Becoming a god

  • Thread starter Thread starter Robert_Joseph60
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Robert_Joseph60 said:
You’re CCC says both, it says Christians become partakers of the Divine nature and it also says men can become a god… You have no authority to change what it says, if everybody did that there would be mass confusion.

CCC 460, The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:78 "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."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "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."81
Click to expand...
Sharers
 
Robert_Joseph60 said:
Hello, but you’re CCC 460 says “make men gods”

CCC 460, The Word became flesh to make us “partakers of the divine nature”:78 "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."79 "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."80 "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."81
Click to expand...
“Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said Ye are gods? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said I am the Son of God.” (John 10:34-36)

Who are the sons of God? Those to whom the word of God came. They are not “gods” in the modern sense of the word.
 
The “become God” phrase in the catechism is from Athanasius’ ‘Of the Incarnation’. The briefest reading of it will show that the Mormon version of apotheosis is not what is meant here.

It is also ironic that Mormons latch onto this one line of Athanasius, while completely ignoring his thoughts on creation from nothing. Athanasius leaves no room for pre- existence.
 
JHow said:
The “become God” phrase in the catechism is from Athanasius’ ‘Of the Incarnation’. The briefest reading of it will show that the Mormon version of apotheosis is not what is meant here.

It is also ironic that Mormons latch onto this one line of Athanasius, while completely ignoring his thoughts on creation from nothing. Athanasius leaves no room for pre- existence.
Click to expand...
It does sound like the OP is trying to grasp at the CCC to validate Mormonism. 😉
 
The Aquinas quote about “gods” is even less tenuously connected to the Mormon idea. Little g, plural, “gods” are nothing to God. See Psalm 82 for how this works. “You shall die like men and fall like princes.”
 
SteveVH said:
"Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said Ye are gods? If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken; Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said I am the Son of God." (John 10:34-36)

Who are the sons of God? Those to whom the word of God came. They are not “gods” in the modern sense of the word.
Click to expand...
10:34–36 Quoted from Ps 82:6 where God calls some unjust judges “gods” and pronounces calamity against them. Jesus’ argument is that this psalm proves that the word “god” can be legitimately used to refer to others than God Himself. His reasoning is that if there are others whom God can address as “god” or “sons of the Most High,” why then should the Jews object to Jesus’ statement that He is “the Son of God” (v. 36)?

MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (2006). The MacArthur study Bible: New American Standard Bible. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
 
CCC 460 contains quotes from a number if sources, which sources do not say what you imply. There is no contradiction there. That is why the CCC has extensive footnotes, so you can look in more detail at whatever is referenced. Read Athanasius, there is only one God, and He is in a category all His own. Read Augustine, categories of time do not apply to God, as time is a created thing. From this it follows that we will not be in the same category as God at any time, although through Christ we may become more like Him, made in his image as we are.
 
Robert_Joseph60 said:
10:34–36 Quoted from Ps 82:6 where God calls some unjust judges “gods” and pronounces calamity against them. Jesus’ argument is that this psalm proves that the word “god” can be legitimately used to refer to others than God Himself. His reasoning is that if there are others whom God can address as “god” or “sons of the Most High,” why then should the Jews object to Jesus’ statement that He is “the Son of God” (v. 36)?

MacArthur, J. F., Jr. (2006). The MacArthur study Bible: New American Standard Bible. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers.
Click to expand...
Psalm 82:6 says “ye are Gods”
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
 
zaffiroborant said:
Psalm 82:6 says “ye are Gods”
6 I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.
Click to expand...
And seven says “ye shall die like men…fall like princes…” Etc.

Clearly not the same as God, and bear in mind that in the age of Pharohs and Ceasars, rulers styled themselves as gods… giving us all these cool mummies to see in museums.
 
Robert_Joseph60 said:
Beat Catholics!:eek: I’m not the one who wrote CCC 460, you are not being logical.
Click to expand...
Reading things without bothering to find out the context is fun!

St. Athanasius was very clear about what he meant. Like most doctrines the doctrine of theosis/deification sounds strange when you hear only a very base explanation without looking any further into it.

If you truly desire knowledge, read his “On the Incarnation”. The doctrine of Theosis has been part of the teaching of the church for a long time. If there is anything negative to say about Catholics in regard to the doctrine it is that they placed so little emphasis on it for such a long time.
 
Nine_Two said:
Reading things without bothering to find out the context is fun!

St. Athanasius was very clear about what he meant. Like most doctrines the doctrine of theosis/deification sounds strange when you hear only a very base explanation without looking any further into it.

If you truly desire knowledge, read his “On the Incarnation”. The doctrine of Theosis has been part of the teaching of the church for a long time. If there is anything negative to say about Catholics in regard to the doctrine it is that they placed so little emphasis on it for such a long time.
Click to expand...
Do you believe that Robert is really that deeply interested in understanding the Catholic view that he is willing to authentically educate himself that deeply into the background of what St Athanasius’s meaning was?

😉

It may be just me, but I see the OP here with a very strong Mormon bias and agenda? 🙂
 
JHow said:
And seven says “ye shall die like men…fall like princes…” Etc.

Clearly not the same as God, and bear in mind that in the age of Pharohs and Ceasars, rulers styled themselves as gods… giving us all these cool mummies to see in museums.
Click to expand...
Generally rulers who styled themselves as gods expected the people to believe it though.

Still the idea is different.

St. Athanasius was talking about us taking the divine nature of God himself, though not literally becoming God. The classical example is a steel heated in fire before it is forged. The metal begins to take on the properties of the fire, becoming extremely hot and glowing (analogous to gaining the divine properties) while at its essence the steel remains steel. So it is for us, we glow with the Uncreated Light, but our essence remains distinct from the essence of God.
 
Nine_Two said:
Generally rulers who styled themselves as gods expected the people to believe it though.

Still the idea is different.

St. Athanasius was talking about us taking the divine nature of God himself, though not literally becoming God. The classical example is a steel heated in fire before it is forged. The metal begins to take on the properties of the fire, becoming extremely hot and glowing (analogous to gaining the divine properties) while at its essence the steel remains steel. So it is for us, we glow with the Uncreated Light, but our essence remains distinct from the essence of God.
Click to expand...
👍

Thanks Nine_Two for taking the time to deliniate it.

I find myself lacking the patience or even the focus to point out the flaws of others (who have an agenda) thought process when they cherry pick something out of context to try and prove a point that they think is new… 🤷

Besides, I would not nearly be as articulate in such an undertaking. Those like yourself do a much better job pointing out the logical flaws with people like Robert.

Thanks for taking the time. 🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top