Was God once a man?

[ave maria]

it only makes a difference when you come here day after day to misrepresent and demean my beliefs.

First of all, juliann, I do not come here "day after day to misrepresent and demean" your beliefs.

I spend most of my time clarifying and correcting misstatements or misunderstandings about Catholic belief.

It is not my intention to misrepresent LDS belief. I have been LDS. I'm not amnestic of the experience. I don't recall knowing that you've been Catholic, or anything else other than LDS.

I'm further open to multiple points of view with respect to theological expression, and even within a particular denomination am aware that not everyone sees a theological point exactly the same as the next person.

No.  "Was God a man?" is a trick question, when framed, as indicated above, by a Latter-day Saint who intends it to mean, or assume "prior to becoming God," and then tells non-LDS Christians they are answering falsely if they answer "no," since they believe Jesus Christ to have become man.

Call it anything you want. It still has to be answered. It is a horrific problem for anyone claiming that God is one to say that God was not a "man". You have to tie yourself up into a pretzel to accommodate it (or try to avoid it by nonstop personal attacks). It makes no difference to me what you believe....

Second, I have answered this. More than once, easily apparent to anyone who's read the thread. A trinitarian does not have to tie him- or herself into a pretzel to accomodate answering the question of whether or not God was once a man (they simply need to establish intent, as stated before--does the questioner mean "prior to becoming God," or "God becoming man?")

Not so.  The difficulty there lies in your misunderstanding and misrepresentation of trinitarian belief, which does not enhance your credibility.  Further, it is not relevant to the sermon Joseph Smith delivered at King Follett's funeral with respect to God being a man prior to becoming God.

I have offered to go through every ECF to Augustine with you to analyze the historical positions on trinitarianism. That is where you disappeared. It is not your call to tell me what is "relevant". I'd like your response to Eusebius' letter to his church with an explanation of why your idea of trinitarianism is anymore valid than his.

Third, I have not disappeared. Continuing to claim this does not make it more correct. I spent over seven hours yesterday driving a car from one state to another.

It is appropriate for me to frame a response on a post in relation to the original question posed.

If you want to originate yet another thread on the nature and history of the trinity, you are certainly free to do so. Be prepared, however, for the same citations from the Catechism as you've seen posted before.

It's impossible to have a discussion because you're confrontational, rude, disrespectful, and generally completely failing to acknowledge points and talking away from them.

I generally let this thing go by without turning in post reports but I'm tired of this from you. Stop talking about me. I have asked and asked you to engage a topic and you disappear until it is safe to return to talking about what a horrible person I am.

Fourth, Scott's admonition above did not go unnoticed. It's decidedly challenging to adhere to it while trying also to respond to your posts, and possibly mutually exclusive. After his admonition I moved back onto the topic. You've again chosen to be disagreeable, rather than simply disagree. Again, it's your choice. But if I have to choose between (1) being polite and respectful and (2) responding to you, I'll have to choose the former, and not the latter, and you can yet again complain that I've "disappeared."

The topic of Brent's question in the first post on this thread is interpretation in the King Follett discourse, which is not traditionally interpreted to have to do with Jesus Christ becoming man.

You do not get to enforce what limits of LDS belief we must be confined to. This is how you derail. The KF assumes deification. It is not your place to tell anyone what part of that we can discuss.

Fifth, again not my point. A discussion of the topic can branch out in many different directions, but it's important to note that Brent's original question was framed in the context of the King Follett discourse.

[johnny]

thesometimesaint  writes, 

Nowhere in LDS theology do we claim that God the Father sinned.

Do you believe that you can become like God the Father?

Have you sinned ... if so is it then possiable that God the Father sinned accordingly to LDS theology?

[juliann]

I'm going to ignore the wimpering and protesting and continue.

Jordan Vajda, OP"'Partakers of the Divine Nature': A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization." Father Vajda was a Dominican Catholic priest. "Members of the LDS Church," Vajda promises on page 14 of his thesis, "will discover unmistakable evidence that their fundamental belief about human salvation and potential is not unique or a Mormon invention. Latin Catholics and Protestants will learn of a doctrine of salvation that, while relatively foreign to their ears, is nevertheless part of the heritage of the undivided Catholic Church of the first millennium. Members of Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches will discover on the American continent an amazing parallel to their own belief that salvation in Christ involves our becoming 'partakers of the divine nature.'"

[juliann]

thesometimesaint

[ave maria]

I'm going to ignore the wimpering and protesting and continue.

Jordan Vajda, OP"'Partakers of the Divine Nature': A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization." Father Vajda was a Dominican Catholic priest. "Members of the LDS Church," Vajda promises on page 14 of his thesis, "will discover unmistakable evidence that their fundamental belief about human salvation and potential is not unique or a Mormon invention. Latin Catholics and Protestants will learn of a doctrine of salvation that, while relatively foreign to their ears, is nevertheless part of the heritage of the undivided Catholic Church of the first millennium. Members of Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches will discover on the American continent an amazing parallel to their own belief that salvation in Christ involves our becoming 'partakers of the divine nature.'"

We've discussed this before. It's straight from the Catechism:

460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature": "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God." "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God." "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."--Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 460

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p122a3p1.htm

[juliann]

The concluding paragraph of Vajda's thesis, on pages 94-95, notes that "the Mormons are truly 'godmakers': as the [LDS] doctrine of exaltation explains, the fullness of human salvation means 'becoming a god.' Yet what was meant to be a term of ridicule has turned out to be a term of approbation, for the witness of the Greek Fathers of the Church . . . is that they also believed that salvation meant 'becoming a god.' It seems that if one's soteriology cannot accommodate a doctrine of human divinization, then it has at least implicitly, if not explicitly, rejected the heritage of the early Christian church and departed from the faith of first millennium Christianity. However, if that is the case, those who would espouse such a soteriology also believe, in fact, that Christianity, from about the second century on, has apostatized and 'gotten it wrong' on this core issue of human salvation. Thus, ironically, those who would excoriate Mormons for believing in the doctrine of exaltation actually agree with them that the early church experienced a 'great apostasy' on fundamental doctrinal questions. And the supreme irony is that such persons should probably investigate the claims of the LDS Church, which proclaims that within itself is to be found the 'restoration of all things.'"

[johnny]

juliann  writes,

You were asked a very simple question. Why are you all running?

Because from a Trinitarian position the question below does not make sense because God the Father and Jesus are not seperate beings?

Why is it impossible for God the Father to have lived on an earth, walked on an earth, and died on an earth JUST LIKE JESUS?

juliann  writes,

Jordan Vajda, OP"'Partakers of the Divine Nature':  ...

Was Christ the divine nature or did he have to partake of the divine nature like men can do?

[juliann]

We've discussed this before. It's straight from the Catechism:

And non Catholics do not care what is the Catechism. It is irrelevant. JS did not claim to restore "Catholicism".

Methodius

"For the word suffered that he might bring man.....to his supreme and godlike majesty, restoring him to that divine life from which he had become alienated"  (Third Fragment from theHomily on the Cross and Passion of Christ II)

[ave maria]

I'm going to ignore the wimpering and protesting and continue.

Jordan Vajda, OP"'Partakers of the Divine Nature': A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization." Father Vajda was a Dominican Catholic priest. "

As a point of information, Father Vajda wrote the thesis prior to converting to Mormonism, and it should be noted that there is really no such thing as a former priest, or stating that he "was a priest" in the past tense, as neither his priesthood nor his baptism has or can be removed.

To the Catholic Church, he would still be regarded as validly baptized, a Catholic, and a priest, even though he is now LDS.

LDS priests convert to Catholicism on a regular basis; I'm well acquainted with a number of them.

[ave maria]

We've discussed this before.  It's straight from the Catechism:

And non Catholics do not care what is the Catechism. It is irrelevant. JS did not claim to restore "Catholicism".

Methodius

"For the word suffered that he might bring man.....to his supreme and godlike majesty, restoring him to that divine life from which he had become alienated"

[ave maria]

The concluding paragraph of Vajda's thesis, on pages 94-95, notes that "the Mormons are truly 'godmakers': as the [LDS] doctrine of exaltation explains, the fullness of human salvation means 'becoming a god.' Yet what was meant to be a term of ridicule has turned out to be a term of approbation, for the witness of the Greek Fathers of the Church . . . is that they also believed that salvation meant 'becoming a god.' It seems that if one's soteriology cannot accommodate a doctrine of human divinization, then it has at least implicitly, if not explicitly, rejected the heritage of the early Christian church and departed from the faith of first millennium Christianity. However, if that is the case, those who would espouse such a soteriology also believe, in fact, that Christianity, from about the second century on, has apostatized and 'gotten it wrong' on this core issue of human salvation. Thus, ironically, those who would excoriate Mormons for believing in the doctrine of exaltation actually agree with them that the early church experienced a 'great apostasy' on fundamental doctrinal questions. And the supreme irony is that such persons should probably investigate the claims of the LDS Church, which proclaims that within itself is to be found the 'restoration of all things.'"

Again, Father Vajda's comments need to be read in the context of the Catechism, from which he took the phrase which titles his thesis.

I would respectfully suggest that at the time he wrote the thesis he did not know as much about Mormonism as he does now.

[juliann]

You address Catholics, quoting a Catholic priest, citing a phrase taken directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and think the Catechism is irrelevant?

You're preaching to the choir here on this one. The Catholics posting on this board all appear to be fairly familiar with this concept.

Or were you addressing Protestants, quoting a Catholic priest, citing a phrase taken directly from the Catechism?

You are actually claimining that anyone who says "divine nature" is taking it from your Catchecism? It is in 2 Peter! Stop derailing.

"But he himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. 'For he has given them power to become the sons of God' [John 1: 12]. If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods."  Augustine, On the Psalms, 50.2.

[thesometimesaint]

Johnny:

Sure hope so.

It is only through Jesus the Christ that I am forgiven of any sins that I have.

Did Jesus sin?

[Scott Gordon]

I would respectfully suggest that at the time he wrote the thesis he did not know as much about Mormonism as he does now.

Probably a true statement as he has left the Catholic church and joined the LDS.

[Scott Gordon]

No, juliann. It's impossible to have a discussion because you're confrontational, rude, disrespectful, and generally completely failing to acknowledge points and talking away from them.

You're practically famous for it.

Ave,

This is an inappropriate post as it is a personal attack. Not allowed on this board please.

Scott

[johnny]

thesometimesaint  writes, 

Sure hope so.

If you, a sinner, can become like the Father ... could it also be possiable that God the Father was a sinner?

It is only through Jesus the Christ that I am forgiven of any sins that I have.

If God the Father was a sinner that he would also need a savior.

Did Jesus sin?

Jesus did not sin. Jesus was the divine nature.

[Still_Small_Voice]

As for L.D.S. theology on the physical nature of God we only have a limited understanding. I think most L.D.S. will agree with the statement that God has a body. Beyond that we are simply guessing.

The official doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is God has a glorified, perfect, immortal body of flesh and bones.

Not much else has been revealed beyond this. What exactly is a glorified, perfect, immortal body of flesh and bones? We do not know.

I only got to about page eight on this thread before I burned out on reading. Many seem to have their own opinion on what God is using Biblical scriptures to try and back up there opinion.

I think some of us are looking beyond the mark.

As for those who wish to try and twist Latter-Day Saint doctrine by quoting Moroni 8:18 and Moroni 9:18-19, I can say you are taking them out of context.

These scriptures are teaching that God has eternal goals and attributes and will not turn from that which He has promised us. We can rely on God because He will never leave us or forsake us.

[thesometimesaint]

Johnny:

We know next to NOTHING about what God the Father did in His mortality.

Even if He had one or not. The Scriptures tell us that Jesus did nothing that He did not see the Father do. It is a most logical of assumptions that as Jesus the Christ did not sin, did not see His Father sin. That God the Father did not sin.

Why is it impossible that God the Father also did not sin?

[johnny]

thesometimesaint  writes, 

The Scriptures tell us that Jesus did nothing that He did not see the Father do. It is a most logical of assumptions that as Jesus the Christ did not sin, did not see His Father sin. That God the Father did not sin.

How can God be "like us" as the LDS church teaches if he was not a sinner "like us"?

Jesus was God before his incarnation.

Why is it impossible that God the Father also did not sin?

Because God the Father is the divine nature.

[ave maria]

You address Catholics, quoting a Catholic priest, citing a phrase taken directly from the Catechism of the Catholic Church, and think the Catechism is irrelevant?

You're preaching to the choir here on this one.  The Catholics posting on this board all appear to be fairly familiar with this concept.

Or were you addressing Protestants, quoting a Catholic priest, citing a phrase taken directly from the Catechism?

You are actually claimining that anyone who says "divine nature" is taking it from your Catchecism? It is in 2 Peter! Stop derailing.

"But he himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. 'For he has given them power to become the sons of God' [John 1: 12]. If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods."

[Markk]

Hi Juliann,

QUOTE (Markk @ Jul 16 2005, 08:43 PM)

Kenosis is from the Greek, in Phil. 2 Kenoo or root word Kenos. If you have a problem with the word that

[ave maria]

I would respectfully suggest that at the time he wrote the thesis he did not know as much about Mormonism as he does now.

Probably a true statement as he has left the Catholic church and joined the LDS.

I think we can all acknowledge it as a given.

[ave maria]

You are actually claimining that anyone who says "divine nature" is taking it from your Catchecism? It is in 2 Peter! Stop derailing.

Actually, if you read the Catechism, either in print or online, you'll note that that particular phrase is cross-referenced to footnote #78, which is, in fact, listed as 2 Peter 1:4.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p122a3p1.htm

"But he himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. 'For he has given them power to become the sons of God' [John 1: 12]. If then we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods."  Augustine, On the Psalms, 50.2.

Here are the four footnotes for the paragraph I cited from the Catechism, relevant to your citations above:

78 2 Pt 1:4.

79 St. Irenaeus, Adv. haeres. 3, 19, 1: PG 7/1, 939.

80 St. Athanasius, De inc. 54, 3: PG 25, 192B.

81 St. Thomas Aquinas, Opusc. 57, 1-4.

[juliann]

What needs to be explained and more importantly understood is that Jesus is by very fom God, as you noted, and that in the form of God has equality with God, as you noted, and took on a addition nature, by choice, and MADE HIMSELF like man.

This is the last pericope you should be using as a prooftext for a number of reasons. I'm using the NRSV instead of the Greek right now but even that says he was in the form of God. It not only does not say he is God...it says that he will not "seize" Godhood. Now that is odd. It flat out says that God exalted Jesus after he performed his task. This makes an excellent case for the Jehovah's Witnesses but not you. It also says that we are to do the same. In fact, we are to work out our own salvation in fear and trembling. I really can't imagine why you would want to take this chapter of Phil on...it contradicts everything you are saying..which is why the great philosophical rationales have to be attached.

This means Jesus nor God were not a man who through good works became a god and the LDS law of eternal progreesion demands.

You can make up LDS theology until you turn blue and it won't make it anymore accurate. I'm not going to waste my time correcting it.

I understand you understand this more than you let on to, and that LDS "scholarship" is changeing LDS thought by saying past LDS teaching means that the Father was once a man only in context to the incarnation of christ, but that is not what the church has taught, and today they are silent on the issue.

Yeah, sure. I always find it productive to lie about what I believe.

[juliann]

Actually, if you read the Catechism, either in print or online, you'll note that that particular phrase is cross-referenced to footnote #78, which is, in fact, listed as 2 Peter 1:4.

One more time....this is about early Christian doctrine. JS did not claim to restore the Catholic Catechism...wonderful as it may be. Stop derailing.

Why the trinitarianism cannot be separated from deification:

Although the idea of deification in the Greek fathers had run the danger of obscuring the distinction between Creator and creature, the pressure of the controversy over Christ as creature had acted to restrain any pantheistic tendencies that may have been present in it.  Now that the pressure was coming not from the trinitarian dogma, but from the mystical theories of Neoplatonism, these tendencies seemed to be asserting themselves with new vigor. 

Jaroslav Pelikan, The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of C\doctrine, vol. 1 (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1971, 345.