Deification/theosis Anyone ?

[Tanyan]

I seem to remember a long time ago reading Justin Martyr stateing that GOD The Father has his own "Elder". GraceTo all. In His Eternal Debt/Grace, Tanyan.

[rhinomelon]

I seem to remember a long time ago reading Justin Martyr stateing that GOD The Father has his own "Elder". GraceTo all. In His Eternal Debt/Grace, Tanyan.

Hey Tanyan, how are things going for you?

If you could find the reference for that quote, I'd be very much interested. Take care, my friend!

[Tanyan]

rhino, right back at you brother. I would have to find it, it has been awhile. May Grace rain on you and yours. Grace Works.

[TrashcanMan79]

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

Yes, men may become gods, but only if 'gods' is redefined to mean... what exactly?

What is the difference between the 'gods' you believe man may become and the God with the big 'g'?

[Zakuska]

Here it is...

"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." [irenaeus, Against Heresies 2:27:8, in ANF 1:402.]

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Parthenon/2671/realgod.html

[Tanyan]

I believe the reference to the Justin Martyr quote above is found in the [Roberts and Donaldson] translation of the Church Fathers vol 1:page 190- "But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten, there is no name given. For by whatever name he be called, he has his elder the person who gives him the name". Perhaps Zakuska or B.C can post the reference directly. In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan.

[Tanyan]

By the way has anyone [besides David Waltz] read the material that I referenced to in the beggining of this thread way up above ?. Thanks.

[Zakuska]

I've skimmed it...

I also found this chapter in Justin quite informative. He even uses Pslams 82 to justify his reading and interpretes it just as LDS do.

http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf01.ix.iv.vii.html

I started a new thread for it.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/index.php?showtopic=21854

[rhinomelon]

I believe the reference to the Justin Martyr quote above is found in the [Roberts and Donaldson] translation of the Church Fathers vol 1:page 190- "But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten, there is no name given. For by whatever name he be called, he has his elder the person who gives him the name". Perhaps Zakuska or B.C can post the reference directly. In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan.

Ah gotcha, I do remember that one. If you read the whole section there, I believe it is pretty clear that Justin is saying that God does not have a name given to Him, because that would imply someone over Him giving Him that name. So Justin is still arguing for monotheism here, with nothing above God.

Yes, men may become gods, but only if 'gods' is redefined to mean... what exactly?

Divinized men!

What is the difference between the 'gods' you believe man may become and the God with the big 'g'?

According to the ECF, God is unbegotten, without beginning. Men have a beginning, and are obviously begotten. God is eternal and infinite by nature, men are not, and only become eternal/immortal because of the grace of God. God is uncreated, humans are the pinnacle of God's creation, but a creation nonetheless. God alone is worshipped, man does the worshipping. God is pure spirit, while man is a dualistic creature (body and spirit). There are more, but these are some of the biggies. Each of these is found throughout the church fathers.

I also found this chapter in Justin quite informative. He even uses Pslams 82 to justify his reading and interpretes it just as LDS do.

I think the link you gave was to a chapter from Irenaeus. But either way, it really shoots down your own point. From the linked section:

3. When, however, the Scripture terms them [gods] which are no gods, it does not, as I have already remarked, declare them as gods in every sense, but with a certain addition and signification, by which they are shown to be no gods at all. As with David: â??The gods of the heathen are idols of demons;â?33413341 Ps. xcvi. 5. and, â??Ye shall not follow other gods.â?33423342 Ps. lxxxi. 9. For in that he says â??the gods of the heathenâ?â??but the heathen are ignorant of the true Godâ??and calls them â??other gods,â? he bars their claim [to be looked upon] as gods at all. But as to what they are in their own person, he speaks concerning them; â??for they are,â? he says, â??the idols of demons.â? And Esaias: â??Let them be confounded, all who blaspheme God, and carve useless things;33433343 These words are an interpolation: it is supposed they have been carelessly repeated from the preceding quotation of Isaiah. even I am witness, saith God.â?33443344 Isa. xliv. 9. He removes them from [the category of] gods, but he makes use of the word alone, for this [purpose], that we may know of whom he speaks. Jeremiah also says the same: â??The gods that have not made the heavens and earth, let them perish from the earth which is under the heaven.â?33453345 Jer. x. 11. For, from the fact of his having subjoined their destruction, he shows them to be no gods at all. Elias, too, when all Israel was assembled at Mount Carmel, wishing to turn them from idolatry, says to them, â??How long halt ye between two opinions?33463346 Literally, â??In both houghs,â? in ambabus suffraginibus . If the Lord be God,33473347 The old Latin translation has, â??Si unus est Dominus Deusâ?â?? If the Lord God is one ; which is supposed by the critics to have occurred through carelessness of the translator. follow Him.â?33483348 1 Kings xviii. 21, etc. And again, at the burnt-offering, he thus addresses the idolatrous priests: â??Ye shall call upon the name of your gods, and I will call on the name of the Lord my God; and the Lord that will hearken by fire,33493349 The Latin version has, â??that answereth to-dayâ? ( hodie ), â??an evident error for igne . He is God.â? Now, from the fact of the prophet having said these words, he proves that these gods which were reputed so among those men, are no gods at all. He directed them to that God upon whom he believed, and who was truly God; whom invoking, he exclaimed, â??Lord God of Abraham, God of Isaac, and God of Jacob, hear me to-day, and let all this people know that Thou art the God of Israel.â?33503350 1 Kings xviii. 36.

4. Wherefore I do also call upon thee, Lord God of Abraham, and God of Isaac, and God of Jacob and Israel, who art the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the God who, through the abundance of Thy mercy, hast had a favour towards us, that we should know Thee, who hast made heaven and earth, who rulest over all, who art the only and the true God, above whom there is none other God; grant, by our Lord Jesus Christ, the governing power of the Holy Spirit; give to every reader of this book to know Thee, that Thou art God alone, to be strengthened in Thee, and to avoid every heretical, and godless, and impious doctrine.

420 5. And the Apostle Paul also, saying, â??For though ye have served them which are no gods; ye now know God, or rather, are known of God,â?33513351 Gal. iv. 8, 9. has made a separation between those that were not [gods] and Him who is God. And again, speaking of Antichrist, he says, â??who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped.â?33523352 2 Thess. ii. 4. He points out here those who are called gods, by such as know not God, that is, idols.

Irenaeus clearly had something much different from LDS belief in mind.

Take care, everyone

[Tanyan]

Zakuska I must be brain dead today, I don't seem to be able to find that Justin Martyr quote on GOD The Father having his elder in the link you provided, help ?. Thanks. In His Debt/Grace, Tanyan.

[Zakuska]

ok sorry tanyan

Here it is...

Justin rejected the proposition that the Father and the Son are of the same undivided substance. In so doing, he repudiated an analogy which is still popular among modern three-in-oneists, namely, that Jesus is to the Father as a ray of light is to the sun (Roberts and Donaldson 1:264). Justin asserted that the Savior was "NUMERICALLY DISTINCT" from the Father (Roberts and Donaldson 1:264, emphasis added). He pointed out that the Father's begetting of Christ was not by some form of abscission or decreasing of the Father's substance. Instead, Justin, in a marvelous analogy, compared this divine process to fires kindled from a fire, "which we see to be distinct from it" (Roberts and Donaldson 1:264)! In harmony with this, Professor Grant points out that Justin described the Son ". . . as a second God, one who proceeded from the Father before creation. . . ." (Grant 109, emphasis added). Henry Chadwick, a renowned authority on the early church, summarizes Justin's deity theology:

Justin had boldly spoken of the divine Logos [Christ] as "ANOTHER GOD" beside the Father, qualified by the gloss, "OTHER, I MEAN, IN NUMBER, NOT IN WILL." In arguing against hellenized Jews who held that the divine Logos is distinct from God only in the refined sense in which one can distinguish between sun and sunlight, Justin had argued that the analogy of one torch lit from another was a much more satisfactory picture because it did justice to the independence . . . of the Logos. (85-86, emphasis added)

Not surprisingly, ancient three-in-oneists like the Monarchians saw Justin's deity theology "as a clear threat to monotheism" (Norris 7).

In a fascinating passage, Justin speaks of a being who is the Father's "elder":

But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten, there is no name given. For by whatever name he be called, he has as his elder the person who gives him the name. (Roberts and Donaldson 1:190)

http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:P2DBWj...;cd=7&gl=us

Chapter 6. Names of God and of Christ, their meaning and power.

But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten there is no name given. For by whatever name He be called, He has as His elder the person who gives Him the name. But these words Father, and God, and Creator, and Lord, and Master, are not names, but appellations derived from His good deeds and functions. And His Son, who alone is properly called Son, the Word who also was with Him and was begotten before the works, when at first He created and arranged all things by Him, is called Christ, in reference to His being anointed and God's ordering all things through Him; this name itself also containing an unknown significance; as also the appellation "God" is not a name, but an opinion implanted in the nature of men of a thing that can hardly be explained. But "Jesus," His name as man and Saviour, has also significance. For He was made man also, as we before said, having been conceived according to the will of God the Father, for the sake of believing men, and for the destruction of the demons. And now you can learn this from what is under your own observation. For numberless demoniacs throughout the whole world, and in your city, many of our Christian men exorcising them in the name of Jesus Christ, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, have healed and do heal, rendering helpless and driving the possessing devils out of the men, though they could not be cured by all the other exorcists, and those who used incantations and drugs.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0127.htm

[Tanyan]

Thank You !!!.

[rhinomelon]

I still don't see this as affirming that there is someone above God. Especially when read in context of one of Justin's other writings, his address to the Greeks. Section 21 of that document reads as follows:

Chapter XXI.â??The namelessness of God.

For God cannot be called by any proper name, for names are given to mark out and distinguish their subject-matters, because these are many and diverse; but neither did any one exist before God who could give Him a name, nor did He Himself think it right to name Himself, seeing that He is one and unique, as He Himself also by His own prophets testifies, when He says, â??I God am the first,â? and after this, â??And beside me there is no other God.â?25482548 Isa. xliv. 6. On this account, then, as I before said, God did not, when He sent Moses to the Hebrews, mention any name, but by a participle He mystically teaches them that He is the one and only God. â??For,â? says He; â??I am the Being;â? manifestly contrasting Himself, â??the Being,â? with those who are not,25492549 Literally, â??with the not-beings.â? that those who had hitherto been deceived might see that they were attaching themselves, not to beings, but to those who had no being. Since, therefore, God knew that the first men remembered the old delusion of their forefathers, whereby the misanthropic demon contrived to deceive them when he said to them, â??If ye obey me in transgressing the commandment of God, ye shall be as gods,â? calling those gods which had no being, in order that men, supposing that there were other gods in existence, might believe that they themselves could become gods. On this account He said to Moses, â??I am the Being,â? that by the participle â??beingâ? He might teach the difference between God who is and those who are not.25502550 Literally, â??between the God being and not-beings.â? Men, therefore, having been duped by the deceiving demon, and having dared to disobey God, were cast out of Paradise, remembering the name of gods, but no longer being taught by God that there are no other gods. For it was not just that they who did not keep the first commandment, which it was easy to keep, should any longer be taught, but should rather be driven to just punishment. Being therefore banished from Paradise, and thinking that they were expelled on account of their disobedience only, not knowing that it was also because they had believed in the existence of gods which did not exist, they gave the name of gods even to the men who were afterwards born of themselves. This first false fancy, therefore, concerning gods, had its origin with the father of lies. God, therefore, knowing that the false opinion about the plurality of gods was burdening the soul of man like some disease, and wishing to remove and eradicate it, appeared first to Moses, and said to him, â??I am He who is.â? For it was necessary, I think, that he who was to be the ruler and leader of the Hebrew people should first of all know the living God. Wherefore, having appeared to him first, as it was possible for God to appear to a man, He said to him, â??I am He who is;â? then, being about to 282 send him to the Hebrews, He further orders him to say, â??He who is hath sent me to you.â?

That last bolded section is especially interesting. The false opinion of the plurality of gods? Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

Take care, everyone

[Zakuska]

It all comes in with the power of a Name Rhino. If we ever knew Gods name we in essence would become his God.

No wonders the Hebrews God was unkown. "To the unkown God"

[Zakuska]

I just had a... Something that makes you go hmmm.... moment...

If God the father does not have a name:

1) Why did he command Israel to not take it in vain?

Some intresting verses to ponder...

Ex. 6: 3

3 And I appeared unto Abraham, unto Isaac, cand unto Jacob, by the name of God Almighty, but by my name JEHOVAH was I not known to them.

1 Chr. 16: 8

8 Give thanks unto the LORD, call upon his name, make known his deeds among the people.

Ps. 76: 1

1 In Judah is God known: his name is great in Israel.

Ps. 79: 6

6 Pour out thy wrath upon the heathen that have not known thee, and upon the kingdoms that have not called upon thy name.

Ps. 91: 14

14 Because he hath set his love upon me, therefore will I deliver him: I will set him on high, because he hath known my name.

Apparentl... Christ Knows Gods name!

Ps. 105: 1

1 O give thanks unto the LORD; call upon his name: make known his deeds among the people.

Ps. 106: 8

8 Nevertheless he saved them for his anameâ??s sake, that he might make his mighty bpower to be known.

Eccl. 6: 10

10 That which hath been is named already, and it is known that it is man: neither may he acontend with him that is mightier than he.

Isa. 45: 4

4 For Jacob my aservantâ??s sake, and Israel mine belect, I have even ccalled thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.

Isa. 64: 2

2 As when the melting fire burneth, the fire causeth the waters to boil, to make thy name known to thine adversaries, that the nations may atremble at thy presence!

Ezek. 20: 9

9 But I wrought for my anameâ??s sake, that it should not be polluted before the heathen, among whom they were, in whose sight I made myself known unto them, in bringing them forth out of the land of Egypt.

Ezek. 39: 7

7 So will I make my holy name aknown in the midst of my people Israel; and I will not let them bpollute my holy name any more: and the cheathen shall dknow that I am the LORD, the Holy One in Israel.

[Tanyan]

Cross ref to Psalms 5:11 ?.

[rhinomelon]

If God the father does not have a name:

1) Why did he command Israel to not take it in vain?

That's a fair question, although I think Justin himself answers it quite well. There is a difference between a name that is bestowed on someone/something (which means you have power over that thing), and telling others the name that you've given yourself, which is what Justin says of God. In other words, nobody gave God a name, but He has revealed names for us to use in reference to Him.

It all comes in with the power of a Name Rhino. If we ever knew Gods name we in essence would become his God.

Strongly disagree here, mostly for the reasons stated above. Knowing someone's name is a far cry from giving someone their name. The first implies relationship, the second implies authority over the thing named. Two very different things, which Justin distinguishes between quite well.

Take care, everyone

[Zakuska]

Thats a fair explanation. To which I can mostly agree.

But then Justin says to get a name one must have an Elder who gives it to him.

[TrashcanMan79]

nihilo

[SteubieU]

Thats a fair explanation. To which I can mostly agree.

But then Justin says to get a name one must have an Elder who gives it to him.

Right... to GET a name, defining "get" as receiving from someone else, there must be someone elder to give you that name. That is exactly why Justin says that God the Father has no name GIVEN TO HIM, because there is no one that is an "elder" of God... God is "the most eldingest" of things that exist; He can reveal a name about Himself to others, but He CANNOT receive it from someone else, because there is no one else above Him to give it to Him.

[Tanyan]

Hummm, No Name "Given" [To GOD The Father] yet HE [GOD THE FATHER] has his "ELDER" the "ONE" who "gives" Him [GOD THE FATHER] His "Name", a double negative here or going against the law of non contradiction ?. Any thoughts ?.

[Tanyan]

So did GOD give himself his name ?- YHWH, JHWH, Adonia, El Shaddia, ect... ?.

[SteubieU]

Hummm, No Name "Given" [To GOD The Father] yet HE [GOD THE FATHER] has his "ELDER" the "ONE" who "gives" Him [GOD THE FATHER] His "Name", a double negative here or going against the law of non contradiction ?. Any thoughts ?.

"But to the Father of all, who is unbegotten there is no name given. For by whatever name He be called, He has as His elder the person who gives Him the name."

Yes, I think you are misreading the text. What the author is saying is that there is no name given to the Father because if there was a name given, the person who gives it would be the elder of the Father.

The "For" indicates that he is continuing his argument from the previous sentence. The "But" at the beginning of that sentence means that the author is contrasting it the argument he made just preceding this article. I don't know if anyone else read that section of the article, but I did. It is talking about how the demons receive their names because of the way that they were conceived; in other words, they received their names from the person who preceded them and conceived them. He is saying that the demons received their names from those, BUT God did not receive His name from anyone... now, while I don't think I'm going to agree with the author on the theology behind that whole section on the demons (the section previous to this one), I'm going to agree with his argument for why the Father cannot have been given a name; He has no elder because He is not conceived by anyone. Go back and read the section prior to this one, section 5 and read 6 in context.

[rhinomelon]

Good summary, Steubie, I agree that this is the plain sense of the passage. I would also be curious as to how Zakuska or Tanyan would reconcile their interpretation of this particular passage with the section from Justin's Horatory to the Greeks I posted earlier, regarding the namelessness of God.

Take care, everyone

[Zakuska]

Good summary, Steubie, I agree that this is the plain sense of the passage. I would also be curious as to how Zakuska or Tanyan would reconcile their interpretation of this particular passage with the section from Justin's Horatory to the Greeks I posted earlier, regarding the namelessness of God.

Take care, everyone

Except Christ knows the name God has been Given so did Christ give God his name? We got a conundrum going here!