The deification of man.

[AgeofKnowledge]

So you suspect that anyone who formally studies God Word is a Pharisee in your uneducated opinion. Jesus Christ himself formally studied God's Word, was called rabbi (and called so by lawyers, the rich young ruler, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, etc...), and displayed mastery of the Scriptures and religious literature of His day so extensive and profound that people marveled in amazement. And, He was NOT a Pharisee. In fact, as Dr. Roy B Blizzard (and I guess every bible scholar in the world is also suspect of being a "Pharisee" in your uneducated opinion as well) explains:

"The level of learning and education in Galilee exceeded that of Judea in Jesus’ day. Galilee surpassed even Judea in its schools of learning, and most of the famous rabbis of Jesus’ day were from Galilee (Johnanan ben Zakkai, Hanina ben Doda, Abba Yose Holikufri, Zadok, Halaphta, Hananian ben Teradyon.) According to Professor Shmuel Safrai, Hebrew University Professor of Jewish History of the period of the Mishnah and Talmud, not only did the number of 1[SUP]st[/SUP] century Galilean rabbis known from rabbinic literature exceed the number of Judean rabbis, but even the moral and ethical quality of their teaching excelled that of their Judean counterparts (private communication)."

The life of Jesus Christ himself refutes your false assertion that everyone who devotes time and energy to correctly learning God's Word (and disagrees with you because of course you wouldn't have inferred that if I had agreed with your misinterpretations and false assertions) may be a "Pharisee."

Obviously not. I'm not a Pharisee and the name calling is out of order.

So let's move away from your ridiculous ad hominem and victim mentality/wounded spirit and back to the ridiculous false assertions you're continuing to make.

It is a fact that C.S. Lewis never contributed anything to the canon. Period. Because this is a fact, it is not wrong to point it out. And to answer your ridiculous question, of course I have not either.

That said, he was a well respected Christian intellectual and author who held the chair of Mediaeval and Renaissance Literature at Magdalene College in Cambridge that wrote a number of Christian inspired fictional and poetic publications in addition to several non-fiction publications. His work is well regarded and many have found useful for evangelization and apologetics. However, he was not doctrinally perfect and sometimes errored.

This does not mean; however, that you're assertion man is going to be God is true. It's false. It's heresy. And because it is so, you should stop asserting it.

The co-operation between God and Man does not lead to mankind being absorbed into the God as was taught in earlier pagan forms of deification like Henosis. Rather it expresses unity, in the complementary nature between the created and the creator. Acquisition of the Holy Spirit is key to salvation, sanctification, and ultimately glorification but in no way are you going to become God Himself.

My bad. I did not know you were a M.Div. (Master of Divinity). I suspect the Pharisees considered themselves Masters of Divinity too. Who am I to argue with such a one.

I have no intent to debate this any further and take up the time of Masters. I have made my case with the assist of scripture and past adherents to this subject matter. Unlike most of the naysayers who simply say "you are wrong.. This is rubbish... You are in error,".. and so on, with very little evidence to back up their claim against this view other than their "opinion." Disregarding the insight of someone like CS Lewis and others by stating that they didn't write any of the books of the Cannon, is laughable. Really? Tell me, did YOU write any books of the cannon??

I'm done.. moving on.

 

[84Niner]

So you suspect that anyone who formally studies God Word is a Pharisee in your uneducated opinion. Jesus Christ himself formally studied God's Word, was called rabbi (and called so by lawyers, the rich young ruler, the Pharisees, the Sadducees, etc...), and displayed mastery of the Scriptures and religious literature of His day so extensive and profound that people marveled in amazement. And, He was NOT a Pharisee. In fact, as Dr. Roy B Blizzard (and I guess every bible scholar in the world is also suspect of being a "Pharisee" in your uneducated opinion as well) explains:

"The level of learning and education in Galilee exceeded that of Judea in Jesus’ day. Galilee surpassed even Judea in its schools of learning, and most of the famous rabbis of Jesus’ day were from Galilee (Johnanan ben Zakkai, Hanina ben Doda, Abba Yose Holikufri, Zadok, Halaphta, Hananian ben Teradyon.) According to Professor Shmuel Safrai, Hebrew University Professor of Jewish History of the period of the Mishnah and Talmud, not only did the number of 1[SUP]st[/SUP] century Galilean rabbis known from rabbinic literature exceed the number of Judean rabbis, but even the moral and ethical quality of their teaching excelled that of their Judean counterparts (private communication)."

The life of Jesus Christ himself refutes your false assertion that everyone who devotes time and energy to correctly learning God's Word (and disagrees with you because of course you wouldn't have inferred that if I had agreed with your misinterpretations and false assertions) may be a "Pharisee."

Obviously not. I'm not a Pharisee and the name calling is out of order.

So let's move away from your ridiculous ad hominem and victim mentality/wounded spirit and back to the ridiculous false assertions you're continuing to make.

It is a fact that C.S. Lewis never contributed anything to the canon. Period. Because this is a fact, it is not wrong to point it out. And to answer your ridiculous question, of course I have not either.

That said, he was a well respected Christian intellectual and author who held the chair of Mediaeval and Renaissance Literature at Magdalene College in Cambridge that wrote a number of Christian inspired fictional and poetic publications in addition to several non-fiction publications. His work is well regarded and many have found useful for evangelization and apologetics. However, he was not doctrinally perfect and sometimes errored.

This does not mean; however, that you're assertion man is going to be God is true. It's false. It's heresy. And because it is so, you should stop asserting it.

The co-operation between God and Man does not lead to mankind being absorbed into the God as was taught in earlier pagan forms of deification like Henosis. Rather it expresses unity, in the complementary nature between the created and the creator. Acquisition of the Holy Spirit is key to salvation, sanctification, and ultimately glorification but in no way are you going to become God Himself.

I never called you a Pharisee or anyone else. I was simply making a relative point concerning the Pharasies who were blinded and unreceptive to the Lord Jesus in part due to their scriptural "knowledge". "Who am I to argue with such a one" was in reference to your proclaimed title of "Master of Divinity." My perceived insult towards yourself pales in comparison with the many veiled insults lobbed my way. Shall I list them?

I wasn't going to mention canon of scripture but since you did mentioned the formation of canon of scripture you may be schooled in that for example; (Irenaneus, and Clement of Alexandria) were involved in that process. A few quotes below.

Irenaeus: (c. 130-200

• [T]he Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself."[SUP][Primary 10][/SUP]
• "'For we cast blame upon [God], because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods; although God has adopted this course out of His pure benevolence, that no one may impute to Him invidiousness or grudgingness he declares, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High." "[SUP][Primary 11][/SUP]
• "For it was necessary, at first, that nature should be exhibited; then, after that, that what was mortal should be conquered and swallowed up by immortality, and the corruptible by incorruptibility, and that man should be made after the image and likeness of God

Clement of Alexandria: (c.150-215)

• "[T]he Word of God became man, that thou mayest learn from man how man may become God."[SUP][Primary 12][/SUP]
• "For if one knows himself, he will know God; and knowing God, he will be made like God"[SUP][Primary 13][/SUP]
• "[H]is 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"[SUP][Primary 13][/SUP]
• "[H]e who listens to the Lord, and follows the prophecy given by Him, will be formed perfectly in the likeness of the teacher—made a god going about in flesh."[SUP][Primary 14][/SUP]
• "And to be incorruptible is to participate in divinity..."

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Following the example of the apostles, I have called you a false teacher for unrepentantly teaching heresy. And it's true, you are. However, that's not the same as falsely inferring someone is a Pharisee for correcting your heresy and refuting it (something Jesus Christ often did). In other words, accurately defining you as a false teacher because you teach heresy is not a veiled insult but rather truthfully corresponding what you are with what you do. Inferring someone is something they aren't is a completely different matter.

I find it rather sad that a false teacher intends to "school" me in the canon considering that you can't seem to remember previous posts in this thread for their arguments have already been addressed.

At no time, did any of the Church patriarchs believe that there was a crossing-over from one nature to another, or that humans became “gods” in the same essence as God.

In his battle with the Gnostics, Irenaeus wrote his famous tome 'Against Heresies'. During the course of his writings, he included passages which dealt with God’s nature and those who attempted to ascribe to Him human nature or qualities. Then he proceeded to show where God, on the other hand, took the initiative of restoring the godly qualities initially lost due to sin. For example, he writes:
Irrational, therefore, in every respect, are they who await not the time of increase, but ascribe to God the infirmity of their nature. Such persons know neither God nor themselves, being insatiable and ungrateful, unwilling to be at the outset what they have also been created — men, and before that they become men, they wish to be even now like God their Creator, and they who are more destitute of reason than dumb animals [insist] that there is no distinction between the uncreated God and man, a creature of today.

For these, [the dumb animals], bring no charge against God for not having made them men; but each one, just as he has been created, gives thanks that he has been created. For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods; although God has adopted this course out of His pure benevolence, that no one may impute to Him invidiousness or grudgingness. He declares, “I have said, Ye are gods; and ye are all sons of the Highest.” But since we could not sustain the power of divinity, He adds, “But ye shall die like men," setting forth both truths - the kindness of His free gift, and our weakness, and also that we were possessed of power over ourselves.

For after His great kindness He graciously conferred good [upon us], and made men like to Himself, [that is] in their own power; while at the same time by His prescience He knew the infirmity of human beings, and the consequences which would flow from it; but through [His] love and [His] power, He shall overcome the substance of created nature.

For it was necessary, at first, that nature should be exhibited; then, after that, that what was mortal should be conquered and swallowed up by immortality, and the corruptible by incorruptibility, and that man should be made after the image and likeness of God, having received the knowledge of good and evil."

Irenaeus is referring to human deification through God’s grace in conquering immortality and incorruptibility in making “men like to Himself,” not as gods or God Himself, but as those whose image and likeness should be like God as originally intended which is found in Genesis 1 where I showed you using two renown bible scholars that ‘Likeness’ qualifies ‘image’ in two ways: 1. limitation—man is not identical to God; and 2. amplification—man is actually a reflection of God himself, and is to live as his created analogy."

You stripped away all of the context and then misinterpreted the writings of Irenaeus to comport with the heresy you're teaching just like you strip away all the context and misinterpret scripture to comport with the heresy you're teaching.

For example, Clement states in his writings that since the “Word” only speaks of one true God (Is. 44:6; 45:5; Jn. 5:44; 17:6), his allusions of deification are something other than literal godhood, such as the fulfillment of the divine image in man through sanctification.

Each example you've listed does not mean what you think it does. Both of these authors were clear that they were speaking with respect to union with God NOT being absorbed into God and becoming a part of His essence, NOT becoming a god, and NOT becoming equal with God as God (voiding his sole transcendent rulership). This is a common Mormon argument you're making and you're using all of the same sources the Mormon organization FARMs uses. However, the Eastern Orthodox Church also uses these sources in asserting "union with God in His energies, or union by grace making us participate in the divine nature [without becoming God], without our essence becoming thereby the essence of God" which is much more in line with several of the early church fathers who stressed the divinity of Christ in refuting the Gnostics, Arianists, epicureanists, etc...

Are we done here or do you wish to continue maligning scripture and the early church patriarchs further?

I never called you a Pharisee or anyone else. I was simply making a relative point concerning the Pharasies who were blinded and unreceptive to the Lord Jesus in part due to their scriptural "knowledge". "Who am I to argue with such a one" was in reference to your proclaimed title of "Master of Divinity." My perceived insult towards yourself pales in comparison with the many veiled insults lobbed my way. Shall I list them?

I wasn't going to mention canon of scripture but since you did mentioned the formation of canon of scripture you may be schooled in that for example; (Irenaneus, and Clement of Alexandria) were involved in that process. A few quotes below.

Irenaeus: (c. 130-200

• [T]he Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself."[SUP][Primary 10][/SUP]
• "'For we cast blame upon [God], because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods; although God has adopted this course out of His pure benevolence, that no one may impute to Him invidiousness or grudgingness he declares, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High." "[SUP][Primary 11][/SUP]
• "For it was necessary, at first, that nature should be exhibited; then, after that, that what was mortal should be conquered and swallowed up by immortality, and the corruptible by incorruptibility, and that man should be made after the image and likeness of God

Clement of Alexandria: (c.150-215)

• "[T]he Word of God became man, that thou mayest learn from man how man may become God."[SUP][Primary 12][/SUP]
• "For if one knows himself, he will know God; and knowing God, he will be made like God"[SUP][Primary 13][/SUP]
• "[H]is 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"[SUP][Primary 13][/SUP]
• "[H]e who listens to the Lord, and follows the prophecy given by Him, will be formed perfectly in the likeness of the teacher—made a god going about in flesh."[SUP][Primary 14][/SUP]
• "And to be incorruptible is to participate in divinity..."

 

[prodigal]

[h=1]1 Corinthians 15:35-58English Standard Version (ESV)[/h] [h=3]The Resurrection Body[/h][SUP]35 [/SUP]But someone will ask, “How are the dead raised? With what kind of body do they come?” [SUP]36 [/SUP]You foolish person! What you sow does not come to life unless it dies. [SUP]37 [/SUP]And what you sow is not the body that is to be, but a bare kernel, perhaps of wheat or of some other grain. [SUP]38 [/SUP]But God gives it a body as he has chosen, and to each kind of seed its own body. [SUP]39 [/SUP]For not all flesh is the same, but there is one kind for humans, another for animals, another for birds, and another for fish. [SUP]40 [/SUP]There are heavenly bodies and earthly bodies, but the glory of the heavenly is of one kind, and the glory of the earthly is of another. [SUP]41 [/SUP]There is one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for star differs from star in glory.
[SUP]42 [/SUP]So is it with the resurrection of the dead. What is sown is perishable; what is raised is imperishable. [SUP]43 [/SUP]It is sown in dishonor; it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness; it is raised in power. [SUP]44 [/SUP]It is sown a natural body; it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. [SUP]45 [/SUP]Thus it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being”;[SUP][a][/SUP] the last Adam became a life-giving spirit. [SUP]46 [/SUP]But it is not the spiritual that is first but the natural, and then the spiritual. [SUP]47 [/SUP]The first man was from the earth, a man of dust; the second man is from heaven. [SUP]48 [/SUP]As was the man of dust, so also are those who are of the dust, and as is the man of heaven, so also are those who are of heaven. [SUP]49 [/SUP]Just as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall[SUP][b][/SUP] also bear the image of the man of heaven.

 

[prodigal]

different types of study,

topical studies whilst useful at times can also be very deceptive, to have a preconceived conclusion and find scriptures to fit isn't hard, even the devil did it to Jesus, you can pick any subject , say universalism, and find scriptures to fit if you ignore the rest of the scriptures.
a second type of study is to put a scripture to mind weighed by the rest of the bible, i.e you can reconise the author's character (god) and interpret a scripture according to that character,
a third way is to look at what learned men throughout history made of a particualr scripture or study as all will be bias for the time that they live in and we are incline to relate scriptures to modern philosophical thinking which can often lead us astray.
now in my opinion the best way to study is to combine all three mentioned techniques, and then come to a conclusion, but at the same time remaining teachable as and when new information is given wether through new study or debate so that conclusion can be re assessed at times (wether it is to change or remain the same). remember the spirit will lead us in all things if we remain humble but not if we are proudful or self rightious of our own knowledge and wisdom.

 

[84Niner]

Following the example of the apostles, I have called you a false teacher for unrepentantly teaching heresy. And it's true, you are. However, that's not the same as falsely inferring someone is a Pharisee for correcting your heresy and refuting it (something Jesus Christ often did). In other words, accurately defining you as a false teacher because you teach heresy is not a veiled insult but rather truthfully corresponding what you are with what you do. Inferring someone is something they aren't is a completely different matter.

I find it rather sad that a false teacher intends to "school" me in the canon considering that you can't seem to remember previous posts in this thread for their arguments have already been addressed.

At no time, did any of the Church patriarchs believe that there was a crossing-over from one nature to another, or that humans became “gods” in the same essence as God.

In his battle with the Gnostics, Irenaeus wrote his famous tome 'Against Heresies'. During the course of his writings, he included passages which dealt with God’s nature and those who attempted to ascribe to Him human nature or qualities. Then he proceeded to show where God, on the other hand, took the initiative of restoring the godly qualities initially lost due to sin. For example, he writes:
Irrational, therefore, in every respect, are they who await not the time of increase, but ascribe to God the infirmity of their nature. Such persons know neither God nor themselves, being insatiable and ungrateful, unwilling to be at the outset what they have also been created — men, and before that they become men, they wish to be even now like God their Creator, and they who are more destitute of reason than dumb animals [insist] that there is no distinction between the uncreated God and man, a creature of today.

For these, [the dumb animals], bring no charge against God for not having made them men; but each one, just as he has been created, gives thanks that he has been created. For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods; although God has adopted this course out of His pure benevolence, that no one may impute to Him invidiousness or grudgingness. He declares, “I have said, Ye are gods; and ye are all sons of the Highest.” But since we could not sustain the power of divinity, He adds, “But ye shall die like men," setting forth both truths - the kindness of His free gift, and our weakness, and also that we were possessed of power over ourselves.

For after His great kindness He graciously conferred good [upon us], and made men like to Himself, [that is] in their own power; while at the same time by His prescience He knew the infirmity of human beings, and the consequences which would flow from it; but through [His] love and [His] power, He shall overcome the substance of created nature.

For it was necessary, at first, that nature should be exhibited; then, after that, that what was mortal should be conquered and swallowed up by immortality, and the corruptible by incorruptibility, and that man should be made after the image and likeness of God, having received the knowledge of good and evil."

Irenaeus is referring to human deification through God’s grace in conquering immortality and incorruptibility in making “men like to Himself,” not as gods or God Himself, but as those whose image and likeness should be like God as originally intended which is found in Genesis 1 where I showed you using two renown bible scholars that ‘Likeness’ qualifies ‘image’ in two ways: 1. limitation—man is not identical to God; and 2. amplification—man is actually a reflection of God himself, and is to live as his created analogy."

You stripped away all of the context and then misinterpreted the writings of Irenaeus to comport with the heresy you're teaching just like you strip away all the context and misinterpret scripture to comport with the heresy you're teaching.

For example, Clement states in his writings that since the “Word” only speaks of one true God (Is. 44:6; 45:5; Jn. 5:44; 17:6), his allusions of deification are something other than literal godhood, such as the fulfillment of the divine image in man through sanctification.

Each example you've listed does not mean what you think it does. Both of these authors were clear that they were speaking with respect to union with God NOT being absorbed into God and becoming a part of His essence, NOT becoming a god, and NOT becoming equal with God as God (voiding his sole transcendent rulership). This is a common Mormon argument you're making and you're using all of the same sources the Mormon organization FARMs uses. However, the Eastern Orthodox Church also uses these sources in asserting "union with God in His energies, or union by grace making us participate in the divine nature [without becoming God], without our essence becoming thereby the essence of God" which is much more in line with several of the early church fathers who stressed the divinity of Christ in refuting the Gnostics, Arianists, epicureanists, etc...

Are we done here or do you wish to continue maligning scripture and the early church patriarchs further?

Well, we would be done except for the fact that you are misinterpreting the very foundational aspect behind what I am espousing upon. Whenever I have stated in many of my posts that "we are becoming God or a part of God", I am always careful to qualify it with words like "but not in the Godhead." For some reason you and others are just not grasping what I am saying. On one hand you agree according to scripture that we are born of God, we are made in His image and likeness, we are vessels to contain His Life (divine Life), we are growing in that Life, we are in a process of transformation, through regeneration we are part of the one "New Man", we are partakers of the divine nature, we have been joined to Him to become "one spirit",....yet, when I gather all this divine revelation to sum it up that we are "being made God in life and nature but not in the Godhead" you call me a,... unrepentant false teaching heretic. Hmm...

I began this thread with the title the "deification of man". In your rebuttal to me in this last post you quoted Irenaeus as follows: Irenaeus is referring to human deification through God’s grace in conquering immortality and incorruptibility in making “men like to Himself,” not as gods or God Himself,
If you look at my posts you will see I was also careful to include that we are not becoming "gods" nor are we becoming equal to God in His position in the Godhead. It would seem that Irenaeus is saying precisely the same thing."referring to human deification through God's grace"..."not as gods or God Himself". Human deification in my book,...means... human deification. Why do you think he felt the need to include "not as gods or God Himself"? It was because he surely knew the ramifications of declaring "human deification" and needed to make sure he wasn't being misunderstood to mean we are becoming gods, or part of the Godhead with equal power of the Godhead. My posts make that very clear.

So, ask yourself this question. What is human deification? Or are you now going to say that he really didn't mean man is becoming deified? We can't have it both ways. Is there some separate deity that is reserved for man and really isn't of God and part of God? Well, according to at least the scripture I quoted that is not the case. There is only one deity. And if we are becoming deified, we are in fact becoming a part of that deity not matter how you want to spin it.

When a branch is cut off it's old stock and grafted into the New vine, it is still that branch, but it's life nature has changed. It is not equal with the trunk of the vine, yet it is indeed a part of the vine receiving all the same life flow of the vine. In essence, if you were now to touch that grafted in branch, you would also be touching the vine, for it is now part of the vine.
...He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit.

 

[prodigal]

i am one with my brothers in christ which doesn't mean we're joined at the waste, the link gives the different ideas of deification( not saying i personally follow any of the said subject matter)

THE DEIFICATION OF MAN

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

You keep saying that simply because the Holy Spirit regenerates spiritually dead people this equates to them becoming God and it's not scriptural. It's not true.

Regeneration is portrayed as a being born again (Jn 3:1–8) and as Jesus tells Nicodemus, spiritual regeneration is the condition to seeing or entering the kingdom of God as a new creature (e.g. NOT a god or God). To live the Christlike life is to be “brought from death to life” (Rom 6:13 RSV; cf. Rom 7:5–6, 10; 8:6, 10). To believe in Christ for salvation is to be “made alive, when you were dead through the trespasses and sins” (Eph 2:1 RSV; see also Eph 2:5; Col 2:13).

We may define regeneration as a drastic act on fallen human nature by the Holy Spirit, leading to a change in the person’s whole outlook. He can now be described as a new man who seeks, finds and follows God in Christ. Regeneration puts a person in union with God in sanctification and toward glorification but it doesn't make them a god or God in this world or the one to come.

And indeed the physical body will be exchanged for a “spiritual body” (1 Cor 15:44). For now, in both initial and ongoing ways, “the Spirit gives life” (2 Cor 3:6 RSV), a work associated with strength and power. The Spirit’s transformative work can also be described as the “washing of regeneration and renewal in the Holy Spirit” (Tit 3:5–7).

The climax of a biblical theology of regeneration comes in Revelation 21 and 22. Here a great number of the contributing themes are gathered up in one last dazzling description of the kingdom’s consummation in a new heaven and new earth (Rev. 21:1) in which regenerated 'new creatures' live. They don't live there as God or gods; however, but as regenerated glorified new creatures in a new creation.

Jesus Christ, the apostles, scripture itself (both OT and NT), the apostolic fathers, and even those church patriarchs you're misunderstanding all teach this.

You've used faulty correlations and correspondence throughout this discussion on everything you've touched. Your biggest problem is that you misinterpret scriptures and church patriarchs topical discussions on partaking in the divine nature which in the original languages and contexts has to do with the biblical concept of sanctification (e.g. becoming godly [see my previous New Bible Dictionary share on Genesis 1]) not becoming God or a god.

For example, the phrase “divine nature” was well known amongst the Greeks, but also found in the Jewish-Hellenistic literature of the New Testament period. In this first-century literature, to “participate in the divine nature” does not mean merging into God or union with deity (which is the sense equivalent language has in true New Age thought), becoming a god, or any other such variation. Neither the Greeks (for the most part) nor the Jews were pantheists. They all expected a continuing personal existence beyond death instead of a uniting with the Eternal or a becoming part of the One.

What “partaking of the divine nature” means for Greek and Jewish authors is to take part in the immortality and incorruption of God (or “the gods” in pagan Greek literature). One who has so participated will, like God, live in the immortal sphere and like him will not be tainted with any corruption.

You quoted Peter and certainly Peter means this. The promises of God lead us on and direct our life until we obtain the inheritance of what they promise, the divine nature which can be stated as a wholly sanctified and glorified nature, at death. Not one becoming a god, God, or an all powerful Wizard of Oz.

This presentation of the goal of the Christian life contrasts with the lifestyle of the false teachers against whom 2 Peter is writing. God’s goal is that we set our eyes on his promises and head toward heaven, thereby escaping “the corruption in the world caused by evil desires.” The false teachers, on the other hand, are involved in these evil desires. In fact, it is their lifestyle, not their doctrine, that shows them to be corrupt.

Desire, of course, can be good. We desire food so as not to be hungry, for example. But desire needs to be controlled by God’s goals and principles. When desire itself rules us, it is indeed evil (for it desires the bad as well as the good), and it leads us to corruption. Those whose goal is really the divine nature will not be turned aside or controlled by such evil desires. Again, Peter speaks of sanctification.

Now Paul speaks of the Holy Spirit being within Christians. Therefore the divine nature (a term Paul does not use, but could have) is within, giving life (Rom 8:11; compare 2 Cor 3:18). James (Jas 1:18) and John (Jn 3:5–6) speak of being born of God and therefore having something of God’s nature. In fact, 1 John 3:9 describes new birth so literally that it says God’s “sperm” (usually translated “seed,” but the same word is used for the sperm or semen of a male) remains in the child of God. According to 1 John, because this or that person is born of God he or she does not sin. This is because the nature of the Father is in them.

These authors are boldly using the terminology of the Greek philosophy and culture they are evangelizing and redefining it in a Christian sense. They point to the Christian’s supply of all that is needed for a holy life in the divine power of Christ, to the goal of the Christian life as a participation in the divine nature, at least at death, when—like Christ—the Christian will live immortally in the incorruptible heavenly realm as a 'new creature' but NOT as a god or as God. Again, sanctification and glorification not theosis (e.g. deification).

Peter actually says less than some of the other New Testament writers about the joining of human beings to God in union, even if his language is more striking. At the same time he clearly calls Christians to use the provision of Christ and fix their eyes on the promises of God so that they will in fact escape the corruption in the world and in the end receive the promised divine nature (as explained in this post not as a god or God). It is this drawing on Christ’s power and focus on the future, which includes allowing that future to determine present lifestyle, which is all the Christian need do to receive the glorious hope of participating in the nature of God.

Salvation --> Sanctification --> Glorification (new wholly sanctified creatures that are glorified in a new creation higher than angels but finite and squarely under the rulership and authority of God [e.g. God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Spirit]).

Get it? Got it? Good.

Well, we would be done except for the fact that you are misinterpreting the very foundational aspect behind what I am espousing upon. Whenever I have stated in many of my posts that "we are becoming God or a part of God", I am always careful to qualify it with words like "but not in the Godhead." For some reason you and others are just not grasping what I am saying. On one hand you agree according to scripture that we are born of God, we are made in His image and likeness, we are vessels to contain His Life (divine Life), we are growing in that Life, we are in a process of transformation, through regeneration we are part of the one "New Man", we are partakers of the divine nature, we have been joined to Him to become "one spirit",....yet, when I gather all this divine revelation to sum it up that we are "being made God in life and nature but not in the Godhead" you call me a,... unrepentant false teaching heretic. Hmm...

I began this thread with the title the "deification of man". In your rebuttal to me in this last post you quoted Irenaeus as follows: Irenaeus is referring to human deification through God’s grace in conquering immortality and incorruptibility in making “men like to Himself,” not as gods or God Himself,
If you look at my posts you will see I was also careful to include that we are not becoming "gods" nor are we becoming equal to God in His position in the Godhead. It would seem that Irenaeus is saying precisely the same thing."referring to human deification through God's grace"..."not as gods or God Himself". Human deification in my book,...means... human deification. Why do you think he felt the need to include "not as gods or God Himself"? It was because he surely knew the ramifications of declaring "human deification" and needed to make sure he wasn't being misunderstood to mean we are becoming gods, or part of the Godhead with equal power of the Godhead. My posts make that very clear.

So, ask yourself this question. What is human deification? Or are you now going to say that he really didn't mean man is becoming deified? We can't have it both ways. Is there some separate deity that is reserved for man and really isn't of God and part of God? Well, according to at least the scripture I quoted that is not the case. There is only one deity. And if we are becoming deified, we are in fact becoming a part of that deity not matter how you want to spin it.

When a branch is cut off it's old stock and grafted into the New vine, it is still that branch, but it's life nature has changed. It is not equal with the trunk of the vine, yet it is indeed a part of the vine receiving all the same life flow of the vine. In essence, if you were now to touch that grafted in branch, you would also be touching the vine, for it is now part of the vine.
...He who is joined to the Lord is one spirit.

 

[ember]

Synopsis of my perusing this thread:


Same thought processes involved in the garden of Eden when the serpent tempted Eve.

Well it worked back then, so............

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

That's not what this poster is asserting. Satan deceived a third of the angels and rebelled against God in an attempt to supplant God and become God himself. Obviously, that resulted in an epic fail and Satan is presently a fallen angel cast out of heaven that awaits final judgment.

The poster is not asserting that. He's also stated that he's not asserting the heretical Mormon doctrine of eternal progression, and though it came late in the discussion, he also stated that he's not asserting heretical apotheosis (e.g. deification in God’s essence which is imparticipable) or some form of pantheism.

He's asserting a unique version of theosis that he believes will make people into God that he think's he's discovered in scripture and the ancient church patriarchs.

He's wrong. While it is true that we have a union with God as Jesus said in John 17 and where it is also true that we are made "partakers of the divine nature," these cannot and should not be interpreted to mean our deification in the sense of an ontological change.

We participate in God's holiness through the person and work of Christ who dwells in us. It is being "partakers of the divine nature" that enables us to become more like Christ in our resistance to sin and increase in holy practice and attitude. The acts of salvation, regeneration, sanctification, and glorification to not result in people becoming gods or God.

Mormonism is among the very worst of the fabricated religious cults that error with respect to this line of heresy and Eastern Orthodoxy errors somewhat with respect to this topic though they stop short of going all the way with it.

84niner never stops. He takes it all the way to into heresy... pedal to the medal. He wants to be God and thinks he's going to become God. He may even already think he is God. I've met people like that before.

They come in all kinds of weird strains. Back in the 80's, before I began following Christ, I was talking to a Solofest (not to be confused with a Sophist, Sufist, etc... ) at a party and he asserted that everything (the universe, the world, people, and all activity) was an emanation from his divine self.

Don't bother looking up Solofest on Google, you won't find it. I eventually did find the term in a very old treatise on philosophy as a negative deviation from the Bahá'í Faith but that's the only place I've ever seen it.

This drunk character actually believed he was God. Fortunately, we were standing on a steep hill which afforded me an opportunity to show he wasn't God. After repeatedly ensuring that he really believed the material and supernatural universe all emanated from his will for them to exist (just to be triple sure you know), I jumped up and side kicked him over the hill where he tumbled about thirty feet down into a dirty water filled ditch.

Being covered in dirty, dirty water, and with his tropical alcoholic beverage strewn all over his clothes and hair and obviously suffering from numerous bruises and small gashes, I called down to him from the top of the hill, "If you were God, could I do that to you?"

I was half expecting either a "Yes!" or a "No!" but what I got instead was, "I'M GOING TO KILL YOU!!!"

Laughing, I got in my truck and drove away. Never saw this "God" again, fortunately, for everyone's sake.

Synopsis of my perusing this thread:


Same thought processes involved in the garden of Eden when the serpent tempted Eve.

Well it worked back then, so............

 

[84Niner]

Synopsis of my perusing this thread:


Same thought processes involved in the garden of Eden when the serpent tempted Eve.

Well it worked back then, so............

There is an immeasurable difference between the "Tree of knowledge of good and evil" (to know what God knows) verses, the "Tree of Life" (to partake of and have Gods life). Satan was using the Tree of Knowledge as a temptation for the sole purpose of ruining mans right to partake of the Tree of Life. With "Knowing of the things of God" man would become independent of God. By partaking of the Tree of Life, man would become entirely dependent of God. My postings on this topic express the exact opposite of the deceit purposed upon Adam and Eve in the garden.

 

[84Niner]

That's not what this poster is asserting. Satan deceived a third of the angels and rebelled against God in an attempt to supplant God and become God himself. Obviously, that resulted in an epic fail and Satan is presently a fallen angel cast out of heaven that awaits final judgment.

The poster is not asserting that. He's also stated that he's not asserting the heretical Mormon doctrine of eternal progression, and though it came late in the discussion, he also stated that he's not asserting heretical apotheosis (e.g. deification in God’s essence which is imparticipable) or some form of pantheism.

He's asserting a unique version of theosis that he believes will make people into God that he think's he's discovered in scripture and the ancient church patriarchs.

He's wrong. While it is true that we have a union with God as Jesus said in John 17 and where it is also true that we are made "partakers of the divine nature," these cannot and should not be interpreted to mean our deification in the sense of an ontological change.

We participate in God's holiness through the person and work of Christ who dwells in us. It is being "partakers of the divine nature" that enables us to become more like Christ in our resistance to sin and increase in holy practice and attitude. The acts of salvation, regeneration, sanctification, and glorification to not result in people becoming gods or God.

Mormonism is among the very worst of the fabricated religious cults that error with respect to this line of heresy and Eastern Orthodoxy errors somewhat with respect to this topic though they stop short of going all the way with it.

84niner never stops. He takes it all the way to into heresy... pedal to the medal. He wants to be God and thinks he's going to become God. He may even already think he is God. I've met people like that before.

They come in all kinds of weird strains. Back in the 80's, before I began following Christ, I was talking to a Solofest (not to be confused with a Sophist, Sufist, etc... ) at a party and he asserted that everything (the universe, the world, people, and all activity) was an emanation from his divine self.

Don't bother looking up Solofest on Google, you won't find it. I eventually did find the term in a very old treatise on philosophy as a negative deviation from the Bahá'í Faith but that's the only place I've ever seen it.

This drunk character actually believed he was God. Fortunately, we were standing on a steep hill which afforded me an opportunity to show he wasn't God. After repeatedly ensuring that he really believed the material and supernatural universe all emanated from his will for them to exist (just to be triple sure you know), I jumped up and side kicked him over the hill where he tumbled about thirty feet down into a dirty water filled ditch.

Being covered in dirty, dirty water, and with his tropical alcoholic beverage strewn all over his clothes and hair and obviously suffering from numerous bruises and small gashes, I called down to him from the top of the hill, "If you were God, could I do that to you?"

I was half expecting either a "Yes!" or a "No!" but what I got instead was, "I'M GOING TO KILL YOU!!!"

Laughing, I got in my truck and drove away. Never saw this "God" again, fortunately, for everyone's sake.

Well, I think we are finally winding this thing down. It still amazes me how so many leap to assumptions and conclusions when I say the words "deification of man" or heaven forbid, "man becoming God in life and nature but not in the Godhead". It appears as if I say one thing and then it is simply translated into me saying; "I am God!! "I want to be God!!"

I hope you are not comparing me to the inebriated chap you met who claimed to be God and ended up with mud on his face. I think if you were honest and summed up everything I have posted you would hopefully come to realize that I would never go about saying I am God. If someone was to press me on the subject of human and divine relationship I would engage them in a conversation such as the one above which hopefully would alleviate any concerns that I was claiming that "I myself am the Almighty".

Further, in spite of what you say I am saying, I never once said "I want to be God". Also, I made it very clear that I have nothing to do with Mormonism nor do I subscribe to their theology concerning man becoming gods.

It is becoming ever more clear that in spite of all the scripture I posted and all the qualifying words I attached to my assertion that man is becoming "deified to become God in life and nature but not in the Godhead", you continue to misrepresent my standing.

Having said that, I remain firm in my dissertation of the deification of man and feel I have more than adequately supported that view in my many posts in this thread in spite of all the twisting of what I said, and the fabricated adding to what I said, and and/or associations to other false groups I have been charged with, and last but not least all the unsupported claims that "I am just wrong".

Yea I know.... I am wrong again.

 

[AgeofKnowledge]

Indeed, you're wrong.

Yea I know.... I am wrong again.

 

[84Niner]

Indeed, you're wrong.

Talk about pedal to the medal, Ha ha... Okay mate, nice chattin with ya.