and given the authority to become children of God.
What does this ACTUALLY MEAN? - is what we engange upon with those of the maturity to re-consider this cautiously.
Our caution should be based on the word of God and not on what sounds traditionally customary. Had Martin Luther only considered what was traditionally customary for a thousand years of the "Dark Ages" he probably would not have insisted on "Justification by Faith".
He would have continued to teach that perhaps crawling up the steps to kiss the hand of the Pope leads to justification.
HE was used by God to recover what had been buried, neglected, nut was right there written in the Scriptures.
God have mercy on me if I'm wrong.
Agreed. Me too.
- Joined
- 25 Nov 21
- Moves
- 1990
16 Jan 22
@sonship saidCan I ask what version of the Holy Bible you are quoting from?
@josephw
[quote] Philippians 3:21
Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself.
You're dragging a verse out of its context and ascribing a meaning to it not supported by its context.
For our vile bodies to be "fashioned like", don't overlook t ...[text shortened]... d who has regenerated us, and He and we are both God-men." [/b]
Do you understand these words?
Because John 1:12-13 in the KJV reads this way:
“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
and does not say “begotten,” which is frequently stated by you in this post.
I’m just which version of the Bible you are using; apologies if you mentioned it before.
- Joined
- 25 Nov 21
- Moves
- 1990
16 Jan 22
@pb1022 saidNever mind, I already found the answer to my question.
Can I ask what version of the Holy Bible you are quoting from?
Because John 1:12-13 in the KJV reads this way:
“But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name:
Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.”
and does not say “begotten,” which is fr ...[text shortened]... is post.
I’m just which version of the Bible you are using; apologies if you mentioned it before.
- Joined
- 25 Nov 21
- Moves
- 1990
16 Jan 22
@sonship said<<First of all I believe the status of Jesus after resurrection is something more than His status as on His earthly ministry.>>
[quote] How do you reconcile what Hebrews says about Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry (“a little lower than the angels” to “taste death for every man&rdquo and what Hebrews says about Jesus after His crucifixion and Resurrection (“so much better than the angels” and God the Father addressing Jesus as “God&rdquo ... with your view that Jesus maintains the same status n ...[text shortened]... oint you are making about this comparison to Jesus Christ and the myriads of angels God has created.
Ok, thanks for stating that. I had thought you believed Jesus’ status during His earthly ministry and after His Resurrection were the same, which is why I brought up those references from Hebrews, one of which I don’t think you’ve addressed - that God the Father called Jesus Christ, after Jesus Christ’s Resurrection, “God.”
<<Maybe you can indicate why you thought there was no change in His status, IF that is what you believe I stated.>>
I’d rather not read through reams of prior text for what is essentially a moot point. You’ve now said (and apologies if I missed it before) that Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry does not have the same status as after His Resurrection.
<<I'll wait for that evidence if you have something.>>
Like I said, I prefer not to read through reams of past text for a moot point.
We agree then that the status of Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry is different than His status after His Resurrection.
In the former, He was “a little lower than the angels.” In the latter, He is “so much better than the angels” and, indeed, God the Father calls Jesus “God.”
- Joined
- 25 Nov 21
- Moves
- 1990
16 Jan 22
@sonship said<<I stop here and re-think about what point you are making about this comparison to Jesus Christ and the myriads of angels God has created.>>
[quote] How do you reconcile what Hebrews says about Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry (“a little lower than the angels” to “taste death for every man&rdquo and what Hebrews says about Jesus after His crucifixion and Resurrection (“so much better than the angels” and God the Father addressing Jesus as “God&rdquo ... with your view that Jesus maintains the same status n ...[text shortened]... oint you are making about this comparison to Jesus Christ and the myriads of angels God has created.
It’s really very simple.
Jesus Christ, during His earthly ministry, had been made “a little lower than the angels” to “taste death for every man”
After His Resurrection, Jesus in Hebrews is described as “so much better than the angels” and God the Father calls Jesus “God.”
Clearly, to me, Jesus Christ - after His crucifixion, Resurrection and after He had defeated death - is not the same in terms of status as He was during His earthly ministry.
- Joined
- 25 Nov 21
- Moves
- 1990
@sonship saidMaybe I’d understand you better if you stated how Jesus Christ during His earthly ministry is different from Jesus Christ right now in terms of status.<<The answer to that question is I believe Jesus Christ is fully God and fully man for
eternity, forever, from now on, in perpetuity.>>
[quote]
I disagree with you. Jesus Christ is no longer in human flesh. He is in a Resurrected immortal body, as I believe Christians will have based on what the Apostle Paul has written. But I do not believe our “status” ...[text shortened]... of heaven." (Matt. 26:63b-64)[/b]
Fully God and fully man for eternity - my Lord Jesus Christ.
In other words, I’m asking you to explain this statement you made a while back:
<<First of all I believe the status of Jesus after resurrection is something more than His status as on His earthly ministry.>>