Did Irenaeus Say There Were Other Real Gods?

[urroner]

In the "Responding To Lds Anti-trinity Arguments" thread, I made a comment that Irenaeus might have believed that there could be other real gods when he said:

"The Father, therefore, has been declared by our Lord to excel with respect to knowledge; for this reason, that we, too, as long as we are connected with the scheme of things in this world, should leave perfect knowledge, and such questions [as have been mentioned], to God, respoand should not by any chance, while we seek to investigate the sublime nature of the Father, fall into the danger of starting the question whether there is another God above God." [irenaeus, Against Heresies 2:27:8, in ANF 1:402.]

I quoted from Barry Bickmore's site and included some of his statements. To repeat what Barry said:

From this statement of Irenaeus, we may conclude that 1) there were some Christians who DID believe there was a God above God, and 2) the idea of it wasn't totally antithetical to Irenaeus' conception of God - he just didn't think it was proper to speculate about such things. This last point is important because it illustrates the fact that the concept of God radically changed over the first few Christian centuries. If you asked either the later fathers or modern mainstream Christians whether there could be a God above God, they would say, "NO!!!!" They would never EVER, say, "We shouldn't speculate about such things."

Theo and I posted a couple of posts (http://www.fairboards.org/index.php?showto...entry1208046316 where Theo eventually said (and sorry for the brevity, but I'm not feeling well right now so I hope you can go to the thread and read those series of posts, nothing earth shattering):

He wasn't writing about the existence of multiple gods, he was writing about how knowledge must be attained, and about the dangers of speculation. Speculation about "gods" was simply an example he chose, dealing with the dangers of speculation.

Origen even said there were other gods, true existing gods in addition to God. Was he wrong and seriously mistakened?

No, I believe you simply misinterpret him.

I responded with three quotes from Origen's Commentary on the Gospel of John (Book II) Sections 2 and 3

From section 2:

To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God; "but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype. But the archetypal image, again, of all these images is the Word of God, who was in the beginning, and who by being with God is at all times God, not possessing that of Himself, but by His being with the Father, and not continuing to be God, if we should think of this, except by remaining always in uninterrupted contemplation of the depths of the Father.

From section three:

Now it is possible that some may dislike what we have said representing the Father as the one true God, but admitting other beings besides the true God, who have become gods by having a share of God. They may fear that the glory of Him who surpasses all creation may be lowered to the level of those other beings called gods. We drew this distinction between Him and them that we showed God the Word to be to all the other gods the minister of their divinity. To this we must add, in order to obviate objections, that the reason which is in every reasonable creature occupied the same relation to the reason who was in the beginning with God, and is God the Word, as God the Word occupies to God. As the Father who is Very God and the True God is to His image and to the images of His image--men are said to be according to the image, not to be images of God--so He, the Word, is to the reason (word) in every man. Each fills the place of a fountain--the Father is the fountain of divinity, the Son of reason. As, then, there are many gods, but to us there is but one God the Father, and many Lords, but to us there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, so there are many Lgoi, but we, for our part, pray that that one Lgos; may be with us who was in the beginning and was with God, God the Logos.

<snip>

Now the God of the universe is the God of the elect, and in a much greater degree of the Saviours of the elect; then He is the God of these beings who are truly Gods, and then He is the God, in a word, of the living and not of the dead.

From these quotes, it seems to me that Irenaeus seemed to saying that there are other gods or Gods, though they are subordinate to God the Father.

Have I misinterpreted Irenaeus's beliefs and if I have how have I done so?

[Joseph Antley]

I think Origen might have, but he is considered as bordering on heresy by Catholics (just think, if a few more of his works had been lost, he might have been made a saint ). I think Irenaeus may have to, but he was reluctant to say it. Obviously it wasn't something that had been revealed, but I think from that quote he leaves the possibility open. After all, he doesn't say "No, the Father does not have a Father also".

[johnny]

urroner,

I made a comment that Irenaeus might have believed that there could be other real gods when he said:

What do you consider "real gods" ... what are the attributes of these "real gods"?

we may conclude that 1) there were some Christians who DID believe there was a God above God,

Just because their are some who believe there is a God above God does not make it true.

2) the idea of it wasn't totally antithetical to Irenaeus' conception of God - he just didn't think it was proper to speculate about such things.

Maybe Irenaeus did not speculate because he knew their is only God, the only Father (see below)

From these quotes, it seems to me that Irenaeus seemed to saying that there are other gods or Gods, though they are subordinate to God the Father.

The Old Testament states that "your God is God of gods"

Deut.10

[17] For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

The New Testament states "none other God but one" and "their is but one God" and that what is "called gods"

1Cor 8

[4] As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

[5] For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

[6] But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Have I misinterpreted Irenaeus's beliefs and if I have how have I done so?

I would say you have misinterpreted Irenaeus's beliefs, he says in Adversus Haereses (Book I, Chapter 9)

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103109.htm

3. Learn then, ye foolish men, that Jesus who suffered for us, and who dwelt among us, is Himself the Word of God. For if any other of the Aeons had become flesh for our salvation, it would have been probable that the apostle spoke of another. But if the Word of the Father who descended is the same also that ascended, He, namely, the Only-begotten Son of the only God, who, according to the good pleasure of the Father, became flesh for the sake of men, the apostle certainly does not speak regarding any other, or concerning any Ogdoad, but respecting our Lord Jesus Christ. For, according to them, the Word did not originally become flesh. For they maintain that the Saviour assumed an animal body, formed in accordance with a special dispensation by an unspeakable providence, so as to become visible and palpable. But flesh is that which was of old formed for Adam by God out of the dust, and it is this that John has declared the Word of God became. Thus is their primary and first-begotten Ogdoad brought to nought. For, since Logos, and Monogenes, and Zoe, and Phos, and Sorer, and Christus, and the Son of God, and He who became incarnate for us, have been proved to be one and the same, the Ogdoad which they have built up at once falls to pieces. And when this is destroyed, their whole system sinks into ruin -- a system which they falsely dream into existence, and thus inflict injury on the Scriptures, while they build up their own hypothesis.

[Cold Steel]

We take the familial titles of "Father" and "Son" far too much for granted if we think about it at all. In fact, few, if any, ever raise the question as to why they're used at all. The implications of a line, or sucession, is far too outrageous to consider. But it's a logical line of thought and Irenaeus cannot avoid it, though he calls following that line "dangerous." It's only dangerous in that it's implied and not stated outright. If the Son is divine and inherits "all" that the Father has and we, as Christians, inherit "all" that Christ has, it follows that we have the same potential as Christ. Not only that, but we also inherit the titles "sons" and "daughters" of God. This puts us ahead of mere creations.

I wonder how Irenaeus would have reacted to the King Follett Discourse?

[Theophilus]

Johnny,

I made the same point to urroner in the original thread, and in fact quoted Irenaeus earlier in the very same source he quoted his "proof-text" from.

From Against Heresies, II.28.1-2:

1. Having therefore the truth itself as our rule and the testimony concerning God set clearly before us, we ought not, by running after numerous and diverse answers to questions, to cast away the firm and true knowledge of God. But it is much more suitable that we, directing our inquiries after this fashion, should exercise ourselves in the investigation of the mystery and administration of the living God, and should increase in the love of Him who has done, and still does, so great things for us; but never should fall from the belief by which it is most clearly proclaimed that this Being alone is truly God and Father, who both formed this world, fashioned man, and bestowed the faculty of increase on His own creation, and called him upwards from lesser things to those greater ones which are in His own presence, just as He brings an infant which has been conceived in the womb into the light of the sun, and lays up wheat in the barn after He has given it full strength on the stalk. But it is one and the same Creator who both fashioned the womb and created the sun; and one and the same Lord who both reared the stalk of corn, increased and multiplied the wheat, and prepared the barn.

2. If, however, we cannot discover explanations of all those things in Scripture which are made the subject of investigation, yet let us not on that account seek after any other God besides Him who really exists. For this is the very greatest impiety.

Theophilus

[johnny]

Cold Steel,

If the Son is divine and inherits "all" that the Father has

The Son does not inherit being "the Father". "The Father, of whom are all things" (1Cor 8:6).

as Christians, inherit "all" that Christ has,

Human beings will never lose their attributes as creatures, they will never be the Creator or the creative and boundless power of the Creator. Human beings will forever posses the human form and the human nature; thus, they will be limited to the confines of the created universe and never be omnipresent as the unique God is.

I wonder how Irenaeus would have reacted to the King Follett Discourse?

I believe Irenaeus would have issues with the King Follett Discourse because human beings can at best be joined to God and thereby become God within the confines of creation, but even here, they will not usurp the unique identity that the sole God has. God is God both outside of creation and within creation.

[urroner]

Johnny,

I made the same point to urroner in the original thread, and in fact quoted Irenaeus earlier in the very same source he quoted his "proof-text" from.

From Against Heresies, II.28.1-2:

Theophilus

My response to Theo was:

After looking at the quotes you provided Theo, I still find no reason to change what I believe because Irenaeus didn't say anything I disagreed with.

With 1, you bolded a phrase that simply says "hat this Being alone is truly God and Father." Why should I disagree with that. Theo, do you believe that Jesus is truly God and Son? I have no qualms with stating to one and all that our Heavenly Father is truly God and truly Father.

With 2, you bolded the phase "yet let us not on that account seek after any other God besides Him who really exists. For this is the very greatest impiety." Again, I will not disagree with the quote. I do not seek after any other God who really exists.

So far, Irenaeus, in your quotes haven't said anything I can disagree with. You might disagree with how I might interpret what he said, but I will probably disagree with how you interpret those quotes.

But the deal with Irenaeus is that he said "The Father, therefore, has been declared by our Lord to excel with respect to knowledge; for this reason, that we, too, as long as we are connected with the scheme of things in this world, should leave perfect knowledge, and such questions [as have been mentioned], to God, and should not by any chance, while we seek to investigate the sublime nature of the Father, fall into the danger of starting the question whether there is another God above God."

Okay, why didn't Irenaeus just simply say that isn't a God above God, hence a GrandFather in Heaven.

Origen even said there were other gods, true existing gods in addition to God. Was he wrong and seriously mistakened?

It seems so far that the only answer I seem to be getting not why I'm interpreting Irenaeus incorrectly rather it's just some other quotes from Irenaeus. Just quoting Irenaeus is telling why my interpretation is wrong.

In the three quotes I have from him, he very distinctly says there are other gods and in one case Gods. What or who are these gods and why is my interpretation wrong?

[roman]

I doesn't realy matter what we think anybody else has said on this subject. God himself said that he was the ONLY God and that there was NONE other before him or after him .

Now God has revealed himself as the one who is the total sum of wisdom and knowledge---I think he knows best

[johnny]

Hi Theophilus,

I would say that urroner has fallen "into the danger of starting the question whether there is another God above God" as Irenaeus warns.

johnny

[urroner]

I doesn't realy matter what we think anybody else has said on this subject. God himself said that he was the ONLY God and that there was NONE other before him or after him .

Now God has revealed himself as the one who is the total sum of wisdom and knowledge---I think he knows best

So, other than just summarily dismissing what Irenaeus said, and apparently Roman, you agree with me that he was saying that there are other god or Gods, what about those quotes?

Hi Theophilus,

I would say that urroner has fallen "into the danger of starting the question whether there is another God above God" as Irenaeus warns.

johnny

So johnny, do you care to answer my question? What are these beings whom Irenaeus called "gods' or "Gods?"

[Theophilus]

It seems so far that the only answer I seem to be getting not why I'm interpreting Irenaeus incorrectly rather it's just some other quotes from Irenaeus. Just quoting Irenaeus is telling why my interpretation is wrong.

Urroner, the point in quoting from Irenaeus is that the first and most basic rule of interpretation is the assumption that any particular writer is internally consistent, and will not contradict himself. So when passages can be shown from Irenaeus which contradict your interpretation of his words elsewhere, your interpretation must be in error.

Or to put it another way, the best person to clarify what Irenaeus meant, is Irenaeus himself. But since he wasn't able to get a FAIRboards membership, the best we have is the rest of his works which speak for him.

In the three quotes I have from him, he very distinctly says there are other gods and in one case Gods. What or who are these gods and why is my interpretation wrong?

And this goes back to Johnny's original question to you (which I don't think you answered, yet):

What do you consider "real gods" ... what are the attributes of these "real gods"?

I think a big part of the problem is that you are making an assumption about what Irenaeus meant when he spoke of "gods".

Theophilus

[johnny]

urroner,

Just quoting Irenaeus is telling why my interpretation is wrong.

I would disagree with your interpretation because Irenaeus is not saying "there is another God above God". This is confirmed by reading other passages that indicate he believes their is "only God".

In the three quotes I have from him, he very distinctly says there are other gods and in one case Gods. What or who are these gods and why is my interpretation wrong?

There are other gods as scripture indicates (see below). You interpretation is wrong because you are disagreeing with 1Cor 8:4 which says "there is none other God but one".

2Cor 4

[4] In whom the god (Satan) of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

1Kings 18

[24] And call ye on the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the LORD: and the God that answereth by fire, let him be God. And all the people answered and said, It is well spoken.

[39] And when all the people saw it, they fell on their faces: and they said, The LORD, he is the God; the LORD, he is the God.

Exod 7

[1] And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

urroner,

My wife is calling ... I WILL CONTINUE THE EXCHANGE OF IDEAS TOMORROW ...

johnny

[PacMan]

From this statement of Irenaeus, we may conclude that 1) there were some Christians who DID believe there was a God above God, and 2) the idea of it wasn't totally antithetical to Irenaeus' conception of God - he just didn't think it was proper to speculate about such things. This last point is important because it illustrates the fact that the concept of God radically changed over the first few Christian centuries. If you asked either the later fathers or modern mainstream Christians whether there could be a God above God, they would say, "NO!!!!" They would never EVER, say, "We shouldn't speculate about such things."

The quote cited is most definitley true. I think it imperative to realize that it is not stateed that indeed Irenaeus believes this, but clearly that the question had beed asked by contemporary Christians, else, why hypothesize about it? The surprising things is, however, is that Irenaeus does not tackle the issue, but puts it aside. But to assume that Ireneaus does NOT believe the possibility, we cannot be sure.

Theo says:

Urroner, the point in quoting from Irenaeus is that the first and most basic rule of interpretation is the assumption that any particular writer is internally consistent, and will not contradict himself. So when passages can be shown from Irenaeus which contradict your interpretation of his words elsewhere, your interpretation must be in error.

The fault here is that the standard of consistency insinuated is defined by you, not Irenaeus. For TBMs, there is truly one God--God the Father. He is our God, the one God that we worship, praise and revere. Yet that does not exclude the existance of other deitous beings. They are simply, not our Gods. As such, viewing Ireneaus' statement through the Mormon lenses, Ireneaus could be most consistent! Of course, I do not suggest nor purport it to be imperative that Ireneaus perpetuates LDS doctrine (I believe he was in apostasy anyway). In other words, while not 100% conclusive, Ireneaus opinion is a better barometer for opinions of the day rather than any gage of Christian truth.

PacMan

[urroner]

Okay, I believe there are other gods than the members of the Godhead. So when I read what Irenaeus wrote here, I interpret it as him saying that there are other gods. He did say that in those quotes and Johnny seems to be the only one trying to answer the question so far.

And I realize that none of you non-LDSers believe that there are other gods or Gods. I am hoping that this thead isn't going to be a "Yes there are/No there aren't" type of thread.

Theo, did Irenaeus in those three quotes state that there are other gods or Gods? Initially, for the purpose of this thread, don't worry about what he might or might not have said in any of his other writings. I am simply asking that question what did he mean when he said "gods" or "Gods?"

Let's start with this quote "And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty. The true God, then, is "The God," and those who are formed after Him are gods, images, as it were, of Him the prototype."

What did he mean when he said "It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty."

Again, I don't want to debate whether there are other gods or not, but what did Irenaeus mean? If anybody wants to debate whether there are other gods or not, please take it someplace else.

[johnny]

urroner,

Okay, I believe there are other gods than the members of the Godhead.

I also believe their are other "gods" ... in 2Cor 4:4 Satan is called "god".

And I realize that none of you non-LDSers believe that there are other gods or Gods.

Again I ask ... What do you consider "real gods" ... what are the attributes of these "real gods" ... do they have infinite power?

I am simply asking that question what did he mean when he said "gods" or "Gods?"

Most likely he did not mean someone who is unique like God the Father who is "whom are all things" (1Cor 8:6). God created the other creatures "called gods".

Let's start with this quote

It is important to remember that these quotes are from Origen. Origen writings are tinged with heresy. Origen was charged with the guilt of Arianism and employed terms like "the second God," concerning the Logos, which was never adopted by the Church. To him the Logos, the Son, and Jesus of Nazareth were one ever-subsisting Divine Person, begotten of the Father, and, in this way, "subordinate" to the source of His being. He comes forth from God as the creative Word, and so is a ministering Agent, or, from a different point of view, is the First-born of creation. (see link below for more information). At the same time Origen spoke of "the Trinity" and spoke of "the invisible and incorporeal God who transcends".

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01707c.htm

Origen

For we do not hold that which the heretics imagine: that some part of the Being of God was converted into the Son, or that the Son was procreated by the Father from nonexistent substances, that is, from a Being outside himself, so that there was a time when he [the Son] did not exist. (The Fundamental Doctrines 4:4:1 [A.D. 225])

Origen

No, rejecting every suggestion of corporeality, we hold that the Word and the Wisdom was begotten out of the invisible and incorporeal God, without anything corporal being acted upon . . . the expression which we employ, however, that there was never a time when he did not exist is to be taken with a certain allowance. For these very words "when" and "never" are terms of temporal significance, while whatever is said of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, is to be understood as transcending all time, all ages, and all eternity. (ibid.)

What did he mean when he said "It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods, and He communicated it to them according to His own bounty."

Mostly like he meant something like John 10:35 because Origen viewed the first-born as "the Word of God". They are "called gods".

John.10

[34] Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

[35] If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Again, I don't want to debate whether there are other gods or not, but what did Irenaeus mean?

Most like he meant that that a creature partook of the divine nature and is joined to God and thereby become god within the confines of creation.

2Pet.1

[4] Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

but even here, they will not usurp the unique identity that the sole God has.

The unique God transcends (Eph 4:6) as Origen states. God is God both outside of creation and within creation. A creature can only become "god" within the confines of creation.

Eph.4

[6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

[PacMan]

Let us also remember that Origen was proclaimed a heretic during the Second Council of Constantinople in 553, hundreds of years after he lived. Heretic was often a term used for those (including apostolic fathers) who taught principles of true Christianity which the Church later saw as inconvenient. I'm not saying the Origen was correct all the time (he was in apostasy himself), but such beliefs weren't first heard from Origen. Clement of Alexandria was Origen's mentor, so there is good chance that such beliefs originated with pre-Origen fathers. The real question is, where'd they get 'em?

PacMan

[Catholic Guy]

For TBMs, there is truly one God--God the Father. He is our God, the one God that we worship, praise and revere. Yet that does not exclude the existance of other deitous beings. They are simply, not our Gods. As such, viewing Ireneaus' statement through the Mormon lenses, Ireneaus could be most consistent!

Taking the ECF's out of context seems to be the latest craze. Let me give a "proof text" from Ireneaus' work that supports PacMan's above statement.

These things, then, being so, each deity will be contented with his own possessions, and will not be moved with any curiosity respecting the affairs of others; otherwise he would be unjust, and rapacious, and would cease to be what God is. Each creation, too, will glorify its own maker, and will be contented with him, not knowing any other; otherwise it would most justly be deemed an apostate by all the others, and would receive a richly-deserved punishment. ....................there are numerous unlimited creators and gods, who begin from each other, and end in each other on every side; and it will then be necessary to allow that all the rest are contained from without by some one who is greater, and that they are each of them shut up within their own territory, and remain in it. (Ireneaus Adversus Haereses Book II, Chapter 1)

Wow this is fun!

If you want to read Adversus Haereses (Book II, Chapter 1) by Ireneaus in context you will see that is not what he was stating.

Catholic Guy

[johnny]

Catholic Guy,

Ireneaus in context you will see that is not what he was stating.

Thank you Catholic Guy ...

5. These things, then, being so, each deity will be contented with his own possessions, and will not be moved with any curiosity respecting the affairs of others; otherwise he would be unjust, and rapacious, and would cease to be what God is. Each creation, too, will glorify its own maker, and will be contented with him, not knowing any other; otherwise it would most justly be deemed an apostate by all the others, and would receive a richly-deserved punishment. For it must be either that there is one Being who contains all things, and formed in His own territory all those things which have been created, according to His own will; or, again, that there are numerous unlimited creators and gods, who begin from each other, and end in each other on every side; and it will then be necessary to allow that all the rest are contained from without by some one who is greater, and that they are each of them shut up within their own territory, and remain in it. No one of them all, therefore, is God. For there will be [much] wanting to every one of them, possessing [as he will do] only a very small part when compared with all the rest. The name of the Omnipotent will thus be brought to an end, and such an opinion will of necessity fall to impiety.

[urroner]

Okay, for the sake of discussion, let's all agree that there are no gods above God or equal to Him, how are the three quotes I listed taken out of context?

[johnny]

urroner,

Okay, for the sake of discussion, let's all agree that there are no gods above God or equal to Him,

I would agree "there are no gods above God" ... which disagrees with the teachings of Joseph Smith.

how are the three quotes I listed taken out of context?

Because they are outside the context of Ireneaus statement which is "there is one Being who contains all things, and formed in His own territory all those things which have been created"

Are your quotes in the context of a Creator(God) who forms creatures that can be "called gods"?

I am off to work ... so I will reply later this evening.

[urroner]

Maybe it's because I just am not getting what you guys are trying to tell me or maybe it's because I'm not explaining myself sufficiently.

When Irenaeus talked about "gods" or "Gods" in those three quotes I listed, what was he talking about? Are these gods real beings or not because from what I can see, he seems to say they are.

[johnny]

urroner,

When Irenaeus talked about "gods" or "Gods" in those three quotes I listed, what was he talking about?

In section 2 "the other gods" could be created angels, for example Satan is called "god" in 2Cor 4:4.

2Cor 4

[4] In whom the god (Satan) of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

In section 3 "who have become gods by having a share of God" could be men who have partaken of the word of God (John 10:35).

John.10

[34] Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

[35] If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Are these gods real beings or not because from what I can see, he seems to say they are.

Angels and men are real beings.

[Beowulf]

Urroner, they will NEVER admit that point, since it would destroy their whole basis that there can be only one God in the universe (but what about Jesus, Israel's Second God? But never mind...).

Except I notice that Johnny admitted that he believes that Satan is a god.

If so, why not admit Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, and the other archangels, who are certainly on a par with Lucifer in power?

And if we admit them, why not everyone else (like Enoch, see the 3rd Book of Enoch) who can be raised to godhood.

Say, we have arrived at the LDS viewpoint!

Now that wasn't very hard, was it Johnny?

And Johnny, it is not nice to accuse Origen of heresy when he wasn't condemned until 300 years after his death. It is far more accurate to see what Christians in 200 c.e. thought of him, not 550 c.e.

Beowulf

[johnny]

Beowulf,

And if we admit them, why not everyone else (like Enoch, see the 3rd Book of Enoch) who can be raised to godhood.

What does it mean to be "raised to godhood" ... does it mean to have infinite power?

Say, we have arrived at the LDS viewpoint!

The LDS viewpoint of deification should be rejected because human beings can at best be joined to God and thereby become God within the confines of creation. Human beings will never lose their attributes as creatures, they will never be the Creator or the creative and boundless power of the Creator. Human beings will forever posses the human form and the human nature; thus, they will be limited to the confines of the created universe and never be omnipresent as the unique God is.

Now that wasn't very hard, was it Johnny?

For a Catholic it is pretty easy, the Catholic Church teaches:

The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature": [2 Pt 1:4] "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "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" (CCC460).

And Johnny, it is not nice to accuse Origen of heresy when he wasn't condemned until 300 years after his death.

Sometimes it takes time for the Church to deepen her own understanding and to defend it against errors.

[urroner]

I really don't want this thread to become a discussion about whether the Mormon doctrine of deification is plausible or not, I just want to know what Irenaeus meant and thank you very much Johnny, I really appreciate you taking a stab at what he might have meant.