Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Was God once a man?


Restformationist

Was God once a man?  

109 members have voted

  1. 1. Was God once a man?

    • Yes
      64
    • No
      28
    • Not sure
      17


Recommended Posts

Actually, if you read the Catechism, either in print or online, you'll note that that particular phrase is cross-referenced to footnote #78, which is, in fact, listed as 2 Peter 1:4.

One more time....this is about early Christian doctrine. JS did not claim to restore the Catholic Catechism...wonderful as it may be. Stop derailing.

You raised the subject by introducing Father Vajda's thesis. Any claim of derailing from you is specious.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church is inseparable from early Christian history, tradition and doctrine. While you might be unfamiliar with its contents, that doesn't make it an inappropriate source in response to your comments.

You need to make your point(s) more clearly. Are you asserting that because early Christians believed in theosis/deification, that Joseph Smith's comments in the King Follett discourse parallel those beliefs, and this is supported by Father Vajda's thesis? Then, if I illustrate that that belief has continued to be held by the Catholic Church from the time of early Christianity, does that bother you? Because then the belief would not be "restored," since it was never lost in the first place?

Introducing Father Vajda's thesis, for whatever purpose, is a reference to the Catechism.

Stop derailing.

Why the trinitarianism cannot be separated from deification:

Who has asserted that it should be, or can? Certainly I haven't. And providing supportive citations from the Catechism is evidence of that.

If you're going to continue to study early Christianity from a liberal Protestant viewpoint, you're going to get a skewed picture. If we study LDS history, tradition and theology using LDS sources, we can certainly study early Christianity using the same.

It shouldn't present that much difficulty for you, particularly if you're introducing the topics in the first place.

Back to the original topic--Brent is asking whether or not people believe God was once a man in the context of the King Follett discourse.

Is your argument that because the early Christians believed in theosis, that God (the Father) was once a man on another planet who was the recipient of that?

Or are you demonstrating a misunderstanding of the early Christian belief and whether or not it accommodates Joseph Smith's sermon?

Link to comment
Why the trinitarianism cannot be separated from deification:

Ave Maria: Who has asserted that it should be, or can? Certainly I haven't.

There are way too many incorrect statements in this post of juliann's to ignore.

Let's take a look:

Ave Maria telling us we can't discuss the trinity in a thread about deification in the KFD.

Incorrect statement. I've never claimed you couldn't discuss the trinity; don't accuse me of derailing when you're the one doing it, however.

If you're going to continue to study early Christianity from a liberal Protestant viewpoint, you're going to get a skewed picture.
Link to comment

Just an observation, this thread should be entitled : The F.A.I.R Board Council Of Nicea 2. Is everyone coming in to Reason Together ?, earnestly contending for the Faith ?, speaking the Truth in Love ?, Walking [ Posting] in the Spirit ?. At times it's ugly, like walking down to a Dog pound with all the barking going on as you walk by.

Just my 2 cents, LDS belive in the Biblical term "GODHEAD", or in modern Christian terminology : Monarch, Eastern, Economic, Social Godheadians/Trinitarians. In His Debt, Tanyan.

Link to comment

And then we have Fragment A, "The Octet of Subsistent Entities" (Hypostases). Layton explains, Basilides taught an octet of constituents within the Godhead. "Basilides called the constituents "subsistent entities" (hypostases).

Bentley Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 428-29.

Why does this matter? The first to bring the term hypostases into a construction of the Godhead was a gnostic philosopher.

Link to comment

Whew, it is tiring to read these posts. How about a quick yes or no summary.

Ave Maria - Do you believe it possible that God was once a man? Yes / No?

Juliann - Do you believe it possible that God was once a man? Yes / No?

What happened to plain ol' english? :P

Link to comment

Putting it together, the KFS is only shocking because conventional Christians have discarded one of the central doctrines of early Christianity (we will ignore the attempts to distort the content of the KFS). To put the quotes together....

Jordan Vajda, says:

"the Mormons are truly 'godmakers': as the [LDS] doctrine of exaltation explains, the fullness of human salvation means 'becoming a god.' Yet what was meant to be a term of ridicule has turned out to be a term of approbation, for the witness of the Greek Fathers of the Church . . . is that they also believed that salvation meant 'becoming a god.' It seems that if one's soteriology cannot accommodate a doctrine of human divinization, then it has at least implicitly, if not explicitly, rejected the heritage of the early Christian church and departed from the faith of first millennium Christianity. However, if that is the case, those who would espouse such a soteriology also believe, in fact, that Christianity, from about the second century on, has apostatized and 'gotten it wrong' on this core issue of human salvation. Thus, ironically, those who would excoriate Mormons for believing in the doctrine of exaltation actually agree with them that the early church experienced a 'great apostasy' on fundamental doctrinal questions. And the supreme irony is that such persons should probably investigate the claims of the LDS Church, which proclaims that within itself is to be found the 'restoration of all things.'"

What happened to this doctrine? It clashed with the incoming "trinitarian dogma" brought in by philosophers and gnostics with the help of a non-Christian emperor.

Although the idea of deification in the Greek fathers had run the danger of obscuring the distinction between Creator and creature, the pressure of the controversy over Christ as creature had acted to restrain any pantheistic tendencies that may have been present in it.  Now that the pressure was coming not from the trinitarian dogma, but from the mystical theories of Neoplatonism, these tendencies seemed to be asserting themselves with new vigor. 

Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Christian Doctrine, vol. 1 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1971), 345.

"When we presented this faith, there was no opportunity for resistance by anyone.  But our emperor, most beloved of God, himself first of all witnessed that this was most orthodox.  He agree that even he himself thought thus, and he ordered all to assent to subscribe to the teachings and to be in harmony with them, although only one word, homoousios, was added,  which he himself interpreted. . .and our emperor, most wise and pious, thought

philosophically in this manner ."   

Eusebius of Caesarea's  Letter to His Church concerning the Synod at Nicaea, de snyodis, 7.

Basilides comes along with the concept of hypostases. So we have one of the essential trinitarian terms coming from Constantine. And the other coming from gnosticism. This is why....

The later so-called Christological controversies refer almost exclusively to the person or nature of Christ. . .  We may say, however, that although the Church attempted a solution to the problem by reference to the New Testament, its statement of the problem was nevertheless oriented all too exclusively in a direction which no longer completely corresponds to the manner in which the New Testament itself states it.

Oscar Cullman, The Christology of the New Testament, Rev. ed., trans. Shirley C. Guthrie and Charles A.M. Hall(Philadelphia: The Westminster Press, 1963), 3.

Link to comment

Hi Juliann,

You wrote:

This is the last pericope you should be using as a prooftext for a number of reasons. I'm using the NRSV instead of the Greek right now but even that says he was in the form of God. It not only does not say he is God...it says that he will not "seize" Godhood. Now that is odd. It flat out says that God exalted Jesus after he performed his task. This makes an excellent case for the Jehovah's Witnesses but not you. It also says that we are to do the same. In fact, we are to work out our own salvation in fear and trembling. I really can't imagine why you would want to take this chapter of Phil on...it contradicts everything you are saying..which is why the great philosophical rationales have to be attached

Is that what the NRSV says? I thought this is what it said:

The New Revised Standard Version

Philippians 2: 1 - 7 -

1 If then there is any encouragement in Christ, any consolation from love, any sharing in the Spirit, any compassion and sympathy, 2 make my joy complete: be of the same mind, having the same love, being in full accord and of one mind. 3 Do nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility regard others as better than yourselves. 4 Let each of you look not to your own interests, but to the interests of others. 5 Let the same mind be in you that was in Christ Jesus, 6 who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God as something to be exploited, 7 but emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, being born in human likeness. And being found in human form, (bold and ul mine)

Although I believe this is a poor translation, I perfer the KJ an dthe received text, where does it say that Jesus is not God, it says He is in the form of God and equal to God that means He has all the attributes of deity and is God, He is not God the Father, But He is God the Son.God exalted "Jesus" in Christ humanity, and gave Him a name above all else, but in His deity He was always God ( John 1:1, Col 2:9) having only laid his deity aside by reputation as the KJ says.

The whole point Paul was making is the in Humility God (Christ) laid His deity aside (Kenoo) and came willfully as a slave (bond sevant) and made himself like man being found in mans likeness to die for us.

That is humility, God the creater of the universe, humbling Himself to become like us to die for us. Paul commands us to be like minded and is saying ...

Phl 2:1 If [there be] therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the Spirit, if any bowels and mercies,

Phl 2:2 Fulfil ye my joy, that ye be likeminded, having the same love, [being] of one accord, of one mind.

Phl 2:3 [Let] nothing [be done] through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.

Phl 2:4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others (KJ)

As far as the JW"S they are right in line with you, read the NWT an dtell me what they say. They deny the deity of Christ and change the NWT to say so in every instance, they like you ( "It not only does not say he is God") do not believe Jesus is God, but a god...little "g". Read Col. 2:9, I'll use the NRSV for your sake..."2:9

For in him (Jesus) the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily,.." Jesus is 100% God, and 100% man, God by very nature and attributes, all knowing, all powerfull...etc. but in His humanity He is exalted and will forever be our mediator as the book of Hebrews so defines.

You wrote"

You can make up LDS theology until you turn blue and it won't make it anymore accurate. I'm not going to waste my time correcting it.

Are you saying that the LDS church (leadership) has never taught that that God was a exalted man, and had to work to become God by obeying the eternal laws? You are either being truly deceptive, or are truly ignorant of what the leaders of the church have taught, I hope it is the latter, or I hope I misunderstood the above quote?

Mark

John 1:12

Link to comment

Markk, surely you know that the deity of Christ is Mormon doctrine. You are either being truly deceptive, or are truly ignorant of what leaders of the church have taught, I hope it is the latter, or I hope I misunderstood the above quote?

And BTW, Phil 2 demonstrates how God is in the form of man. "Form of God"?

I always get a kick out of Evangelical exegetes who interpret morphe as "nature."

Link to comment

Hi Kevin

Morph is what we get the word metamorphis as you know, what the verses says is that preincarnate Christ was equal with God, in the form of God and willfully made Himself in the likeness of man,,,,Did I say that LDS do not believe in the deity of Christ, please show me where I said that, Julieann said that I didn't? LDS teach He is one of many gods. If one is equal with God, how could one not be deity by nature?

Mark

John 1:12

Link to comment

== Morph is what we get the word metamorphis as you know, what the verses says is that preincarnate Christ was equal with God, in the form of God and willfully made Himself in the likeness of man,,,,

But you ignore what it means to be in the "form" of God. It refers to what he looks like physically. Christ was glorified in the preexistence but gave up the glory to take on the form of a slave.

== Did I say that LDS do not believe in the deity of Christ, please show me where I said that, Julieann said that I didn't?

Here is what you said: "As far as the JW"S they are right in line with you, read the NWT an dtell me what they say. They deny the deity of Christ and change the NWT to say so in every instance, they like you ( "It not only does not say he is God") do not believe Jesus is God, but a god...little "g". Read Col. 2:9, I'll use the NRSV for your sake..."2:9

There you have it. You're wrong. Was this deception or ignorance? I hope the latter.

And there is no such thing as a "little g" God. Elohim are elohim, period. There is no qualification in "nature" only in authority. There are no capitalizations in Hebrew.

== LDS teach He is one of many gods.

LDS teach there are many gods just as the early Christians/Jews understood the concept. Multiple entities that are called "god" but one true Godhead, or more to the point, one "authority." Christianity has blown this doctrine under the rug by calling these entities "angels." But the Ancient Jews used the word elohim which means, literally "gods." We believe in ONE GOD in the same sense as the Bible; there is one "throne." Christ shares the authority with the Father, and he shares his throne. The Bible says that we will sit on his throne as well. But this doesn't mean we emerge with the essence of God in some convoluted Trinitarian sense.

== If one is equal with God, how could one not be deity by nature?

There is no reason to believe Phil 2:6 refers to equality in the Trinitarian sense. It clearly says Christ took the form of God again. This refers to his glory. His visual appearance. The "nature" rendering is a theologiclly driven apologetic forwarded by classical trinitarians.

I just uploaded an article I wrote on this here: http://www.kevingraham.org/jp1.htm

Link to comment
Whew, it is tiring to read these posts.  How about a quick yes or no summary.

Ave Maria - Do you believe it possible that God was once a man?  Yes / No?

Juliann - Do you believe it possible that God was once a man?  Yes / No?

What happened to plain ol' english?  :P

In the sense that the King Follett discourse is generally interpreted (that is, that God the Father was a man before becoming God), no.

In the sense that Jesus Christ as God became man, yes.

Part of the definition of God in the traditional Christian sense is that He is uncreate, which would preclude being human prior to becoming God. He would be God eternally, yesterday, today and forever.

I answered the question previously on the thread here:

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=9219&st=90#

So, if the question is, was God once a man (in the traditional LDS sense of the question, was God the Father once a mortal who became a God), the answer is no.

If the question is, did God become man, in the person of Jesus Christ, the answer is yes.

and here:

http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showtopic=9219&st=180#

The crux of the issue here, as I indicated previously on this thread, is determining intent in the question, "Was God a man?"

If the question originates from a Latter-day Saint, it can generally be assumed that the intention is to ask whether or not God was a man prior to becoming God.

A traditional Christian/trinitarian, therefore, when asked the question by a Latter-day Saint, will generally make that assumption, if they know LDS context, and will likely answer "no."

However, if the question intends to ask whether or not God became man, as in Jesus Christ becoming incarnate, a traditional Christian/trinitarian is obliged to answer "yes."

I believe Brent's initial question is framed in the context of the King Follett discourse, which would oblige me to answer "no" in the sense I believe Joseph Smith intended it.

Link to comment
Part of the definition of God in the traditional Christian sense is that He is uncreate, which would preclude being human prior to becoming God. He would be God eternally, yesterday, today and forever.

Hmmm. Sounds Mormon to me.

Whats the problem?

Link to comment

== Part of the definition of God in the traditional Christian sense is that He is uncreate, which would preclude being human prior to becoming God. He would be God eternally, yesterday, today and forever.

The Bible nowhere teaches that God was always God.

Link to comment
== Part of the definition of God in the traditional Christian sense is that He is uncreate, which would preclude being human prior to becoming God. He would be God eternally, yesterday, today and forever.

The Bible nowhere teaches that God was always God.

Hi Kevin,

How then would you explain the creation?

If God has always been, wouldn't he have to be before anything was ever created or existed? It doesn't make sence to say that things come about without a "Supreme Being" of some sort or grand designer...we call God the Almighty.

Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to day, and for ever...Hebrews 13:8

Link to comment

Just to save our critics the trouble, I'm sure they will cite Isaiah 44-5, as they do every time this topic comes up.

The answer to that is that our minds can't grasp the nature of God's time, can't do justice to infinity. And he has always been. As far as we need to be concerned, he has always been God.

Link to comment

Three times it speaks about "I am Alpha and Omega" in the Book of Revelation.

Isn't matter eternal?

Link to comment
Just to save our critics the trouble, I'm sure they will cite Isaiah 44-5, as they do every time this topic comes up.

The answer to that is that our minds can't grasp the nature of God's time, can't do justice to infinity. And he has always been. As far as we need to be concerned, he has always been God.

We can continue to make sure we are reading in context.

Isaiah 44:6

Thus (In conclusion), saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts;I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."

:P

Alpha

Link to comment

Of course God existed prior to anything he made, every thing we can see was made by God, but we cant see very far.

Since we assume that the above verse is the Lord Jesus Christ speaking (prior to his earthly sojuorn) and while he was here on the earth he acknowledged another deity above him... The interpretation that you give the verse doesnt make sense.

Perhaps you would like Margaret Barkers take on the verse?

<now where is my book>

Link to comment
Just to save our critics the trouble, I'm sure they will cite Isaiah 44-5, as they do every time this topic comes up.

The answer to that is that our minds can't grasp the nature of God's time, can't do justice to infinity. And he has always been. As far as we need to be concerned, he has always been God.

We can continue to make sure we are reading in context.

Isaiah 44:6

Thus (In conclusion), saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts;I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."

<_<

Alpha

Maybe it would be helpful to DIGEST the previous 5 versus to establish a stage and actors to determine what is happening.

However, let me help you:

Read verse 5: One shall say, I am the LORD's; and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the LORD, and surname himself by the name of Israel.

Then reread your verse 6....interesting how easy it is to remove the proper meaning from that verse.... :P

Link to comment

== How then would you explain the creation?

Easily. At some point in time God decided to create the world.

== If God has always been, wouldn't he have to be before anything was ever created or existed?

Of course he existed before he created the world. That was never the issue. The issue was whether or not God always existed as God. The Bible is silent on this point.

== It doesn't make sence to say that things come about without a "Supreme Being" of some sort or grand designer...we call God the Almighty.

That isn't what I'm saying.

== Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, to day, and for ever...Hebrews 13:8

"Yesterday" isn't an eternal past.

Link to comment
Just to save our critics the trouble, I'm sure they will cite Isaiah 44-5, as they do every time this topic comes up.

The answer to that is that our minds can't grasp the nature of God's time, can't do justice to infinity. And he has always been. As far as we need to be concerned, he has always been God.

We can continue to make sure we are reading in context.

Isaiah 44:6

Thus (In conclusion), saith the Lord the King of Israel, and his redeemer the Lord of hosts;I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God."

<_<

Alpha

Maybe it would be helpful to DIGEST the previous 5 versus to establish a stage and actors to determine what is happening.

However, let me help you:

Read verse 5: One shall say, I am the LORD's; and another shall call himself by the name of Jacob; and another shall subscribe with his hand unto the LORD, and surname himself by the name of Israel.

Then reread your verse 6....interesting how easy it is to remove the proper meaning from that verse.... :P

Hi Hemi...

THUS...finally, In conclusion...AMEN...

It is the conclusion that matters...not all of the minor details before hand...or after, for that matter.

Alpha

:unsure:

Link to comment

Israel was busy in worshipping other unknown dieties vice Jesus the Christ (LORD God = Jehovah) whom they should of been worshipping. :P

Link to comment

Of course he existed before he created the world. That was never the issue.

The issue was whether or not God always existed as God. The Bible is silent on this point.

Just because something is not addressed, (if you think this way), does it make it correct...or the opposite correct?

When someone says they are the first and the last...This sounds pretty good to me.

There seems to be no question.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...