Deification in the Bible

[urroner]

Benjamin McGuire writes,

Is it possible for God to make his creation into a creator?

It depends on how you are using the word "creator"?

I believe it is not possiable for man to be a creator in the fullest sense like God, the Father.

I believe man cannot become a creator like the Father because the Father established laws and man must operate within these established laws. For example Adam become like god but he was still subject to God's laws. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation that govern the use of freedom.

Is not all things possible with God or is Matt. 19: 26 wrong?

But Jesus beheld them, and said unto them, With men this is impossible; but with God all things are possible.

So, if God established the laws and men must operate within these laws, where does it say that one of these laws is "God cannot make man into a God"?

Now, in what way did Adam become like God?

Who has stated that if we become like God, we would not be subject to God's law/will? In the Garden of Gethsemane, Jesus was very much subject to his Father's will.

Is God subject to His own law?

Can God sin?

[USU78]

The notion of the Logos becoming manifest in a human being is not new in the Gospel of John. It is preceded by a few hundred years in the same notion being present in Sirach, where the High Priest Joshua is portrayed as the human incarnation of Wisdom.

And this is not particularly exclusively a Hebrew idea. The concept of the divine [either in the person of the goddess Athena or a divine characteristic like wisdom] dwelling in humans is all over the Iliad, for example.

[johnny]

urroner writes,

Is not all things possible with God or is Matt. 19: 26 wrong?

What is the context of Matt 19:26?

Is this verse talking about creation?

What is Matt 19:26 referring to?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Johnny writes:

This "first act" you refer to is in verse 3. I view verse 3 as when the cook starts to "bake" the incrediants. For example:

Gen 1:1 - God makes the incrediants or "prepares"

Gen 1:2 - God begins to stir (the Spirit of God moves)

Gen 1:3 - God starts the "baking" process of the incrediants

And, as I keep pointing out, the syntax of the Hebrew doesn't allow for this interpretation.

I like the words "the Word was God".

You would, but that's not what the Greek says.

Off topic but just curious how do you interpret verses 34-36 ... how does it fit your belief that Wisdom is a creature?

This is Wisdom as a grown woman. It is the language of wooing Wisdom. *shrug*. Wisdom is a creature. It says in verse 22 - "The Lord created me ...."

I believe it depends on how a person uses the word "creation". "Creation" or the "baking" process doesn't begin till verse 3 but God "creating" the ingredients from nothingness begins in verse 1.

I am not sure why this is so hard for you. "Creating" the ingerdients is still "creating" and the text doesn't say that the ingredients were created. The first thing created is light.

Creating is what God does. Creating is not who God is.

I can see that this is a position which you are required to take - but, I find it to be inconsistent with your criticisms of LDS theology. In any case, to proceed with the other part of this discussion, you note:

I believe it is not possiable for man to be a creator in the fullest sense like God, the Father.

So why can't God create a creator in the fullest sense? You note:

Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation that govern the use of freedom.

But this doesn't seem to have any relevance to the question of why or why not God can make man a creator in the fullest sense.

Ben

[johnny]

Benjamin McGuire writes,

And, as I keep pointing out, the syntax of the Hebrew doesn't allow for this interpretation.

Did you not say other interpretaions of Gen 1:1 was "God's preparing" and "God's creating "?

>I like the words "the Word was God".

You would, but that's not what the Greek says.

How would you interpret it?

This is Wisdom as a grown woman. It is the language of wooing Wisdom. *shrug*. Wisdom is a creature. It says in verse 22 - "The Lord created me ...."

Could this also mean that wisdom simply had a beginning instead of being born of heavenly parents?

I am not sure why this is so hard for you. "Creating" the ingerdients is still "creating" and the text doesn't say that the ingredients were created. The first thing created is light.

You indicated Gen 1:1 can also says "God's preparing" and "God's creating " ... sounds like a creative action taking place.

You still have not said why you believe that incredients existed prior to "God's creating" (Gen 1:1)?

I can see that this is a position which you are required to take - but, I find it to be inconsistent with your criticisms of LDS theology. In any case, to proceed with the other part of this discussion, you note:

It is completely consistent with my criticism of LDS theology. My criticism is that I do not believe creatures can become the creator. God is God. Man is Man. Man can partake of the divine nature. Man does not become the source of the divine nature. Man is dependant on God. God is not dependant on man.

But this doesn't seem to have any relevance to the question of why or why not God can make man a creator in the fullest sense.

It goes back to the idea that the incredients can not become the baker and the clay can not become the potter.

[johnny]

Ben,

Why do believe that "incredients" existed prior to "God's creating" or "God's preparing" Gen 1:1?

johnny

[Confidential Informant]

It goes back to the idea that the incredients can not become the baker and the clay can not become the potter.

So, is this an admission of a limitation on God? God cannot create other gods, even if he wished to do so?

C.I.

[johnny]

Confidential Informant  writes,

So, is this an admission of a limitation on God? God cannot create other gods, even if he wished to do so?

It is a limitation of man, the Bible says the men can partake of the divine nature.

[Confidential Informant]

Confidential Informant

[Benjamin McGuire]

Johnny writes:

Did you not say other interpretaions of Gen 1:1 was "God's preparing" and "God's creating "?

That doesn't have anything to do with it. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the text says. I apparently am incapable of correcting it. I would offer you some sources which discuss the issue, but I don't think you would read them.

How would you interpret it?

For the purposes of this discussion, "the word was divine" would work for me just fine.

Could this also mean that wisdom simply had a beginning instead of being born of heavenly parents?

Sure. These kinds of issues are irrelevant to me. I doubt that the author of Proverbs intended to portray Wisdom as a child of heavenly parents. More likely, the author of Proverbs 8 intended Wisdom to serve as a replacement (or a substitute) for the divine goddess who was removed from public worship in Israel in the Josian reform (but that's another discussion). It is the adaption of Wisdom theology and Wisdom's merger with the Memra which is more significant for early Christian intepretation of Jesus as the Son of God.

It is completely consistent with my criticism of LDS theology. My criticism is that I do not believe creatures can become the creator. God is God. Man is Man. Man can partake of the divine nature. Man does not become the source of the divine nature. Man is dependant on God. God is not dependant on man.

The problem is, that by your own admission, creative power has nothing to do with the divine nature. It is not a defining feature of God. It is not a definingg attribute. Man becoming a creator does not therefore imply that man has become the source of the divine nature. Nor does LDS theology ever suggest that God is or becomes dependant on man. How does our "partaking of the divine nature" exclude the ability to create?

Ben

[urroner]

Origen said that there were other gods:(Commentary on the Gospel of John (Book II))

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.

Who is this Logos that was with God in the beginning? Some might say Jesus, but can't be since Jesus was created by God the Father, so Jesus can't be in the beginning, but right after the beginning.

And what did God do before the creation and why did God change what He was doing before in order to create? Why does He create? Is there some need within Him that compels Him to create?

Is Jesus, being a full God and also created, equal to the Father or is he subordinate to Him?

This "heaven and earth" bit in the creation, does it include only the Earth and the surrounding area, does it include the whole universe, or does it include all the universes that are, have been, and will ever be?

Is the Earth the first planet that God has created that He peopled, or have there been, are there, or will there be other planets that he has, is, or will place people on?

If there has been, are, or will be other peopled planets, were, are, or will these people be sinners and if "yes" who was, is, will be the Savior of these people? If it's Christ, then does this entail multiple deaths of Christ on a cross?

[urroner]

I would offer you some sources which discuss the issue, but I don't think you would read them.

Ben, offer me the sources and I'll read them. This is good stuff. Hopefully, some of thses sources are on the internet and are free since I'm poor.

[Benjamin McGuire]

CI writes:

Semantics and word play. You are still saying that something about God prevents God from doing this. I reject your notion of a limit on God's powers.

Another way of looking at this CI is that Johnny has claimed that man (as presently constituted) is unable to achieve this. But this isn't an answer to my question. My question was: "Is it possible for God to make his creation into a creator?"

The question is more than just a reference to God making man into a creator. Johnny says that it is a limitation of man that prevents him from being a creator. So, the question still stands, can God make a creation (not necessarily man) that can be a creator? So what do you say Johnny?

Ben

[johnny]

Benjamin McGuire writes,

That doesn't have anything to do with it. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the text says. I apparently am incapable of correcting it. I would offer you some sources which discuss the issue, but I don't think you would read them.

Let's approach it from a different angle ... Why do believe that "incredients" existed prior to "God's creating" or "God's preparing" Gen 1:1?

For the purposes of this discussion, "the word was divine" would work for me just fine.

That works for me.

The problem is, that by your own admission, creative power has nothing to do with the divine nature. It is not a defining feature of God. It is not a definingg attribute. Man becoming a creator does not therefore imply that man has become the source of the divine nature. Nor does LDS theology ever suggest that God is or becomes dependant on man. How does our "partaking of the divine nature" exclude the ability to create?

Both men and God can have "creative power", the difference is in the application. God can creature out of nothingness, men cannot create out of nothingness because men are not the source of the divine nature.

[urroner]

More likely, the author of Proverbs 8 intended Wisdom to serve as a replacement (or a substitute) for the divine goddess who was removed from public worship in Israel in the Josian reform (but that's another discussion). It is the adaption of Wisdom theology and Wisdom's merger with the Memra which is more significant for early Christian intepretation of Jesus as the Son of God.

Man, I just started reading about this in the past couple of weeks and it's good stuff. I read a little article by Brent Garnder and now I am beginning to understand what Margret Barker is talking about. The Great One's article about Nephi and the Tree of Life was really nifty also. I stand in awe of those two even though Margaret is a Methodist minister and DCP is a brainwashed, self-serving glutton.

[johnny]

Benjamin McGuire writes,

So, the question still stands, can God make a creation (not necessarily man) that can be a creator? So what do you say Johnny?

No ... because God alone is the source and origin of the divine nature.

[Dale]

A lot of this issue has to do with the idea that there is vast differences between creature & creator. And also whether the Bible idea of deification is the same as the LDS idea of deification. Certainly if God can be a personage of somy types man's potential after ressurection could be greater. But if God is literally omnipresent & not a personage then man's potential is limited.What do others think?

Sincerely,

Dale

[Confidential Informant]

CI writes:

Semantics and word play. You are still saying that something about God prevents God from doing this. I reject your notion of a limit on God's powers.

Another way of looking at this CI is that Johnny has claimed that man (as presently constituted) is unable to achieve this. But this isn't an answer to my question. My question was: "Is it possible for God to make his creation into a creator?"

The question is more than just a reference to God making man into a creator. Johnny says that it is a limitation of man that prevents him from being a creator. So, the question still stands, can God make a creation (not necessarily man) that can be a creator? So what do you say Johnny?

Ben

If God created man, then the limitation that Johnny refers to was created by God also, therefore God should be able to remove it at His will.

C.I.

[urroner]

In my quote of Origen where he quoted Paul and he said that there are literally gods many and Lords many, who are these gods and Lords and what do they do? Where did they come from?

Irenaeus said: IRENAEUS AGAINST HERESIES - BOOK II : CHAP. XXVIII.--PERFECT KNOWLEDGE CANNOT BE ATTAINED IN THE PRESENT LIFE: MANY QUESTIONS MUST BE SUBMISSIVELY LEFT IN THE HANDS OF GOD.

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.

Please note that Irenaeus did not state that there wasn't a God above God the way most Christians do today, he simply told us not to speculate about it. He didn't say so because, as I believe, he didn't know and it wasn't really important to him whether there was a God above God or not. In no way does it affect our salvation.

[rameumptom]

Confidential Informant  writes,

So, is this an admission of a limitation on God? God cannot create other gods, even if he wished to do so?

It is a limitation of man, the Bible says the men can partake of the divine nature.

Most Christians believe that God is of a different matter than mortals or anything else is (homoousious). Therefore, man cannot become as God is.

LDS theology, OTOH, believes in an anthropomorphic God that is of the same matter/substance that we are.

Traditional Christianity must therefore reject many Biblical passages that touch on this subject, such as Paul telling us that we are co-heirs with Christ of the divine nature, or that God is the "Father of our Spirits."

The reality is, the early Bible is based upon a council of Divine Beings/Gods that gather around the Head God, El Elyon (God Most High). Later development of Israelite belief combined El Elyon with Yahweh, who prior to this was one of the sons of El Elyon. These divine beings, also known as the Sons of the Morning, Sons of El, and other titles like this, showed that there is a common substance between the Father and his divine being children.

Interestingly, those who espouse the idea of creation ex nihilo, try to suggest that the Big Bang demonstrates that belief. Au contraire, the Big Bang actually shows a "creation from everything already existing", just in a different and highly compact form. There is no creation from nothing, though it might seem so to the mortal eye.

Margaret Barker ties Yahweh to Jesus Christ in her book, The Great Angel. It is he, who is the Second in Command anciently, under El Elyon. That being the original belief of the earliest prophets, we can either accept the idea or naysay it. If we naysay it, then we should be happy to accept any interpretation of the Bible from whatever modern source, as the ancient and original interpretation obviously doesn't apply anymore. Those prophets must have had their heads screwed on sideways, because we are way too smart for such ideas today.

If God does not create things from nothing, then we are, in essence, already creating things as he does, only on a smaller scale. The parable of the talents suggest that just as the Lord can work profits from his works, so can we. And if we are faithful servants in creating a profit for him here (or create good things here), then he will make us master over many things in the next life.

LDS theology believes godhood is attainable, because we are of the same essence/substance as God. Other Christians think it is unattainable, because God has made us of other substance and has no desire to share his greatest gifts and abilities with us. God is either unable or unwilling to give us the greatest gift of all: a life as he has.

But then, if that is the case, then Paul and others lied about us being joint-heirs with Christ. And if that is the case, we have no business trying to believe in the Bible or its promises. Remember, other Christians are the inerrantists when it comes to the Bible, not the LDS. So, if we disagree with the interpretation of a passage's meaning, we can claim with full faith that it is probably an error that was entered in later. Inerrantists, OTOH, must profess every word as it is written.

Man's limitations only are because God has put them in place. If God is unlimited in power, then he has the power to remove all limits from man. But if God is limited, then even he must live by certain rules. Can God sin? If he can, does he continue to be God? If he can't, then is he not limited? If he can, then how can we as mortals have faith in him that he will not suddenly change into some extremely cruel and evil God that enjoys torturing mortals? So the claim that man cannot become as God because we are limited is a circular argument. Either God can make us like He is, or God can't. If He can't, then he is limited by something. If He can, then for him to withhold such a blessing is to deny his greatest blessings and deny the Bible's promise of making us "kings and priests unto God and His Father" (Rev 1:5-6).

So, God formed/organized the earth. The Hebrew does not denote an ex nihilo creation. Nor does the Bible denote that God dwells outside of time, just that he dwells in a place where time is measured differently to him (a thousand years for man is as one day for God).

So there we have it.

[Paul Osborne]

Benjamin McGuire writes,

So, the question still stands, can God make a creation (not necessarily man) that can be a creator? So what do you say Johnny?

No ... because God alone is the source and origin of the divine nature.

Johnny,

God is a Divine Man and he can make us divine too. You asked me in another thread saying, "Show me in in the Bible where ...God the Father has a masculine voice".

See here:

1 Sam 3:6 And the LORD called yet again, Samuel. And Samuel arose and went to Eli, and said, Here am I; for thou didst call me. And he answered, I called not, my son; lie down again

This is proof that Samuel heard a male voice because he thought he was hearing Eli.

Don't you agree, Johnny?

Paul O

[urroner]

Thank you rameumptom for answering whether God can sin or not and the problems associated with it when it comes to those who profess that God is all powerful and then they immediately place limits on what He can and can't do.

And then there is that problem about the earliest Israelites believing that there was Most Highest God, El, and His sons, which included Jehovah and how they created the Earth and all therein. And then there is that head scratcher about El's wife Wisdom.

Why would God, being all powerful, need anybody to help Him do anything anyway? Does He have a need that cannot be fulfilled internally or does He have a need that can only be accomplished by creating things and if this is true, can't we say that God's creation is then as important to God as He is to His creation?

[Paul Osborne]

God is God. Man is Man.

and "God is a Man"

Exd 15:3

The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name

Paul O

[urroner]

God's is a "man of war"? Is that the horse version or the jellyfish version?

[Paul Osborne]

God's is a "man of war"? Is that the horse version or the jellyfish version?

Isa 42:13 "The LORD will march out like a mighty man, like a warrior

Rev 19:21 "And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh"

Paul O