Do men become God?

  • Thread starter Thread starter dnar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

dnar

Guest
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.”

“For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.”
 
dnar said:
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.”

“For the Son of God became man so that we might become God.”
Click to expand...
I have asked this question also, I was confused too. Luke K & Scoobyshme explained it to me this way and it cleared it up for me

It means we partake in the divinity of Christ. We don’t become gods unto ourselves as if we have god-like powers separate from God, but our nature does become divine inasmuch as Jesus’ union of human and divine natures allows us to enter into the inner life of the Trinity. There is absolutely no divinity apart from the One, Triune God, and all we can do is be a part of it.

“On that day you will realize that I am in my Father and you are in me and I in you…Whoever loves me will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our dwelling with him.” -John 14: 20,23

And

I might add that Jesus refers to Himself as the Vine and us as the branches. The branches are not the vine, but united to it. This process of unification begins in this life. When we die and go to heaven, we are not less, but more united with the Vine. But we are not separate vines.

LDS’s believe that Jesus was once just a mere human like us and was “good enough” in a previous life to become God on this planet. They believe that we can do likewise, i.e., be “good enough” in this life to become “God” on another planet. For this reason (and others), they really aren’t Christian, since they believe in a different Jesus than historical Christianity.
 
No,

We become partakers of the Divine Nature and have a share in dinvity as Gods children but being created creatures with a finite soul we will never be able to be God or even know God fully as He knows Himself (ultimate beatitude).

The verses you mention relate to a concept of Theosis - becoming transformed through the perfection of Christian sanctification to become “Christ-Like”; to take on a new divine-human nature; a nature that is orders of magnitude above what Adam ever was but short of Divinity.

This is why it is important to mature and grow our soul’s capacity while here on earth in our formative years (like gestation) so that we may partake more deeply into the beatific vision – the greatest and complete joy. At death the soul is all it can ever be - it must exist for all eternity with the grace and love that it has experienced and held. So it is believed by many that there are differing spiritual capacities and ranks among the saints in heaven in accord with their spiritual works and sanctifucation (a glory that is shared in some mysterious way so to cause NO jealousy in heaven) that permits the most spiritually developed souls to draw ever deeper into beatitude. It is possible for humans to transcend their own original human nature to rise higher than even the higest choir of angels - but probably only a few do (saints and martyers). We believe that Mary and Joseph at her side are the two highest human souls in heaven and at a rank higher than even St.Gabriel and the Seraphim - the highest angelic creatures. The vision of this was the source of Lucifer’s fall since before man was created he was the highest created creature and could not accept that the Holy God who He derived his standing from could stoop to the base nature of human creatures and raise them up since that implied the angels must serve God and man. This was the origin of pride and all sin.

James
 
Why does my post say this at the bottom?

Last edited by Eric Hilbert; Today at 11:20 am.
 
I understand what you are saying, but the Catechism could have worded it that way…instead it just plainly stated “so that we might become God.”

And it seems to make a clear point…as the Son of God became man (we know this happened)…so that we may become God.
 
dnar said:
Why does my post say this at the bottom?

*Last edited by Eric Hilbert; Today at 11:20 am. *
Click to expand...
The “Last edited by Eric HIlbert” line is most poossibly because you changed and edited your post? 😃

The literary style is hyperbole and it should not be taken 100% literally. We become Christ-Like which is to be like divine-human. But God is 100% spirit in His first person and only divine-human in his 2nd person through the hypostatic union. In the taxonomy humanity is attached subordinate to Christ viz HIS hypostatic union. That is a subordinate relationship which means even elevated man needs and derives his elevation from Christ’s. That dependency as well as the criteria of divinity (which precludes being created or dependent on anyone or thing) means we can not be God. That would be an impossible contradiction of the very semantic of Divine. Further the human soul is finite and could NOT contain the infinite God to become God – we’d explode. We are each unique but attached to the Godhead through Christ’s hypostatic union.

James
 
CentralFLJames said:
Possibly because you changed and edited your post? 😃

The literary style is hyperbole and it should not be taken 100% literally. We become Christ-Like which is divine-human. But God is 100% spirit in hist first person and only divine-human in his 2nd person through the hypostatic union. In the taxonomy humanity is attached subordinate to Christ viz HIS hypostatic union. That is a subordinate relationship which means even elevated man needs and derives his elevation from Christs. That dependency as well as the criteria of divinity (which precludes being created or dependent on anyone or thing) means we can not be God. That would be an impossible contradiction of the very semantic of Divine. Further the human soul is finite and could NOT contain the infinite God to become God. We are each unique but attached to the Godhead through Christ’s hypostatic union.

James
Click to expand...
That is a highly confusing statement to place into the beliefs. Because it appears that they are teaching man can become God. That is what it appears to teach. If we come at it with other thoughts and outside ideas I can see how we rationalize it, but at first reading it appears to teach a non-truth.

And no I didn’t edit my post. I am not Eric Hilbert and have no idea who it is, that is why I was asking what it meant. I am guessing it must be a moderator here.
 
CentralFLJames said:
Possibly because you changed and edited your post? 😃

The literary style is hyperbole and it should not be taken 100% literally. We become Christ-Like which is divine-human. But God is 100% spirit in hist first person and only divine-human in his 2nd person through the hypostatic union. In the taxonomy humanity is attached subordinate to Christ viz HIS hypostatic union. That is a subordinate relationship which means even elevated man needs and derives his elevation from Christs. That dependency as well as the criteria of divinity (which precludes being created or dependent on anyone or thing) means we can not be God. That would be an impossible contradiction of the very semantic of Divine. Further the human soul is finite and could NOT contain the infinite God to become God. We are each unique but attached to the Godhead through Christ’s hypostatic union.

James
Click to expand...
That’s pretty much how it is explained in Protestant Reformed churches as well.
However there are sects that misinterpret certain verses of scripture without understanding the hypostatic union.
 
dnar said:
That is a highly confusing statement to place into the beliefs. Because it appears that they are teaching man can become God. That is what it appears to teach. If we come at it with other thoughts and outside ideas I can see how we rationalize it, but at first reading it appears to teach a non-truth.

And no I didn’t edit my post. I am not Eric Hilbert and have no idea who it is, that is why I was asking what it meant. I am guessing it must be a moderator here.
Click to expand...
Yes the moderator corrected something for you. That’s a tad bit unusual here - normally they just relocate new posts to the proper sub forum area. I am used to Michael Francis as the moderator and don’t know Eric’s modus operandi …

Back to topic. The words are an exact quote of scripture - so you will need to take up any displeasure with God. 😃 The Church wraps it with a context of catechism teaching to help clarify it.

Didn’t our comments here help?

James
 
CentralFLJames said:
Yes the moderator corrected something for you. That’s a tad bit unusual here - normally they just relocate new posts to the proper sub forum area. I am used to Michael Francis as the moderator and don’t know Eric’s modus operandi …

Back to topic. The words are an exact quote of scripture - so you will need to take up any displeasure with God. 😃 The Church wraps it with a context of catechism teaching to help clarify it.

Didn’t our comments here help?

James
Click to expand...
Absolutely your comments helped.

“The words are an exact quote of scripture” … Please provide this.
 
dnar said:
Absolutely your comments helped.

“The words are an exact quote of scripture” … Please provide this.
Click to expand...
2nd Peter 1:4.
In the Amplified Bible it reads: “sharers (partakers) of the divine nature”.
 
JustaServant said:
2nd Peter 1:4.
In the Amplified Bible it reads: “sharers (partakers) of the divine nature”.
Click to expand...
Okay. I knew the the whole “men becoming God” wasn’t in there. I thought that was what was being referred to. I understand we are sharers and partakers of the divine nature, just not that we will actually become God, which apparently is not what it really says even though it says it.
 
dnar said:
Okay. I knew the the whole “men becoming God” wasn’t in there. I thought that was what was being referred to. I understand we are sharers and partakers of the divine nature, just not that we will actually become God, which apparently is not what it really says even though it says it.
Click to expand...
I had to get used to the Catholic Bible translation when I reverted.
Even now, when its my turn to lector I occasionally lapse into King James. 😃
 
dnar said:
Absolutely your comments helped.

“The words are an exact quote of scripture” … Please provide this.
Click to expand...
The beauty of the Catholic Catechism is everything is footnoted to reference all origins of though on these matters. One can trace every statement back to scripture or a church council meeting or a saintly writing or early belief etc.

Let me decode it for you:

Here is CC 460 with the foot note references:
CC 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
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.
*
Click to expand...
So I was a little wrong here - the reference to “becoming a son of God” came from reference 79 which is a very early Church Father apologetic writing of St. Irenaeus’s ( Adversus Haereses or Against Heresies in 180 AD) here and also a reference 80, from St. Athanasius’s De Incarnatione (more info on ECF here:newadvent.org/fathers/index.html ).

The Church just quoted the literal words that form part of our magisterial approach to using both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as the foundation for all our beliefs.

The depth and maturity of Catholic theology is light years beyond anything calling itself Christian on the planet. Catholic teaching stands on the towering shoulders of intellectual and spiritual giants and deep historical development and the deeper revelations of the Holy Spirit that Christ promised ONLY to His Church.

James
 
CentralFLJames said:
The beauty of the Catholic Catechism is everything is footnoted to reference all origins of though on these matters. One can trace every statement back to scripture or a church council meeting or a saintly writing or early belief etc.

Let me decode it for you:

Here is CC 460 with the foot note references:

So I was a little wrong here - the reference to “becoming a son of God” came from reference 79 which is a very early Church Father apologetic writing of St. Irenaeus’s ( Adversus Haereses or Against Heresies in 180 AD) here and also a reference 80, from St. Athanasius’s De Incarnatione (more info on ECF here:newadvent.org/fathers/index.html ).

The Church just quoted the literal words that form part of our magisterial approach to using both Sacred Tradition and Sacred Scripture as the foundation for all our beliefs.

The depth and maturity of Catholic theology is light years beyond anything calling itself Christian on the planet. Catholic teaching stands on the towering shoulders of intellectual and spiritual giants and deep historical development and the deeper revelations of the Holy Spirit that Christ promised ONLY to His Church.

James
Click to expand...
Yes, I did notice it was taken from there, and I didn’t really need any help decoding a reference. I simply knew it wasn’t in the BIble is all.
 
dnar said:
Yes, I did notice it was taken from there, and I didn’t really need any help decoding a reference. I simply knew it wasn’t in the BIble is all.
Click to expand...
Oh I wish then you had warned me that the question was merely rhetorical so I didn’t waste time having to look it all up and give links to it for you.

James
 
This is such an interesting topic because it shows how easily–as Chesterton pointed out–Catholic doctrine can be misunderstood through taking things out of context

I don’t mean anybody is doing that. But think of how people would react if we said, “we have become God”.

Yet we are indeed children of God, which means that we have the divine nature!
 
patricius79 said:
This is such an interesting topic because it shows how easily–as Chesterton pointed out–Catholic doctrine can be misunderstood through taking things out of context

I don’t mean anybody is doing that. But think of how people would react if we said, “we have become God”.

Yet we are indeed children of God, which means that we have the divine nature!
Click to expand...
While that statement is indeed true, it is very easy to take that out of context, you would have to admit. If someone knew very little about Christianity and someone told them this teaching only…I would say they would walk away saying, well that says jesus became man so that we can become God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top