Divinization: Partakers of the Divine Nature

[Vouthon]

My post is intended to clarify the meaning of “become God” in the light of Counterpoint’s assertion that “We are to become gods even as Jesus was** a god**”:

Ah I see, I had thought that you were calling my comments “absurd”

My mistake Sorry!

 

[Counterpoint]

Counterpoint:

Jesus never claims to be God. But he did claim to be a god (at least, the implication is there in his words).

“The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? If he called them gods, unto 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 10:33-36

When pointedly asked WHO He is, how He is related to God, the answer He gave that drove the Jews mad, that was the crime deserving death, was I AM. He took the name of God for Himself, making Himself God.

When He called Himself the truth, life, the way, the resurrection He was saying He is God.

I’m afraid you don’t have the luxury of summarily dismissing the biblical passage I provided you.

 

[Counterpoint]

Why Jesus didn’t simply come out explicitly and say, “I AM-God”

You’re simply making my point. Jesus never explicitly stated that “I am God.” And if you believe that he implicitly stated that, then I guess you believe the Jews were justified in charging him with blasphemy - an offense deserving the death penalty according to OT law.

Noted New Testament Scholar and Catholic Theologian Raymond E. Brown states it best:

“The question concerns Jesus a Galilean Jew of the first third of the first century, for whom ‘God’ would have a meaning specified by his background and the theological language of the time. By way of simplification (and perhaps oversimplification) let me say that I think by a Jew of that period ‘God’ would have been thought of as One dwelling in the heavens - among many attributes. Therefore, a question posed to Jesus on earth, ‘Do you think you are God?’ WOULD MEAN, DID HE THINK HE WAS THE ONE DWELLING IN HEAVEN. And you can see that would have been an inappropriate question, since Jesus was visibly on earth. As a matter of fact the question was never asked of him; at most he was asked about his relationship to God.” (Brown, Responses to 101 Questions on the Bible [Paulist Press, Mahwah, N.J., 1990], p. 98)

I see Jesus as a mystic. And the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christinaity, and Islam) have a long track record of persceuting mystics.

 

[davidv]

You’re simply making my point. Jesus never explicitly stated that “I am God.” And if you believe that he implicitly stated that, then I guess you believe the Jews were justified in charging him with blasphemy - an offense deserving the death penalty according to OT law.

Why does He have to be quoted with the exact words as you specify. John 8:58 clearly means that He said He was God

Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly,** I** say to you, before Abraham was,** I** am.”

I see Jesus as a mystic.

Why should anyone trust this sight?

And the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christinaity, and Islam) have a long track record of persceuting mystics.

Inaccuratate. Ad hominem.

 

[Counterpoint]

Why does He have to be quoted with the exact words as you specify. John 8:58 clearly means that He said He was God

Jesus does not explicitly state that “I am God” and “you are not.” (You will not find such a statement anywhere in the gospels.)

 

[Vouthon]

And the Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christinaity, and Islam) have a long track record of persceuting mystics.

So the Desert Fathers, the Hesychasts, the Rhineland mystics, the Franciscans, the Dominicans, the Carmelites, the Victorines and the Carthusians were all persecuted out of existence were they?

 

[levinas12]

There’s another theological issue that has to be addressed.

When the Second Person of the Trinity assumed human nature, that Event brought human nature “inside” the Trinity. Now we need to unpack what this means. First, what is going “inside” the Trinity? In Greek, perichoresis (the 3 Persons “dancing” into each other). In Latin, circumcession (the 3 Persons moving into and around each other). All of this is to describe the dynamics of Love (to a certain extent, human lovemaking is a metaphor for this Dynamics). Both perichoresis and circumsession are highly erotic terms.

This by the way is the central focus of JP II’s theology of body and Benedict’s encyclical letter “God is Love”, i.e., Eros “inside” the Trinity, the immanent Trinity that was there before Creation.

Now, what about angels. No angelic nature was brought “inside” the Trinity. One could argue that only human beings can enter “inside”. So we have a gift not given to any other creature. We can go “inside” and angels cannot.

Comments?

 

[levinas12]

correction: not “circumsession” but “circuminsession” (the “in” emphasizes the unity of the dynamic activity)

 

[grandfather]

I’m afraid you don’t have the luxury of summarily dismissing the biblical passage I provided you.

Believe what you will.

 

[Counterpoint]

So the Desert Fathers, the Hesychasts, the Rhineland mystics, the Franciscans, the Dominicans, the Carmelites, the Victorines and the Carthusians were all persecuted out of existence were they?

Meister Eckhart (the most prominent Rhineland mystic) was tried for heresy. Saint John of the Cross (the most prominent Spansih mystic) was perscuted . Masur-Al-Hallaj (one of the most prominent Sufi mystics) was persecuted. And Jesus himself was persecuted.

 

[Vouthon]

Meister Eckhart (the most prominent Rhineland mystic) was tried for heresy.

And never declared a heretic, merely a series of propositions alleged about his theology that he denied ever espousing in his trial. His own order, the Dominicans, never regarded him as a heretic. Neither did his followers, two of whom were beatified and a much later one Nicholas of Cusa, who read Eckhart’s works, became the most powerful cardinal in the catholic church during the 14th century, as well as a mystic himself.

Blessed Pope John Paul II held him in high regard:

“…I think of the marvellous history of Rheno-Flemish mysticism of the thirteenth and especially of the fourteenth centuries… Did not Eckhart teach his disciples: “All that God asks you most pressingly is to go out of yourself … and let God be God in you” [cf Walshe Sermon 13b]? One could think that in separating himself from creatures the mystic leaves his brother humanity behind. The same Eckhart affirms that on the contrary the mystic is marvellously present to them on the only level where he can truly reach them, that is, in God.’…”

- Blessed Pope John Paul II, in “Ecclesiastical Mission of Adrienne Speyr” (1987)

From a CAF apologist:

Question: I have read a bit of M. Eckhart because I feel attracted to mystical works (St. John if the Cross, Teresa of Avila). I understand that he is considered a heretic.

Answer from Fr. Vincent Serpa:

Hey Nicolo,

Meister Eckhart was a Dominican like me and is no heretic.
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=80878

The apologetics part of this website even recommends him for the purposes of missionary activity:

catholic.com/quickquestio…izing-a-taoist

I suspect that your friend is attracted to the mystical and philosophical aspects of Taoism. It could be that his own Christian tradition is devoid of these. Perhaps you could whet his appetite with the writings of some of our Catholic mystics. I would recommend the work of Meister Eckhart whose work develops themes that are congruent with Taoism but also thoroughly Christian.

Saint John of the Cross

(the most prominent Spansih mystic) was perscuted .

Yes by reactionary elements within his own Carmelite Order who resisted his and St. Teresa’s reforms, not by the Magisterium nor a heresy tribunal. His incarceration had nothing to do with mysticism. He was then canonized and declared a Doctor of the Church, making your argument very weak on this score.

Masur-Al-Hallaj (one of the most prominent Sufi mystics) was persecuted. And Jesus himself was persecuted.

An isolated incident and a period not replicated until modernity. The first Sufis have been proven to be ascetic Muslims trying to escape the pomp and luxury of the Abbasid Caliphate (then the world’s most powerful state) by living solitary, holy lives in the desert. These early Islamic mystics were named ‘world renouncers’ [zuhhad].They meditated on the Qur’an and repeated the dhikr, invoking the Names of Allah. Then over time some Sufis wrote down their devotional exercises beginning in the 9th century. Niffari, Tirmidhi and Bayazid are famous early Sufis and all of them were devout Muslims. Now, there was an Islamic version of the Inquisition around this time, called the Minha, which tried to suppress the non-mystical Mutazili rationalist heretics, however as a secondary purpose the state also executed Al-Hallaj, who declared identity with God (“I am Allah”). However in the twelfth century the orthodox Muslim jurist Al-Ghazali reconciled Sufi Islam, which by this time was popular among masses of ordinary Muslims, with the orthodox tenets of the Ulema. Thus, Sufism became an accepted part of Islam until the rise of fundamentalist Wahhabism in the 19th century.

Rumi - the most famous of the Sufi mystics who wrote the Masnavi, a world classic of Sufi poetry - remained a devout Islamic scholar and jurist after his first mystical experience, adhering to the Hanafi school. His family carried this legacy on.

seekersguidance.org/ans-blog/2012/04/26/what-do-classical-scholars-say-about-jalal-al-din-al-rumi/

Mawlana Jalal al-Din al-Rumi (d. 672 h.) was a recognized scholar of the Hanafi school, as were his father, son, and grandson, all being jurists of the highest caliber, as well as an Imam of the science of self-purification (ihsan).

In his compendium of Hanafi scholars, Abu’l Wafa’ al-Qurshi (d. 696 h.) introduces him as someone “knowledgeable of the [Hanafi] school, possessing vast understanding of juridical matters, thoroughly knowledgeable of juridical differences and other types of sciences.” [Jawahir al-Mudiyya]

Similarly, Ibn Qutlubugha (d. 879 h.), the great Hanafi jurist, stated in his Taj al-Tarajim after mentioning Mawlana Rumi’s lineage back to our liege=lord Abu Bakr (Allah be well pleased with him) that “he was knowledgeable of the legal schools, differences of opinion, and various types of sciences… and he composed many lines of poetry.”…

Perhaps more noteworthy than all of the above are the biographical notices on his son, Baha’ al-Din Ahmad, who was described in Ibn Hajar `Asqalani’s Durar al-Kamina as, “one of the Imams of the Hanafi Masters, brilliant, ascetic, pious, a jurist, scholar of legal methodology (usul), and grammarian…” and by al-Qurshi in his Jawahir as an “Imam… who followed his father in leaving the world behind.”…

All of this goes to show that Mawlana Jalal al-Din was nothing but an orthodox Sunni scholar who not only mastered the outward sciences but actualized the inward as well. May Allah be well-pleaed with him and those who followed him.

 

[GaryTaylor]

And if you believe that he implicitly stated that,.

My conclusion isn’t based on the one event but on the preponderance of evidence OT/NT which leads to the explicit fact He is God.

 

[Counterpoint]

Believe what you will.

I will.

 

[Counterpoint]

And never declared a heretic, merely a series of propositions alleged about his theology that he denied ever espousing in his trial.

The point is that he was tried as a heretic. And what would have happened to him if he was found guilty?

This is why mystics, in the Abrahamic tradiitions, have always had to couch their teachings in crypto-terms. If they didn’t, then they would be charged with heresy by the religious establishment. In fact, we see this same dynamic being played out in this very forum - on this very thread.

 

[Counterpoint]

Counterpoint:

And if you believe that he implicitly stated that,

My conclusion isn’t based on the one event but on the preponderance of evidence OT/NT which leads to the explicit fact He is God.

Why did you parse my previous response?

“And if you believe that he implicitly stated that, then I guess you believe the Jews were justified in charging him with blasphemy - an offense deserving the death penalty according to OT law.”

 

[Vouthon]

The point is that he was tried as a heretic. And what would have happened to him if he was found guilty?

I don’t see the issue my friend. Orthodox mystics have even declared, “My self is God” but unlike Al-Hallaj none of them have ever been tried for heresy, because there is an orthodox way of understanding such a claim. Was Catherine of Genoa tried for heresy for declaring “my me is God”?

Eckhart’s trial for heresy was in fact politically motivated, given his advocacy for the laity and peasants (ie his sermons were in the vernacular), which is why it never amounted to him being declared a heretic.

This is why mystics, in the Abrahamic tradiitions, have always had to couch their teachings in crypto-terms. If they didn’t, then they would be charged with heresy by the religious establishment. In fact, we see this same dynamic being played out in this very forum - on this very thread.

In ancient India, Buddhists and others suffered persecution at the hands of the Brahmins for teaching nastika (heterodox) teachings (ie rejecting the authority of the Vedas), so I find it rather strange that you keep banging on about how awful Abrahamics are

There is an entire branch of theology in Catholicism, mystical theology, devoted to mysticism:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mysticism#History

In early Christianity the term “mystikos” referred to three dimensions, which soon became intertwined, namely the biblical, the liturgical and the spiritual or contemplative.[1] The biblical dimension refers to “hidden” or allegorical interpretations of Scriptures.[web 1][1] The liturgical dimension refers to the liturgical mystery of the Eucharist, the presence Christ at the Eucharist.[web 1][1] The third dimension is the contemplative or experiential knowledge of God.[1]

The link between mysticism and the vision of the Divine was introduced by the early Church Fathers, who used the term as an adjective, as in mystical theology and mystical contemplation.

I can assure you that Catholicism and mysticism are not so anathema (pun intended ) as you seem to think.

Indeed it is recognised by most that:

**The Roman Catholic Church has always had more of a place for mysticism than the Protestant churches, and the mystical experience has continued to be important in the lives of many Roman Catholic religious orders.
**

Read more: answers.com/topic/mysticism#ixzz2y2fE7aBS

Pope Francis made this clear recently when he said:

There have been worse times for religions than the present. Nonetheless they pulled through. Perhaps nowadays there is a scarcity of religious people, but there were times in the past when there was a scarcity of virtue. There have been corrupt times in the Church… There were very difficult times and nonetheless religion revived. Suddenly there appear people like Teresa of Calcutta who revolutionise the notion of personal dignity, who spend their time… helping people to die. These deeds create mysticism and renew the religious sense.

In the history of the Catholic Church, the true renovators are the saints. They are the true reformers, the ones who change, transform, lead and revive spiritual paths. Another example: Francis of Assisi, who introduced a new attitude towards poverty in Christianity when faced with the luxury, pride and vanity of the civil and ecclesiastical powers of the time. He introduced a mysticism of poverty, of detachment, and he changed history.

 

[tonyrey]

My post is intended to clarify the meaning of “become God” in the light of Counterpoint’s assertion that "We are to become gods even as Jesus was* a god***

It was my fault rather than yours because I should have directed my post to him rather than you! :blushing:

 

[Counterpoint]

I don’t see the issue my friend. Orthodox mystics have even declared, “My self is God” but unlike Al-Hallaj none of them have ever been tried for heresy, because there is an orthodox way of understanding such a claim. Was Catherine of Genoa tried for heresy for declaring “my me is God”?:

Jesus never made such an explicit statement in the gospels. And yet, you believe Jesus’ “self” is actually God’s self. But the “self” of the Orthodox mystic actually is not. Isn’t that right?

 

[Vouthon]

Jesus never made such an explicit statement in the gospels. And yet, you believe Jesus’ “self” is actually God’s self. But the “self” of the Orthodox mystic actually is not. Isn’t that right?

Jesus declared, “Before Abraham was, I AM” in reference to the unspeakable Divine Name YHWH. Jews substituted the Tetragrammaton with terms such as “Adonai” and “Elohim” because it was too wholly to verbalize. The Divine Name meant, “I am who I am” or “I am that am”. In saying this, Jesus was claiming identity with the very essence and being of God, something that no Catholic mystic has claimed.

The Jewish crowds understood perfectly what Jesus had claimed:

58Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I say to you, before Abraham was born, I AM.” 59Therefore they picked up stones to throw at Him; but Jesus hid Himself, and went out of the temple."

Later in the Gospel of John he said:

30"I and the Father are one." 31**The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. **32Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” 34Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35"If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”

If the Jewish crowd understood according to the logic of this Gospel, that Jesus “made himself out to be God”, why do you struggle to accept that he did do this?

When he says, “ye are gods” in quoting this OT verse he is witnessing to the deification of the saints by grace.

 

[Counterpoint]

30"I and the Father are one." 31The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” 33The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” 34Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I said, you are gods’? 35"If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken), 36do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?”

Because Jesus denies the charge of blasphemy! He is not saying “I am God” and “You are not.”

When he says, “ye are gods” in quoting this OT verse he is witnessing to the deification of the saints by grace.

This may be true. Jesus may well be speaking to “divinization” - partaking of the divine nature (the subject matter of this thread). But the point is that he is only claiming to be divine in the sense that every human being can be considered to be divine.

“I am a god. You are gods. We are all gods. It says so in the OT. So, I don’t know why you are falsely charging me with blasphemy.” <= I’m paraphrasing…but that is exactly what Jesus is saying in John 10.

You can’t have it both ways. Jesus is not saying anything differently than your Orthodox mystic.