Deification in the Bible

[enummaelish]

Just a friendly suggestion Johnny concerning your approach. You might eventually get a bit closer to the truth if you stop worrying about what the King James says and what the Catholic church says and start actually pondering what the Bible says, since as we have illustrated, there is quite frequently a huge difference.

[urroner]

I know my knowledge is limited but is God's knowledge limited.

I say that God's knowledge, by default has to be limited. Either God has all knowledge or God has infinite knowledge, He can not have both.

All knowledge indicates that there is an end to knowledge, that it is finite. Infinite knowledge means that it is endless and therefore, if knowledge is endless or infinite, He is still learning and can not know all.

[urroner]

Johnny, is God all powerful?

Now, if God is all powerful, can He create another God?

Is there anything in the scriptures that state that God will never create another God?

Are Jesus and the Holy Ghost as old as God the Father? Jesus was the first of God's creation, so I don't think so, but God, from what I can see, created two other Gods.

[Paul Osborne]

This is what the scriptures promise:

My son, ye are a god and the scripture is not broken for I am God of gods. Ye are now perfect even as your Father who is also perfect. See now how you are exalted and have reached the measure of the stature of the fullness of Christ. You are like God and a partaker of the divine nature being one with me as I am one with you. See how you have been changed into the same image and are no longer a servant but a son, even a joint-heir with Christ and you with him have inherited all things. My son, sit with me in my throne at my right side as Jesus also does and be ye God.

Paul O

[Paul Osborne]

Johnny,

What does this mean to you?:

[Fiat Lux]

Many critics of the LDS introduce additional aspects into LDS deification that I believe are speculative and do not adequately account for the concept of unity.  We will not become Gods besides, above, ... GOD.  We will become united with God.  That does not mean that we will not create, and perhaps we will.  But unity with God will be an aspect of our divinity.

So, you are saying that deification as understood by LDS is not deification apart from or above Heavenly Father... that a deified man from this earth is a god by virtue of being united with Heavenly Father, in accordance with and together with Heavenly Father.

If men of this earth are following (or trying to follow) the same path as Heavenly Father, and if Heavenly Father was once a man like us, then his divinity is not independent of, but is in accordance and together with his Heavenly Father's divinity. Is this right?

A related question: From an LDS point of view, will Heavenly Father always be greater than any of us? Or can the exalted man become his equal in every way? Is our Heavenly Father now equal to his Heavenly Father (or if you don't know for sure, is it possible that he could be)?

[TOmNossor]

Many critics of the LDS introduce additional aspects into LDS deification that I believe are speculative and do not adequately account for the concept of unity.

[Zakuska]

Johnny,

The scriptural expression "the heaven and the earth" (Gen 1:1) is what was created from nothingness and it is this matter that the Spirit of God moved on.

And heres where you'd be wrong because the King James miss translates Gen 1:1.

Genesis 1:1 is a demacration of time and not a statement of creation.

Genesis 1 (YLT)

1 In the beginning of God's preparing the heavens and the earth --

2 the earth hath existed waste and void, and darkness [is] on the face of the deep, and the Spirit of God fluttering on the face of the waters,

God did not "conjure" the earth out of thin air Johnny.

[Zakuska]

Tom & Tanyan,

I Agree completely.

[TOmNossor]

Me: First, I must ask what makes God GOD in LDS thought? Since Jesus Christ was

[David Waltz]

Hi Johnny,

You posted:

>>You said that "God will bestow all of His attributes on the redeemed" and that "God will one day deify redeemed mankind to the level, being, ontology, of God" how do your beliefs compare with the following Catholic teaching?

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p1s2c1p4.htm#brief

318 No creature has the infinite power necessary to "create" in the proper sense of the word, that is, to produce and give being to that which had in no way possessed it (to call into existence "out of nothing") (cf DS 3624).>>

Me: The context of the above quote from the new Catechism of the Catholic Church (p. 84) is emphasizing God's unique role as Creator of our universe and all that is within it. It is focusing on the fact that the very existence of every creature is owed to God. However, this does not exclude the possibility that our infinite God, if He so chooses, can bestow the attribute of infinite power upon redeemed mankind.

Interestingly enough, section 314 states that we do not understand the ways of God because we now have only

[Zakuska]

Tom,

I think this question can be best summarized with...

To be or not to be.

God just was.

[urroner]

I wonder why people have so much problem with the concept of the eternal existence of matter and energy when they won't even blink an eye at the concept of the eternal existence of God.

[Paul Osborne]

A related question: From an LDS point of view, will Heavenly Father always be greater than any of us? Or can the exalted man become his equal in every way? Is our Heavenly Father now equal to his Heavenly Father (or if you don't know for sure, is it possible that he could be)?

The Gods are equal. They possess all things. They are perfect. The ONLY difference is in the size of their kingdoms and who they worship.

Paul O

[Gordon]

I know my knowledge is limited but is God's knowledge limited.

Does our all-knowing God know of any other creations?

Does our all-knowing God know of any other time?

Does our all-knowing God know of any other God?

johnny-

I would say yes to your questions, even though you did not answer mine. The important thing to remember, though, is that whether he does know such things or not, it still is irrelevant to our salvation, here, now. He knows all there is to know, that pertains to us. And what else he knows beyond our state, is not important for us, at this time.

Is God bound by the space and time that we know?

That we know? No, he isn't.

But this peanut butter and jelly can be in many forms ... or it can be without form and simply be the matter that is "peanut butter and jelly".

Gen 1:2 says "And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep"

How can nothingness, or a complete vacuum have a face? The earth as we know it, was without form, void - that's all that it refers to, nothing else. The earth and its heaven, was without form. How does this mean everything and anything? If the peanut butter and the jelly became simple matter, then all we would have, is a bunch of protons and electrons moving about (yes, I know there are much finer particles of matter than those, but lets keep this simple). The peanut butter and the jelly would then be without form, and they would be void, because the simpler particles are not peanut butter, nor jelly. In order for it to be considered peanut butter and/or jelly, it MUST, have at least the basic empirical molecular formula of either or, anything less, or simpler than that, and it could no longer be considered either peanut butter or jelly.

[johnny]

Hi David,

David Waltz  writes,

The context of the above quote from the new Catechism of the Catholic Church (p. 84) is emphasizing God's unique role as Creator of our universe and all that is within it. It is focusing on the fact that the very existence of every creature is owed to God. However, this does not exclude the possibility that our infinite God, if He so chooses, can bestow the attribute of infinite power upon redeemed mankind. 

You says that God could bestow infinite power upon redeemed mankind. Do believe that God can bestow the power for the creature to change the creator's laws? The Catholic Church teaches:

God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die." [Gen 2:17] The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" [Gen 2:17] symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom. (CCC396).

Interestingly enough, section 314 states that we do not understand the ways of God because we now have only

[johnny]

Gordon  writes,

How can nothingness, or a complete vacuum have a face?

Nothingness cannot have a face. But the matter or the ingrediants that God created can have a face.

I will attempt to make my point by comparing Gen 1 with cooking.

1) From nothingness God creates all the matter necessary for "heaven and earth" (Gen 1:1) ... in comparision a cook has the ingrediants necessary to bake

2) This matter was without form, and void. This matter had a face. (Gen 1:2) ... in comparision the cook puts the ingrediants into a bowl and the uncook ingrediants have "a face"

3) the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters (Gen 1:2) ... in comparision the cook begins to stir the ingrediants

4) And God said (Gen 1:3) ... in comparision the cook said, Let there be ...

(Please note that "the heaven and the earth" (Gen 1:1) is a scriptural expression)

Gen 1

[1] In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

[2] And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

[3] And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

[4] And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.

If the peanut butter and the jelly became simple matter, then all we would have, is a bunch of protons and electrons moving about (yes, I know there are much finer particles of matter than those, but lets keep this simple). The peanut butter and the jelly would then be without form, and they would be void, because the simpler particles are not peanut butter, nor jelly.

My point with the peanut butter and jelly is that to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich you start with the "matter" peanut butter and jelly. To make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich you do not start with the matter called gasoline and nuclear waste.

[cole]

A related question: From an LDS point of view, will Heavenly Father always be greater than any of us? Or can the exalted man become his equal in every way? Is our Heavenly Father now equal to his Heavenly Father (or if you don't know for sure, is it possible that he could be)?

Yes. And then No. And No.

Everything we would do as Gods adds to our Heavenly Father's glory. We will never hold the glory of the creation of this world, or the glory that other's here will give him. We will always be a bit behind in the glory. It's kind of like an MLM (Multi Level Marketing for those that don't know). See you usually get a certain amount of money for each person you sign up under you. You also get money from the people they sign up. No one you sign up will ever make as much as you b/c you will always have them.

[Zakuska]

Johnny,

My point with the peanut butter and jelly is that to make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich you start with the "matter" peanut butter and jelly. To make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich you do not start with the matter called gasoline and nuclear waste.

But you could... Any molecular engineer worth his salt could take gasoline and nuclear waste and refine them into peanut butter and jelly.

[USU78]

To make a peanut butter and jelly sandwich you do not start with the matter called gasoline and nuclear waste.

We made all sorts of stuff in my HS chemistry class from the chemical equivalent of gasoline from nice smells to rotten smells to almost plastics.

Careful where you go with your analogy, my friend.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Johnny writes:

The first act of his creation is "the heavens and the earth" ... And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep ... And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

No. Grammatically, this cannot be supported from the text. In verse 1, the first word is bound, not absolute. It should not be read "in the beginning" but "in the beginning of". Or, "At the beginning of". In any case, because of the asyndeton in the first sentance, the description of the earth, and the abyss, and the waters, all occur simultaneously with the beginning (not as following the beginning), and occur before the first act of creation. In other words, when God began to create the heavens and the earth, all of these other things already existed. And then (here the narrative moves forward from the relative clause into the clause on which the first several clause in the first two verses are dependant) God said "Let there be light ..."

God did not "become God" when he began to create. God was God before "God created the heaven and the earth"

But this to me seems to run contrary to your criticism:

The Mormon view that a creature can be a creator like God is non-biblical, not consistent with the Bible, and I would submit irrational.

Men can partake of the divine nature but they do not become the origin and source of the divine nature.

If God is God regardless of his status as creator, then it doesn't necessarily stand to reason that man becomes the "origin and source" of the divine nature simply by becoming creators like God.

They have meaning when comparing LDS theology with historical Christinity. Joseph Smith taught our heavenly Father became God and taught eternal progression. In LDS theology is their a beginning and an ending?

The problem is that in LDS theology, all of this occurs before "the beginning" - that is, before time becomes defined. Let us say, for example, that God has existed as God for eternity. We know, from your comments, that you believe that God's creative period is finite. However, let us suppose that the first half of God's existence was spent with God as being less than God is now (however we define less - it doesn't really matter). That means that half of God's existence up until the present moment (an eternity) was spent as God, and half as less than God. How much time has elapsed in which God has been God? An eternity. Not only is it an eternity, but it is an eternity whose bounds can be described relative to God's existence, (but not to our own mortal perspective). In other words, I could then declare, absolutely accurately, that not only was God once less than He is now, but also that God has always been God. There is no contradiction.

The challenge that your presentation of LDS theology creates, is that LDS theology does not posit a finite existence of God as God. Nor does it posit a finite existence for mankind. So, for mortality - the temporal existence of mankind - there is a beginning and an end. But, this existence is viewed as a brief interlude in an existence which extends both backwards and forwards eternally. So, in order to criticize LDS theology, you seem to be removing it from its context. If you are right, would you tell us when LDS theology claims that God became God? How long ago was it? How long did God exist as less than God prior to His becoming God?

Ben

[Benjamin McGuire]

I wanted to add a quick analogy for Johnny -

Genesis 1:1-3 is a lot like my describing the process of cleaning my house.

"In the beginning of my cleaning the house, my laundry being dirty, my dishes being dirty, evidence that my three small children got their hands on a marker can be seen, and the floors, covered in mud, I washed the dishes."

Clearly, the dirty laundry is not a part of cleaning the house, nor is the dirty dishes, or the marker everywhere, or the mud on the floors. The first act of my cleaning the house is washing the dishes.

Ben

[johnny]

Benjamin McGuire writes,

No. Grammatically, this cannot be supported from the text. In verse 1, the first word is bound, not absolute. It should not be read "in the beginning" but "in the beginning of". Or, "At the beginning of".

How does your view comparing to the following Catholic teaching

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth": [Gen 1:1] three things are affirmed in these first words of Scripture: the eternal God gave a beginning to all that exists outside of himself; he alone is Creator (the verb "create" - Hebrew bara - always has God for its subject). The totality of what exists (expressed by the formula "the heavens and the earth") depends on the One who gives it being. (CCC290).

>God did not "become God" when he began to create. God was God before "God created the heaven and the earth"

But this to me seems to run contrary to your criticism:

I am not sure what your point is ... I believe that God gave a beginning to all that exists outside of himself.

If God is God regardless of his status as creator, then it doesn't necessarily stand to reason that man becomes the "origin and source" of the divine nature simply by becoming creators like God.

Man does not become the "origin and source" ... men partake of the divine nature but they do not become the "origin and source" of the divine nature. For example God could be thought of as the source of light and men can partake of the light but if you take away the source of the light you have no light to enlighten men .. men can never become the source.

In other words, I could then declare, absolutely accurately, that not only was God once less than He is now, but also that God has always been God. There is no contradiction.

But why is Jesus differenet than his Father? Jesus was God(divine nature) prior to his incarnation, was God(divine natue) during his time on earth, and was God(divine nature) after his resurrection. Jesus' humanity "became" glorified but his divine nature did not "become".

But, this existence is viewed as a brief interlude in an existence which extends both backwards and forwards eternally. So, in order to criticize LDS theology, you seem to be removing it from its context.

I also view it as an "interlude". I don't believe I am removing it from its context because I believe their is a beginning and a ending and "in the end" God is "all in all".

If you are right, would you tell us when LDS theology claims that God became God? How long ago was it? How long did God exist as less than God prior to His becoming God?

What is important is the "becoming" aspect. Jesus did not "become" God.

[Benjamin McGuire]

Johnny writes:

How does your view comparing to the following Catholic teaching

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth": [Gen 1:1] three things are affirmed in these first words of Scripture: the eternal God gave a beginning to all that exists outside of himself; he alone is Creator (the verb "create" - Hebrew bara - always has God for its subject). The totality of what exists (expressed by the formula "the heavens and the earth") depends on the One who gives it being. (CCC290).

I am not interested. What I am discussing is the Hebrew text as it reads in the Hebrew language. The reading which you offer doesn't follow the rules of Hebrew grammar.

On another note, only in trinitarian dogma can this position be claimed. Wisdom's role in the creation contradicts the notion that God alone is Creator (unless you also make Wisdom God - as in spirit Christology).

Rashi (the Hebrew scholar of the middle ages) noted:

If you wish to explain it in its plain sense, explain it thus:

"At the beginning of the creation of heaven and earth when the earth was

without form and void and there was darkness, God said, "Let there be

light."

I am not sure what your point is ... I believe that God gave a beginning to all that exists outside of himself.

The challenge is that creation itself doesn't appear to be a defining characteristic of deity. If so, then God was not God until He began to create. And if God can be God without creating, then it stands to reason that the creation of God can create. Of course, my understanding of LDS theology suggests that if mankind becomes a creator (apart from deity), that it will not be within this creation. We will not extend the creation of God, or alter it.

Man does not become the "origin and source" ... men partake of the divine nature but they do not become the "origin and source" of the divine nature. For example God could be thought of as the source of light and men can partake of the light but if you take away the source of the light you have no light to enlighten men .. men can never become the source.

But this doesn't seem to be an argument against LDS theology. Is there ever the notion in LDS theology that we will stop worshipping God? That God will be "taken away"? No.

But why is Jesus differenet than his Father? Jesus was God(divine nature) prior to his incarnation, was God(divine natue) during his time on earth, and was God(divine nature) after his resurrection. Jesus' humanity "became" glorified but his divine nature did not "become".

First, I disagree with you that Jesus was God (divine nature) during his time on earth (at least as you define it). It is simply a point on which I disagree with Catholic dogma. Obviously Jesus was different than his Father. After all, Jesus is a creation. (I can refer you to several articles on this subject by Catholic scholars - the gist of it is that Jesus - as wholly man and wholly God cannot exist prior to his mortal advent if in fact mankind is not pre-existent. That is to say, if Jesus is both man and God, then He cannot pre-exist eternally as man and God unless man can pre-exist eternally. Thus Jesus is preceded by the pre-existent second person of the Godhead (however you define that person).

Until we can resolve that issue, I find your statement to be problematic. There is no Jesus that pre-existed eternally in Catholic theology.

I also view it as an "interlude". I don't believe I am removing it from its context because I believe their is a beginning and a ending and "in the end" God is "all in all".

It doesn't matter how you view it. You are misrepresenting LDS theology. It is the LDS theology which is being removed from its context.

What is important is the "becoming" aspect. Jesus did not "become" God.

No, of course not. Jesus came into existence when the man was created (the creature) and joined to the pre-existing second person of the Godhead. Nor should we really say that Jesus is God, since Jesus is the inseperable combination of man and God. The man part of Jesus cannot be rightly called God. So, Jesus as God needs to be qualified. You seem to be confusing this issue when you refer to Jesus as God at one point and later distinguish between Jesus as God and the humanity of Jesus.

Allow me to offer a couple of citations from reputable Catholic sources:

Brendan Byrne, in his article: Christ's pre-existence in Pauline Soteriology, (Theological Studies, Jun97, Vol. 58, Issue 2) wrote:

By the same token, it is important to stress that in speaking of pre-existence, one is not speaking of a pre-existence of Jesus' humanity. Jesus Christ did not personally pre-exist as Jesus. Hence one ought not to speak of a pre-existence of Jesus. Even to use the customary expression of the pre-existence of Christ can be misleading since the word "Christ" in its original meaning simply designates the Jewish Messiah, a figure never thought of as pre-existent in any personal sense. But in view of the Christian application of "Christ" to Jesus, virtually as a proper name and in a way going beyond his historical earthly existence, it is appropriate to discuss the issue in terms of the pre-existence of Christ, provided one intends thereby to designate simply the subject who came to historical human existence as Jesus, without any connotation that he pre-existed as a human being.

Along these same lines, Roger Haight noted ("The Case For Spirit Christology", Theological Studies, Jun92, Vol. 53, Issue 2):

And with the clarity that historical consciousness has conferred relative to Jesus' being a human being in all things substantially like us, many things about the meaning of Incarnation too can be clarified. One is that one cannot really think of a preexistence of Jesus. ... But one cannot think in terms of the preexistence of Jesus; what is preexistent to Jesus is God, the God who became incarnate in Jesus. Doctrine underscores the obvious here that Jesus is really a creature like us, and a creature cannot preexist creation. one may speculate on how Jesus might have been present to God's eternal intentions and so on, but a strict preexistence of Jesus to his earthly existence is contradictory to his consubstantiality with us, unless we too were preexistent.

In case you were wondering, Brendan Byrne is a widely published scholar who has produced among his many books and papers sections of the Jerome Biblical Commentary. He is a professor of New Testament at Jesuit Theological College, and was placed on the Pontifical Biblical Comission in 1990 by Pope John Paul II. Roger Haight is a widely recognized Jesuit scholar.

Ben

[johnny]

Benjamin McGuire writes,

In other words, when God began to create the heavens and the earth, all of these other things already existed.

I am not interested. What I am discussing is the Hebrew text as it reads in the Hebrew language. The reading which you offer doesn't follow the rules of Hebrew grammar.

Let's step back from the grammer for a moment and look at Gen 1:1 so I can understand your interpretation.

Does "all of these other things already existed" make up "the heavens and the earth"

Was "the heavens and the earth" created?

What was created in Gen 1:1?

On another note, only in trinitarian dogma can this position be claimed. Wisdom's role in the creation contradicts the notion that God alone is Creator (unless you also make Wisdom God - as in spirit Christology).

Do you believe that "wisdom" is seperate from the Father?

The Catholic Church teaches:

The Old Testament suggests and the New Covenant reveals the creative action of the Son and the Spirit, [Cf. Pss 33 6; 104:30; Gen 1:2-3] inseparably one with that of the Father. This creative co-operation is clearly affirmed in the Church's rule of faith: "There exists but one God... he is the Father, God, the Creator, the author, the giver of order. He made all things by himself, that is, by his Word and by his Wisdom", "by the Son and the Spirit" who, so to speak, are "his hands". [st. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 2, 30, 9; 4, 20, I: PG 7/1, 822, 1032] Creation is the common work of the Holy Trinity. (CCC292).

The challenge is that creation itself doesn't appear to be a defining characteristic of deity. If so, then God was not God until He began to create. And if God can be God without creating, then it stands to reason that the creation of God can create. Of course, my understanding of LDS theology suggests that if mankind becomes a creator (apart from deity), that it will not be within this creation. We will not extend the creation of God, or alter it.

God is the first cause of all that exists. The Creator shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things.

But this doesn't seem to be an argument against LDS theology. Is there ever the notion in LDS theology that we will stop worshipping God? That God will be "taken away"? No.

Could you explain how you can say that God will not be taken away and at the same time say "We will not extend the creation of God, or alter it."

First, I disagree with you that Jesus was God (divine nature) during his time on earth (at least as you define it).

What is your intrepretation of Col 2:9 which says, In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

After all, Jesus is a creation.

Jesus was eternally begotten but he was made. Jesus is "the Word" of God. Jesus is not a creation like Satan. Jesus created Satan.

He cannot pre-exist eternally as man and God unless man can pre-exist eternally. Thus Jesus is preceded by the pre-existent second person of the Godhead (however you define that person).

Jesus did not pre-exist eternally as man and God. Prior to his incarnation he was "the Word" that was God. Jesus is "the Word of life" that became flesh. God was manifest in the flesh.

Until we can resolve that issue, I find your statement to be problematic. There is no Jesus that pre-existed eternally in Catholic theology.

Catholic theology teaches:

He was begotten from the Father before all ages as to his divinity and in these last days, for us and for our salvation, was born as to his humanity of the virgin Mary, the Mother of God. [Council of Chalcedon (451): DS 301; cf. Heb 4:15] (CCC467). Jesus calls himself the "only Son of God", and by this title affirms his eternal pre-existence. [Jn 3:16; cf. 10:36] (CCC444).

Jesus came into existence when the man was created (the creature) and joined to the pre-existing second person of the Godhead. Nor should we really say that Jesus is God, since Jesus is the inseperable combination of man and God. The man part of Jesus cannot be rightly called God. So, Jesus as God needs to be qualified. You seem to be confusing this issue when you refer to Jesus as God at one point and later distinguish between Jesus as God and the humanity of Jesus.

We can say "the Word" was God and that "the Word" became flesh. In him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.