Can Men Become Gods?

The Topic of Deification and the LDS Claim About Men Becoming Gods

Host Martin Tanner. We have three hours to spend together this evening until 10 o 'clock to discuss Something that I think will be a value to you. The topic tonight is deification. We're going to be talking a little bit about That because several months ago I received from Reverend James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries in Phoenix, Arizona a Proposal that we have a show on this topic Reverend White has put together a Series of pamphlets and tracks if you will one of which is Entitled one God a response to response to Mormon Mormon apologists and in it He says modern LDS apologists like to cite passages from early patristic sources Asserting that the early fathers taught that men could become gods.

Is this true? This then is is the topic for our discussion tonight I think that first of all before we jump right into it. We ought to welcome to our studios Reverend White from Phoenix, Arizona. Thanks for joining us tonight.

Good to be back with you. Thank you, and we also have in studio tonight van Hale. Welcome to our studios man. Thank You Martin, that's gonna be back again. All right, and what why don't we do it this way if we could Why don't we start off with?

What was sort of an opening statement if you will and Sort of formulate the basic issues here. And then if we could I'd like to Sort of narrow them a little bit, you know maybe Maybe Reverend White can get some concessions out of out of van and I and we can get a few out of him and we Can narrow the issues a little bit and see where we're gonna see where we're gonna go from here since the the real issue It seems to me here is It's whether or not Latter-day Saint views are Are accurate that men can become what like God's why don't we start off with you van and and have you give a statement? about The LDS position or your beliefs as a member of the LDS Church and then Reverend White Why don't you give give your opening remarks if that'd be all right, sir?

Go ahead man. Okay, the actually I was I wasn't thinking so much in making a statement of the LDS position on that as I was making a statement in reference to the letters and material that have passed back to you and then on to me from from James White and Also in I I thought I would make a comment regarding the doctrines of early Christianity as as I see it and so it's not so that I can perhaps be in a position of Discussing with James tonight My position rather than maybe the positions that some other Latter-day Saints have taken.

But as I have looked at the doctrine of early Christianity in fact the doctrine of All the early Christians of whom I believe we have any knowledge That their doctrines was to their doctrine was diverse and And in fact their doctrine was diverse on such basic doctrines as the nature and identity of God the deity of Jesus salvation the Canon and authority of Scripture ritual and ceremony and also the church and as I have looked at the Beliefs doctrines of those in the earliest centuries of the Christian era.

I would have to concede that None of the dark that the doctrine is not identical with the doctrine of the LDS Church as I have experienced it. I would also have to concede that if I were to pick any any of the any Christian of the first several centuries I Couldn't pick one that I believe would be That I would agree with totally doctrinally.

In fact, there would be some substantial difference differences me coming from my LDS point of view and in him coming from his early Christian point of view. But as I am familiar also to the extent at least to which I am familiar with particularly Protestant Christianity and The born-again movement and those the doctrine of those who typically are critics of the LDS Church I would also have to say the same thing about their doctrine.

I I don't see the doctrine of the Christians of the earliest centuries being identical with modern Christianity either. And in fact to take this just a little step further. I Would use a common I'm going to use the common anti-mormon construct.

Yeah, and in doing so I would say that when the doctrine of such modern Christians as James White and Walter Martin Ed Decker Dick and Dick Bear Is compared with that of such early Christians as Ignatius Irenaeus Clement Tertullian origin and Augustine.

They have a different God a different Jesus different plan of salvation a different church and a different Bible. By the standard which they used to condemn LDS doctrine every Christian we have record of In at least the first five centuries also stands condemned when comparing this modern Christianity.

Early Christianity and LDS Christianity none are identical. James White can demonstrate That some views of some early Christians harmonizes with his position. He can also show that some views of some early Christians are not in harmony with LDS doctrine.

But if you were to look further with an open mind I believe that he would find that most of the LDS doctrines that he objects to do have significant and substantial parallels among Christians of the early centuries and I think that he would also find that The four or five of the doctrines that he presents as being essential major doctrines of Christianity Were not widely accepted in the first several centuries of Christianity.

That's my statement then making the concessions that I I wanted to make in that regard. And and I would assume that those concessions would would apply to this area of deification. Which is our special area of interest tonight.

Absolutely. Reverend white well, the reason that I wrote to you initially Martin was because a year ago we were here in this situation and in that conversation you may recall that this issue was brought up and You for example were had this book in your in your possession that time Martin and you're reading a number of the quotations from Stephen Robinson's are Mormons Christians again with reference to the concept of men becoming gods and so.

Since that day I had all of a book that I have written called letters to a Mormon elder and my Bible with me and nothing else. When I put this information together I wanted to send it to you and since we were up here for the conference weekend and Outside the gates yesterday passing out tracts and witnessing the people I felt that.

Maybe you'd be interested in going into more depth on the information that you had to presented last year during this time. And so what I sent to you Included a little pamphlet that I developed that you mentioned one got a response to Mormon apologists.

It's interesting. Initially, I began work on this in response to a book You may have seen called the gainsayers by a man by name of Derek Evenson or Troy Lawrence depending on which direction you want to go on identifying the gentleman after I had begun work on a section from Derek Evenson's book.

Which a number of LDS still have in fact just yesterday outside the gates of the temple a LDS couple attempted to hand me a Photocopy of a section out of Robinson's book a staple together with a section out of Derek Evenson's book.

I'm sure that mr. Robinson would not be happy about the conjugation of his materials with mr. Evenson's materials, but be that as it may. I began working on this in response to mr Evenson's materials because he showed up out the Mormon Easter pageant in Mesa, Arizona and was making his presence known out there.

And so I want to begin working on this and that's why I sent this to you. And then I also forwarded a letter to you that I had written to to BYU professors in regards to a 1988 ensign article occurred in the March 1988 ensign magazine.

It was entitled Comparing LDS beliefs with first-century Christianity by Daniel C. Peterson and Stephen D. Ricks and I forwarded that to you as well and because it dealt with the the same topic. The first the first LDS person who ever brought up the subject of theosis or deification In regards the LDS faith to me Was van Hale and van may recall we were in a radio studio together at that time and It was on a secular station in Phoenix, Arizona.

And we were on for about three hours that day and I recall van reading a couple of quotations used to have a Card box with you van. I almost didn't recognize you without it today. And you had read some quotations with regards that that topic and I recall that my initial Reaction and question to you was do you find any early church fathers who taught that?

God the father himself was once a man who progressed to godhood. And at that time you had indicated to me that you did not know of any early church fathers Who taught the God the father was once a man who lived on another planet and progressed to godhood and That was the first time I heard of that First time they've been presented to me since then since Robinson's book has come out since Derek Evenson's book came out since this article and the ensign was pointed out to me just recently.

I had received that ensign, but some reason had not noticed the article in it. Since all these things have been produced I feel that there is a real need to clarify the issues in regards to what is the doctrine of deification and what did the early church fathers believe about the nature of God and In the materials that I've forwarded to you van That have come to you through through Martin.

I believe that I make it very very clear That in looking at the doctrine of theosis of deification we must remember as a Foundational thing and this is what I find to be missing in Robinson's book. I certainly found it to be missing in the ensign article is that the early church fathers as van said?

We're very diverse in their beliefs. But as I have lectured on the early fathers in in teaching church history I have made the following statement if you want to find pretty much the one thing That the early church fathers were agreed upon in regards to doctrine if you if you can find any one thing It is in reference to the fact that God has Eternally been God that God is as they put it all again a toss without beginning without generation that God has eternally been God and A monotheism in that sense that God has eternally been God that there has never been gods before him that he did not derive his Power from any other source is something that not only can be found throughout the fathers.

But interestingly enough the sources that for example Peterson and Ricks used in their ensign article make those points very very clearly and I hope that we'll have some opportunity of looking into some of those things as we proceed in an examination of this and What I'd like to do is to Is to ask van he he specifically said I'm not going to attempt to Defend another Latter-day Saints view of this topic and that's that's fine but in reference to the things that came up the last time that we were together and I don't know.

I wasn't as far along as 86 That probably probably about 1986 that we had that initial conversation down Phoenix. When you bring up the doctrine of theosis What do you feel its relationship to the Latter-day Saint faith is if you could define that?

That would help me in differentiating between Possibly your perspective on it and the perspective that I find in in LDS materials that are being being produced today That also bring up the issue. I don't know that there would be any that I would be at odds for example with Peterson and Ricks or or Any of the others that have written on the subject?

I just it's just you know I I don't really I would really rather defend my own position than to and to try and defend their position but To just to make a brief statement on that. I what I see in the writings of the early church fathers Is an idea which has has pretty much disappeared from Western Christianity and this has been all the historians Historians of doctrine are saying that it was it was there in the early centuries.

It fell out of favor. It did it. There was a problem that that it faced because of the homoous use doctrine and it survived And has survived down to the present in the Orthodox Eastern Orthodox faith and much more substantially because of a difference in their point of view on the Relationship between the father and the son a kind of a fine point I didn't really want to bring out only that the only that it has it's something that was in Western Christianity In the early centuries and it and it just simply is not around.

I mean there there are people I've seen collections things from CS Lewis and other authors Who who are still acknowledging the idea today, but basically? The idea that I'm seeing in these in the early Christian writers is that man has an absolutely incredible potential and That the ultimate of salvation is to become like God and to become gods now in saying that The early Christian fathers as far as I can see we're not.

We're not suggesting in any way that That they believed in in polytheism. Which of course is the same the same point can be made within the LDS faith. I've never heard of a single LDS theologian or a single LDS Authority talking on our our doctrine our belief in in deification and eternal progression.

I've never heard one of them suggest that we are polytheists. That's not. It comes down to a fine distinction in what we're talking about. So what I see the early Christian fathers saying is that men have an incredible potential.

They're not. That they have the potential of inheriting all that Christ has inherited and there are differences I mean some of them some of them are Suggesting some of the position of some of the early fathers was that this is something which comes about by grace.

It's a gift. Others are our teaching that no, it's not it's not just a gift. It's something that you acquire something that's given to an individual as he progresses and it's something that comes about through a progression of Obedience to God and living the commandments and so forth.

Which would which that I idea would certainly be more more parallel to the LDS point of view than the idea that it's. It's simply given by grace. Let's get a response here from Reverend white and then I will be obligated to take a few phone calls since this is talk radio.

The Early Fathers, Monotheism, and the Meaning of Deification

Okay. Well, first of all, I just want to make it very clear I as time will will permit would like to address some of the things that van said in his opening statement about The doctrine of God and Ignatius.

I I think I could challenge van that said that my doctrine of God is Identical to Ignatius and doctrine of God. In fact just finished a paper in response to the Watchtower Society's gross misrepresentations of Ignatius's view of God Jesus Christ on so forth, but in regards to this particular issue I I need to make an emphasis upon the fact that When I read the Peterson and Rick's article, for example It seems very clear to me that There is a a parallel being drawn here that there is some attempt to say well if early church fathers believed in deification then upon what basis can you complain that Latter-day Saints believe in deification and the point that I I think needs to be presented is the fact that the viewpoint presented by those early fathers who believed in a doctrine of deification and theosis is radically different than the perspective that is presented by the LDS Church and what I mean by that is that foundational to their to their entire beliefs and this can be found in in For example, you have J and D Kelly's book there near you in GL prestigious book and in regards to God and the fathers Absolutely foundational to to all of Christian thought Is the fact that God alone is omnipotent.

He is one who's created all things He is invisible. They they decried any type of polytheism. And I'd like to go into what you believe polytheism is because I think that the phrase plurality of gods and polytheism are in fact interchangeable.

They are they're absolute monotheists. They believe that God has always been God. He's never been anything but God and in fact the very sources that Pearson and Rick's site Tell us that the idea that men can become God by nature was an absurd blasphemy to the Christian people that the Christian people felt that polytheism a belief in a plurality of gods as I would see it is foolishness and hence the whole concept of deification as They would state it would not in any way shape or form be parallel to or even semi Supportive of what we find for example in Joseph Smith's King Follett funeral discourse where he says you have got to learn to become gods yourselves the idea that God himself was once a man lived on another planet and was pre and has progressed and become exalted the status of Godhood and what the early fathers said about men becoming gods are two completely and totally different things and to not bring out the fact that the early church fathers believe that there is only one true and almighty God and that this foundationally alters what they meant by deification.

When talking about deification I find to be Dishonest to the early fathers and what they believed. Well, I. It's a serious thing. Yeah, but but the fact is James is that I think you what what you need to be willing to do is you need to be willing to allow Latter-day Saints to to state and itemize their own doctrine, okay for for example when you talk about When when you talk when you look at the writings of the early church fathers.

You're obviously interested in trying to draw a contrast between those and and the LDS points of point of view. One thing that you that you do is you're summarizing. This is your summarizing. I would not accept your summarization.

You're bringing too many too many people into Together into a common point of view. The idea of absolute monotheism was certainly was not. The position of all of the early church fathers are you talking about could you name some that were polytheists at all?

Well, say there's no sense bringing up polytheism because I've already indicated I don't believe any of them suggested a belief in polytheism nor do Latter-day Saints. What do you how do I believe in polytheism?

Okay, then then could you show me any who believe in a plurality of gods and I'm using that in for example Bruce R. McConkie Mormon Doctrine page 270 as pertaining this universe. There are three gods the Father Son and Holy Ghost.

All the supposed deities are false gods. Apostles and Pratt's. Are there more gods than there are particles of matter. On and on. I mean there there are so many passages I could pull out Bruce R. McConkie's promised Messiah here where he talks about the fact there There are gods plural with the within and with an F in your own scriptures.

You have a plurality of gods now obviously in. There's there's a God's plural in your own scriptures, too. I don't think I'm talking specifically about the book of in in your Pearl of Great Price the book of Abraham.

Where the Bible says God did this God did that throughout the book of Abraham? It says the gods did this and the gods did that a clear change there that the point being that Yes in in the Bible for example the gods of the peoples are idols psalm 96 5.

But that doesn't mean that that's polytheism now I'm trying I'm using the term simply in this sense of an if you have more than one true God you're a polytheist if you have two true gods. You're a polytheist because obviously poly many theism God you're aware of where that comes from.

Well. That's you know that's not. That certainly is not a justifiable Application though James because polytheism has reference more than just to something like that. That's like monotheism. Monotheism in its in its absolute form is referring to one being Without any equals without any divisions, and there is simply no way possible of applying the term monotheism to trip to Trinitarianism.

If you ask and if you ask any Jew whether or not the Protestant Trinitarian concept is polytheistic. They will say yes, of course you just demonstrate I think possibly misunderstanding the doctrine the Trinity van because if you're familiar with any systematic theologies.

You know that is strongly asserted for example anyone go out and pick up burkhart's one volume systematic theology the Christian faith and in his doctrine The Trinity it is strongly asserted that there is only one being of God.

And there is no division in the being of God whatsoever and so Monotheism has always been applied by Christians to their belief in the fact that there is only one being of God who has eternally been God the point being that the concept of theosis in the early fathers in no way shape or form Contradicts that statement because the individuals did not believe that God and man are of the same species well that that's applying your terminology and your your construct to it, but Going back to the your comment about my understanding of the Trinity what what I'm saying is this.

Is that when you say that there are? Three persons the father the son and the whole and the Holy Spirit who are numerically distinct. They're not ontologic they're they're not they're not three Names for it for one person.

They're not three different modes of operation or authority or Or whatever you're talking about three numerically distinct persons each of whom is God you cannot within the Within the parameters of the definition of monotheism call that monotheism.

Otherwise, that's totally otherwise, okay. Well, then let people who set up a parameter didn't even agree with that. Okay. Well, let me ask you this then. How would you define me? What term would you use then to define?

The belief in one lone person. Unitarianism. One lone person. Who alone is God. Unitarianism? And and that's different from monotheism. No. No, both a unitarianism is a monotheistic belief as is Islam as is Judaism and as is biblical Christianity.

But the point is again if I I don't believe that you're denying that LDS people believe in the plurality of gods. Are you well, it depends. It just depends. It depends on how you define the charge and we're trying to get to the bottom here of how you define your terms because if you use monotheism as defined By the Jewish faith then you would be a polytheist if you define it a little bit differently.

You would not if you define it a little bit differently still Latter-day Saints would not. It depends on how you define the terms there is there is one true God and since we're talking about the early Church Fathers we will why don't we use their definitions the definition they had there is one God who is eternally been God.

He is again etos. He is without beginnings without origin. He's the fountain of all things all things depend upon him. He is dependent upon none other. You can find this in Tatian. You can find this in Irenaeus.

You can find this in numerous of the of the fathers. Foundational to that belief is the fact that they asserted that man is a creature. Man is created by God man is dependent and derivative and man differs at a foundational level Level from the nature of God now.

Let me ask you van Do you believe that man and God differ ontologically in other words is are we of the same species as God? I believe that we are however, I'm not. I'm not prepared to allow you to Simply speak for all of the early Christianity because we're not well.

If you'd like to point out where they disagree with what I was saying I would very much be willing to do so, but but I will point that out right now. Okay. I'd be glad to hear it. Yeah, as you look at the As you look at the well-known Discussions and debates that went on for centuries Within early in early Christianity in regard to the question of the Trinitarian kinds of questions you have a number of different views that are being advocated and in fact in the earliest views and J &D Kelly brings us out in his book and discusses it and you quote from him.

I'm assuming that you're familiar with his presentation one of the earliest points of views was that Yes, indeed there is one God monotheism, but the one God did not include Jesus this For example was Kelly brings out in his book early Christian doctrines the one of the earliest points of view held by a number of Christians was that Jesus was the pre-existent wisdom spoken of in Proverbs and that the pre-existent wisdom Was it is clearly in Proverbs presented as a creation of God and that idea went by the wayside fairly clearly.

But I well, I think it's very clearly. I just we can open up and read it. I mean, that's what it says maybe. But it does say that you you can read you understand that the term translated created means a number of different things.

You're probably with the linguistic. Well, well, the point is the point is is that this idea? Disappeared before too long and the reason that disappeared the idea The presentation of Jesus's as being the pre-existent word the logos that sort of idea that idea Persisted whereas the idea of Jesus being the pre-exist being the pre-existent wisdom through which God created has that disappeared it was displaced because of the problem of the the idea there in Proverbs of Wisdom being a creation of God and not being you know, not being co-eternal.

So well, in other words, the logos idea is clearly presented in John 1 and in Colossians 1 and so in other words people. Are you saying people recognize that? Attempting to find Jesus's wisdom and making him a creation and that's contradictory with John is not a wise thing to do.

But what I'm saying is that as as the debate Went on as a controversy proceeded certain ideas fell by the wayside one of the ideas one of the early ideas, of course was the idea that that Jesus was a man who was adopted the the adoptionist point of view that Jesus through at the time of his baptism or at the time of his resurrection one of those two points depending upon the I Agree that certain ideas fell by the wayside because as you studied the Bible more and learn more of it You do you discover that?

Well, I can't hold that position because it's contradictory with what's over here. I think church history is a whole picture of that. That's not what Kelly's saying though I'm in fact, let me just read to you a statement that he makes.

What what he's suggesting is that the I'm looking at page 87 in his book early Christian doctrines and he's what he's pointing out is that the the standard Formula that was ratified at the Council of Constantinople and the idea the ideas in the fourth century starting at the Council of Nicaea and and then And then ratified at Council of Constantinople.

He's saying that these ideas Were not necessarily the best. Let me read this starting page 87 on page 88. He says the church had to wait for more than 300 years for final synthesis. For not until the Council of Constantinople was a formula of one God existing in three quick persons formally ratified tentative theories.

However, some more and some less satisfactory work were propounded in the preceding centuries. It will be the business of this chapter in the next to survey the movement of thought down to the Council of Nicaea.

So what he's suggesting here is that the synthesis that came about and has persisted as the These the Orthodox concept of the Trinity ratified at the Council of Constantinople in 381 was not the most satisfactory.

It was not the least satisfactory, but it was not the most satisfactory. If I if I might point out first of all that earlier and I see Martin's fingers on the buttons Which means were but I hope I have at least an equal amount of time to point out the context of what?

Kelly is saying and and first of all point out that I don't think this is relevant to what I said in regards to The fact that the early church believed that there is only one true and eternal God. That is foundational to the entire concept of theosis and that's the whole point of the discussion.

But right before what van read Kelly said the doctrine of one God the father and creator formed the background and indisputable premise of the church's faith that right there in regards to Many statements by LDS leaders causes causes a problem.

You may notice however van that my quotation in the materials that were provided Was from a few pages earlier and this is I'll make this very quickly. I'll read it my best radio voice for you Martin the classical creeds of Christendom open with a declaration of belief in one God maker of heaven and earth the monotheistic idea Grounded in the religion of Israel loomed large in the minds the earliest fathers though not reflective theologians.

They were fully conscious that it marked the dividing line between the church and paganism. Okay, and when you go through here, and of course you you mentioned early fathers. One of the earliest fathers Ignatius very clearly differentiates between the father and the son and yet very clearly believes in the full deity of both.

Completely so and yet is in no way shape or form a polytheist or a one or a person who believes in a plurality of? However, you wish to define that term and it's interesting that Yaroslav Pelikan who is is cited by Peterson and Rick's in their article said that underlying this definition of divine truth as changeless was a definition of the divine itself as changeless and absolute because God Transcended change the truth about him also had to do so the characteristic of the nature of God to be impassable and indestructible.

All through here it talks about the fact they believe he was immovable Unchangeable. All these things must be kept in mind when looking at the doctrine of theosis because what they were saying is not That men can become God themselves.

They were not saying that men could become eternal unchangeable etc. Etc. They very clearly denied that men would ever receive worship so on so forth and when you compare that with with many statements that if we need to get into looking at the statements of Bruce R. McConkie or Joseph Ewing Smith or Brigham Young or or Joseph Smith the junior the the founding prophet.

You know. We can go into those things if we need to. But you said you will not allow me to speak for the early fathers in regard to the fact that God is Argenitas he is about beginnings about origin and I would challenge you to find any early father that denied any of those things man I just simply don't believe that those those fathers exist.

You went to Kelly to talk about the formulation the doctrine the Trinity. Well, it would seem to me reverend white that what you're doing is moving our discussion away from one of deification or theosis, which is what man's ultimate potential is to a Distinction that that you obviously have with Latter-day Saints and always will which is the nature of God.

That isn't why what that isn't why we invited you here tonight. And that's not what you did you look at when you came up here if you look at the material. Could I finish you came up here to talk about deification.

Anywhere some circumscribed in the concept of deification. Do you find the idea of the origin of God? That's not there. That's not part of it. You're trying to very much. You're trying to move us off from the topic of discussion not at all.

Let me read you the very opening well. Then let's start and let's morph then let's both make then let's both make a concession here. And that is that you believe that God has been God from for everlasting and everlasting and we'll say we have a different concept.

We believe that God Progressed to where he was and then let's move on to the target of deification. Did you read this? Yes. Okay. Very clearly the very first thing that says modern LDS Apologists like to cite passages from early patristic sources asserting that the early fathers taught that men could become gods.

It is true. Did the early church teach the Mormon doctrine of God? Did they believe that men could become God's like God and that God himself was once a man. There are a number of passages in early fathers that speak of men being deified and they go on with the quotes quotation GL prestige.

My point that's right. Go ahead my point in all materials. I sent to you Martin is this that Every single father who made any statement regarding deification Believed that God had eternally been God. That men cannot by nature become God like God is that men can only be be Received deification by grace and as GL prestige goes on to say none of these men in any way shape or form Violated the fact there's only one true God in their doctrine deification.

Well, nine nine tenths of what you just said van and I would I would absolutely agree with what's in let's go home. Six ten six. All right. Let's go to the phones now. I stand there Stan's gone, and I don't blame him Lewis.

Are you there? I got a disagree with both sides over I heard him talk about the Trinity I happen to know for a fact the Trinity actually comes from the pagan ritual but making God's and the did the pet.

They're they're idols and the gods nearly state 68 times that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Yes, and of course the doctrine of the Trinity states that but not the trade does not because the trinity the way I've heard it Is that they make Jesus Christ the Heavenly Father and a Heavenly Father.

Jesus Christ, sir, I'm sorry I I'd like to suggest that you find a decent Christian theology book and read that because A lot of Christians. Well, that's that's fine. But you know, I I heard some real interesting Doctrine that was brought in because they wanted to bring in the pagans into the Catholic Church.

Excuse me, sir, but I have heard a lot of interesting statements made by for example, Latter-day Saints outside the temple yesterday. But I'm not going to throw that up in someone's face as being representative of their beliefs.

What it was done on and it also in fact the first time this debate really started. So they use me 80 D started this debate 80 D. What is 80 D, sir? I'm talking about 80 and 80 AD. He started the debate the debate started in that period of time and it was brought in because everybody Jesus Christ himself clearly declared that no one worshiped him.

But his father which is in heaven and he made that clear. I've read that in the scripture. I'm sorry. You just said the father worships the son and that the only the father Son said to his to a bunch of people not to worship him.

Yeah. So you don't believe that Jesus is worshiped. It does not that Jesus Christ. I don't believe that because Jesus Christ clearly stated I have no power. But what my father gives me in heaven so in Hebrews 1 6 when the writer says all the angels of God worshiped Jesus Christ.

He was just wrong about that. Not what I'm getting at it said that we're not supposed to worship the father and the son. The son said to worship his father pointing to his father that no man could go through him.

But to his father he didn't say to worship him. There's the difference between in the oriental culture of respect and work when a man respected somebody he fell down at his feet. That can be translated worship it's a respect so so in Revelation chapter 5 when the lamb is seen standing in the presence of the father and all the.

Actually all of creation all created things whether in heaven or an earth or under the earth fall down in worship. He who sits upon the throne and the lamb, they shouldn't have done that. That's not you see you don't understand Oriental culture the book was written in Oriental language.