Quote:
Originally Posted by JJ
This former post is the result of a search using Blue Letter Bible in the New American Standard Bible for verses the say something about Jesus' coming. I did this to see if "God became man, that man might become God in life and nature, but not in the Godhead" was the reason Jesus came.
|
For such an assertion to be made (God became man...), it really places the burden of proof upon the one making the claim. WL attempted to 'prove' this, but his audience was one who would never honestly and objectively question what he said.
With that in mind, I think that it might be a bit of a wild goose chase to attempt to disprove the teaching in the first place. I feel funny saying that, because I've attempted to do just that on this thread (and others), It's not that it can't be done, but proving a negative is a bit tricky.
A while back, I got into a debate with an unregistered poster where I attempted to employ Acts 14 to disprove deification, and also to debunk the claim that 2 Peter 1:4 doesn't mean what WL claimed it to mean. The poster disappeared after a few "hit and run" posts. The problems really is not on our end. The problem is those who want to support and defend teachings in an isolated environment, devoid of critical or negative feedback.