What I’m getting at is God gives man a divine love letter to mankind via the Jews. Then a little later non-Jews decide that there is additional revelation that supersedes the previous revelation. The New Testament supersedes the Torah, the Koran to the New Testament, and the Book of Mormon to the Koran. I have to wonder what will supersede the Book of Mormon. You’ve heard of replacement theology, correct? If God’s word is infallible and complete truth why should man try to re-make the wheel?
The rabbis say the Torah is the Word of God and the rest of the Tanach (the Bible - the historical Writings, words of the Prophets) is commentary on his Word.
Up until the time the Torah was given polytheism was all the rage and a god could be anything - even a man. Then the Torah was given and Jews said there was only one God and no others, was indivisible (a complete unity), invisible, seemed far away but closer than anyone you’ll ever know, and is non-corporeal with the only closest expression taking a spirit form, who resides in a world that is non-physical. Doing so p.o.ed the rest of the world. The concept was extremely radical just like the day of rest (the Sabbath) because everyone worked every day from sunup to sundown every day until they became an disabled or died.
Even Christians get it right with John 4:24 saying “God is spirit and his worshipers must worship in spirit and truth”. You don’t see in this statement anywhere defining him as a physical human being.
But with the Christians revelation of a New Testament it became necessary to cross the line that Jews have always defined God as being - a physical human being - in the form of a deified Jewish rabbi. Even today some of the followers of the late Rabbi Schneerson have tried to give him Divine status after he died caused much disagreement and in-fighting within the Chassidic (Lubavitch) community.
Do you think that if a human being overcomes death in the ascension process that this human being qualifies for the title of God? Even Adam and Eve had eternal, immortal life until they lost it because of the sin/mistake they made and one we live with today. Did that make them God, too? There can’t be more than one God because he has stated so and get’s a bit jealous if one attempts to go after other man-created gods.
What happens when man returns to a similar state as Adam and Eve? Do we all become gods?
Once Christianity opened the door for a Jewish rabbi to become God it doesn’t surprise me to see Mormonism telling their followers that any Mormon become a god of a planet in this universe if they follow certain rules and do certain things.
If life is found on other planets does this invalidate Christianity? What’s interesting about the article is when it says this.
“God’s love is by choice, not by merit of place, time, or character.”
God is beyond the physical in order to be able to love beyond the merit of place, time or character. God is the complete totality of truth. How physically tangible is the truth. It never has been. His eternal and forgiving love is complete and perfect. How physically tangible is love? His peace, too. How tangible is that, too?
Here’s an interesting video of where Eden might have been (the Persian Gulf). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NxU47eGegEc&feature=related
Would classifying the Old Testament as inadequate that God is inadequate or that the explanations of it were inadequate? How can the Old Testament be “old” if God’s truth is eternal and never changes? Is there old truth and new truth?
We don't think the NT supplants, supersedes, or replaces the OT. (And of course, we do not consider the Koran or the Book of Mormon to be bona fide “Scripture”.) But the OT is still studied and read in public and private worship.
A traditional Catholic thing to say is that the NT is concealed in the OT, while the OT is revealed, explained, interpreted by/through/with the NT.
From our (Catholic) POV the Incarnation, the whole “Work of Christ” is HUGE! It sets the Universe, all creation, on its ear. The Creator becomes a creature and, as we sing in the Te Deum, humbles himself to be born of a Virgin.
Further, one aspect of this is that now the “perfect” (which has at least to mean “adequate” or “sufficient”) revelation of God to man, of Creator to (allegedly) rational creature is not a book but Jesus, fully God, fully man.
Do you know Hegel's idea of aufgehebung? As the seed of the apple contains within it the tree, the blossom, and the fruit with seed in it, so (in our view) through the NT, through Jesus, we see that Creation itself was a saving and loving act which, so to speak, implies the Incarnation.
And Jesus, who says that he has come to fulfill, not abolish, the law, is like the blossom which contains in itself the history of the apple tree.
ANYWAY, this line of thought really runs skew-wise to what you seem to be suggesting, so from my POV you start out with a problematic understanding of various Scriptures and end up with a problematic conjecture.
Not complaining or attacking, just reporting on the view from here.