Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Deification/theosis Anyone ?

Tanyan

By Tanyan
in Miscellaneous

Recommended Posts

SteubieU Proficient

SteubieU

Posted
Posted

Dont believe it! Its a satanic doctrine started by that marmon joe smith!! :P Just look up Justin Martyr,Ireneus, Athanasius and Clement the first marmons <_< .....im mean christians didnt believe it :unsure:

Justin Martyrn, Irenaeus, Athanasius, and Clement... that there is a list of Catholic Saints... not the first mormons.

And yes, Catholics believe in theosis... in the Biblical/early Church Fathers sense.

Link to comment
rhinomelon Veteran

rhinomelon

Posted
Posted
How many early Church Fathers can you quote that say that God the Father was once a man?

Darn, beat me to it! The above is always where the LDS exegesis of the early church gets stuck.

Anyway, the sections quoted by LDS apologists that they interpret in the sense of Snow's couplet refer almost exclusively to the incarnation of Christ, not to the essential humanity of God the Father. I only say "almost exclusively" because I obviously haven't read all of the ECF, and there might be some random passage that looks at it differently. I just haven't seen any yet, nor have any LDS scholars brought them up.

There is a great divide between the LDS view of eternal progression and the early Christian view on theosis.

Men are gods and gods are men........

I also find it ironic that when LDS try to "prove" their unique doctrines from the early church, they invariably end up quoting the most Greek of the early church fathers. The irony lies in the fact that LDS attribute much of the Great Apostasy to the use of Greek thinking in the early church.

The above quote, for example, is not even original to the early church fathers, but is from a non-Christian Greek philosopher, quoted by one of the most Greek of the early church fathers, Clement of Alexandria.

Just an observation. Take care, everyone :P

Link to comment
rhinomelon Veteran

rhinomelon

Posted
Posted
rhinomelon:

Christ did NOTHING that He did not see the Father do.

So God the Father was born of a virgin named Mary, grew to the age of thirty before choosing twelve disciples of the exact same name? The Father then went about in a place called Israel doing the exact same miracles, then ended up dying on the cross and was resurrected after three days by His Father?

Fortunately, we are spared from such absurd lengths by the context of that particular passage. Jesus actually lists specific examples, and it is obvious that he is not talking about something that happened in the past to the Father, but to what the Father is doing through Christ at the present time. Some examples:

For the Father loves the Son, and shows Him all things that He Himself is doing; and the Father will show Him ®greater works than these, so that you will marvel.

21"For just as the Father raises the dead and (S)gives them life, even so (T)the Son also gives life to whom He wishes.

22"For not even the Father judges anyone, but (U)He has given all judgment to the Son,

23so that all will honor the Son even as they honor the Father. (V)He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.

For just as the Father has life in Himself, even so He (AC)gave to the Son also to have life in Himself;

27and He gave Him authority to (AD)execute judgment, because He is the Son of Man.

Raising people from the dead, giving life to the people, judging righteously, bringing honor to God, etc. This is what Jesus is doing, because it is also what the Father does. Notice also the present tense construction. Unless you are willing to say that the Father was also mortal and doing the exact same things as Jesus was on earth at that same moment, taking this verse too literally obviously leads to significant problems.

Take care, everyone :P

Link to comment
rhinomelon Veteran

rhinomelon

Posted
Posted
If I do the exact same things as you do and give you credit. Does that not indeed presuppose your existance

I'm not quite sure what you're meaning here, could you flesh it out a little? I'm not saying the the Father does not exist. I'm saying that this passage is referring to specific aspects of what the Father is and was doing (some of which are specifically listed in that same passage), and that this passage in no way speaks to a mortal existence for the Father.

Take care, everyone :P

Link to comment
David Waltz Proficient

David Waltz

Posted
Posted

Hi Tanyan,

You asked:

>> Has anyone seen or been aware of the above referenced aricles ?.>>

Me: Yes, quite some time ago. I remember linking to them during my discussions with Richard Abanes over on ZLMB. Ahhhâ?¦what fond memories :P

BTW, you may be interested in the following:

http://www.allbookstores.com/book/0838641113

Grace and peace,

David

Link to comment
BCSpace Grand Master

BCSpace

Posted
Posted
Which is the same as the LDS sense. Men are gods and gods are men........
How many early Church Fathers can you quote that say that God the Father was once a man?

How many have to say it expressly besides Clement?

Of course the answer is; anyone who teaches Theosis as that is the only process mentioned in the Bible (or by the Early Fathers) by which Gods are made.

Link to comment
rhinomelon Veteran

rhinomelon

Posted
Posted
How many have to say it expressly besides Clement?

Well, if Clement said it expressly that might help. Unfortunately, you are unable to provide any quotes that refer to God being a man outside of the incarnation. Nor are there any quotes stating that God the Father is a man. I see all these quotes about men becoming gods, etc., but that is really only half the puzzle. The half that LDS really need in order to bolster their position is utterly absent.

Take care, everyone :P

Link to comment
rhinomelon Veteran

rhinomelon

Posted
Posted
You missed clements Quote Rhino...

"Men are gods, and gods are men." Clement of Alexandria, The Instructor, 3.1 Also Clement, Stromateis, 23.

We are the same species.

I didn't miss it; in fact, I addressed a good chunk of my first post on this thread to it! I am still missing, however, where this quote does anything for the unique aspects of LDS theology, as opposed to a mainstream Christian understanding of theosis. Here is the context:

But that man with whom the Word dwells does not alter himself, does not get himself up: he has the form which is of the Word; he is made like to God; he is beautiful; he does not ornament himself: his is beauty, the true beauty, for it is God; and that man becomes God, since God so wills. Heraclitus, then, rightly said, "Men are gods, and gods are men." For the Word Himself is the manifest mystery: God in man, and man God. And the Mediator executes the Father's will; for the Mediator is the Word, who is common to both--the Son of God, the Saviour of men; His Servant, our Teacher.

He is referring to the incarnation of Christ, just as all ECF are when such statements arise. Also, note that it is Christ who is the mediator precisely because he is both God and man; if God and man were the same species, as you suggest, this statement would be pointless, like me making a big deal about "Hey, did you know that I am both man and mammal!! Gasp!!"

Again, you have no quotes to point to for the half of the puzzle that the LDS need to make their case. Also, I am curious as to why you feel the need to quote Greek philosophers and poets to make your case; every time I do that, I get raked over the coals for "Apostasy, apostasy!!! <_< "

Also, what is that second reference for the Stromata? I think there needs to be something more than "23".

Take care, everyone :P

Link to comment
rhinomelon Veteran

rhinomelon

Posted
Posted
Do you believe, as the ECFs seem to have believed, that men can become gods? Do you disagree with the LDS interpretation of these quotes? (I'm asking specifically about the deification of Man, not the man-ification of God.)

I do agree with the ECF on this issue, contra the LDS position. The ECF were quite careful to preserve the essential difference between God and man, while still looking forward to the end goal of man, becoming like God in the image of Christ. God is always different, and man is always solely dependent on and connected with God. God is always seen as unique.

While many mainstream Christians, mostly Protestants, would be rather uncomfortable with the terms "divinization" etc, few would disagree with what the ECF meant by the term; the complete perfection of man, bringing men and women to their fullest potential in God. I think that I have become used to the terminology simply because this is the subject I like to study (early church stuff).

Take care, everyone :P

Link to comment
TrashcanMan79 Newbie

TrashcanMan79

Posted
Posted

I do agree with the ECF on this issue, contra the LDS position. The ECF were quite careful to preserve the essential difference between God and man, while still looking forward to the end goal of man, becoming like God in the image of Christ. God is always different, and man is always solely dependent on and connected with God. God is always seen as unique.

This is a bunch of gobbledy-gook to me. Do you believe men can become gods? (Matt 5:37)

Link to comment
Tanyan Mentor

Tanyan

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Hi Tanyan,

You asked:

>> Has anyone seen or been aware of the above referenced aricles ?.>>

Me: Yes, quite some time ago. I remember linking to them during my discussions with Richard Abanes over on ZLMB. Ahhhâ?¦what fond memories :P

BTW, you may be interested in the following:

http://www.allbookstores.com/book/0838641113

Grace and peace,

David

David, Thanks for the reference, I may already have this book, I will need to look and see, if not I will get it. In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan.

Link to comment
rhinomelon Veteran

rhinomelon

Posted
Posted
This is a bunch of gobbledy-gook to me. Do you believe men can become gods? (Matt 5:37)

Yes, but that is not the same as saying that a human being will be essentially like God. I guess one way to say it would be that there is a huge difference between "gods" and "God". C.S. Lewis put it well when he said that if a perfect heavenly man were to appear, we would likely be strongly tempted to worship him (but he never says that such worship would be a good thing; it would be idolatry). Glorified man is a glorious, perfected being, but glorified man is not akin to God, nor will he ever be. This is the distinction that the ECF are careful to define.

Make it any clearer? Take care :P

Link to comment

Archived

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

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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