LDS Question - How did the first church fail?

[Xavierlives]

Ahh, okay I see, thanks!

Edit: And to be precise, in Trinitarianism, you can’t “see” the Father, since He is incorporeal. So, it’s interesting to think that, from a Trinitarian perspective, that one can see the glory of God, but never the Father directly since He doesn’t have any form or occupy time and space, since He’s incorporeal. So, I wonder if there really would be something/someone to see behind the glory, since because the Father is incorporeal in Trinitarianism, there wouldn’t be anything/anyone to see. If there would be something to see, what would it/He look like? Random thought.

Well, I am guessing here, but I would say we will be able to see him when we are free from the flesh.

 

[Answersplease]

Where in the Holy Bible does it say that you cannot see spirits?

According to Catholicism, angels are pure spirit beings, and they have been seen many times.

 

[Jay53]

Jay53
I never said the Zohar is more credible than the Bible. But, you have acknowledged that the Bible does not contain all truth. Since the Zohar comes from the Jewish people who brings tradition and knowledge for thousand of years, it makes sense to bring it up in a discussion. It should carry some weight when discussing doctrines. That also proves that Joseph did not invent theses concepts and doctrines out of the air. It puts some validity on the Mormon claims. By the way, Joseph did not have access to most of these ancient books, many of them were not even available in English.

I have acknowledged that not everything that Jesus did was written in the Bible. I also acknowledge that we have the Sacred Tradition of the Church founded by Jesus and through His Apostles. That doesn’t mean that I believe that what wasn’t written just happens to be all the contentious Mormon doctrines.

I don’t understand why the “Zohar” should carry any special weight. According to what I am reading, this Zohar appeared in the 13th century, allegedly written by a rabbi from the 2nd century who was allegedly inspired by Elijah to write the Zohar.

From the same article:

“The Ancient of Days has three heads. He reveals himself in three archetypes, all three forming but one. He is thus symbolized by the number Three. They are revealed in one another. [These are:] first, secret, hidden ‘Wisdom’; above that the Holy Ancient One; and above Him the Unknowable One. None knows what He contains; He is above all conception. He is therefore called for man ‘Non-Existing’ [Ayin]”[10] (Zohar, iii. 288b).

which can be taken as evidence of the Trinity (although obviously Jewish people don’t view it the same way as Christians would.) Are you then going to accept this and abandon your belief in many gods? Somehow I doubt it.

I guess I’m just lost as to what your point with this is. You are claiming that the Jewish people supposedly believed in this heavenly mother, and that the Apostles supposedly did too, but somehow they never wrote or spoke about it so that all of their successors abandoned this belief until it was restored by Joseph Smith. But there is no evidence of this belief other than this Zohar.

Also from the same article:

Scholem’s studies concluded that the author of the Zohar “develops tendencies which appeared first in the writings of the circle of the Gnostics in Castile in the middle of the 13th century .” While this view is still widely accepted as plausible, it is currently being argued that perhaps Scholem has this conclusion backwards. Moshe Idel has argued that the Gnostic views found within the Zohar developed indigenously within Judaism, and from there extended outwards towards adherents of Gnostic theology. A similar approach has been taken by other scholars as well, for example, Yehuda Liebes and Elliot R. Wolfson.

So, how is one to know what is authentic Jewish belief and what is presented is gnostic views not held by mainstream Judaism, or vice versa?

 

[Jay53]

Jay53
We claim to have received the visitation of many celestial messengers like John the Baptist, Peter, James and John, Moses, Elijah including God the Father and His Son Jesus Christ and many other prophets.

Do you think these messengers knew about these “hidden secrets?”

I don’t believe any of these claims, particularly if these “secrets” contradict previous scripture.
The same way I don’t believe Muhammad was visited by the Angel Gabriel with a “revelation from God” because he contradicts previous scripture. I’m sure you also have no trouble dismissing Muhammad as a false prophet, yet he made similar claims of prophethood and visitations etc. and never denied them to his death.

 

[paul_c]

This whole concept that there are secrets of the faith available only to a select view sounds like what was expounded by the Gnostics. These heretics also claimed to have special knowledge. the Catholic Chruch shares what it knows, because the truth sets you free.

 

[Answersplease]

Well the way I understand the story, it goes like this: The men know their wives “secret name” so that when the time comes, he can call up them. Say he doesn’t like wife number 3 with the name Sarah, well he can… err… just not call her and they are no longer sealed.

I don’t know if she becomes a free agent at that point or what.

(color added to original text)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critici…s#cite_ref-143

Jerald and Sandra Tanner point to comments by certain church leaders as evidence that women are subject to different rules regarding entry into heaven. They claim that 19th-century leader Erastus Snow preached: “No woman will get into the celestial kingdom, except her husband receives her, if she is worthy to have a husband; and if not, somebody will receive her as a servant”

.[144]

[144] ^ “UTLM web site describing LDS treatment of women”. utlm.org/onlineresources/resurrectwife.htm. Retrieved 2007-12-04.

I also know that the women in Utah have the highest use of Prozac…they are held to such high level of perfection and if they do wrong, their husband will not allow them entrance into heaven…

utlm.org/onlineresources/resurrectwife.htm

“The reasons you have given do not constitute a lawful excuse for leaving your husband, according to the laws of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints.”

I then rose up to go, as I did not propose to discuss the matter with him. But he stopped me, and said, "You may, if you wish, be ‘sealed’ to me, and then you know there would be no risk to run, in case you should die. Otherwise, if by chance you should drop away, having no husband to raise you at the last day, you could not be ‘resurrected’ as a saint, and would only be raised like any Gentile, as a servant for the Saints, i.e., for the Mormons.’ "

I was so much disgusted with this proposition, that I left him in the most unceremonious manner, in the midst of his disinterested effort for my salvation. Orson Hyde was, at this time, forty years of age, and had at least three wives and one daughter about my own age. I was then nineteen years old. (Mormonism: Its Rise, Progress, and Present Condition, p. 132)

 

[Xavierlives]

Where in the Holy Bible does it say that you cannot see spirits?

According to Catholicism, angels are pure spirit beings, and they have been seen many times.

Well support of this is in Colossians 1:16 which says: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Now we can look to the Old Testament as an example of a spirit being which can take form and be seen and unseen. The story of Balaam and his donkey in Numbers 22:22-35. It appears the donkey had the ability to see things of a spiritual nature and then the angel opened Balaam’s eyes in verse 31 so he too could see the angel with a sword at hand.

So, whether all animals have this ability or just Balaam’s donkey, I don’t know. As for humans, it appears to be something that the spirit being can control.

 

[Answersplease]

Well support of this is in Colossians 1:16 which says: For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:

Now we can look to the Old Testament as an example of a spirit being which can take form and be seen and unseen. The story of Balaam and his donkey in Numbers 22:22-35. It appears the donkey had the ability to see things of a spiritual nature and then the angel opened Balaam’s eyes in verse 31 so he too could see the angel with a sword at hand.

So, whether all animals have this ability or just Balaam’s donkey, I don’t know. As for humans, it appears to be something that the spirit being can control.

I don’t doubt that spirits can be invisible, I should have been more clear, I meant that they are not always invisible.

2 Kings 6:15

When the servant of the man of God got up and went out early the next morning, an army with horses and chariots had surrounded the city. “Oh, my lord, what shall we do?” the servant asked.

2 Kings 6:16
“Don’t be afraid,” the prophet answered. “Those who are with us are more than those who are with them.”

2 Kings 6:17
And Elisha prayed, “O LORD, open his eyes so he may see.” Then the LORD opened the servant’s eyes, and he looked and saw the hills full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha.

 

[rinnie]

Rinnie,
I am going to comment on the first line. I will comment on the others later. Parker feel free to comment too if you feel like.

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.Of the increase of his government and peace there shall be no end, upon the throne of David, and upon his kingdom, to order it, and to establish it with judgment and with justice from henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the LORD of hosts will perform this.” Isaiah 9:6-7

We agree that government of Christ has no end, but it did not start when he established his church. The church Jesus established was not his kingdom. He clarifies that in his own statement.

Jesus said, “My kingdom is not of this world. If it were, my servants would fight to prevent my arrest by the Jews. But now my kingdom is from another place.” John 18:36

“And when he was demanded of the Pharisees, when the kingdom of God should come, he answered them and said, The kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here! or, lo there! for, behold, the kingdom of God is within you.”
(Luke 17:20-21 KJV)

But you are forgetting something. He CAME BACK. Thats when he established his kingdom on earth the same as in heaven.

Remember you are Peter what you hold bound here, is held bound in heaven. THE RCC is HEAVEN ON EARTH! Upon this ROCK I will build my CHURCH. IT was done here my friend. Jesus build that Church upon Peter here in this world.

Also if you go to the book of Rev. It tells you exactlly how to set up the Church. Read it, then walk into a RCC you will get a big shock. Its exactly as Jesus told us to do it.

 

[Xavierlives]

I don’t believe any of these claims, particularly if these “secrets” contradict previous scripture.
The same way I don’t believe Muhammad was visited by the Angel Gabriel with a “revelation from God” because he contradicts previous scripture. I’m sure you also have no trouble dismissing Muhammad as a false prophet, yet he made similar claims of prophethood and visitations etc. and never denied them to his death.

I guess the million dollar question is, what deceives false prophets? Then once they are deceived, why would they leave it?

Lets just think about Joseph Smith for a second (from a non-Christian, non-Mormon perspective).

Before he saw God and Jesus he was a treasure hunter and a fortune teller (with an interest in making money).
Then he he reports he sees God and Jesus.
Slowly but surely he has followers.
Slowly but surely he realizes he can get whatever he wants with these followers.
He wants 2 mummies and some papyrus scrolls for $2400? No problem, he just rounds up some followers and bam, he has $2400.
He needs a new house, Bam! He writes it into the Mormon scripture.
He wants to have sex with a bunch of women, Bam! He writes it into the scripture.
He wants money, Bam! He writes it in that you cannot receive temple rites until you are paid in full.

So why would he ever denounce that? Because God was calling him to Judgment?

Now if we consider Mormons of today, maybe some truly believe in God and Christ. The problem is their faith is built upon the false prophets of 180 years ago and they are now struggling to make their religion fit into the God of the Bible. They are trying to explain away falsities, they are trying to redefine the Bible. There problem is, you cannot make the Bible fit into your religion, you have to fit into the Bible.

 

[sablouwho]

I am not LDS (though I considered it for a time).b

Lets just think about Joseph Smith for a second (from a non-Christian, non-Mormon perspective).

Before he saw God and Jesus he was a treasure hunter and a fortune teller (with an interest in making money).
Then he he reports he sees God and Jesus.
Slowly but surely he has followers.
Slowly but surely he realizes he can get whatever he wants with these followers.
He wants 2 mummies and some papyrus scrolls for $2400? No problem, he just rounds up some followers and bam, he has $2400.
He needs a new house, Bam! He writes it into the Mormon scripture.
He wants to have sex with a bunch of women, Bam! He writes it into the scripture.
He wants money, Bam! He writes it in that you cannot receive temple rites until you are paid in full.

So why would he ever denounce that? Because God was calling him to Judgment?

I don’t think that the above perspective is all that fair. It doesn’t matter if it is a non-Mormon/non-Christian perspective (and by the way, I was not always Christian, so I know what that perspective is firsthand, and I’m not Mormon). The statements are inherently biased against JS, and there are some excellent biographies/history books one can read about JS, which explain these issues (and others) well WITHOUT whitewashing these them.

Now if we consider Mormons of today,* maybe some truly believe* in God and Christ.

Every single active LDS person I know believes in God and Christ. Despite the fact that some mainstream Christians like to categorize Mormons as being outside the Christian fold, the LDS faith is a Jesus-professing faith. The Christian reply to this is well “it isn’t the same Jesus.”

Well, yes, there are doctrinal differences. Yet I have a hard time believing that Jesus would condemn someone who believed something in good faith, and served in good faith, even if it turns out that some of the doctrinal beliefs were ultimately incorrect.

If we had to pass an oral or written “doctine test” to get into heaven, I think it would be a pretty empty place.

 

[paul_c]

I am not LDS (though I considered it for a time).b

I don’t think that the above perspective is all that fair. It doesn’t matter if it is a non-Mormon/non-Christian perspective (and by the way, I was not always Christian, so I know what that perspective is firsthand, and I’m not Mormon). The statements are inherently biased against JS, and there are some excellent biographies/history books one can read about JS, which explain these issues (and others) well WITHOUT whitewashing these them.

Every single active LDS person I know believes in God and Christ. Despite the fact that some mainstream Christians like to categorize Mormons as being outside the Christian fold, the LDS faith is a Jesus-professing faith. The Christian reply to this is well “it isn’t the same Jesus.”

Well, yes, there are doctrinal differences. Yet I have a hard time believing that Jesus would condemn someone who believed something in good faith, and served in good faith, even if it turns out that some of the doctrinal beliefs were ultimately incorrect.

If we had to pass an oral or written “doctine test” to get into heaven, I think it would be a pretty empty place.

As catholics, we believe that we need to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ as taught by the church to get to heaven.

This includes loving God and Neighbor, which we are all called to do by the natural law and is not tied uniquely to any creed.

However, we are also called to partake of the Grace giving sacraments. To be baptized in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit for the forgiveness of sins and to recieve the gifts of the Holy Spirit through confirmation. To recieve Jesus through the eucharist frequently. To be reconciled to God after we sin through the sacrament of reconciliation. To be married sacramentally and if called, to be ordained through holy orders. To recieve annointing of the sick when severely ill and in danger of death. Jesus said that their would be no life within us if we didn’t eat his body and drink his blood (John 6) and that we needed to be reborn through water and spirit to be saved (John 3) While it may be true that God will have mercy on those he chooses, are we to disregard his words about the sacraments? Are we to conclude on our own that the sacraments aren’t really necessary? I think you do this at your own peril and certainly, there are many spiritual benefits through the sacraments.

So the problem with Protestant groups, the Mormons, and the evangelicals isn’t that they don’t teach about loving God and Neighbor. This they do, some with more and some with less emphasis. The problem is that they pull people away from the life giving sacraments, which we have been told are necessary for eternal life. They have some of the truth for salvation, but not all of it. And sure, they say what they teach is sufficient. If fact, some teach that faith alone is all that is required. But this is not the Apostolic Faith which requires more. It requires God’s Grace through the sacraments, his mercy, and a life long journey toward holiness to gain eternal life.

 

[Xavierlives]

I am not LDS (though I considered it for a time).b
I don’t think that the above perspective is all that fair. It doesn’t matter if it is a non-Mormon/non-Christian perspective (and by the way, I was not always Christian, so I know what that perspective is firsthand, and I’m not Mormon). The statements are inherently biased against JS, and there are some excellent biographies/history books one can read about JS, which explain these issues (and others) well WITHOUT whitewashing these them.

My point is, Joseph Smith got anything his heart desired by rewriting his scripture in a fashion that pleased himself. We have already had a lengthy discussion here that he was committing adultery until 1843 when he finally wrote in that his “Relationships with other men’s wives” was okay.

I’m not telling Joseph Smith’s history. He did a fine job doing that for us. He kept journals. His sermons were notated. Everything can be scrutinized.

Every single active LDS person I know believes in God and Christ. Despite the fact that some mainstream Christians like to categorize Mormons as being outside the Christian fold, the LDS faith is a Jesus-professing faith. The Christian reply to this is well “it isn’t the same Jesus.”

And James tells us that the devils believe. The problem is, if the Mormons are redefining the Bible, then they do not believe the Bible.

I’ve had this basic argument before on different threads about why Mormons are not Christians and they should not be bothered by being called Mormons. Being called Mormon is not a derrogatory term. They coined it. They should embrace being Mormon. But they are no more Christian than I am Jew. Sure, I share a lot of scripture with the Jews. We worship the same God. But when Christ came he changed the faith. Those that follow that man are known as Christians. Now Joseph Smith came along and changed the faith. He might share the same scripture and say to worship the same God, but he changed the faith. Those that follow that man are known as Mormons. Mormons are should not be called Christians as Christians should not be called Jews. Being called Mormon is not deminishing who they say they follow. It is a demarcation for all to know.

Well, yes, there are doctrinal differences. Yet I have a hard time believing that Jesus would condemn someone who believed something in good faith, and served in good faith, even if it turns out that some of the doctrinal beliefs were ultimately incorrect.

If we had to pass an oral or written “doctine test” to get into heaven, I think it would be a pretty empty place.

But it has nothing to do with passing a test. To be quite honest, I don’t know if Christ will show any mercy on those who follow a faith delivered from a false prophet (any false prophet). I know the scripture does say that false prophet will be judged, but as for the follower, I don’t know. But I wouldn’t want to sit around thinking, well maybe Jesus will show me some mercy because my faith had His name in the title. I would be more concerned with whether the book of Mormon is compatible with the Bible. Not redefining the Bible to make it compatiable with the Book of Mormon.

Also, Jesus is pretty clear in places like John 14:30 that his word is complete. But Mormons would have you believe that an entire new Bible-sized scripture appears 1800 years later (a direct conflict to what Jesus says) and they will redefine what Jesus meant in that scripture.

Joseph Smith wasn’t happy with Genesis 14 so he added 25-40!
scriptures.lds.org/en/jst/4

 

[evanfaust]

Well, I am guessing here, but I would say we will be able to see him when we are free from the flesh.

Xavier,

I like your comment above! Does God have power to allow us to see him in the flesh? In other words…is it possible that our spirits can temporarily detach from our flesh and blood and be able to see HIm? The idea is much like Paul when he was telling about his experience in paradise and he could not tell if what he saw was in the body or out of the body. Would not that be a similar experience Joseph Smith had?

Another point…it is interesting that you refer to the father as HIM…well if it is HIM, then it is a male and most likely a man and not a woman. Then you are admitting that God has the shape of a man. Down deep you know that God the father looks like the Son! Which is a logical assumption!

 

[rinnie]

Xavier,

I like your comment above! Does God have power to allow us to see him in the flesh? In other words…is it possible that our spirits can temporarily detach from our flesh and blood and be able to see HIm? The idea is much like Paul when he was telling about his experience in paradise and he could not tell if what he saw was in the body or out of the body. Would not that be a similar experience Joseph Smith had?

Another point…it is interesting that you refer to the father as HIM…well if it is HIM, then it is a male and most likely a man and not a woman. Then you are admitting that God has the shape of a man. Down deep you know that God the father looks like the Son! Which is a logical assumption!

Sorry evan I can not agree with you on either account. First of all God made us ALL in his image. Second of all God did indeed reveal himself as man, he also revealed himself as the Father, and the Holy Spirit.

Secondly I so not see how you could compare JS to St Paul ever. Except maybe they both persecuted the CC. But Paul was converted and became a true disciple of Jesus Christ. How we know this for sure is he taught the exact same word of Christ.

JS was the complete opposite. He claimed to have been a prophet of Christ but then turned around and tried to teach a completely different Gospel.

St Paul never did that. He taught the exact same Scripture as the other Apostles. The same as the RCC. They all have the Power of the HS but they also all agree on the same word of God,

 

[Xavierlives]

Xavier,

I like your comment above! Does God have power to allow us to see him in the flesh?

This sounds like one of those fun questions we had as middle schoolers. If God is all-powerful, can he create a rock so large that he can’t lift?

In other words…is it possible that our spirits can temporarily detach from our flesh and blood and be able to see HIm? The idea is much like Paul when he was telling about his experience in paradise and he could not tell if what he saw was in the body or out of the body. Would not that be a similar experience Joseph Smith had?

Well, maybe if you are stoned, as Paul was in Act 14, you too could have such a near death experience. But as I recall Paul relays that he did not know the status of his vision. He says he did not know if it were in the body or out of the body. The part that is absent from me now was I don’t recall Paul saying he saw God and Christ. Did I miss that part? I guess If anybody should have seen God and Christ together, it would have been him, I just don’t remember it happening that way.

But to get closer to the question, God would not allow a person to “detach themselves long enough to see God.” Why? You might ask. Because if God did that then he would be making a liar out of Christ. If Christ is a liar… well it all falls apart from there. You can’t have a truth part of the time. A truth is good for all time.

Another point…it is interesting that you refer to the father as HIM…well if it is HIM, then it is a male and most likely a man and not a woman. Then you are admitting that God has the shape of a man. Down deep you know that God the father looks like the Son! Which is a logical assumption!

Umm… most fathers I know are… err… male. I’d rather think though, that God is the one making the deliniation not me. But I do not need to make any assumptions about God or God’s form other than to recognize Christ’s words in John 4:24 which says, " God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." So that, while you are desperate to attach a physical body to God, this is another example where Joseph would have been better served to read his Bible a little more before concocting all of this hooey. All he would have had to do is say he just saw Christ and man-o-man his story would have been near iron-clad.

 

[rinnie]

Evan, I like you I really do. But I am not crazy about what you teach

Here is the official Church Teaching

ccc 370 In NO WAY is God in man’s image. He is nether Man nor Woman. God is pure spirit in which there is no place for the difference between the sexes. But the respective perfections of man and woman reflect something of the infinite perfection of God: those of a mother and those of a father and husband.

Hope that helps you there Buddy!

 

[rinnie]

Well clock is ticking and this thread will close very soon.

And as usual Jesus Christ came out on top! Mt. 16:18-19 Upon this Rock I will build my CHURCH (singular). It will never fall. Just like Jesus said. NEVER!!

 

[JMJ4]

Well clock is ticking and this thread will close very soon.

And as usual Jesus Christ came out on top! Mt. 16:18-19 Upon this Rock I will build my CHURCH (singular). It will never fall. Just like Jesus said. NEVER!!

AMEN!!

 

[evanfaust]

This sounds like one of those fun questions we had as middle schoolers. If God is all-powerful, can he create a rock so large that he can’t lift?

Well, maybe if you are stoned, as Paul was in Act 14, you too could have such a near death experience. But as I recall Paul relays that he did not know the status of his vision. He says he did not know if it were in the body or out of the body. The part that is absent from me now was I don’t recall Paul saying he saw God and Christ. Did I miss that part? I guess If anybody should have seen God and Christ together, it would have been him, I just don’t remember it happening that way.

But to get closer to the question, God would not allow a person to “detach themselves long enough to see God.” Why? You might ask. Because if God did that then he would be making a liar out of Christ. If Christ is a liar… well it all falls apart from there. You can’t have a truth part of the time. A truth is good for all time.

Umm… most fathers I know are… err… male. I’d rather think though, that God is the one making the deliniation not me. But I do not need to make any assumptions about God or God’s form other than to recognize Christ’s words in John 4:24 which says, " God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth." So that, while you are desperate to attach a physical body to God, this is another example where Joseph would have been better served to read his Bible a little more before concocting all of this hooey. All he would have had to do is say he just saw Christ and man-o-man his story would have been near iron-clad.

Xavier,

You are the one who used the word HIM when referring to the father not me! Now, you still have not explained to me what God is. First you tell me that God is ONLY SPIRIT due to a mis-insterpretation of a scripure, but at the same time you understand that the Son and the Father are the same person and yet one has SPIRIT ONLY and the other one is RESURRECTED with a physical body. Well, which one is it? That to me just shows the evidence of two beings based on your logic!

You also are the one that said that in a spiritual state (out of the body) a person may see God, and yet deny that men have seen God and cannot possibly see God. Well, which is it? We know that Stephen STILL IN THE FLESH was able to see God the Father and his Son!!! And you still deny that they are two separate beings! If you understand that Stephen was able to see God because he was out of the body, then you should agree that men can see God when their spirit temporarily leaves the body and that does not mean a person has to die or be dead!

In addition, we see many Biblical scriptures confirming that men have seen God and the face of God and yet you deny the Bible!

Another point…do we need to be stoned to have an out of body experience? If you do a little research you will see that this is not necessary. Would that be an impossible task for God? You seem to be making God very weak!

Final point…Christ is not a liar! But there are many other explanations other than that. First one, a dozen of other scriptures attest to the fact the men have seen God, and yet there IS ONE scripture that seem to contradict the others. Would not be easier to adjust the ONLY ONE that seem to be out of the Bible context, instead the other way around like you do? Is it not possible that this verse may have been copied in error? Remember, we don’t have any originals. Is it possible that it was translated in error? Is it a problem with interpretation?

Early Christian author Irenaeus wrote in A.D. 180 that this scripture should be read “*For “no man,” *he says, "hath seen God at any time," unless "the only-begotten Son of God, which is in the bosom of the Father, He hath declared [Him].

Note: Among the Christian Fathers of the second through fourth centuries A.D. who cited biblical evidence that humans are destined to become Gods are Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Clement of Alexandria, Novation, Maximus the Confessor, Athanasius of Alexandria, Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianzen, John Chrysostom, Jerome, Augustine of Hippo, and the Persian Aphrahat of Syria.