Google ousia. In theosis, there is no primary change in the nature of Gd or man, and while we may be part of him in his glory, Gd’s ousia remains intact, and we are not part of it.
“Through the power of the Holy Spirit we take part in Christ’s Passion by dying to sin, and in His Resurrection by being born to new life; we are members of His Body which is the Church, branches grafted onto the Vine which is Himself: ‘[God] gave Himself to us through His Spirit. By the participation of the Spirit, we become communicants in the divine nature. . . . For this reason, those in whom the Spirit dwells are divinized.’” [Catechism of the Catholic Church, no 1988]
The several hypothesises that Gd created the world out of existing “matter” to me doesn’t argue for either a time there was no Gd, nor an “eternal” matter, nor a “pre-existence”.
I am coming from a Wittgensteinian background and I have problems with words like “being” and “substance” and “nature”
I just don’t really know what they mean. It is like asking what color love is. Don’t know. The word “substance” magically allowed Thomas Aquinas to create “transubstantiation” by saying that the substance of flesh stayed the same under the appearance of bread. Now that was a good linguistic trick. Reverse the coils, captain Kirk and now we can go into warp drive.
Deus ex machina at its best-- almost literally!!
But what does that mean?
I get the idea that theosis is a change to a lesser degree than what we would see as “exaltation”. But what about 1 Cointhinans 15 where Paul talks about a difference of bodies? Celestial Terestrial and Telestial? Are those different “species” as well? He talks there about fish and animals, so is that your interpretation?
That catechism quote sounds a lot like section 84 of the D&C where it talks about the oath and covenant of the priesthood
"33 For whoso is faithful unto the obtaining these two priesthoods of which I have spoken, and the magnifying their calling, are sanctified by the Spirit unto the renewing of their bodies. "
YOU:“The several hypothesises that G
d created the world out of existing “matter” to me doesn’t argue for either a time there was no Gd, nor an “eternal” matter, nor a “pre-existence”.”
I would like to explore this.
I was never arguing for a “time” that there was no God. I was arguing that God is outside of time.
The problem is that it is ambiguous to talk about a “time before time”. I actually talked about this once in a meeting with a member who later went out and made a movie called "“the land before time”.
This is the source of the apparant conflict seen by non members who take literally the statement “God was once as we are now”
In one sense, it is true. He “once” was.
But when you take that and say “HA HA you believe in more than one god, and god is just a man” THAT is not correct.
If you want to look at it this way, let’s postulate that there are multiple “eternities” the existance of which we cannot in principle know-- so this is strictly metaphysics based on faith
But God is eternal in THIS eternity, in this time. But there were other eternities (let us hypothesize) God organized the worlds we can know - perhaps this “big bang”.
So in one sense, it is possible that he was “once” as we are now, but is now an exalted being. But in a real sense, “once” doesnt make sense because it is a temporal concept, and God created time as we know it.
It is a paradox that can only be solved by jumping to another level, just like bertrand russel and the lying slave paradox.
So I am not sure how the above realates to your quote
