Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

5 things Latter-day Saints should know about ancient Christians


Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, manol said:

God, Christ and the Holy Spirit are all spirit(s).  So are we.  ("Consubstantial" is a new word to me.)

My impression is that Mormonism emphasizes distinctions and separations ("the parts of the elephant", if you will), and imo separation is a construct of this telestial world moreso than of the higher realms.  I'm not saying separation isn't a useful construct, but I do not believe it characterizes the Celestial Kingdom to the extent that it characterizes this planet.

Imo "the vine and the branches", to borrow another metaphor, is more about the higher kingdom(s) than about the manifest reality we experience in this one.

Agreed, but sometimes the sweetest fruit may not be visible from within the walls.  

Agreed.

Imo there is benefit in takings one's talents out into the marketplace of ideas, i.e. outside the walls of the LDS narrative, and possibly adding to what one has already been given. 

That being said, I do respect the LDS narrative a great deal, and perhaps it is the "best paradigm devised by humans to explain all this stuff."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

One other point you should know

Link to comment
10 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

You are now a Trinitarian, unless the magic "substance" includes two human bodies an one spirit body, which is made of "refined matter".

 No, we do not adhere to substance theology and a "consubstantial" trinity

No magic. All natural. Just trying to find a place of understanding between peoples of different ways of thinking. 

Sometimes two things are significantly alike. Sometimes the likeness is substantial. The word consubstantial is out there. When it is explained without baggage, for most people who examine it, including LDS, consubstantiality makes sense. Consubstantial things have significant sameness. Hawks and parakeets have sameness/consubstantiality as birds. Right? They are different kinds of bird and we can distinguish the difference. But must we disregard the sameness? Jesus and us have sameness (consubstantiality) as humans (Council of Chalcedon, already cited? I can get the reference if need be.). Jesus, the Son and His Father have sameness (consubstantiality) as God (Council of Nicea already cited, I think).

Consubstantiality isn't anything hellenizingly sinister. It doesn't come from hell, and doesn't contradict the Gospel. It is only a word that indicates to those who understand it, a recognition of significant/substantial sameness.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicene_Creed

One other point you should know

Okay... why do you think I should know about the Nicene Creed?  (I have a general idea of what it is, but not a whole Wiki's worth.)

I'm starting to think you think I think something I don't think. 

If you think it's worthwhile that you and I arrive at mutual understanding (regardless of whether or not that results in agreement), please clarify what you think I think.

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

Sometimes two things are significantly alike. Sometimes the likeness is substantial. The word consubstantial is out there. When it is explained without baggage, for most people who examine it, including LDS, consubstantiality makes sense. Consubstantial things have significant sameness. Hawks and parakeets have sameness/consubstantiality as birds. Right? They are different kinds of bird and we can distinguish the difference. But must we disregard the sameness? Jesus and us have sameness (consubstantiality) as humans ...

Even when I was an active LDS Church member and ardent amateur defender of the faith, I'd have had a hard time arguing against this concept. 

Edited by manol
Link to comment
1 hour ago, manol said:

Okay... why do you think I should know about the Nicene Creed?  (I have a general idea of what it is, but not a whole Wiki's worth.)

I'm starting to think you think I think something I don't think. 

If you think it's worthwhile that you and I arrive at mutual understanding (regardless of whether or not that results in agreement), please clarify what you think I think.

Even when I was an active LDS Church member and ardent amateur defender of the faith, I'd have had a hard time arguing against this concept. 

That's fine, if it makes sense to you and you can follow the logic.

I can't. 

For mr it us a Deus Ex Machina, pretty literally.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Eschaton said:

What part of the NT do you think supports deification of people not named Jesus? 

There are many details that fit into this view, but to be as brief as possible:  The New Testament completes the story of man's redemption through Jesus Christ, providing a way for us to become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ (Rom 8:16-17, Gal 4:7).  And there are promises given to those who overcome the world that have to do with participation in God's kingdom at the same level as God the Father and Jesus Christ.  2 Peter 1 hints at this, speaking of Jesus:

Quote

3 According as his divine power hath given unto us all things that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:
4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.  (2 Peter 1:3–4)

The promises given to those who "overcome" are explained in the book of Revelation.  Those who "overcome" will “eat of the tree of life” (Rev 2:7), will “not be hurt of the second death” (Rev 2:11), they will "eat of the hidden manna" (Rev 2:17), and will receive power over the nations (Rev 2:26).  They will be clothed in white raiment (Rev 3:5), and they will have the name of God written upon them and the "new name" of Jesus (Rev 3:12), and they will sit with Jesus and the Father in the throne of God (Rev 3:21), and will "inherit all things" (Rev 21:7).  

Revelation 3:21 deserves a closer look:  "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".   The throne of God represents his place of power and his position of authority as God, and those who "overcome" are thus granted the exact same position.

I also believe this expectation for those who truly follow Jesus was made evident by Jesus in his intercessory prayer, when he prayed for the believers in him to be "one" even in the same way Jesus is one with his Father, and they were also given the same "glory" that was given to Jesus by the Father (John 17:11 and 20-23).

By the way, I don't think people named Jesus should be excluded from these promises :) 

11 hours ago, Eschaton said:
On 12/22/2022 at 8:57 PM, InCognitus said:

The teaching that men become gods was widespread in second century Christianity.  I'm not sure why you say it wasn't widespread (it was taught by Justin Martyr, Irenaeus [quite extensively], Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Hippolytus of Rome, Novation, and several other slightly later Christian writers). 

Can you give me a few specific examples?

I've posted examples of these on this board before (i.e. here, and elsewhere), but here are a few brief excerpts:

Irenaeus (c. 175 - c. 195):   "For we cast blame on Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods . . .He (God) declares: "I have said, Ye are gods, and ye are all sons of the Highest."  (Irenaeus, "Against Heresies", Book IV, Chapter 38, 3 & 4)  

Also from Irenaeus:  "How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man?  Or how can he be perfect who was but lately created?  How, again, can he be immortal, who in his mortal nature did not obey his Maker?  For it must be that thou, at the outset, shouldest hold the rank of a man, and then afterwards partake of the glory of God. For thou dost not make God, but God thee."   (Irenaeus, "Against Heresies", Book IV, Chapter 39, 1 & 2)  

Both chapters 38 and 39 from him are teaching that doctrine.

Clement of Alexandria (c. 155 - c. 220 AD):   "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."   (Clement of Alexandria, "The Instructor", Book III, Chap. 1)

Origen (185-254 AD): "To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods..." (Origen, Commentary on John, Book II)

Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235 AD):   "And thou shalt possess an immortal body, even one placed beyond the possibility of corruption, just like the soul. And thou shalt receive the kingdom of heaven, thou who, whilst thou didst sojourn in this life, didst know the Celestial King. And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast become God: for whatever sufferings thou didst undergo while being a man, these He gave to thee, because thou wast of mortal mould, but whatever it is consistent with God to impart, these God has promised to bestow upon thee, because thou hast been deified, and begotten unto immortality. This constitutes the import of the proverb, “Know thyself;” i.e., discover God within thyself, for He has formed thee after His own image. For with the knowledge of self is conjoined the being an object of God’s knowledge, for thou art called by the Deity Himself. Be not therefore inflamed, O ye men, with enmity one towards another, nor hesitate to retrace with all speed your steps. For Christ is the God above all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings, rendering regenerate the old man. And God called man His likeness from the beginning, and has evinced in a figure His love towards thee. And provided thou obeyest His solemn injunctions, and becomest a faithful follower of Him who is good, thou shalt resemble Him, inasmuch as thou shalt have honour conferred upon thee by Him. For the Deity, (by condescension,) does not diminish aught of the divinity of His divine perfection; having made thee even God unto His glory!"  (Hippolytus—Refutation Book 10 Ch. 29–30)

11 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Deification (of the righteous generally) was incompatible with the old (Jewish) view of God too, which taught that humanity's ultimate destination was the grave, not heaven. Even when resurrection was developed as a doctrine, the resurrected would stay on earth to live a human life. 

Heaven isn't really the goal in the New Testament either (although most Christian denominations perceive it that way).  If you read the book of Revelation to the end, the earth is renewed and the righteous inherit the earth. 

And this was taught in the Jewish view as well:

Quote

Psa 37:9  For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the LORD, they shall inherit the earth.
Psa 37:10  For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.
Psa 37:11  But the meek shall inherit the earth; and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace.

Psa 37:18  The LORD knoweth the days of the upright: and their inheritance shall be for ever.
Psa 37:19  They shall not be ashamed in the evil time: and in the days of famine they shall be satisfied.
Psa 37:20  But the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of the LORD shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume; into smoke shall they consume away.
Psa 37:21  The wicked borroweth, and payeth not again: but the righteous showeth mercy, and giveth.
Psa 37:22  For such as be blessed of him shall inherit the earth; and they that be cursed of him shall be cut off.

Psa 37:34  Wait on the LORD, and keep his way, and he shall exalt thee to inherit the land: when the wicked are cut off, thou shalt see it.   (Psalms 37:9-11, 18-22, 34)

Edited by InCognitus
Link to comment
2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

There are many details that fit into this view, but to be as brief as possible:  The New Testament completes the story of man's redemption through Jesus Christ, providing a way for us to become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ (Rom 8:16-17, Gal 4:7).  And there are promises given to those who overcome the world that have to do with participation in God's kingdom at the same level as God the Father and Jesus Christ.  2 Peter 1 hints at this, speaking of Jesus:

The promises given to those who "overcome" are explained in the book of Revelation.  Those who "overcome" will “eat of the tree of life” (Rev 2:7), will “not be hurt of the second death” (Rev 2:11), they will "eat of the hidden manna" (Rev 2:17), and will receive power over the nations (Rev 2:26).  They will be clothed in white raiment (Rev 3:5), and they will have the name of God written upon them and the "new name" of Jesus (Rev 3:12), and they will sit with Jesus and the Father in the throne of God (Rev 3:21), and will "inherit all things" (Rev 21:7).  

Revelation 3:21 deserves a closer look:  "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".   The throne of God represents his place of power and his position of authority as God, and those who "overcome" are thus granted the exact same position.

I also believe this expectation for those who truly follow Jesus was made evident by Jesus in his intercessory prayer, when he prayed for the believers in him to be "one" even in the same way Jesus is one with his Father, and they were also given the same "glory" that was given to Jesus by the Father (John 17:11 and 20-23).

By the way, I don't think people named Jesus should be excluded from these promises :) 

I've posted examples of these on this board before (i.e. here, and elsewhere), but here are a few brief excerpts:

Irenaeus (c. 175 - c. 195):   "For we cast blame on Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods . . .He (God) declares: "I have said, Ye are gods, and ye are all sons of the Highest."  (Irenaeus, "Against Heresies", Book IV, Chapter 38, 3 & 4)  

Also from Irenaeus:  "How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man?  Or how can he be perfect who was but lately created?  How, again, can he be immortal, who in his mortal nature did not obey his Maker?  For it must be that thou, at the outset, shouldest hold the rank of a man, and then afterwards partake of the glory of God. For thou dost not make God, but God thee."   (Irenaeus, "Against Heresies", Book IV, Chapter 39, 1 & 2)  

Both chapters 38 and 39 from him are teaching that doctrine.

Clement of Alexandria (c. 155 - c. 220 AD):   "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."   (Clement of Alexandria, "The Instructor", Book III, Chap. 1)

Origen (185-254 AD): "To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods..." (Origen, Commentary on John, Book II)

Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235 AD):   "And thou shalt possess an immortal body, even one placed beyond the possibility of corruption, just like the soul. And thou shalt receive the kingdom of heaven, thou who, whilst thou didst sojourn in this life, didst know the Celestial King. And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast become God: for whatever sufferings thou didst undergo while being a man, these He gave to thee, because thou wast of mortal mould, but whatever it is consistent with God to impart, these God has promised to bestow upon thee, because thou hast been deified, and begotten unto immortality. This constitutes the import of the proverb, “Know thyself;” i.e., discover God within thyself, for He has formed thee after His own image. For with the knowledge of self is conjoined the being an object of God’s knowledge, for thou art called by the Deity Himself. Be not therefore inflamed, O ye men, with enmity one towards another, nor hesitate to retrace with all speed your steps. For Christ is the God above all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings, rendering regenerate the old man. And God called man His likeness from the beginning, and has evinced in a figure His love towards thee. And provided thou obeyest His solemn injunctions, and becomest a faithful follower of Him who is good, thou shalt resemble Him, inasmuch as thou shalt have honour conferred upon thee by Him. For the Deity, (by condescension,) does not diminish aught of the divinity of His divine perfection; having made thee even God unto His glory!"  (Hippolytus—Refutation Book 10 Ch. 29–30)

Heaven isn't really the goal in the New Testament either (although most Christian denominations perceive it that way).  If you read the book of Revelation to the end, the earth is renewed and the righteous inherit the earth. 

And this was taught in the Jewish view as well:

Wow.

Just plain WOW.

Link to comment
9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

That's fine, if it makes sense to you and you can follow the logic.

I have no idea why you think I follow the Nicene Creed.  I do not subscribe to any creed, because when you are subscribed to a creed its wording sets the boundaries beyond which your belief system may not expand, and may set the boundaries for your tolerance of others' beliefs.

The closest I come to having a creed at this time is the following belief:  God is good, God is fair, and God is no respecter of persons.  In my opinion (which I do not expect anyone else to subscribe to!), this tells me more useful things about God (and/or the Godhead) than any creed I have encountered. 

Edited by manol
Link to comment
21 hours ago, Calm said:

Because we had additional revelations after the Lectures were written, which they could of course not have included.   I would hope the Church would remove out of date teachings even if canonized if they are contradicted by revelation.  It would be a refutation of the belief in continuing revelation to insist that all the understanding we had originally had to be correct as is. 

Joseph Smith taught fairly early that the fist principle of the gospel is to know the nature of God, His attributes and characteristics.   Apparently he did not know this since well since his theology on the Godhead was a constant moving target as it was for Brigham Young.

Link to comment
On 12/24/2022 at 1:50 AM, InCognitus said:

There are many details that fit into this view, but to be as brief as possible:  The New Testament completes the story of man's redemption through Jesus Christ, providing a way for us to become heirs of God and joint-heirs with Christ (Rom 8:16-17, Gal 4:7).  And there are promises given to those who overcome the world that have to do with participation in God's kingdom at the same level as God the Father and Jesus Christ.  2 Peter 1 hints at this, speaking of Jesus:

The promises given to those who "overcome" are explained in the book of Revelation.  Those who "overcome" will “eat of the tree of life” (Rev 2:7), will “not be hurt of the second death” (Rev 2:11), they will "eat of the hidden manna" (Rev 2:17), and will receive power over the nations (Rev 2:26).  They will be clothed in white raiment (Rev 3:5), and they will have the name of God written upon them and the "new name" of Jesus (Rev 3:12), and they will sit with Jesus and the Father in the throne of God (Rev 3:21), and will "inherit all things" (Rev 21:7).  

Revelation 3:21 deserves a closer look:  "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".   The throne of God represents his place of power and his position of authority as God, and those who "overcome" are thus granted the exact same position.

I also believe this expectation for those who truly follow Jesus was made evident by Jesus in his intercessory prayer, when he prayed for the believers in him to be "one" even in the same way Jesus is one with his Father, and they were also given the same "glory" that was given to Jesus by the Father (John 17:11 and 20-23).

By the way, I don't think people named Jesus should be excluded from these promises :) 

I note that nothing here actually says that humans will become Gods. Certainly early Christians thought that Jesus was appointed to be the Son of God at his resurrection, but he seems to be a special case. 

 

On 12/24/2022 at 1:50 AM, InCognitus said:

I've posted examples of these on this board before (i.e. here, and elsewhere), but here are a few brief excerpts:

Irenaeus (c. 175 - c. 195):   "For we cast blame on Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods . . .He (God) declares: "I have said, Ye are gods, and ye are all sons of the Highest."  (Irenaeus, "Against Heresies", Book IV, Chapter 38, 3 & 4)  

Also from Irenaeus:  "How, then, shall he be a God, who has not as yet been made a man?  Or how can he be perfect who was but lately created?  How, again, can he be immortal, who in his mortal nature did not obey his Maker?  For it must be that thou, at the outset, shouldest hold the rank of a man, and then afterwards partake of the glory of God. For thou dost not make God, but God thee."   (Irenaeus, "Against Heresies", Book IV, Chapter 39, 1 & 2)  

Both chapters 38 and 39 from him are teaching that doctrine.

Clement of Alexandria (c. 155 - c. 220 AD):   "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."   (Clement of Alexandria, "The Instructor", Book III, Chap. 1)

Origen (185-254 AD): "To such persons we have to say that God on the one hand is Very God (Autotheos, God of Himself); and so the Saviour says in His prayer to the Father, "That they may know Thee the only true God;" but that all beyond the Very God is made God by participation in His divinity, and is not to be called simply God (with the article), but rather God (without article). And thus the first-born of all creation, who is the first to be with God, and to attract to Himself divinity, is a being of more exalted rank than the other gods beside Him, of whom God is the God, as it is written, "The God of gods, the Lord, hath spoken and called the earth." It was by the offices of the first-born that they became gods, for He drew from God in generous measure that they should be made gods..." (Origen, Commentary on John, Book II)

Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170–235 AD):   "And thou shalt possess an immortal body, even one placed beyond the possibility of corruption, just like the soul. And thou shalt receive the kingdom of heaven, thou who, whilst thou didst sojourn in this life, didst know the Celestial King. And thou shalt be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For thou hast become God: for whatever sufferings thou didst undergo while being a man, these He gave to thee, because thou wast of mortal mould, but whatever it is consistent with God to impart, these God has promised to bestow upon thee, because thou hast been deified, and begotten unto immortality. This constitutes the import of the proverb, “Know thyself;” i.e., discover God within thyself, for He has formed thee after His own image. For with the knowledge of self is conjoined the being an object of God’s knowledge, for thou art called by the Deity Himself. Be not therefore inflamed, O ye men, with enmity one towards another, nor hesitate to retrace with all speed your steps. For Christ is the God above all, and He has arranged to wash away sin from human beings, rendering regenerate the old man. And God called man His likeness from the beginning, and has evinced in a figure His love towards thee. And provided thou obeyest His solemn injunctions, and becomest a faithful follower of Him who is good, thou shalt resemble Him, inasmuch as thou shalt have honour conferred upon thee by Him. For the Deity, (by condescension,) does not diminish aught of the divinity of His divine perfection; having made thee even God unto His glory!"  (Hippolytus—Refutation Book 10 Ch. 29–30)

 

I wasn't aware it was so widespread - clearly I have more reading to do. I'm not entirely sure what they mean by gods - gods in what sense? In any case, this is the post-apostolic period. So isn't this in the era of the "great apostasy?" 

ETA: apparently this is another doctrine that comes right out of Platonism. Add another one to the list!  https://smile.amazon.com/Partakers-Divine-Nature-Development-Deification/dp/080103440X/ref=sr_1_1?crid=BI9KCB1N4PTX&keywords=partakers+of+the+divine+nature&qid=1672157364&sprefix=partakers+of+divine%2Caps%2C74&sr=8-1

 

On 12/24/2022 at 1:50 AM, InCognitus said:

Heaven isn't really the goal in the New Testament either (although most Christian denominations perceive it that way).  If you read the book of Revelation to the end, the earth is renewed and the righteous inherit the earth. 

Yes, that's true - that was Jesus'  view as well - the righteous would be raised from  the dead to live a kind of utopian life and the wicked utterly destroyed. 

On 12/24/2022 at 1:50 AM, InCognitus said:

And this was taught in the Jewish view as well:

Yes, from about the third century BCE resurrection became a part of Judaism, at least among some factions. For more traditional factions like the Sadducees, there was no resurrection. 

Edited by Eschaton
Link to comment
On 12/22/2022 at 9:32 PM, manol said:

This makes sense to me; at least the part that says all three members of the Godhead are made of the same stuff, even if said stuff is not precisely defined.

Offical doctrine is that two are made of flesh and bones but the Holy Ghost is still disembodied and a spirit.  So how and why do you differ with that?

Link to comment
13 hours ago, Eschaton said:

I note that note here actually says that humans will become Gods. Certainly early Christians thought that Jesus was appointed to be the Son of God at his resurrection, but he seems to be a special case. 

If Jesus is the "special case" (as coming to be God), then why do those verses that I referenced in my post state that believers will receive the same glory and same position on God's throne as Jesus did?  Jesus is the "special case" in the sense that he prepared the way:  His atonement and his example made it possible for everyone who follows him to receive the same things that he did.  That's what's included in being a "heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ":  They sit with God in his throne, in the same way Jesus overcame and sits with God in his throne (paraphrasing Revelation 3:21) and receiving the same "glory" that Jesus received from his Father (as it says in John 17:20-23).  

But this isn't new stuff.  As mentioned earlier in this thread, the Old Testament refers to God as the "God of gods, and Lord of lords" (Deut 10:17).  The early Christians understood verses like this one to be applicable to the teaching that men become gods and that those other gods are actually existing beings (not false gods).   The same is true of Paul's statement about there being "gods many, and lords many" in 1 Corinthians 8:4-6. 

See for example Origen:

  • "For Scripture distinguishes between those gods which are such only in name and those which are truly gods, whether they are called by that name or not; and the same is true in regard to the use of the word 'lords.' To this effect Paul says, 'For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, as there are gods many, and lords many.'"  (Origen, Against Celsus, book 8.3-5)
  • "There are some gods of whom God is God, as we hear in prophecy,[Psalms 136:2] 'Thank ye the God of gods,' and [Psalms 50:1, LXX and in the Hebrew] 'The God of gods hath spoken, and called the earth.' Now God, according to the Gospel, [Matt 20:2] 'is not the God of the dead but of the living.' Those gods, then, are living of whom God is god. The Apostle, too, writing to the Corinthians, says: [1 Cor 8:5] 'As there are gods many and lords many,' and so we have spoken of these gods as really existing."  (Origen's Commentary on John, book 1 chapter 34, verse references added)

And Irenaeus:  

  • "And again: 'God stood in the congregation of the gods, He judges among the gods.' He [here] refers to the Father and the Son, and those who have received the adoption; but these are the Church. For she is the synagogue of God, which God—that is, the Son Himself—has gathered by Himself. Of whom He again speaks: 'The God of gods, the Lord hath spoken, and hath called the earth.' Who is meant by God? He of whom He has said, 'God shall come openly, our God, and shall not keep silence;' that is, the Son, who came manifested to men who said, 'I have openly appeared to those who seek Me not.' But of what gods [does he speak]? [Of those] to whom He says, 'I have said, Ye are gods, and all sons of the Most High.' To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the 'adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father.'”  (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III Ch. 6–6)
13 hours ago, Eschaton said:

I wasn't aware it was so widespread - clearly I have more reading to do. I'm not entirely sure what they mean by gods - gods in what sense? In any case, this is the post-apostolic period. So isn't this in the era of the "great apostasy?" 

The "great apostasy" didn't happen overnight.  Even though the organization of Christ’s church and loss of priesthood keys was nearly immediate upon the extinction of the quorum of apostles, the loss of some truths and changes in doctrines were gradual.  Some of the changes happened over a long period of time, even centuries and millennia.  And not every truth was lost completely.  But because changes in doctrine happened gradually, you can hopefully see why the earliest teachings of the Christian Fathers, those closest to Jesus and the apostles, should give us the best picture of what the New Testament Christians really taught and how they interpreted scripture.

Related to your statement about doing more reading, one study that you might find interesting that is related to the Jewish point of view on this topic is Peter Hayman's 1991 Journal of Jewish Studies article, Monotheism-A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?.  And Daniel McClellan, who posts on this board, explores that same topic further in this article:  Monotheism—Still a Misused Word in Jewish Studies?

13 hours ago, Eschaton said:

Yes, from about the third century BCE resurrection became a part of Judaism, at least among some factions. For more traditional factions like the Sadducees, there was no resurrection. 

I quoted the Jewish view from Psalms 37.  What date do scholars assign to that text?  Is it earlier than the third century BCE?  The latest date I could find for the writing of this psalm is 539 BCE (during the Babylon captivity). 

Edited by InCognitus
Link to comment
On 12/23/2022 at 11:41 AM, Calm said:

I don’t think being in the general ballpark type of knowledge will be enough to be one with God. We have to open ourselves up completely and laid ourselves on the altar, as exposed as one can be. If he asks that of us, wouldn’t it be likely he is doing the same for us?

 I have forgotten the Hebrew word but there is a word translated as "knowing" someone or something that includes this kind of interpretation.  Other languages have equivalent words as well but English does not; and so when it is translated into English it kind of doesn't make sense to say that a married couple "know" (in this sense) each other, resulting in pregnancy 

In English one might thing "Well I HOPE they know each other! " as if they are strangers until married.   Of course in the sense you use it above, the use of "know" becomes something wonderful, and quite different from the conventional definition of "know"

Maybe one of our scholars could help us out or someone with more ambition than I have at the moment to look it up.  ;)

 

Link to comment
On 12/23/2022 at 2:58 PM, manol said:

"Could you gaze into heaven five minutes, you would know more than you would by reading all that ever was written on the subject." - Joseph Smith

Proving that Joseph Smith was a student of Rorty.   Oh wait- I mean that Rorty was a Mormon.  Oh wait.... it means I am right about everything. ;)

Reality is direct experience, and words cannot represent direct experience.  It is as ineffible to describe direct experience as it is for a blind person to fully grok color.

So everybody stop writing stuff and just go meditate.  😱

Link to comment
12 hours ago, InCognitus said:

If Jesus is the "special case" (as coming to be God), then why do those verses that I referenced in my post state that believers will receive the same glory and same position on God's throne as Jesus did?  Jesus is the "special case" in the sense that he prepared the way:  His atonement and his example made it possible for everyone who follows him to receive the same things that he did.  That's what's included in being a "heirs of God and joint heirs with Jesus Christ":  They sit with God in his throne, in the same way Jesus overcame and sits with God in his throne (paraphrasing Revelation 3:21) and receiving the same "glory" that Jesus received from his Father (as it says in John 17:20-23).  

What makes you think "joint heirs" with Jesus means they will be turned into Gods? You have to add information that simply isn't there to come to that conclusion. 

 

12 hours ago, InCognitus said:

But this isn't new stuff.  As mentioned earlier in this thread, the Old Testament refers to God as the "God of gods, and Lord of lords" (Deut 10:17). 

Yes, this is because most of the Hebrew Bible is henotheistic at best - YHWH being the supreme God among a pantheon of other gods that they thought really existed. 

 

12 hours ago, InCognitus said:

The early Christians understood verses like this one to be applicable to the teaching that men become gods and that those other gods are actually existing beings (not false gods). 

Some second century Christians certainly believed in theosis, but it's still unclear to me what they thought that meant. 

12 hours ago, InCognitus said:

 

 The same is true of Paul's statement about there being "gods many, and lords many" in 1 Corinthians 8:4-6. 

Paul isn't talking about humans becoming gods, he's acknowledging the existence of gods of other religions. For Paul they were real beings, but not to be worshiped. 

 

12 hours ago, InCognitus said:

See for example Origen:

  • "For Scripture distinguishes between those gods which are such only in name and those which are truly gods, whether they are called by that name or not; and the same is true in regard to the use of the word 'lords.' To this effect Paul says, 'For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, as there are gods many, and lords many.'"  (Origen, Against Celsus, book 8.3-5)
  • "There are some gods of whom God is God, as we hear in prophecy,[Psalms 136:2] 'Thank ye the God of gods,' and [Psalms 50:1, LXX and in the Hebrew] 'The God of gods hath spoken, and called the earth.' Now God, according to the Gospel, [Matt 20:2] 'is not the God of the dead but of the living.' Those gods, then, are living of whom God is god. The Apostle, too, writing to the Corinthians, says: [1 Cor 8:5] 'As there are gods many and lords many,' and so we have spoken of these gods as really existing."  (Origen's Commentary on John, book 1 chapter 34, verse references added)

And Irenaeus:  

  • "And again: 'God stood in the congregation of the gods, He judges among the gods.' He [here] refers to the Father and the Son, and those who have received the adoption; but these are the Church. For she is the synagogue of God, which God—that is, the Son Himself—has gathered by Himself. Of whom He again speaks: 'The God of gods, the Lord hath spoken, and hath called the earth.' Who is meant by God? He of whom He has said, 'God shall come openly, our God, and shall not keep silence;' that is, the Son, who came manifested to men who said, 'I have openly appeared to those who seek Me not.' But of what gods [does he speak]? [Of those] to whom He says, 'I have said, Ye are gods, and all sons of the Most High.' To those, no doubt, who have received the grace of the 'adoption, by which we cry, Abba Father.'”  (Irenaeus, Against Heresies, Book III Ch. 6–6)

The "great apostasy" didn't happen overnight.  Even though the organization of Christ’s church and loss of priesthood keys was nearly immediate upon the extinction of the quorum of apostles, the loss of some truths and changes in doctrines were gradual.  Some of the changes happened over a long period of time, even centuries and millennia.  And not every truth was lost completely.  But because changes in doctrine happened gradually, you can hopefully see why the earliest teachings of the Christian Fathers, those closest to Jesus and the apostles, should give us the best picture of what the New Testament Christians really taught and how they interpreted scripture.

Related to your statement about doing more reading, one study that you might find interesting that is related to the Jewish point of view on this topic is Peter Hayman's 1991 Journal of Jewish Studies article, Monotheism-A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?.  And Daniel McClellan, who posts on this board, explores that same topic further in this article:  Monotheism—Still a Misused Word in Jewish Studies?

I quoted the Jewish view from Psalms 37.  What date do scholars assign to that text?  Is it earlier than the third century BCE?  The latest date I could find for the writing of this psalm is 539 BCE (during the Babylon captivity). 

But we don't see actual theosis in the first century, during the apostolic period. So new doctrines cropping up after the apostolic period would have to be apostate, wouldn't they? At least under the umbrella of the idea of the "Great Apostasy." 

Regarding monotheism, like I said, the Hebrew Bible is largely henotheistic.  Psalms are some of the oldest texts in the Bible, and they too show evidence of early polytheism and henotheism. Israelites once worshiped multiple gods, and even after some of them started advocating for worship of YHWH only, the belief in other gods persisted. 

I'll add that there is some Jewish divinization too - ancient human figures who were carried up to heaven were made into divine beings (divine in some sense, anyway). By definition heaven was the realm of divine beings only.  Sheol was the place for most humans, good and evil alike. 

Edited by Eschaton
Link to comment
1 hour ago, Eschaton said:

What makes you think "joint heirs" with Jesus means they will be turned into Gods? You have to add information that simply isn't there to come to that conclusion. 

You were asserting that Jesus was a "special case" when it came to being exalted.  That's obviously not true for all who are "joint heirs" with him.  What do you think God's throne represents?  What do you think it means to become "partakers of the divine nature"?  What do you think it means to receive the same "glory" that God gave to Jesus in the beginning?  What do you think it means when believers get to sit with God in his throne and rule with him in the same way Jesus sits in the throne of his Father?

1 hour ago, Eschaton said:

Yes, this is because most of the Hebrew Bible is henotheistic at best - YHWH being the supreme God among a pantheon of other gods that they thought really existed. 

They did really exist.  There was a divine council in heaven.  And the early Christians taught that those who follow Jesus get to join in the divine council.

1 hour ago, Eschaton said:

Paul isn't talking about humans becoming gods, he's acknowledging the existence of gods of other religions. For Paul they were real beings, but not to be worshiped. 

Paul wasn't acknowledging the existence of gods of other religions, he was simply acknowledging the existence of other gods.   The early Christians recognized this, and taught that those who follow Jesus become part of that.

1 hour ago, Eschaton said:

But we don't see actual theosis in the first century, during the apostolic period.

Except that men become exalted along with Jesus and receive the same glory that Jesus received, partake of the divine nature and sit with Jesus on God's throne.

1 hour ago, Eschaton said:

So new doctrines cropping up after the apostolic period would have to be apostate, wouldn't they? At least under the umbrella of the idea of the "Great Apostasy." 

They were among the earliest Christians who taught those things (Justin Martyr taught it, and he lived around 150 AD).  The doctrine was widespread out of the gate.  Where did they get the doctrine other than from the apostles?   The doctrine was early, and then it became unpopular after other changes were made (like those made at the First Council of Nicaea).  

This is different than other doctrinal changes that can be traced over time, doctrines that clearly didn't exist at first (the opposite was taught) but sprang up later, like the doctrine of creation out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo, which was first introduced at around 177 AD by Tatian and Theophilus of Antioch, and later adopted in Judaism - see Hubler, James Noel, "Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy Through Aquinas" (1995). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 980. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/980)

1 hour ago, Eschaton said:

Sheol was the place for most humans, good and evil alike. 

So what about those who inherit the earth in Psalm 37?  

Edited by InCognitus
Link to comment
2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

You were asserting that Jesus was a "special case" when it came to being exalted. 

Yes, by being raised from the dead and taken to heaven, Jesus was declared to be the Son of God. 

 

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

That's obviously not true for all who are "joint heirs" with him.  What do you think God's throne represents?  What do you think it means to become "partakers of the divine nature"?  What do you think it means to receive the same "glory" that God gave to Jesus in the beginning?  What do you think it means when believers get to sit with God in his throne and rule with him in the same way Jesus sits in the throne of his Father?

I've seen no evidence that any New Testament writers believed that Christians would gain equal status with Jesus in the coming kingdom. Partakers of the Divine Nature is explained in-text: "Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires."

Paul thought that humans would be raised with a kind of wind-body - a non-corporeal (but technically physical) body that would be made of divine stuff. But that doesn't make human beings into Gods. 

 

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

They did really exist.  There was a divine council in heaven. 

The divine council comes from Canaanite and other near-eastern religion - which originally consisted of the gods El, Baal, Dagon, Moloch, Asherah, and so forth. Whether or not they are "real" is a matter of individual faith. 

 

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

And the early Christians taught that those who follow Jesus get to join in the divine council.

What passage are you referring to? 

 

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Paul wasn't acknowledging the existence of gods of other religions, he was simply acknowledging the existence of other gods.   The early Christians recognized this, and taught that those who follow Jesus become part of that.

Paul's time and place point to his belief in the existence of the gods of other religious. Paul lived and died before the doctrine of theosis became a part of Christianity. 

 

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

Except that men become exalted along with Jesus and receive the same glory that Jesus received, partake of the divine nature and sit with Jesus on God's throne.

So, like angels? 

 

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

They were among the earliest Christians who taught those things (Justin Martyr taught it, and he lived around 150 AD).  The doctrine was widespread out of the gate.  Where did they get the doctrine other than from the apostles?   The doctrine was early, and then it became unpopular after other changes were made (like those made at the First Council of Nicaea).  

The second century was a time of rapid change to Christian doctrine - and increasing hellenization. 

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

This is different than other doctrinal changes that can be traced over time, doctrines that clearly didn't exist at first (the opposite was taught) but sprang up later, like the doctrine of creation out of nothing (creatio ex nihilo, which was first introduced at around 177 AD by Tatian and Theophilus of Antioch, and later adopted in Judaism - see Hubler, James Noel, "Creatio ex Nihilo: Matter, Creation, and the Body in Classical and Christian Philosophy Through Aquinas" (1995). Publicly Accessible Penn Dissertations. 980. https://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/980)

Similarly, the doctrine of theosis did not exist in first century Christian thought. 

 

2 hours ago, InCognitus said:

So what about those who inherit the earth in Psalm 37?  

This is very typical "traditional" Jewish thought:

 

Refrain from anger and turn from wrath;
    do not fret—it leads only to evil.
For those who are evil will be destroyed,
    but those who hope in the Lord will inherit the land.

10 A little while, and the wicked will be no more;
    though you look for them, they will not be found.
11 But the meek will inherit the land
    and enjoy peace and prosperity.

 

God blesses the righteous with land and prosperity. The wicked are killed off early. The righteous will die too, and wind up in Sheol (the grave) but they'll live good, prosperous lives and their children will take their place. No one was going to heaven or hell - God's salvation meant prosperity and safety. It had nothing to do with an afterlife at first. It was only when it became apparent that even the righteous could be cursed and afflicted for following God that "salvation" was spiritualized and put off to the "next life." That's what kicks off the tradition of apocalypticism and cosmic dualism. From that thread of apocalypticism comes the Christian movement, a few centuries later. 

Edited by Eschaton
Link to comment
17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Official doctrine is that two are made of flesh and bones but the Holy Ghost is still disembodied and a spirit.  So how and why do you differ with that?

My first experience (that I can remember) of failing to gain a testimony of something after trying very hard was on the subject of God having a body of flesh and bone. This was on my mission, an investigator had disputed our teachings on the subject, and I had weakly testified to him that God has a body of flesh and bone when such was actually only an assumption on my part – it wasn't something I really had an independent testimony of. I think this was the first and last time I lied about having a personal testimony of something, and it felt icky even though it was "for a good cause". Anyway I then resolved to gain a testimony of God having a body of flesh and bone so that next time I could testify honestly, and when that didn't work, I decided to stick with just accepting that particular LDS doctrine as part of the package deal. I didn't outright dis-believe it, but it was not something I was willing to claim that I "knew". I mention this as it pertains to the "why" part of your question.

After my mission books on near-death experiences started showing up in the bookstores and I started reading them, as I was interested in eye-witness accounts of what's on the other side. Briefly, there were people who described encounters with God, but unfortunately I didn't come across any confirming the LDS doctrine of God having a body of flesh and bone. Of course there could be multiple explanations for this.

Such accounts were virtually unknown just a few decades ago but are now readily accessible to anyone via YouTube. Here is a link cued up to a brief account of experiencing God, with several others following in the same compilation video if this sort of thing interests you:

https://youtu.be/IYhYhyenAWE?t=311

Now I do not claim to have distilled a coherent theology from these accounts and other sources I consider credible. My point is simply that the testimonials of those who have “gazed into heaven for five minutes” are arguably particularly useful pieces of the puzzle.

My current opinion is that God is not subject to the spatial and temporal limitations implied by the LDS doctrine of God being in a body of flesh and bone. By way of analogy, perhaps God is like a photograph consisting of trillions of pixels, and at best most of us only have information about what some of those pixels are.

In my opinion the LDS concept of God as an exalted man is still quite useful, but I do not think it constitutes “knowing God”. I am much more interested in God's personality than in God's appearance.  I prefer a connection WITH God which has a very slow download speed over an encyclopedia ABOUT God.

I have a working theory of what Christ is, and it emphasizes different things than the LDS paradigm does. I prefer to keep the details to myself, but imo God and Christ are in much closer proximity to us right here and right now than the LDS paradigm implies.

My concept of the Holy Spirit is very much in flux. (Not that this is a big deal, but having given it a bit of thought I prefer the word “Spirit” rather than “Ghost”.) Perhaps there is a Vine of which we are the branches, and perhaps the Holy Spirit is that aspect of each branch which is Vine. Or perhaps there is a spiritual internet of all things holy, and the Holy Spirit is a being or collective who functions as the Server hosting it. In any case, ime we “log in” by aligning/attuning our consciousness to a compatible spiritual energy condition.

Regarding our relationship to the Godhead, I think that is deliberately obscured by the Veil. My opinion is that our separation from God (and from each other), which appears so obviously self-evident here on earth, is not the complete picture.

Edited by manol
Link to comment
On 12/28/2022 at 12:35 PM, Eschaton said:
On 12/28/2022 at 10:14 AM, InCognitus said:

You were asserting that Jesus was a "special case" when it came to being exalted. 

Yes, by being raised from the dead and taken to heaven, Jesus was declared to be the Son of God. 

Jesus is the "special case" in several ways, including the fact that he atoned for the sins of all men (1 John 2:2).

But Jesus is the "first" in other things, such as:

  • He is the "firstbegotten" of the Father (Hebrews 1:6)
  • He is the "firstfruits" of the resurrection (1 Cor 15:20, 23), the "firstborn from the dead" (Col 1:18).
  • He was "exalted" and sits at the right hand of God on his throne (Acts 2:33, Hebrews 12:2)

But by being the "first" in these things, it means that others may follow.   That goes for everything you listed for Jesus as the "special case":  Being raised form the dead, taken to heaven, being declared as a son of God:

  • Through Jesus, those who receive him shall become the sons of God (John 1:12).  They are "conformed to the image of his [God's] Son, that he [Jesus] might be the firstborn among many brethren". (Romans 8:29)
  • Through Jesus, he "shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body" (Phil 3:21)
  • Through Jesus, those who overcome will sit with God in his throne, the same way Jesus sits in God's throne (Revelation 3:21)

So the things you say for Jesus that are a "special case" really aren't a special case in the long run.

On 12/28/2022 at 12:35 PM, Eschaton said:

I've seen no evidence that any New Testament writers believed that Christians would gain equal status with Jesus in the coming kingdom.

  • "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one" (John 17:22).  They receive the same "glory" that Jesus received from the Father in the beginning (noted in John 17:5)
  • He "shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body" (Phil 3:21).  Same kind of resurrected body of flesh and bone as Jesus had when he was resurrected.
  • They are God's "children", and "if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together."  (Romans 8:16-17).  A "joint-heir" inherits equally, they have the same inheritance.  And this verse also indicates that they have the same glorification.
  • "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 3:21)  They sit on the same throne of God as Jesus.

This is clear evidence that these believers are put on equal status with Jesus in the coming kingdom.  They have the same glory, the same kind of resurrected body, the same inheritance, the same glorification, and sit on the same throne, the throne of God.

You didn't answered my question about the symbolism of sitting with God in his throne.  What do you think it means when believers get to sit with God in his throne and rule with him in the same way Jesus sits in the throne of his Father?

You also didn't answer my question about believers receiving the same "glory" that Jesus received from his Father.  What do you think it means to receive the same "glory" that God gave to Jesus in the beginning? 

On 12/28/2022 at 12:35 PM, Eschaton said:

Partakers of the Divine Nature is explained in-text: "Through these he has given us his very great and precious promises, so that through them you may participate in the divine nature, having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires."

No, "having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires" is what it means to "overcome the world".  This verse is saying that those who overcome are the ones who get to receive the very great and precious promises of partaking of the divine nature.  They may partake of the divine nature because they have escaped the corruption of the world caused by evil desires.

On 12/28/2022 at 12:35 PM, Eschaton said:

Paul thought that humans would be raised with a kind of wind-body - a non-corporeal (but technically physical) body that would be made of divine stuff.

It is incorrect to interpret "spiritual body" as non-corporeal.  That's a quirky interpretation that came up later.  The phrase "spiritual body" doesn't mean spirit body, but rather it is influenced by the Spirit.  We may sing "spiritual songs" (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16), we may receive "spiritual blessings" (Ephesians 1:3), or we may receive "spiritual understanding" (Colossians 1:9), none of which mean that we are no longer corporeal when doing these things.   But all of these things are by participating in the Spirit.  

A "spiritual body" is one raised up by the Spirit.  Paul explained elsewhere that when we are raised from the dead, it is done by the Spirit:  "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you."  (Rom 8:11)  And that is what is meant by "spiritual body".

That the resurrected body is corporeal is also indicated when Paul taught that it will be the same kind of body as that of Jesus Christ in Philippians 3:21.

On 12/28/2022 at 12:35 PM, Eschaton said:

But that doesn't make human beings into Gods. 

It makes human beings into having the same glory, same kind of body, the same inheritance, the same glorification, and same position of power on the throne of God as Jesus Christ.  What do you think that means?

On 12/28/2022 at 12:35 PM, Eschaton said:

The divine council comes from Canaanite and other near-eastern religion - which originally consisted of the gods El, Baal, Dagon, Moloch, Asherah, and so forth. Whether or not they are "real" is a matter of individual faith. 

That's why I linked the Wikipedia article in my post that says that.  But the same article also describes the Hebrew/Israelite view of Yahweh presiding over a great assembly of Heavenly Hosts.  

On 12/28/2022 at 12:35 PM, Eschaton said:
On 12/28/2022 at 10:14 AM, InCognitus said:

And the early Christians taught that those who follow Jesus get to join in the divine council.

What passage are you referring to? 

The quotes from the early Christians I provided earlier when speaking of God as the "God of gods".

On 12/28/2022 at 12:35 PM, Eschaton said:

Paul's time and place point to his belief in the existence of the gods of other religious. Paul lived and died before the doctrine of theosis became a part of Christianity. 

What proof do you have that Paul lived and died before the doctrine of theosis became part of Christianity?   From what I noted above, he was right on board with showing the equality with Jesus that humans will share in the time to come.

On 12/28/2022 at 12:35 PM, Eschaton said:
On 12/28/2022 at 10:14 AM, InCognitus said:

Except that men become exalted along with Jesus and receive the same glory that Jesus received, partake of the divine nature and sit with Jesus on God's throne.

So, like angels? 

No.  Angels are ministers to those who are heirs of salvation (Hebrews 1:13-14).  But the heirs of salvation are joint-heirs with Christ, equal with him.

On 12/28/2022 at 12:35 PM, Eschaton said:

The second century was a time of rapid change to Christian doctrine - and increasing hellenization.

Yes, which is why I posted the link describing the introduction of the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo in my prior posts.  The changes that were made pushed humans and God further apart, while Jesus in the New Testament brought humans and God together in the same family as God.

On 12/28/2022 at 12:35 PM, Eschaton said:

Similarly, the doctrine of theosis did not exist in first century Christian thought.

This is according to your interpretation.  I disagree.

On 12/28/2022 at 12:35 PM, Eschaton said:

This is very typical "traditional" Jewish thought:

 

Refrain from anger and turn from wrath;
    do not fret—it leads only to evil.
For those who are evil will be destroyed,
    but those who hope in the Lord will inherit the land.

10 A little while, and the wicked will be no more;
    though you look for them, they will not be found.
11 But the meek will inherit the land
    and enjoy peace and prosperity.

You forgot to include the part where the saints are preserved forever (verse 28) and the righteous dwell in the land forever (verse 29).

On 12/28/2022 at 12:35 PM, Eschaton said:

God blesses the righteous with land and prosperity. The wicked are killed off early. The righteous will die too, and wind up in Sheol (the grave) but they'll live good, prosperous lives and their children will take their place. No one was going to heaven or hell

Except Sheol is the same place as the New Testament Hades, which is translated as "hell".  

And they did live again:  "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead." (Isaiah 26:19)

And as I said previously, the goal of the righteous is not heaven, not even in the New Testament.  

Edited by InCognitus
Link to comment
On 1/1/2023 at 9:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Jesus is the "special case" in several ways, including the fact that he atoned for the sins of all men (1 John 2:2).

But Jesus is the "first" in other things, such as:

  • He is the "firstbegotten" of the Father (Hebrews 1:6)
  • He is the "firstfruits" of the resurrection (1 Cor 15:20, 23), the "firstborn from the dead" (Col 1:18).
  • He was "exalted" and sits at the right hand of God on his throne (Acts 2:33, Hebrews 12:2)

But by being the "first" in these things, it means that others may follow.   That goes for everything you listed for Jesus as the "special case":  Being raised form the dead, taken to heaven, being declared as a son of God:

  • Through Jesus, those who receive him shall become the sons of God (John 1:12).  They are "conformed to the image of his [God's] Son, that he [Jesus] might be the firstborn among many brethren". (Romans 8:29)
  • Through Jesus, he "shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body" (Phil 3:21)
  • Through Jesus, those who overcome will sit with God in his throne, the same way Jesus sits in God's throne (Revelation 3:21)

So the things you say for Jesus that are a "special case" really aren't a special case in the long run.

Only Jesus was made into a God. Christians were said to follow Jesus in being resurrected and also in gaining what Paul called a "spirit" or "wind" body. In other words, a body not made of flesh, bones or blood. Of course Luke, in an attempt to stick it to the Marcionites, changes that to Jesus having quite a tangible human-like body. But in any case, the followers of Jesus are glorified, but still aren't in the same status as Jesus - after all, no one was worshiping Peter or Paul. They were worshiping Jesus. 

 

On 1/1/2023 at 9:30 PM, InCognitus said:
  • "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one" (John 17:22).  They receive the same "glory" that Jesus received from the Father in the beginning (noted in John 17:5)
  • He "shall change our vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body" (Phil 3:21).  Same kind of resurrected body of flesh and bone as Jesus had when he was resurrected.
  • They are God's "children", and "if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together."  (Romans 8:16-17).  A "joint-heir" inherits equally, they have the same inheritance.  And this verse also indicates that they have the same glorification.
  • "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 3:21)  They sit on the same throne of God as Jesus.

This is clear evidence that these believers are put on equal status with Jesus in the coming kingdom.  They have the same glory, the same kind of resurrected body, the same inheritance, the same glorification, and sit on the same throne, the throne of God.

This is evidence that believers promised each other that they would gain glory in exchange for their sacrifices, not that they would be identical with Jesus as literal gods. 

 

On 1/1/2023 at 9:30 PM, InCognitus said:

You didn't answered my question about the symbolism of sitting with God in his throne.  What do you think it means when believers get to sit with God in his throne and rule with him in the same way Jesus sits in the throne of his Father?

This seems to start with promises made to the apostles - they would sit on thrones and judge the nations. They would have power over others - but that doesn't make them gods. 

 

On 1/1/2023 at 9:30 PM, InCognitus said:

You also didn't answer my question about believers receiving the same "glory" that Jesus received from his Father.  What do you think it means to receive the same "glory" that God gave to Jesus in the beginning? 

It can mean a lot of things - resurrection with a new heavenly body, and being saved from a sinful human nature. 

 

On 1/1/2023 at 9:30 PM, InCognitus said:

No, "having escaped the corruption in the world caused by evil desires" is what it means to "overcome the world".  This verse is saying that those who overcome are the ones who get to receive the very great and precious promises of partaking of the divine nature.  They may partake of the divine nature because they have escaped the corruption of the world caused by evil desires.

That's not actually what it says - you've inserted the "because" there where it didn't exist in the text. 

 

On 1/1/2023 at 9:30 PM, InCognitus said:

It is incorrect to interpret "spiritual body" as non-corporeal.  That's a quirky interpretation that came up later.  The phrase "spiritual body" doesn't mean spirit body, but rather it is influenced by the Spirit.  We may sing "spiritual songs" (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16), we may receive "spiritual blessings" (Ephesians 1:3), or we may receive "spiritual understanding" (Colossians 1:9), none of which mean that we are no longer corporeal when doing these things.   But all of these things are by participating in the Spirit.  

It's technically physical because no one in the ancient world understood "spirit" to be completely immaterial. But it was a body of wind or air or breath - a non-tangible and invisible body that you couldn't actually touch with your hands. That's what Paul believed - the author of Luke had a very different idea. 

 

On 1/1/2023 at 9:30 PM, InCognitus said:

A "spiritual body" is one raised up by the Spirit.  Paul explained elsewhere that when we are raised from the dead, it is done by the Spirit:  "But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you."  (Rom 8:11)  And that is what is meant by "spiritual body".

Paul said that the "wind body" (literal translation), will rise up from the old physical body like a plant from a seed. He says flesh and blood can't inherit the kingdom. Paul is a good Platonist in that way. 

 

On 1/1/2023 at 9:30 PM, InCognitus said:

That the resurrected body is corporeal is also indicated when Paul taught that it will be the same kind of body as that of Jesus Christ in Philippians 3:21.

This indicates that Paul also thought Jesus had a body made of wind or air. 

 

On 1/1/2023 at 9:30 PM, InCognitus said:

What proof do you have that Paul lived and died before the doctrine of theosis became part of Christianity?   From what I noted above, he was right on board with showing the equality with Jesus that humans will share in the time to come.

Because the doctrine of theosis starts with the early Christian fathers, writing from the second century. Paul died in the first century, decades before theosis was created as a Christian doctrine. 

 

On 1/1/2023 at 9:30 PM, InCognitus said:

No.  Angels are ministers to those who are heirs of salvation (Hebrews 1:13-14).  But the heirs of salvation are joint-heirs with Christ, equal with him.

Let's not make the error of assuming the New Testament has univocality on any topic. You haven't referenced Hebrews even as a candidate for a source for theosis. 

 

On 1/1/2023 at 9:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Yes, which is why I posted the link describing the introduction of the doctrine of creation ex-nihilo in my prior posts.  The changes that were made pushed humans and God further apart, while Jesus in the New Testament brought humans and God together in the same family as God.

This is according to your interpretation.  I disagree.

If we go all the way back to the Jesus of history, Jesus has a much more modest future for humanity in mind. They aren't divine, they live forever on the earth and they are well fed. That's it - no going to heaven, no sitting on divine thrones. It's all very earth-bound in Jesus' mind. The 2nd century theosis doctrine seems to be building on the increasingly elaborate rewards envisioned by later first century Christian writers. But still we see no clear evidence that any first century writer believed in the doctrine of theosis. 

 

On 1/1/2023 at 9:30 PM, InCognitus said:

You forgot to include the part where the saints are preserved forever (verse 28) and the righteous dwell in the land forever (verse 29).

Yes, the context is that the nation of Isreal will continue dwelling in the land forever. It doesn't say or imply than any individual will become immortal - ancient Israelites didn't believe in that. 

 

Turn from evil and do good;
    then you will dwell in the land forever.
28 For the Lord loves the just
    and will not forsake his faithful ones.

Wrongdoers will be completely destroyed[c];
    the offspring of the wicked will perish.
29 The righteous will inherit the land
    and dwell in it forever.

 

On 1/1/2023 at 9:30 PM, InCognitus said:

Except Sheol is the same place as the New Testament Hades, which is translated as "hell".  

It's mistranslated as hell. Hell as a concept came much later. It means "the grave."  In our oldest Biblical sources it is meant quite literally as just the grave. Over time it takes on connotations of the underworld, similar to Greek ideas - but it's not anything like the Christian hell, which doesn't really find form until the second century CE. 

 

On 1/1/2023 at 9:30 PM, InCognitus said:

And they did live again:  "Thy dead men shall live, together with my dead body shall they arise. Awake and sing, ye that dwell in dust: for thy dew is as the dew of herbs, and the earth shall cast out the dead." (Isaiah 26:19)

And as I said previously, the goal of the righteous is not heaven, not even in the New Testament.  

My understand that most scholars read this as a poetic passage, not intended to refer to a literal resurrection.

I should note that what we find in the OT and what was actually practiced and believed by common ancient Israelites is not always the same thing. For instance, ancient Israelites often provided food and water for their dead family members, similar to the ancient Egyptians. Presumably this was to make their dwelling in the underworld more comfortable. But most OT writers have very little interest in the concept of an afterlife, indicating a disconnect between the educated elite who wrote scripture and the uneducated common people. We see the same disconnect on the issue of polytheistic worship. 

Link to comment
On 12/22/2022 at 12:51 PM, teddyaware said:

16 The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

17 And if children, then heirs  of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. (Romans 8)

And…

Does "if children, then joint-heirs" mean "if children, then exaltation" to you?

Link to comment
On 12/22/2022 at 9:42 PM, InCognitus said:

So you don't agree with the early Christians teachings on this.   Why do you suppose that the earliest Christians (those who lived closest to the time of Jesus and the apostles) taught that men become gods, but most Christians today don't teach those things anymore?

If the early Christian teachings don't agree with the Bible, I don't believe it.

 

On 12/22/2022 at 9:42 PM, InCognitus said:

What scripture says this about Jesus?  And don't quote the "from everlasting to everlasting" verses.  We've already discussed that "from everlasting" can't possibly mean from all eternity past

I believe God from eternity to eternity is the same as God from everlasting to everlasting.  That is why
I don't believe Joseph Smith's Heavenly Father (a man who became a God) is "God from everlasting to
everlasting" or "God from eternity to eternity".

 

On 12/22/2022 at 9:42 PM, InCognitus said:

They taught that men become "gods", or even "God" (as my prior quotes showed).  They taught that there are many "gods".   Do you dispute that they taught those things?  Or do you just disagree with what they taught?

I believe the gods of Psalms 82 are corrupt human judges. Even Moses and Satan are referred to a "god"
but they are not deities.

Edited by theplains
Link to comment
On 1/3/2023 at 1:02 PM, Eschaton said:

Only Jesus was made into a God.

What verse says that?

On 1/3/2023 at 1:02 PM, Eschaton said:

Christians were said to follow Jesus in being resurrected and also in gaining what Paul called a "spirit" or "wind" body. In other words, a body not made of flesh, bones or blood. Of course Luke, in an attempt to stick it to the Marcionites, changes that to Jesus having quite a tangible human-like body.

Do you have any evidence that Luke "changed" that in an attempt to "stick it to the Marcionites"?  The Marcionites didn't exist when Luke wrote his gospel.  Or is that supposed to be a joke?  (I'm guessing that's supposed to be a joke).

On 1/3/2023 at 1:02 PM, Eschaton said:

But in any case, the followers of Jesus are glorified, but still aren't in the same status as Jesus - after all, no one was worshiping Peter or Paul. They were worshiping Jesus. 

Peter and Paul hadn't died and been resurrected and overcome the world at that time.  So of course no one was worshiping them at that time. 

But Jesus did say that those who keep his word and have not denied his name will have others bow down to worship them (see Revelation 3:8-9).  

On 1/3/2023 at 1:02 PM, Eschaton said:

This is evidence that believers promised each other that they would gain glory in exchange for their sacrifices, not that they would be identical with Jesus as literal gods. 

"Believers promised each other"?  They receive the same identical "glory" as Jesus.  They receive the same identical kind of resurrected body as Jesus.  They receive the same identical inheritance as Jesus.  They sit on the same identical throne as Jesus.  And you think this means they would not be in the identical position as Jesus?  What's the difference?

On 1/3/2023 at 1:02 PM, Eschaton said:
On 1/1/2023 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

You didn't answered my question about the symbolism of sitting with God in his throne.  What do you think it means when believers get to sit with God in his throne and rule with him in the same way Jesus sits in the throne of his Father?

This seems to start with promises made to the apostles - they would sit on thrones and judge the nations. They would have power over others - but that doesn't make them gods. 

It's not just sitting on any old throne to judge the nations, like Jesus told the apostles.  Those who overcome will sit with God and Jesus in his throne.  It's the very same identical throne that God sits on.  What does God's throne represent, if not his position as God?  You keep side stepping that it's the very same identical throne that Jesus sits on with his Father.  You keep trying to make this into something else than what it says.  

On 1/3/2023 at 1:02 PM, Eschaton said:
On 1/1/2023 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

You also didn't answer my question about believers receiving the same "glory" that Jesus received from his Father.  What do you think it means to receive the same "glory" that God gave to Jesus in the beginning? 

It can mean a lot of things - resurrection with a new heavenly body, and being saved from a sinful human nature. 

It can't possibly mean what you say here.  Here's why:   "And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was." (John 17:5)  "And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:  I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me." (John 17:22–23)

This is the same identical glory that was given to Jesus "before the world was".  So how could this possibly be a resurrection with a new heavenly body and being saved from a sinful human nature?  It certainly didn't mean that for Jesus.  What was Jesus "before the world was"?

When I said:

On 1/1/2023 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

It is incorrect to interpret "spiritual body" as non-corporeal.  That's a quirky interpretation that came up later.  The phrase "spiritual body" doesn't mean spirit body, but rather it is influenced by the Spirit.  We may sing "spiritual songs" (Ephesians 5:19, Colossians 3:16), we may receive "spiritual blessings" (Ephesians 1:3), or we may receive "spiritual understanding" (Colossians 1:9), none of which mean that we are no longer corporeal when doing these things.   But all of these things are by participating in the Spirit.  

You responded:

On 1/3/2023 at 1:02 PM, Eschaton said:

It's technically physical because no one in the ancient world understood "spirit" to be completely immaterial. But it was a body of wind or air or breath - a non-tangible and invisible body that you couldn't actually touch with your hands. That's what Paul believed - the author of Luke had a very different idea. 

Paul spoke of "spiritual understanding" (Colossians 1:9), and "spiritual blessings" (Ephesians 1:3), are you really suggesting that Paul meant air or wind understanding and air or wind blessings?  What evidence do you have that Paul took the word literally and really meant your interpretation of a "spiritual body" as a body of wind or air or breath, instead of a body made alive by the spirit, as he says in Romans 8:11?   Do you believe Paul thought the Holy Spirit was the "holy wind or air"?  Or that "spiritual understanding" or "spiritual blessings" can't be had in a physical body?   The Greek words pneumatos and pneumatikon can have the meaning of air or wind, but the word pneumatikon also means, "of that which belongs to or is actuated by" either the human spirit or the Divine Spirit.  Even if we take your interpretation as "air or wind", it's still a physical body of flesh and bone that is influenced or actuated by the "air or wind" (if you want to have it that way).  

You say Paul "believed" this but you have no evidence of that other than your literal interpretation of the word.  And there are plenty of Greek speaking people from that era that understood Paul to be talking about a resurrected body of flesh that is made alive by the spirit.

On 1/3/2023 at 1:02 PM, Eschaton said:

Paul said that the "wind body" (literal translation), will rise up from the old physical body like a plant from a seed. He says flesh and blood can't inherit the kingdom. Paul is a good Platonist in that way.

You literally can't take everything literally.  A literal translation is not always the right translation.  And "Flesh and blood" refers to the unregenerate man (Matthew 16:17). 

I really like the response of Irenaeus to this claim you make (it's kind of funny, actually), for he explains Paul's meaning quite well.  I'm only going to quote the first part here, you'll need to read the rest in the link:

Quote

Chapter IX.

Showing how that passage of the apostle which the heretics pervert, should be understood; viz., “Flesh and blood shall not possess the kingdom of God.”

1. Among the other [truths] proclaimed by the apostle, there is also this one, “That flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God.” This is [the passage] which is adduced by all the heretics in support of their folly, with an attempt to annoy us, and to point out that the handiwork of God is not saved. They do not take this fact into consideration, that there are three things out of which, as I have shown, the complete man is composed —flesh, soul, and spirit. One of these does indeed preserve and fashion [the man]—this is the spirit; while as to another it is united and formed—that is the flesh; then [comes] that which is between these two—that is the soul, which sometimes indeed, when it follows the spirit, is raised up by it, but sometimes it sympathizes with the flesh, and falls into carnal lusts. Those then, as many as they be, who have not that which saves and forms [us] into life [eternal], shall be, and shall be called, [mere] flesh and blood; for these are they who have not the Spirit of God in themselves. Wherefore men of this stamp are spoken of by the Lord as “dead;” for, says He, “Let the dead bury their dead,” because they have not the Spirit which quickens man.

(Against Heresies (Book V, Chapter 9)

There is more to this, but you can read it in the link  Irenaeus spoke Greek and he didn't understand Paul to be saying what you think he is saying.

On 1/3/2023 at 1:02 PM, Eschaton said:
On 1/1/2023 at 8:30 PM, InCognitus said:

What proof do you have that Paul lived and died before the doctrine of theosis became part of Christianity?   From what I noted above, he was right on board with showing the equality with Jesus that humans will share in the time to come.

Because the doctrine of theosis starts with the early Christian fathers, writing from the second century. Paul died in the first century, decades before theosis was created as a Christian doctrine. 

So you are thinking the Jews came from a polytheistic background, then the Christians came along and were purely monotheistic in the first century, then shifted to polytheism in the second century (with their belief in theosis), and then back to monotheism later?  

It seems to me that scholars have made it clear that the progression was from the belief that God is the "God of gods" (of men who are gods, partaking of what God offers them), to a belief in only one God, which would eventually put an end to the idea that men can become gods.

On 1/3/2023 at 1:02 PM, Eschaton said:

Let's not make the error of assuming the New Testament has univocality on any topic. You haven't referenced Hebrews even as a candidate for a source for theosis. 

I thought we were discussing first century Christian belief.  The book of Hebrews was part of first century Christian belief.  And angels are ministers to those who are heirs of salvation.  Paul taught that true believers would judge the angels (1 Corinthians 6:3).  

On 1/3/2023 at 1:02 PM, Eschaton said:

If we go all the way back to the Jesus of history, Jesus has a much more modest future for humanity in mind. They aren't divine, they live forever on the earth and they are well fed. That's it - no going to heaven, no sitting on divine thrones. It's all very earth-bound in Jesus' mind. The 2nd century theosis doctrine seems to be building on the increasingly elaborate rewards envisioned by later first century Christian writers. But still we see no clear evidence that any first century writer believed in the doctrine of theosis. 

Now you're starting to admit it started in the first century.  I think you're beginning to see my point.  

But I also think you're not allowing yourself to see the full scope of what Jesus taught, such as "Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven." (Matthew 5:3), or "Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.  Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.  Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you."  (Matthew 5:10–12)  And to those who humble themselves as a little child, “the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven” (Matt 18:4). 

On 1/3/2023 at 1:02 PM, Eschaton said:

It's mistranslated as hell. Hell as a concept came much later. It means "the grave."  In our oldest Biblical sources it is meant quite literally as just the grave. Over time it takes on connotations of the underworld, similar to Greek ideas - but it's not anything like the Christian hell, which doesn't really find form until the second century CE. 

This was my point, both Hades and Sheol are mistranslated as "hell", which makes it so that people misunderstand the meaning of "hell".  And as I have discussed before, the characteristics of Sheol are very much the same as Hades (it's a place with gates - Job 17:16, 38:17, Isaiah 38:10, and has divided compartments - Prov 7:27, with "farthest corners" - Isa 14:15, Ezek 32:23, and the dead meet there - Ezek 32, Isaiah 14, etc.).

On 1/3/2023 at 1:02 PM, Eschaton said:

My understand that most scholars read this as a poetic passage, not intended to refer to a literal resurrection.

Poetic passages often convey a specifically intended meaning.  And in this case, whether it is poetic or not, it indicates a resurrection of the body.

On 1/3/2023 at 1:02 PM, Eschaton said:

But most OT writers have very little interest in the concept of an afterlife, indicating a disconnect between the educated elite who wrote scripture and the uneducated common people.

The concept of living forever was taken away when Adam and Eve partook of the forbidden fruit and were prevented from partaking of the tree of life, preventing them from living forever (Genesis 3:22).  But there was always the promise of a future redemption and that is made known through the covenant at mount Sinai and the temple, which points mankind back to Eden.  "He will swallow up death in victory; and the Lord God will wipe away tears from off all faces; and the rebuke of his people shall he take away from off all the earth: for the Lord hath spoken it." (Isaiah 25:8)

Link to comment

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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