On Paul Owen’s Interpretation of Biblical Monotheism
By Kerry A. Shirts
January 10, 2003
First, I would like to thank my good friends Barry Bickmore, Benjamin McGuire, Rene Krywult, Kevin Christensen, for their comments, ideas, and help. I am alone responsible for the content of this paper however.
Paul Owen, (Ph.d) has written an O.K. chapter in The New Mormon Challenge, concerning Monotheism and the New Testament Witness.1 I think his main problems are naïve historical treatment and arriving at his already formed conclusions. His weak treatment of Margaret Barker’s scholarship as well as Dr. Daniel C. Peterson’s will have to be discussed in another paper.
What I wish to concentrate on in this partial review, is Dr. Owen’s biblical understanding of God (Monotheism) and deification (of humans). Dr. Owen’s understanding on this is simply too incomplete to come to any firm conclusions.
Dr. Owen’s conclusion is straightforward. "the religion of the Bible is monotheistic from start to finish."1 This is the conclusion which I will explore in the Bible.
I will forego the serious temptation to bring in other outstanding LDS research which Paul Owen (not to mention Carl Mosser) has completely overlooked. The works of B.H. Roberts masterful treatment, The Mormon Doctrine of Deity, Hugh Nibley’s chapter "The Prophets and the Search for God" in his book The World and the Prophets. Keith Norman’s Deification: The Content of Athanasian Soteriology, (FARMS Occasional Papers, 2000), to name just a few writings available from the LDS understanding.2
Dr. Owen is firmly committed to a strict and narrowly rigid (what I will call "hard") monotheism which he says is throughout the Bible from start to finish. His tinkering in biblical history is seriously marred by ignoring virtually an avalanche of scholarship. The view that Judaism is one which has unified beliefs, doctrines and faith throughout their history, is a weak assumption. This assumption of Dr. Owen’s is dismantled by Jacob Neusner in the work of his from the top Biblical scholars in the field.3
Judaism has never been unified anymore than Christianity or historical Jesus research.4
I will turn to the Bible in order to understand whether monotheism is accurate view in ancient Judaism and Christianity or not.
Since Dr. Owen insists that there is really only one God, and ever has only been just one single God ever in the history of all of Israel, I believe it is imperative to analyze the biblical meaning of "the Most High God."
When I look into the new fully revised and corrected Strong’s Concordance5 I find the phrase "most high God" in literally dozens and dozens of places. It is also found in the New Testament a few times.
The Hebrew of "Most High God" is Nwyl( l) El Elyon. The terms are defined as the "highest" or "upper." The HALOT6 says El is the Most high God, "often the highest God." And El is different from Yahweh in some places mentioned in the Bible – "distinguished from Yahweh a) El, the supreme god Ezekiel 28:2, l) ybkwk Is 1413, l) td( Ps 821, l) ynb Dt 328 and 43 Sept. 4Q (Skehan BASOR 136:12ff; Winter ZAW 67:40ff; 75:218ff)"
There are also places where Yahweh claims the title of El as the HALOT indicates as well. There is no smooth understanding of their relationship in the Bible, where the titles are sometimes mixed. But that El is different from Yahweh is established. That much is clear. Yahweh is sometimes called the Son of the Most High. How do we know this? Because Jesus is so called in the New Testament. Dr. Owen clearly demonstrated that Yahweh is Jesus. I have actually seen stronger treatments on this as well, but it suffices for me to agree with him on this.
Mark 5:7 And cried with a loud voice, and said, What have I to do with thee, Jesus, thou Son of the most high God? (See Luke 8:28 also).
The Greek for Most High God is fascinating. It is uyistou (hupsistou – here the superlative genitive adjective) which, literally according to the BDAG7 means in the highest place, in relation to lower geographical areas. And the 2nd meaning is "pertaining to being the highest in status, o uyistoj the Most High of God, distinguished from lesser deities and other objects of cultic devotion."
There are, in both geographical area, as well as fundamental reality, lesser deities than the Most High God, of course, otherwise, the words are meaningless if He is the only God. The BDAG also notes ‘God Most High’ certainly has a firm place in Israelite experience, and OT usage [LXX] would account for its use in the NT, coupled with semantic opportunity provided by polytheistic formulation.
This is most important as the Friberg Lexicon8 indicates
Uyistoj h on superlative of the adverb uyi; highest, most exalted; (1) spatially highest, loftiest, neuter plural ta uyista as a substantive the highest heights, heaven, the world above (Matthew 21.9); (2) in relation to rank and power most high; substantially, as a name for God o uyistou the Most High (Mark 5.7)
Notice this is concerning, among other things, the highest high. This is not proving that other heights don’t exist though. It is the same with God. He is the "Most High God," in relation to the other Gods. The same thing is found with the superlative in the German Bible. We read there Gottes des Hochsten. In German, you add –ste(n) to the superlative adjective or adverb. The superlative is a relationship between comparisons of things, people, gods, etc. When we say the highest tree, this is not proving others don’t exist, only that this is the highest. The same with the idea here of God in the Bible. The very term presupposes there are other Gods (Yahweh as Son of God, for instance). Jesus is a crystal clear example of this as he is called the Son of the Highest.
It is most important therefor when we read in the Louw-Nida Lexicon of the New Testament with Semantic Domains9 that in some languages the concept of height is unrelated to that of importance so we have to translate "Most High" as something like "Most important," or even "the greatest." This is the "supreme one" and they go to Luke 1:32, which says "he will be called Son of the Most High." The one who is supreme is primarily one of status.
This obviously is in relation to another of lesser status, in this case, Son (Jesus) is a lesser status than the Most High, the Father. Son is the Greek huios, a definite geneological and descendant, posterity, and offspring concept as it relates to mankind. Now it is interesting in this relation that the beni elim, are the "sons of God," in the Old Testament and are noted as einzelne Götter, that is "individual gods." And, of course, the götterversammlung is the "congregation of the gods," in Psalm 82.10 They further note that Die Verbreitung "el" auch akkadischen "il, illu" Gott, Göttin wie auch "El" ist demnach im Akkadischen und Kanaanäischen besonders verbreitet und bezeichnet, I. Gott, Göttin und dann 2. Einen aus den andern Gottheiten herausgehobenen Gott, El. This we have it that as used in both Akkadian as well as Canaanitish usage, it means any God or Goddess, but especially El as the highest among the gods.11
Gesenius Lexicon notes that El Elim is the "God of Gods," in other words the supreme God.12 There cannot be a God of gods, unless there are, indeed, other gods. Interestingly, Gesenius also notes that this word occurs more frequently in poetic language. Now this is more important than at first sight. Does this mean it is not as concrete or real? In our day poetic has come to mean something less than reliable, even suspect. However, "in biblical times anything expressed in poetic form carries great significance, since it suggested a special measure of divine inspiration and hence truth."13
Now I freely acknowledge that the variations of El, Elohim, Elim, etc., has and can be taken as singular, as any lexicon will show. The Bible is not consistent in this sense. Is there anything that says it has to be though? The Bible certainly does not portray all things uniformly, even concerning god/the gods. Dr. Owen literally ignores the fact that the Bible speaks of Gods in the plural number. He wishes to make it appear that the Bible uniformly teaches one doctrine of God, namely monotheism. But this is simply not the case. The Bible has been written by humans, about the Gods/God, and has been redacted, that is rewritten, etc.
There is nothing in history suggesting it has told only one long perfectly consistent doctrine and history. That does not mean the Bible is not scripture. We need to use greater care in trying to understand what it is the Bible says. Sometimes it says things from different perspectives of different peoples, and even from God's perspective.
The Bible speaks not only of false gods, as any Bible lexicon will clearly show, but it also speaks of true ones, of which the most supreme God reigns over. Joshua 22:22 is simply electrifying in this regard.
Joshua 22:22 – hwhy Myhl) l) hwhy Myhl) l) El Elohim Yhwh El Elohim Yhwh – The Lord God of Gods, The Lord God of Gods… It repeats this twice, especially emphasizing the idea that the Lord is God of gods. The Septuagint renders it thus:
qeoj qeoj estin kurioj kai o qeoj qeoj kurioj
Theos theos estin kurios kai ho theos theos kurios
Now it’s most interesting that the Greek word "estin coming from the root eimi, eimi has such fascinating connotations. It can mean simply existing, or to be on hand according to the BDAG Lexicon. It can also indicate a closeness of connection. I think this is precisely what the scripture is noting, a God of gods. They are a close connection, but it is between more than one object, i.e. gods.
Moses tells Israel in Deuteronomy 10:17 For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords,
The Septuagint renders it:
o gar kurioj o qeoj umwn outoj qeoj
ho gar kurios ho theos hemon autos theos
The singular article frequently expresses a personal claim on the deity, hence this is, as Moses says to Israel, "Your God." And what is He? A God of gods, and a Lord of Lords, clearly indicating there are gods many and lords many, though to Israel there is but one they turn their worshipful attention to.
This is precisely how Paul says it. He indeed does declare the Roman gods to be nothing, but he then parenthetically acknowledged that "there be gods many, and lords many, explaining "but to us there is but one God, the Father… and one Lord Jesus Christ." (1 Corinthians 8:4-6). This is exactly how Moses put it to ancient Israel. There are other gods and lords, but "your God" is God over them all. This language does not exclude the existence of other Gods, it just makes them secondary to Israel’s God, of whom they are to worship alone.
Also, when Jesus spoke to Mary at the tomb and told her not to embrace him, he said "I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God. (John 20:17) He made no distinction between his and Mary’s relationship to the Father. They were both children of the Heavenly Father, of the whole human family in heaven and on earth. (Ephesians 3:14-15). The Greek pasa Patera is not a metaphorical aspect of the family, but suggests a real father. This is the descent from a common ancestor. We are all descended from the Father in heaven.
Paul says at Galatians 3:26 - pantes gar huioi theou este. Ye are all sons of God, which obviously included both the Jews and Gentiles (3:14) and both become sons in the same way "through faith in Christ Jesus" (dia tês pisteôs en Christôi Iêsou). There is no other way to become "sons of God" in the full ethical and spiritual sense that Paul means. The family association is powerful. Those who are led by the Spirit of God are also sons of God (Romans 8:14). A. T. Robertson, in his "New Testament Word Pictures," noted - Rom 8:14 - Sons of God (huioi theou). In the full sense of this term. In verse 16 we have tekna theou (children of God). Hence no great distinction can be drawn between huios and teknon. The truth is that huios is used in various ways in the New Testament. In the highest sense, not true of any one else, Jesus Christ is God's Son (8:3). But in the widest sense all men are "the offspring" (genos) of God as shown in Ac 17:28 by Paul. But in the special sense here only those are "sons of God" who are led by the Spirit of God, those born again (the second birth) both Jews and Gentiles, "the sons of Abraham" (huioi Abraam, Ga 3:7), the children of faith.14
And how does Paul indicate this? Through the transformation of humans into Christ. He says at Phillipians 3:10 that the way to know Christ, his suffering, and the resurrection, is being made like him (summorfizomenoj synmorphizomenos – from the root summorfizw synmorphizo) "conformable," which the Latin Vulgate calls configuro, which present passive participle means to have the same likeness. It is to bring to the same form as, or to be made like unto). Late in Phillipians 3:20-21 Paul notes more startlingly that our commonwealth is in heaven, and the Lord Jesus will change ((metasxhmatisei metaschematisei) our vile or lowly body to be like his glorious body! summorfon summorphon. Paul in Romans 12:2 said "to be transformed" metmorfousqe metamorphousthe) by renewing our minds. And yet another transformation in mentioned in Galatians 4:19, where Paul indicates his desire for us to have Christ be formed in you! morfwqh| morphothe. We will be resurrected as Christ was, and become like him according to Paul in 1 Corinthians 15. We will be "changed." The verb is the passive indicative future, (allaghsomeqa allaghsometha), which is to make something other, to change it, to alter it. Paul says our earthly bodies will be changed into heavenly ones. This is not the mere pertaining to our human bodies, as flesh and blood cannot inhabit the Kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 15:50). Humans can and will be changed by God into what God (Christ) is, as Paul teaches. It’s an astonishing doctrine, but a Biblical one.
Rom 8:16-17 describes this as well:
16. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
17. And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.
The Greek for "Children of God" is tekna qeou tekna theou.
Tekna, means, of course, the offspring of parents.
Heirs is the word (kleronomoi kleronomoi), meaning our inheritance, what we receive, of course. And what about joint-heirs with Christ? What did Christ receive? Matthew 28:18 says All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.
Notice this! "All power" (pasa ecousia ) the Greek word pas meaning "all," has no exceptions, no limitations, no weaknesses. It is all inclusive. Total power in heaven and in earth, and this is our joint heirship. What else can this be but to be gods unto Christ and His Father? We will receive all that he has. He even promised that we would do "greater works" than those he had done, such as heal the sick, make the blind see, raise the dead, etc. Well heavens, what greater works can there be than these? John 5:20 where "greater works than these" (meizona toutôn erga), Toutôn is ablative case after the comparative meizona (from megas, great). John often uses erga for the miracles of Christ (5:36; 7:3,21; 10:25,32,38, etc.). It is the Father who does these works (14:10). There is more to follow. Even the disciples will surpass what Christ is doing in the extent of the work. If we, as joint-heirs are promised all things, what then are we? The Bible doctrine is obvious, though Christians like Paul Owen seem to think this is wrong. How, I honestly cannot possibly tell.
Christ in Hebrews 1:2 is promised to be the kleronomos panton, the "heir of all things." As "Joint-heirs" what will we have in Christ? How can we avoid the conclusion, unless Paul is lying. I don’t think nor do I possibly believe that Paul was lying. In fact, further to the point Paul says in Hebrews 2:10-11, that:
For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, in bringing many sons unto glory, to make the captain of their salvation perfect through sufferings. 11. For both he that sanctifieth and they who are sanctified are all of one: for which cause he is not ashamed to call them brethren,
Sanctifying is the Greek hagiazo, which is to 1) to render or acknowledge, or to be venerable or hallow 2) to separate from profane things and dedicate to God 2a) consecrate things to God 2b) dedicate people to God 3) to purify 3a) to cleanse externally 3b) to purify by expiation: free from the guilt of sin 3c) to purify internally by renewing of the soul. Notice Paul says both the sanctifier and the sanctified are ONE. This is one as in quality. The Sanctifyer is God (Christ). The Sanctified are us. To see what Christ is is to know what we will be because of our sanctification, if we are to believe the Bible. How can we avoid the conclusion if Paul is telling the truth? (I am assuming Paul the author of Hebrews, though I am well aware of the arguments that he may not be).
To possess eternal life is to be as God. The startling thing is that Paul says this as well. Ephesians 3:19 And to know the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge, that ye might be filled with all the fulness of God.
And to bring the powerful, astonishing, downright electrifying point right home with a bang A. T. Robertson even notes That ye may be filled with all the fulness of God (hina plêrôthête eis pân to plêrôma tou theou). Final clause again (third use of hina in the sentence) with first aorist passive subjunctive of plêroô and the use of eis after it. One hesitates to comment on this sublime climax in Paul's prayer, the ultimate goal for followers of Christ in harmony with the injunction in Mt 5:48 to be perfect (teleioi) as our heavenly Father is perfect. There is nothing that any one can add to these words. One can turn to Romans 8:29 again for our final likeness to God in Christ. So when we find his analysis of Romans 8:29 we are in for yet another surprise.
Rom 8:29 - Foreknew (proegnô). Second aorist active indicative of proginôskô, old verb as in Acts 26:5. See Ps 1:6 (LXX) and Matt 7:23. This fore-knowledge and choice is placed in eternity in Eph 1:4. He foreordained (proôrisen). First aorist active indicative of proorizô, late verb to appoint beforehand as in Acts 4:28; 1Cor 2:7. Another compound with pro- (for eternity). Conformed to the image (summorphous tês eikonos). Late adjective from sun and morphê and so an inward and not merely superficial conformity. Eikôn is used of Christ as the very image of the Father (2 Cor 4:4; Col 1:15). See Philip 2:6f. for morphê. Here we have both morphê and eikôn to express the gradual change in us till we acquire the likeness of Christ the Son of God so that we ourselves shall ultimately have the family likeness of sons of God. Glorious destiny. That he might be (eis to einai auton). Common idiom for purpose. First born among many brethren (prôtotokon en pollois adelphois). Christ is "first born" of all creation (Col 1:15), but here he is "first born from the dead" (Col 1:18), the Eldest Brother in this family of God's sons, though "Son" in a sense not true of us.
This last sentence I would strongly disagree with based on Paul’s teachings of joint-heirship. Christ received sonship as the Heir of God, and Paul promised the explicit exact same thing for us. Not only Paul, but John also has bore the same testimony:
1 John 3:1 Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not. 2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is. 3 And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.
Notice this phrase Esomai homoios autos "We SHALL be like him." It is the future indicative, of course, but then, that means in the future that is our destiny, does it not? Is it Biblical? Sure. Is it true? Sure. In fact, the Bible teaches this so clearly, it is hard to miss it. Consider more of this biblical doctrine.
John 1:12-13 12 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: 13 Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God. We see how this is done, or at least that it is Jesus’ prayer.
John 17:21-23
21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. 22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: 23 I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me.
And John further notes at 1 John 3:2
2 Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.
And to conclude the accomplishment what does God do? Revelation 3:21:
21 To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne.
It is fundamental biblical scripture that we will sit in Christ’s throne, as well as in the Father’s throne, which is part of our inheritance, of course.
Didn’t Timothy state that all scripture is given by God’s inspiration? Indeed he did. 2 Timothy 3:16 - Every scripture inspired of God is also profitable (pâsa graphê theopneustos kai ôphelimos). There are two matters of doubt in this clause. One is the absence of the article hê before graphê, whether that makes it mean "every scripture" or "all scripture" as of necessity if present. Unfortunately, there are examples both ways with both pâs and graphê. Twice we find graphê in the singular without the article and yet definite (1Peter 2:6; 2 Peter 1:20). We have pâs Israêl (Rom 11:26) for all Israel (Robertson, Grammar, p. 772). So far as the grammatical usage goes, one can render here either "all scripture" or "every scripture." There is no copula (estin) in the Greek and so one has to insert it either before the kai or after it. If before, as is more natural, then the meaning is: "All scripture (or every scripture) is inspired of God and profitable." In this form there is a definite assertion of inspiration. That can be true also of the second way, making "inspired of God" descriptive of "every scripture," and putting estin (is) after kai: "All scripture (or every scripture), inspired of God, is also profitable." Inspired of God (theopneustos). "God-breathed." Late word (Plutarch) here only in N.T. Perhaps in contrast to the commandments of men in Titus 1:14. Profitable (ôphelimos).
I don't believe Dr. Paul Owen has dealt with the Biblical doctrine nearly as well and complete as he could have. I haven’t either, but its obvious that the magnificent doctrine of mankind’s elevation and deification with God through Christ is certainly a Bible doctrine which our Evangelical anti-Mormons simply have ignored or else downplayed which is really very, very odd. How well do they then love the Bible? Sometimes I just can’t help but wonder.
Consider furthermore what Peter taught on the deification of mankind.
2 Peter 1:4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.
In Robertson’s New Testament Word Windows we read - that ye may become (hina genêsthe). Purpose clause with hina and second aorist middle subjunctive of ginomai. Through these (dia toutôn). The promises. Partakers (koinônoi). Partners, sharers in, for which word see 1 Peter 5:1. Of the divine nature (theias phuseôs). This phrase, like "to theion" in Acts 17:29, "belongs rather to Hellenism than to the Bible" (Bigg). It is a Stoic phrase, but not with the Stoic meaning. Peter is referring to the new birth as 1 Peter 1:23 (anagegennêmenoi). [KAS note - the phrase obviously is in the Bible, hence biblical contra Bigg]
It is worth noting that the Greek word for "partakers" is "koinonoi." This is sharers and partakers of. Robertson noted 1 Peter 5:1 which states :
1 Peter 5:1 The elders which are among you I exhort, who am also an elder, and a witness of the sufferings of Christ, and also a partaker of the glory that shall be revealed:
"Doxa" is the Greek for glory, which indicates the kingly majesty which belongs to Him as supreme ruler, (obviously the Father in Heaven). It also is the majesty in the sense of the absolute perfection of the deity. This is a thing belonging to Christ as well as the kingly majesty of the Messiah. Moreover it is the absolutely perfect inward or personal excellency of Christ as well as the majesty of the angels. It is furthermore a most glorious condition, as well as a most exalted state. It concerns the condition with God the Father in heaven to which Christ was raised after He had achieved his work on earth. This is the glorious condition of blessedness into which is appointed and promised that true Christians shall enter after their Saviour's return from heaven. This is what 1 Peter 5:1 is indicating.
How is this nothing less than deification of us? We read 1 Peter 1:23 - Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever.
Incorruptible is the Greek afqartoj "aphthartos" which means immortal and living forever. Is this not the characteristic of God? It is what we are promised as well. If we are promised the characteristics of God, including His very nature, pray tell what is that except becoming like God, because we are Gods? This is God’s "divine nature," the "Theios phusis" (qeioj fusij)
Peter is talking about. We are to have it. What does "phusis" mean anyway? And how is it understood in the Bible?
"Phusis" means the sum of innate properties and powers by which one person differs from others. It is the distinctive native peculiarities and natural characteristics of someone or something. This is what we are going to be partakers of, only of God’s (the "divine") characteristicis, that is His nature. This is what the Bible teaches clearly in Peter’s exposition. The Liddell-Scott Lexicon notes that "phusis" is:
the nature, natural qualities, powers, constitution, condition, of a person or thing, Od., Hdt., Att. 2. like quh form, stature, h noon h toi fusij either in mind or outward form, Pindar; ton de Daimon fusin tin eixe fraze Sophocles; thn emhn idwn fusin Ar. 3. of the mind, one's nature, natural bent, powers, character… species.
Notice this. The lexicon says it means "species" as well in Greek thought. We are promised to be this in Peter. The species of God. What is that, except deification?
In light of this, Paul’s discussion of the tame and wild olive tree in Romans is quite pertinent.
Romans 11:24 For if thou wert cut out of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and wert graffed contrary to nature into a good olive tree: how much more shall these, which be the natural branches, be graffed into their own olive tree?
Robertson’s notes are valuable here:
Rom 11:24 - Contrary to nature (para fusin "para phusin") This is the gist of the argument, the power of God to do what is contrary to natural processes. He put the wild olive (Gentile) into the good olive tree (the spiritual Israel) and made the wild olive (contrary to nature) become the good olive (kallielaios, the garden olive, kallos and elaia in Aristotle and a papyrus). Into their own olive tree (têi idiâi elaiâi). Dative case. Another argument a fortiori, "how much more" (pollôi mallon). God can graft the natural Israel back upon the spiritual Israel, if they become willing.
If God can do contrary to natural laws, why cannot he do the same for more important things, namely His children, i.e., us? Christians such as Carl Mosser and Paul Owen and others state we humans are completely separate from God, and are in another category. This is true so far as it goes, but if God can work contrary to law with trees, how much more so with humans? This is the entire point of the promise Peter talks about in fact. It is deification. Granted in the Christian understanding this is contrary to nature, but God works contrary to nature, so it is not impossible.
The gulf right now between humans and God, is of course, insurmountable by our own works. We need the Grace of Christ to save us, (Ephesians 2!) from death, hell, and all else. But pray tell, what was the mission of Christ if not, as a God, to come down to us, in our own form, our own life, to lift us up to His Father, unto eternal life? Is not, in fact, the precise mission of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, to bridge that very gulf between God and man? We LDS say it is. Is anything too hard for the Lord? (Gen. 18:14). In fact, God, in the Christian’s view, can actually create something from nothing, the Creation Ex Nihilo. Yet they cannot fathom how God can merely transform (St. Paul’s word!) something already existing (humans), into something else (gods). Call us LDS confused with the Christians doctrines of non-deification, which is the opposite of what St. Paul and Christ taught in the Bible, that’s all.
Endnotes