Deification Of Man

[Zakuska]

Looking for some information on another thread I came across another reference to the deification of man!

CHAP. XXXVI.--MEN SHALL BE ACTUALLY RAISED: THE WORLD SHALL NOT BE ANNIHILATED; BUT THERE SHALL BE VARIOUS MANSIONS FOR THE SAINTS, ACCORDING TO THE RANK ALLOTTED TO EACH INDIVIDUAL. ALL THINGS SHALL BE SUBJECT TO GOD THE FATHER, AND SO SHALL HE BE ALL IN ALL.

1. For since there are real men, so must there also be a real establishment (plantationem), that they vanish not away among non-existent things, but progress among those which have an actual existence. For neither is the substance nor the essence of the creation annihilated (for faithful and true is He who has established it), but "the fashion of the world passeth away;"(14) that is, those things among which transgression has occurred, since man has grown old in them. And therefore this [present] fashion has been formed temporary, God foreknowing all things; as I have pointed out in the preceding book,(15) and have also shown, as far as was possible, the cause of the creation of this world of temporal things. But when this [present] fashion [of things] passes away, and man has been renewed, and flourishes in an incorruptible state, so as to preclude the possibility of becoming old, [then] there shall be the new heaven and the new earth, in which the new man shall remain [continually], always holding fresh converse with God. And since (or, that) these things shall ever continue without end, Isaiah declares, "For as the new heavens and the new earth which I do make, continue in my sight, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain."(1) And as the presbyters say, Then those who are deemed worthy of an abode in heaven shall go there, others shall enjoy the delights of paradise, and others shall possess the splendour of the city; for everywhere the Saviour(2) shall be seen according as they who see Him shall be worthy.

2. [They say, moreover], that there is this distinction between the habitation of those who produce an hundred-fold, and that of those who produce sixty-fold, and that of those who produce thirty-fold: for the first will be taken up into the heavens, the second will dwell in paradise, the last will inhabit the city; and that was on this account the Lord declared, "In My Father's house are many mansions."(3)For all things belong to God, who supplies all with a suitable dwelling-place; even as His Word says, that a share is allotted to all by the Father, according as each person is or shall be worthy. And this is the couch on which the guests shall recline, having been invited to the wedding.(4) The presbyters, the disciples of the apostles, affirm that this is the gradation and arrangement of those who are saved, and that they advance through steps of this nature; also that they ascend through the Spirit to the Son, and through the Son to the Father, and that in due time the Son will yield up His work to the Father, even as it is said by the apostle, "For He must reign till He hath put all enemies under His feet. The last enemy that shall be destroyed is death."(5) For in the times of the kingdom, the righteous man who is upon the earth shall then forget to die. "But when He saith, All things shall be subdued unto Him, it is manifest that He is excepted who did put all things under Him. And when all things shall be subdued unto Him, then shall the Son also Himself be subject unto Him who put all things under Him, that God may be all in all."(6)

3. John, therefore, did distinctly foresee the first "resurrection of the just,"(7) and the inheritance in the kingdom of the earth; and what the prophets have prophesied concerning it harmonize [with his vision]. For the Lord also taught these things, when He promised that He would have the mixed cup new with His disciples in the kingdom. The apostle, too, has confessed that the creation shall be free from the bondage of corruption, [so as to pass] into the liberty of the sons of God.(8 ) And in all these things, and by them all, the same God the Father is manifested, who fashioned man, and gave promise of the inheritance of the earth to the fathers, who brought it (the creature) forth [from bondage] at the resurrection of the just, and fulfils the promises for the kingdom of His Son; subsequently bestowing in a paternal manner those things which neither the eye has seen, nor the ear has heard, nor has [thought concerning them] arisen within the heart of man,(9) For there is the one Son, who accomplished His Father's will; and one human race also in which the mysteries of God are wrought, "which the angels desire to look into;"(10) and they are not able to search out the wisdom of God, by means of Which His handiwork, confirmed and incorporated with His Son, is brought to perfection; that His offspring, the First-begotten Word, should descend to the creature (facturam), that is, to what had been moulded (plasma), and that it should be contained by Him; and, on the other hand, the creature should contain the Word, and ascend to Him, passing beyond the angels, and be made after the image and likeness of God.(11)

http://www.catholicfirst.com/thefaith/chur.../irenaeus10.cfm

15 Irenaeus, Against Heresies 5:36:1-2, in ANF 1:567.

So now do people understand why LDS take issue with the misinterpretation of those ressurected who are made equal to angels don't marry or give in marriage? But those who are placed... "Above" the Angels are Gods? Even Divine Couples?

[rhinomelon]

So now do people understand why LDS take issue with the misinterpretation of those ressurected who are made equal to angels don't marry or give in marriage?

No. Because it doesn't say we are "equal" to angels; it says that those in the resurrection will be "like" the angels in that they neither marry nor are given in marriage.

And being made in the image and likeness of God doesn't necessarily refer to deification, as you suppose. In LDS thinking, that would make us Gods right at this very moment, right? Since we are all made in the image and likeness of God?

Take care, everyone

[Zakuska]

No. Because it doesn't say we are "equal" to angels; it says that those in the resurrection will be "like" the angels in that they neither marry nor are given in marriage.

And being made in the image and likeness of God doesn't necessarily refer to deification, as you suppose. In LDS thinking, that would make us Gods right at this very moment, right? Since we are all made in the image and likeness of God?

Take care, everyone

Yes it does Rhino...

Luke 20

33 Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them is she? for seven had her to wife.

34 And Jesus answering said unto them, The children of this world marry, and are given in marriage:

35 But they which shall be accounted worthy to obtain that world, and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage:

36 Neither can they die any more: for they are equal unto the angels; and are the children of God, being the children of the resurrection.

Where did Ignatious get the idea that deified man/woman is above the angels?

[Hammer]

No. Because it doesn't say we are "equal" to angels; it says that those in the resurrection will be "like" the angels in that they neither marry nor are given in marriage.

And being made in the image and likeness of God doesn't necessarily refer to deification, as you suppose. In LDS thinking, that would make us Gods right at this very moment, right? Since we are all made in the image and likeness of God?

Take care, everyone

Bingo! Give the man a cupi doll.

[Hammer]

Bingo! Give the man a cupi doll.

Maybe I should explain. We are gods, and we can, if we live right, be in the image of Christ or 'like' Him. Moroni 7:47-48.

[rhinomelon]

Maybe I should explain. We are gods, and we can, if we live right, be in the image of Christ or 'like' Him. Moroni 7:47-48.

This brings to mind a question. If we are already Gods, then what's the big deal about deification? Just curious.

Yes it does Rhino...

Your translation is giving you trouble. The term there does not refer to exact equality, but is better translated "like the angels".

Take care, everyone

[Zakuska]

In fact... "passing beyond the Angels" sounds vaguely familiar... to the D&C

D&C 76

53 And who overcome by faith, and are sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, which the Father sheds forth upon all those who are just and true.

54 They are they who are the church of the Firstborn.

55 They are they into whose hands the Father has given all things—

56 They are they who are priests and kings, who have received of his fulness, and of his glory;

57 And are priests of the Most High, after the order of Melchizedek, which was after the order of Enoch, which was after the order of the Only Begotten Son.

58 Wherefore, as it is written, they are gods, even the sons of God—

59 Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ’s, and Christ is God’s.

60 And they shall overcome all things.

61 Wherefore, let no man glory in man, but rather let him glory in God, who shall subdue all enemies under his feet.

62 These shall dwell in the presence of God and his Christ forever and ever.

63 These are they whom he shall bring with him, when he shall come in the clouds of heaven to reign on the earth over his people.

64 These are they who shall have part in the first resurrection.

65 These are they who shall come forth in the resurrection of the just.

66 These are they who are come unto Mount Zion, and unto the city of the living God, the heavenly place, the holiest of all.

67 These are they who have come to an innumerable company of angels, to the general assembly and church of Enoch, and of the Firstborn.

68 These are they whose names are written in heaven, where God and Christ are the judge of all.

69 These are they who are just men made perfect through Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, who wrought out this perfect atonement through the shedding of his own blood.

70 These are they whose bodies are celestial, whose glory is that of the sun, even the glory of God, the highest of all, whose glory the sun of the firmament is written of as being typical.

71 And again, we saw the terrestrial world, and behold and lo, these are they who are of the terrestrial, whose glory differs from that of the church of the Firstborn who have received the fulness of the Father, even as that of the moon differs from the sun in the firmament.

Ah yes... Here it is...

D&C 132: 18-19, 26

18 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife, and make a covenant with her for time and for all eternity, if that covenant is not by me or by my word, which is my law, and is not sealed by the Holy Spirit of promise, through him whom I have anointed and appointed unto this power, then it is not valid neither of force when they are out of the world, because they are not joined by me, saith the Lord, neither by my word; when they are out of the world it cannot be received there, because the angels and the gods are appointed there, by whom they cannot pass; they cannot, therefore, inherit my glory; for my house is a house of order, saith the Lord God.

19 And again, verily I say unto you, if a man marry a wife by my word, which is my law, and by the new and everlasting covenant, and it is sealed unto them by the Holy Spirit of promise, by him who is anointed, unto whom I have appointed this power and the keys of this priesthood; and it shall be said unto them—Ye shall come forth in the first resurrection; and if it be after the first resurrection, in the next resurrection; and shall inherit thrones, kingdoms, principalities, and powers, dominions, all heights and depths—then shall it be written in the Lamb’s Book of Life, that he shall commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, and if ye abide in my covenant, and commit no murder whereby to shed innocent blood, it shall be done unto them in all things whatsoever my servant hath put upon them, in time, and through all eternity; and shall be of full force when they are out of the world; and they shall pass by the angels, and the gods, which are set there, to their exaltation and glory in all things, as hath been sealed upon their heads, which glory shall be a fulness and a continuation of the seeds forever and ever.

[Paul Ray]

This brings to mind a question. If we are already Gods, then what's the big deal about deification? Just curious.

The big deal about deification, or at least one aspect of the big deal, is that when we are deified we will each become even more like Jesus Christ... as much as we possibly can be... to the extent of our willingness to do, and always do, the will of our Father.

And some of us will even get to wear a crown, and sit on a throne, like Jesus Christ.

It is good to be a king, and have Him as our King. Just wait, and you'll see.

[Tanyan]

Reminds me of Augustine in his City Of GOD that those that reside in the Heavenly City were "gods".

[johnny]

Zakuska,

>> So now do people understand why LDS take issue with the misinterpretation of those ressurected who are made equal to angels don't marry or give in marriage?

All "the just" are equal unto the angels because they do not die anymore. Angels behold the face of their Father in heaven.

>> But those who are placed... "Above" the Angels are Gods? Even Divine Couples?

All "the just" are gods because they are partakers of the divine nature. By entering into communion with the Word they receive divine sonship.

[Zakuska]

When did Christianity start teaching this?

At the Olympics they where all making fun of Lorenzo Snows Blasphemous couplet and now they are embrasing it... "oh... we've taught that all along". You just beleive in it the wrong way.

[rhinomelon]

What Snow's couplet means is blasphemous. The understandings that lie behind that statement and statements in the ECF are light-years apart.

Take care

[Zakuska]

Would you please explain what exactly is Blaphemous about it?

that His offspring, the First-begotten Word, should descend to the creature (facturam), that is, to what had been moulded (plasma), and that it should be contained by Him; and, on the other hand, the creature should contain the Word, and ascend to Him, passing beyond the angels, and be made after the image and likeness of God.(11)

It sounds pretty close word for word to this.

[rhinomelon]

The Snow couplet, as it is understood by virtually every LDS I've ever heard talk about it, presupposes that it means God was a man before He was God. There was a time when God was not God. The couplet does not refer to the incarnation, to which every ECF is referring when such statements are made. In a way, the Snow couplet and the ECF are almost opposite, in that for Snow, God was once not God and became God at some point in the past, while for the ECF God has always been God, and became a man in Christ at a specific point in the past.

Take care, everyone

[Zakuska]

The Snow couplet, as it is understood by virtually every LDS I've ever heard talk about it, presupposes that it means God was a man before He was God. There was a time when God was not God. The couplet does not refer to the incarnation, to which every ECF is referring when such statements are made. In a way, the Snow couplet and the ECF are almost opposite, in that for Snow, God was once not God and became God at some point in the past, while for the ECF God has always been God, and became a man in Christ at a specific point in the past.

Take care, everyone

And theres where I think you are missreading Snows Couplet and LDS thought.

If Christ was God who became man and then God again all the while remaining god. Whats to preclude his father from doing the same? And whats to preclude man from doing the same.

[rhinomelon]

Unfortunately, that's not the way the couplet is understood, nor it is commonly taken to be referring to Christ. If you want to have it that way, all the better. But it is understood as referring to God the Father before He became God for the vast majority of LDS (including the leadership).

To make this more clear, the couplet is generally taken to refer to before God was God. It is often linked with the King Follett Discourse, in which Joseph Smith at one point told the crowd that he was going to tell them "how God came to be God". This line of thinking is absolutely foreign to the ECF.

Take care

[Zakuska]

Never said it is refering to Christ. I'm saying that because Christ did it and he did nothing but what he saw his father do before him. And we are to do what our Spiritual father did before us (ie die and ressurect) Logic dictates....

[rhinomelon]

Never said it is refering to Christ. I'm saying that because Christ did it and he did nothing but what he saw his father do before him. And we are to do what our Spiritual father did before us (ie die and ressurect) Logic dictates....

Classic example of forced reasoning based on shaky exegesis and predetermined conclusions. Logic has little to do with it, I'm afraid. Anyway, please see my edit above. LDS understanding is foreign to the church fathers, so claiming there is a correlation is based on obvious misunderstanding.

Take care, everyone

[Zakuska]

Classic example of forced reasoning based on shaky exegesis and predetermined conclusions. Logic has little to do with it, I'm afraid. Anyway, please see my edit above. LDS understanding is foreign to the church fathers, so claiming there is a correlation is based on obvious misunderstanding.

Take care, everyone

Classic example of missing the Forest for the tree.

Modern Christianity is even farther removed from the church fathers, there is and has been no correlation with the church fathers until Mormons started finding their unique doctrines in the 1st century. Wiggle as you may, theres gems in that there hay.

[Paul Ray]

To make issues a little easier to understand, from now on, I will make a motion:

Let's replace the word "God" with other words... like "our Father" or "divine"... to make it more clear what we are actually talking about.

To say there was a time when God was not God makes absolutely no sense at all.

There was never a time when God was not God... by the literal definition, and when people say that it needs to be interpreted before some of us know what it is that they mean.

And btw, there was also a time when we said we were preexistent, when what we meant was we were premortal, and now we say that.

I think it is time we stop using the word God because some people do not know what we mean.

Does anyone second my motion? We can start to change the world, right here and now.

[rhinomelon]

Modern Christianity is even farther removed from the church fathers, there is and has been no correlation with the church fathers until Mormons started finding their unique doctrines in the 1st century. Wiggle as you may, theres gems in that there hay.

Perhaps in a few ways, but at least we try to understand the church fathers before making such comparisons. I don't see much of that from the LDS side of things. LDS just assume that the early church uses all terms with LDS definitions and in LDS ways, without actually looking at the context and overall perspective of the early church.

Do you have any example from the ECF of anything like the Snow couplet that refers to God the Father and not the incarnation of the Son? If not, this whole thread is barking up the wrong tree (another tree metaphor!).

I think it is time we stop using the word God because some people do not know what we mean.

If our use of words depended on everyone else understanding them in exactly the same way, we'd never really talk. I don't second the motion

Take care, everyone

[BCSpace]

So now do people understand why LDS take issue with the misinterpretation of those ressurected who are made equal to angels don't marry or give in marriage?

No. Because it doesn't say we are "equal" to angels; it says that those in the resurrection will be "like" the angels in that they neither marry nor are given in marriage.

Incorrect. Looking at the context (which likely is a reference to an Apocryphal work; Tobit) we see that it is those who are not promised (sealed), appointed 'from the beginning' (Tobit 6:17) who will not be married in the resurrection.

In addition, Rhino's hypothesis that we will be like the angels (as if we and the angels were any different) violates scripture such as....

Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. Philippians 3:21

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. Revelation 3:20-21

The deification of man remains a Biblical fact.

[rhinomelon]

In addition, Rhino's hypothesis that we will be like the angels (as if we and the angels were any different) violates scripture such as....

QUOTE

Who shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body, according to the working whereby he is able even to subdue all things unto himself. Philippians 3:21

QUOTE

Behold, I stand at the door, and knock: if any man hear my voice, and open the door, I will come in to him, and will sup with him, and he with me.

To him that overcometh will I grant to sit with me in my throne, even as I also overcame, and am set down with my Father in his throne. Revelation 3:20-21

The deification of man remains a Biblical fact.

How is saying that we will be like the angels in terms of no marriage in heaven violate the above Scriptures (none of which mention marriage or angels).

I'll look up Tobit in my Jerusalem Bible when I get home. Thanks for the tip!

Take care, everyone

[Zakuska]

And their I think you are missing the fact that Christ is God... he was sent by the father and he returns to the father, and we get caught up to become one with them.

It doesnt matter if the couplet is specifically speaking of the father or the son because they are part of each other.

[BCSpace]

To say there was a time when God was not God makes absolutely no sense at all.

There was never a time when God was not God... by the literal definition, and when people say that it needs to be interpreted before some of us know what it is that they mean.

Mathematically, it makes perfect sense.....

Imagine two points on a numberline. The first point represents the point when God became God, the second point represents now. How many real numbers are there between the two points (or any two points)? Infinity.

With respect to time, let each real number represent any unit of time (seconds, minutes, hours, days, years, etc.)

So we, existing at the second point, can say that God has always been God (infinite time etween the two points) AND at the same time acknowledge there are points in time (to the left of the first of the two points) when God was not God and be correct mathematically, logically, grammatically, or any other way you can think of.