we are gods?

I don’t really know what to think about this idea… I noticed in the Catechism that St. Thomas Aquinas said “the only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.” (460)

I reason that what Aquainas basically means is that while God lives in us, and we in Him, we are one with Him. --One with the Trinity. Jesus even mentioned something about the Father being in the Son, and the Son being in us Christians (John 17:21-23). But how does that make us Christians gods? A god is someone/thing to be worshiped or revered. I really doubt we humans should come close to the idea that we might be worshiped (at least, within the true Christian faith). I’m sorry if I offend anyone, but to me that sounds much more like something Satan would tell humans: “you’ll be a god.”

Also on that same note, though this is a somewhat different thing, there’s a theory I’ve heard that goes something like this: in the beginning there was one consciousness, one God. But God wanted to fellowship with others, so He split Himself up into different persons (this theory says those persons would be us humans). And with that, it is said that we ourselves are God. Literally. Just like little water droplets: they combine to make one, but at the moment, they’re individual.

The problem I have with this theory is that it rules out God’s creation of us. (And it blots out the truth of the Trinity) Yes we have souls, I believe, but souls that were magnificently created by God. --Not souls that were broken off of God Himself! Right?

Any comments? Thank you.

Sounds like you’ve been reading Conversation With God by Neale Donald Walshe. A book full of errs, which is another story all together.

You are right in that we are created by God, not droplets of God. As we read in the bible, God created us from the dirt of the ground, not from his body. Had we truly been part of God, God would have to be overpowered by sin because our sinful nature would have “outdone” our God nature. Furthermore, Jesus would have came and sacrificed himself on the cross to save… himself. Its just flawed.

Concerning your question with Thomas Aquinas, if you read John 17 a little bit more thorougly, you should get your answer.

“I pray that we may be one, so that they may be one as we are one. You have given them to me, and the world has dispised them for it.”

Okay, that was a sever adlib. Apologies.
Christ tells us that “Whoever does not give up his life and take up his cross and follow me does not share in my inheretance.” We know in baptism why “Die to the world and rise again in christ.” The theme here is that of two directions pulling at us.

We interupt this explanation for a disclaimer*
If I start saying anything dualistic, someone please correct me. That’s not what I’m trying to suggest.
Now we continue**

That of the world, of sin, of death, and that of new life in christ. We are born to the world, and then God calls us to the new life in him. “I am the way, the truth, and the life.”

Thus when we are baptised, and reborn in christ, we take the heritage the Christ has freely given to us as divine sonship of God. This does not mean that we are God in ourselves. It means that through God becoming man, God re-sanctified the human race, and in dying as sacrifice for our sins, won for it the honor of being sons of God.

Josh

[quote=threej_lc]Sounds like you’ve been reading Conversation With God by Neale Donald Walshe. A book full of errs, which is another story all together.

You are right in that we are created by God, not droplets of God. As we read in the bible, God created us from the dirt of the ground, not from his body. Had we truly been part of God, God would have to be overpowered by sin because our sinful nature would have “outdone” our God nature. Furthermore, Jesus would have came and sacrificed himself on the cross to save… himself. Its just flawed.

Concerning your question with Thomas Aquinas, if you read John 17 a little bit more thorougly, you should get your answer.

“I pray that we may be one, so that they may be one as we are one. You have given them to me, and the world has dispised them for it.”

Okay, that was a sever adlib. Apologies.
Christ tells us that “Whoever does not give up his life and take up his cross and follow me does not share in my inheretance.” We know in baptism why “Die to the world and rise again in christ.” The theme here is that of two directions pulling at us.

We interupt this explanation for a disclaimer*
If I start saying anything dualistic, someone please correct me. That’s not what I’m trying to suggest.
Now we continue**

That of the world, of sin, of death, and that of new life in christ. We are born to the world, and then God calls us to the new life in him. “I am the way, the truth, and the life.”

Thus when we are baptised, and reborn in christ, we take the heritage the Christ has freely given to us as divine sonship of God. This does not mean that we are God in ourselves. It means that through God becoming man, God re-sanctified the human race, and in dying as sacrifice for our sins, won for it the honor of being sons of God.

Josh
[/quote]

We are not Gods,We are Christlike,we take on His nature. Look what happen to satan when he wanted to be God. :eek:

Uhh… so are you agreeing or disagreeing with me? I can’t tell.

Josh

[quote=love-bias]I noticed in the Catechism that St. Thomas Aquinas said “the only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods.” (460)
[/quote]

All of Paragraph 460 in the Catechism talks about us partaking in the divine nature of God.

Awesome, isn’t it.

Through Jesus, we share in the divine nature of God, not that we become a god in our own rights. We essentially have only a human nature, in both body and soul. By uniting totally with Jesus in His sacrifice, He lets us take on divine properties. By partaking in the Eucharist we are transformed closer to the divine.

gods - no
sharing the divine nature - yes.

Another of the mysteries of the faith that we will only truly understand when we get to heaven.

[quote=T.A.Stobie, SFO]All of Paragraph 460 in the Catechism talks about us partaking in the divine nature of God.

Awesome, isn’t it.

Through Jesus, we share in the divine nature of God, not that we become a god in our own rights. We essentially have only a human nature, in both body and soul. By uniting totally with Jesus in His sacrifice, He lets us take on divine properties. By partaking in the Eucharist we are transformed closer to the divine.

gods - no
sharing the divine nature - yes.

Another of the mysteries of the faith that we will only truly understand when we get to heaven.
[/quote]

Thank you for your clarification. Cant wait to get there. :thumbsup:

The Scripture that is usuall y cited in this case is 2 Peter 1:3-4:

His divine power has granted to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of him who called us to his own glory and excellence, by which he has granted to us his precious and very great promises, that through these you may escape from the corruption that is in the world because of passion, and become partakers of the divine nature.

As pointed out above, this does not mean we are gods, but that we partake in the divine nature, to the limited ability that creatures can.

I am not trying to be blasphemous. Nor do I claim to absolutely believe this. I put the idea out for discussion.

In Christ’s parable of the silver pieces (Matthew 25:14), God entrusts His possessions with His servants. Some servants use His possessions to prosper God’s wealth. Some bury His possessions in a hole.

Is not God’s wealth, the gifts of the Holy Spirit? Those who do not prosper God’s wealth are striped of all that they were given while on earth and thrown out into the darkness. The prosperous ones will be given the “worthless servants” share of God’s possessions and put in charge of larger affairs.

Upon judgment day, when Jesus pours out God’s Holy Spirit upon the chosen, can they now not be One with God in the Holy Spirit? Upon judgment day, when we are begotten from above in the Holy Spirit, can we afterwards, in anyway, not be bonded to the Father and Jesus in the Holy Spirit?

NAB ACT 2:33

"Exalted at God’s right hand, he first received the promised Holy Spirit from the Father, then poured this Spirit out on us.


**NAB JOH 3:3 **

Jesus gave him this answer: “I solemnly assure you, no one can see the reign of God unless he is begotten from above.” “How can a man be born again once he is old?” retorted Nicodemus. “Can he return to his mother’s womb and be born over again?” Jesus replied: “I solemnly assure you, no one can enter into God’s kingdom without being begotten of water and Spirit.

Please do not confuse Jesus term, “begotten of God” with the manipulation of His words by the ‘born agains’ on earth. It is not upon earth but upon judgment day in heaven that people are begotten of God.

The Spirit of God is Omni-present to the whole of physical time which He created. When born into the Spirit of God one will Spiritually exist with God in Omni-presence to the whole of physical time from infinitely before creation to infinitely beyond the end of physical time (eternal life).

Peace in Christ,

Steven Merten

http://www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

Upon judgment day, when Jesus pours out God’s Holy Spirit upon the chosen, can they now not be One with God in the Holy Spirit? Upon judgment day, when we are begotten from above in the Holy Spirit, can we afterwards, in anyway, not be bonded to the Father and Jesus in the Holy Spirit?

Please do not confuse Jesus term, “begotten of God” with the manipulation of His words by the ‘born agains’ on earth. It is not upon earth but upon judgment day in heaven that people are begotten of God.

The Spirit of God is Omni-present to the whole of physical time which He created. When born into the Spirit of God one will Spiritually exist with God in Omni-presence to the whole of physical time from infinitely before creation to infinitely beyond the end of physical time (eternal life).

I think the person in the previous post has mixed up “being born” (NAB Jn 3:3,5) from above and of the water and the Spirit, with the Resurrection. The opinion expressed is not the Church’s traditional interpretation. Eternal life consists of the Resurrection, a rising from the dead. I cannot recall a teaching with refers to the Resurrection on the Last Day in terms of being born, whether literal, abstract, or symbolic.

These statement of the Lord have been taken by the Doctors to refer to the Sacraments of Baptism and Confirmation, most particularly to Baptism. Baptism is necessary for salvation and it is divine, “from above” as opposed to a merely human formality. (Necessary, without mentioning unforseen death of an intended catechumen, etc.)

There is a danger in trying to synthesize the implications of translation specific terms. While the NAB simply says “born”, the Vulgate says ‘born again’ (natus fuerit denuo and renatus.) The meaning of terms cannot be used contradict the articles of Faith. Even if St. Jerome implies a rebirthing process, that cannot be used to alter the understanding of the Resurrection of the Body. The view point given above is an unnecessary convolution that may in fact be an error.

Just as the literal sense of “make men gods” cannot be interpretted to destroy the true meaning of Christ’s mission, neither can a quote from Scripture. I’ll leave it to the commentators to spectulate on why Jesus used these words, but such explanations must be in line with accepted doctrine.

Evidence which supports CCC 460 notwithstanding, that passage itself must also be interpretted in harmony with the rest of the Church’s teaching. It is valid to state that the literal meaning of the quotes cited in that paragraph cannot be the intention of the writers (or translators,) simply because that would deny other teachings. It is a basic premise that the teaching of the Church does not contradict itself.

p.s. The second part of the original post should be identified as pop culture, new age, b.s. propagated by morons who don’t mind doing violence to Jesus. After two thousand years, innovations like that can be both despised and ignored. Just because someone says it, doesn’t mean it is worth listening to.

Hello JustSomeGuy,

When scripture speaks of the Father “begetting” Jesus, scripture tells us this happened at Christ’s resurrection rather than at his baptism where “God anointed him with the Holy Spirit”.

**NAB MAT **3:16

**After Jesus was baptized, he came directly out of the water. Suddenly the sky opened and he saw the Spirit of God decend like a dove and hover over him. **


NAB ACT 10:37
(Peter is speaking.)

“…beginning in Galilee with the baptism John preached; of the way God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and power. He went about doing good works and healing all who were in the grip of the devil, and God was with him.

NAB PSA 2:4

"I myself have **set up my king on **Zion, my holy mountain. I will proclaim the decree of the LORD: The LORD said to me, 'You are my son; this day I have begotten you.

NAB ACT 13:32

“We ourselves announce to you the good news that what God promised our fathers he has fulfilled for us, their children, in raising up Jesus, according to what is written in the second psalm, You are my son; this day I have begotten you.”

**NAB 1PE **3:18
He was put to death insofar as fleshly existence goes, but was given life in the realm of the spirit.

NAB HEB 1:5 Messianic Enthronement.
To which of the angels did God ever say, “You are my son; today I have begotten you”? Or again, “I will be his father, and he shall be my son”? And again, when he leads his first-born into the world, he says, “Let all the angels of God worship him.”

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
ILOVEYOUGOD.com

O.k., I don’t want to get nit-picky and I know that I’m not going to change anything by writing this, but here goes:

  1. You are not using the New American Bible in your quotes, so you shouldn’t label them as NAB. NAB Acts 13:32 should read “proclaiming” not “announce” and “our ancestors” not “our fathers.” I won’t list the others.

  2. Jesus is “eternally begotten of the Father” and in relation to the Father he could not be begotten at the time of his resurrection. This is a false interpretation of that passage. “Begotten” in that passage and in the psalm does not have the same sense as if we were to say that He is begotten of Mary. There is no time based literal sense of the article of Faith “begotten of the Father.” Jesus is the Eternal Son; the Trinity has always been a trinity. The Son was not not begotten on one day and then suddenly begotten on the next.

  3. You can’t just take a pair of scissors, cut up a bunch of Scripture quotes and paste them back together into whatever story you like. Far be it from me to make a declaration about these verses from Acts, but they are using Scripture to declare the Divinity of Christ, not to make any statement of a time-line.

  4. The divine act connected with Baptism is precisely that the person is annointed with the Holy Spirit, that is, that the Holy Spirit descends upon him or her and dwells within the person. If that were not true, then the person would be just getting wet. What does God do in connection with Baptism, if not this. Look to the theoolgy of St. Paul’s letters to reflect on why Jesus would say you must be “born again” of the water and the Spirit. It is not that we are rehatched from our mothers (Nicodemus even raises the absurdity of that to Jesus in John 3:3-5.) There is a new Life in Baptism in contrast to what we had before. We were dead and now we are (truly) alive. Hence, the words “reborn” and “born again” reference the deeper meaning of the sacrament.

When scripture speaks of the Father “begetting” Jesus, scripture tells us this happened at Christ’s resurrection rather than at his baptism where “God anointed him with the Holy Spirit”.

  1. You are making essential errors in your use of Scripture. A person cannot interpret the Divine Word without reference to and guidance from the Magisterium of the Church. You cannot just draw conclusions in a vacuum. For example, you’ve quoted 1 Pt 3:18 and you added bold text to “but was given life in the realm of the spirit.” Having read this, should I conclude that the eternity of the Son was contingent upon his actions on earth? Would it be right for me to search for other quotes to find out when this “life” “was given” or maybe what he had to do to get it. Of course not, the facts about such matters are taught though the Magisterium of the Church, and supported and edified by Holy Scripture. We are forbidden to freely interpret the Bible without the guidance and rule of the Church.

  2. Please don’t write back and say that the Holy Spirit is really a bird. I just couldn’t take that, I swear.

Hey thanks everybody, I really appreciate your comments. This was my first time posting anything here, and before today, I didn’t even know this website had this forum section. It’s really cool.

I’m pretty clear now about the actual distinction between Humans and God. Human=created being in the image and likeness of God, whereas God=well, God=God. :slight_smile:

I can see how Aquinas uses “gods” when describing a human partaking so intimately and eternally with the divine nature of God. I suppose it could be like, say my wife’s name is Katie, and I’m Jason: I’m ever so intimate with her, yet I am who I am (not her), but in a way, I could be called a “lil’ Katie”. And in the same way, Katie, while remaining who she is (not me), becomes a “Jason” (me), in a way. I kind of become a girl, and she kind of becomes a guy, from the simple fact that we intimately share our natures with each other. Yet we remain who we are intrinsically, though everything I have is hers, and everything she has is mine.

But of course, obviously, such a relationship with God is on a different scale etc, but I guess the principles are similar.

If everything God has is mine, then surely, though I’m not God, I could be considered a lil’ “god”. And likewise, if everything I have is God’s, then God can, though He is still God, be considered a human. --And I guess that describes Christ’s mission. God would become human, and (a) human would become “god”. I hope I’m saying that right… For though God isn’t actually turning into a human being intrinsically–to the point of making Himself no longer God–He is participating in the human nature, so that He might make (a) human to participate in the God nature, though (a) human would remain, intrinsically, human.

May God forgive my innocent, humble attempts to understand such awesome mysteries… I’m not trying to commit heresy or anything, :-). Just trying to put things into an easier explanation (if that were possible) for myself, and maybe others.
Well this has been fun. I’ll be around.

God bless!
–Jason

Hello JustSomeGuy,

1: I am using New American Bible only the 1970 edition. Too much to write in 4000 characters.

2: It is my understanding that Jesus being fully free willed man, capable of choosing sin (yet He did not choose sin) and fully Spiritual God, incapable of sin, in One Being was a Krux (unexplainable) for the Church?

God is Omni-Present to the whole of past, present and future physical time that He created. If Jesus is begotten into Spiritual Omni-Presence to all past, present and future created physical time upon His ressurection, then this solves this krux for the Church. Does it not? Does not Christ’s birth to God into Spiritual Omni-presence to all past, present and future created time, make Him fully Spiritual God and full free willed man during His time on earth?

Can we not look at the scriptures at this forum on a thread titled “we are gods?” and discuss an issue? Especially issues which the Church has no answer for?

NAB JOH 17:4

(Jesus speaks after his death and resurrection.)
“I have given you glory on earth by finishing the work you gave me to do. Do you now, Father, give me glory at your side, a glory I had with you before the world began.” NAB REV 1:17

" . . . I am the First and the Last and the One who lives. Once I was dead but now I live forever and ever. . . ." NAB REV 3:21

**(Jesus is speaking after His resurrection)
“I will give the victor the right to sit with me on my throne, as I myself won the victory and took my seat beside my Father on his throne.” **

NAB HEB 4:14

Since, then, we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast to our profession of faith. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weakness, but one who was tempted in every way that we are, yet never sinned. So let us confidently approach the throne of grace to receive mercy and favor and to find help in time of need.

**NAB JOH 14:30 **

**[indent]“I shall not go on speaking to you longer; the Prince of this world is at hand. He has no hold on me, but the world must know that I love the Father and do as the Father has commanded me.” **[/indent]


Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
ILOVEYOUGOD.com

[quote=T.A.Stobie, SFO]All of Paragraph 460 in the Catechism talks about us partaking in the divine nature of God.

Awesome, isn’t it.

Through Jesus, we share in the divine nature of God, not that we become a god in our own rights. We essentially have only a human nature, in both body and soul. By uniting totally with Jesus in His sacrifice, He lets us take on divine properties. By partaking in the Eucharist we are transformed closer to the divine.

gods - no
sharing the divine nature - yes.

Another of the mysteries of the faith that we will only truly understand when we get to heaven.
[/quote]

I totally agree with your explanation and you said it best.

However, the way it is stated in the Catechism without further explanation, the real meaning of it can be easily misconstrued, more in the sense of what Mormons believe. I was thrown for a loop when I first saw it. Do you know why it was written the way it is?

[quote=T.A.Stobie, SFO]All of Paragraph 460 in the Catechism talks about us partaking in the divine nature of God.

Awesome, isn’t it.

Through Jesus, we share in the divine nature of God, not that we become a god in our own rights. We essentially have only a human nature, in both body and soul. By uniting totally with Jesus in His sacrifice, He lets us take on divine properties. By partaking in the Eucharist we are transformed closer to the divine.

gods - no
sharing the divine nature - yes.

Another of the mysteries of the faith that we will only truly understand when we get to heaven.
[/quote]

You said it best. I will keep this explanation in my personal file.

My question is: Why was the statement written without further explanation? I was thrown for a loop when I first read it. Some might misconstrue it and hold it against Catholics, because it so much alike to what Mormons might say. Can you comment, please.

The Catechism is teaching us about divine sonship. The Mormon teaching essentialy says that we will become Gods of our own universes (or worlds, I donno, I get confused) much like Yahweh is God of this reality.

The Catholic teaching is nothing like it. St. Paul wrote to the Ephesians: “he destined us in love to be his sons through Jesus Christ” (Eph 1:5). The whole point is adoption. Now what is fhe first thing one must possess before one can be adopted? Well, first the adoptee must share the adopter’s NATURE. A human parent can adopt only a human child. As much as I love my pet Beagle, I can never adopt him as my son, for the first reason that he does not share my nature. He’s a pooch, I am a man.

But we are infinitely father from God as dogs are from us. While we remain purely human (and furthermore stained by sin) it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to become sons of God, and therefore not entitled to heavenly inhertitance. That is why Christ had to come to take on our nature, die for our sins, and rise to break the chains of death, so that we can become adopted sons of God. To do so, Christ had to give us a share in his divine nature, which we obtain when we are baptized.

It is in this context that when we share in the divine nature, we become “gods” but never “another God”. The term “god” is still the accurate one to use for humans who share in God’s nature. We will enjoy this to the fullest in heaven.

1: I am using New American Bible only the 1970 edition. Too much to write in 4000 characters.

2: It is my understanding that Jesus being fully free willed man, capable of choosing sin (yet He did not choose sin) and fully Spiritual God, incapable of sin, in One Being was a Krux (unexplainable) for the Church?

God is Omni-Present to the whole of past, present and future physical time that He created. If Jesus is begotten into Spiritual Omni-Presence to all past, present and future created physical time upon His ressurection, then this solves this krux for the Church. Does it not? Does not Christ’s birth to God into Spiritual Omni-presence to all past, present and future created time, make Him fully Spiritual God and full free willed man during His time on earth?

Can we not look at the scriptures at this forum on a thread titled “we are gods?” and discuss an issue? Especially issues which the Church has no answer for?

The revised NAB is available at the U.S. bishops’ website.

I do not know what you mean by the term “krux” however the Church does state the facts concerning this matter. The fact that Jesus is both fully human and fully divine is referred to as the hypostatic union. This doctrine was formally defined by the early Church councils. He is God, who became a human being. Since Scripture does not fully develop this truth in the form of an explanation, Scripture cannot be used as the sole source of revelation on the matter. Revelation is the entire Tradition of the Church, both oral and written, of which Scripture plays a primary role.

The hypostatic union is not unexplainable, but is referred to as a mystery. The Church uses the term mystery, not to say that it is unknown, but to say that it is not fully exposed in all its details, as when you take apart a machine, examine its parts and their relation to each other, and thus the machine is fully known. We are currently unable to fully define this mystery, because the details of it are outside of our experience. The depth of the mystery is such that, as much as we know and say about it, there is still more to discover.

You have worded your comments/questions in a way that implies that the mystery of Christ’s nature, both human and divine, is something to be solved. It is not. The two natures were united in Him. This fact is unique to Jesus Christ, and is not at all a contradiction or difficulty. We may not know how to describe this in its minute details, but it can be understood in our limited way. That is, we can make some sense out of it.

You quoted Jn 17:4, in which Jesus speaks of a return to the glory of the Father, a glory that he had “before the world began.” This contradicts your explanation explicitly. How can he be “born to God” at His resurrection and receive this glory, if He Himself says that he has had it “before the world began”?

[continued]

[continued]

Your conception about omnipresence creates a time based understanding of God that may not be accurate. God is eternal and omnipresent, but that does not literally mean that He is eternally present simultaneously to every moment in time. I don’t think that that can be stated as a factual description. Scripture speaks of God’s eternity in terms of 'without beginning or end".

You have once again used the idea “begotten” as being the same as “birth to God” and have linked this to the time of Christ’s resurrection. That the Son is begotten of the Father is in no way like a birth, not even abstractly. Such statements are a misunderstanding of the words. Even if we set that aside, to say that Jesus was “begotten” as you have stated it, is absolutely incorrect. You are trying to fit things together in ways that might make sense in the world. As a result, you are missing the precise teachings of the Church concerning these subjects.

I highly recommend reading and meditating on the Catechism of the Catholic Church. That will give the proper framework upon which the proper study of Scripture can build. If you read the Bible and reason about it in such a way that you begin to profess doctrine not held by the Church, you are doing damage to yourself. I am not saying that you should not make fruitful use of Scripture in the previous comment that I made. I am saying that you need to know the exact teachings of the Church, so that as you read the Bible, you will be able to pick out the proper interpretations of what is being read.

In Jesus’ name

You cannot be kind to a person without the option not to be kind to a person. You cannot obey without the option to disobey. You cannot love without the option not to love.

Throughout the bible in Old Testament and New Testement, love for God is defined as obedience to God. As long as there is no question in anyones mind that Jesus is fully free willed man, fully capable of following Satan in disobedience to the Father as we are, then there is no need to fully understand Christ’s fullness in humanity and fullness in Divinity at the same time.

The glory of Jesus is that He loves the Father through obedience perfectly. Jesus is not set apart from us when it comes to obeying the Father out of love for the Father.

For those reading this thread who do not fully understand this, please visit Jesus loves God. geocities.com/athens/forum/3325/4a.htm

NAB HEB 4:14

Since, then, we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus, the Son of God, let us hold fast to our profession of faith. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to sympathize with our weakness, but one who was tempted in every way that we are, yet never sinned. So let us confidently approach the throne of grace to receive mercy and favor and to find help in time of need.NAB JOH 4:34
"Doing the will of him who sent me and bringing his work to completion is my food."

NAB JOH 8:29
"The One who sent me is with me. He has not deserted me since I always do what pleases him."

NAB JOH 10:17
"The Father loves me for this: that I lay down my life to take it up again. No one takes it from me; I lay it down freely."

NAB JOH 14:30

**“I shall not go on speaking to you longer; the Prince of this world is at hand. He has no hold on me, but the world must know that I love the Father and do as the Father has commanded me.”

**

****NAB JOH 15:12

This is my commandment: love one another as** I have loved you. There is no greater love than this: to lay down one’s life for one’s friends.** You are my friends if you do what I command you.

Peace in Christ,
Steven Merten
www.ILOVEYOUGOD.com

This topic was brought up in another forum by a Morman,who was comparing the Morman belief with Catholic, they are very different. I know the “sound” of this topic seems strange and conjures up all kinds of reactions and questions. If you go under the “Ask and Apologist” I asked a question regarding this on July 9th. I think it may clarify a bit.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.