Huckabee Apologizes for Mormon Comment

seedplanter »

Thu Jan 10, 2008 10:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Hes, Let me know when you're ready to study the historical faith that was given to the apostles and prophets of old. I pray that one day soon God will reveal Himself to you and that you will know that there is a God worth worshipping.

seedplanter »

Sun Jan 06, 2008 12:36 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

“Judaism had two great incarnational symbols. Temple and Torah: Jesus seems to have believed it was his vocation to upstage the one and outflank the other. Judaism spoke of the presence of her God in her midst, in the pillar of cloud and fire, in the Presence (“Shekinah”) in the Temple. Jesus acted and spoke as if he thought he were a one-man counter-temple movement... The Shekinah glory turns out to have a human face.”

“The death of God’s son can only reveal God’s love (as in, e.g., Rom 5:6-10) if the son is the personal expression of God himself. It will hardly do to say “I love you so much that I’m going to send someone else.” There is an interesting distinction here between Mormonism’s polytheistic definition of The Trinity, whereby God became flesh and dwelt among us.

“Long before anyone talked about “nature” and “substance,” “person,” and “Trinity,” the early Christians had quietly but definitely discovered that they could say what they felt obliged to say about Jesus (and the Spirit) by telling the Jewish story of God, Israel and the world, in the Jewish language of Spirit, Word, Torah, Presence/Glory Wisdom, and now Messiah/Son.“

–NT Wright, Jesus and the Identity of God

“For the loyal Jew, from that day to this, the fundamental confession of faith is, ‘Hear O Israel: YHWH our God, YHWH is one.’” This was prayed three times a day and was the most basic Jewish conviction.

-N. T. Wright, Judas and the Gospel of Jesus p 116 (Deut. 6:4). He argues that the current understanding of Jesus must be connected with what is known to be true about him from the historical perspective of first-century Judaism and Christianity. In addition to his doctorate degrees from Merton College, Oxford University, he also has been awarded several honorary doctorate degrees,[1] most recently from Durham University in July 2007.

seedplanter »

Sat Jan 05, 2008 9:26 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

You asked about the nature of Christ and the immutability of God. There is a connection to our topic of deification that underlines both the nature of Christ and the Jewish understanding of God. I took a look at N.T. Wright’s work, Jesus and the Identity of God which examines the cultural context of His claim of being YHWH. For the historian it is imperative to understand the times and customs of any piece of literature that is to be taken seriously if one is to comprehend underlying meanings and terminology.

Pre-incarnation, Jesus did not have a natural body that was subject to our physical laws. We can only speculate what exactly He was like in relationship to our physical laws. We know that He was there at the beginning of time (presumably our time). He was in fact YHWH (John 1:1). By Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible (Col 1:16). Isaiah calls Him the everlasting Father (Isaiah 9:6).
A Christophany is a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ. In the book of Daniel, Christ appears in a vision to Daniel (7:13-14). He was never a pre-mortal spirit, the Bible never so much as even hints to the idea. His essential nature has never changed. Paul said, “By common confession, great is the mystery of godliness: He who was revealed (manifested) in the flesh…” Just how YHWH was able to become a baby and grow as a normal boy into manhood is a mystery according to Paul. He grew up from an infant into a man. Obviously He did not start speaking and walking the day He was born. At some point Christ assumed the role and identity of the Messiah (Mark 14:62): the incarnation of YHWH (Ex.3:14; John 8:58). He acted with the authority of YHWH in such ways as forgiving sins, when the only designated authority for such actions was God (Luke 5:17-26). Jesus also claimed to be YHWH and permitted Himself to be worshiped, both before and after the resurrection (this is mentioned by LDS officials themselves). The point here is that YHWH was manifested in the flesh; it was Jesus fulfilling the messianic covenant prophesied of old. YHWH, Israel’s King came to deliver His people. He came unto His own and His own received Him not. Thence, it became the time of the Gentiles as prophesied, whereby “God commands all people to repent. For He has set a day when He will judge the world with justice by the man He chose long ago. And God has proven this to everyone by raising that man from the dead!” (ACTS 17:30-31) Interesting note, the term “proved” is used here. Evidence is a prerequisite to Christian faith. It may not require as much proof for one to believe compared to another, but it nevertheless is not omitted.

seedplanter »

Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I thought I lost you Hes. I’m going to pass along my email info along to you, just in case we lose each other on here. Feel free to save it to your PC and email me whenever. It is seedplanter1@sbcglobal.net

Should I suppose that you are conceding that deification is not early church evidence of eternal progression? If I don't here any applicable information on the issue, I'm going to assume so.

Allow me to clarify what I said; Jesus’ death was the culmination of all of the prior temple rituals that God commanded Moses to perform. Indeed He did act as a one-man counter-temple movement. Jesus vehemently criticized the religious leaders of His day. He criticized their vain religious laws, their self-righteousness, their inability to know and discern who He is and what God was doing, He condemned their greed and self-ambition. He drove the money changers out. Jesus did not say, “Let this be a house of secret rituals,” but rather, “My house shall be called a house of prayer.” The only hope that Mormonism has of become acceptable to Christians is to strip away the cultural context of Scripture and change the definitions. Have you accepted my challenge to read the Book of Acts for temple passages? The early church devoted themselves to the Word, to prayer and to evangelism.

Examine this passage to see Jesus’ thoughts about centralized temple worship:

"Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem."
Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."
The woman said, "I know that Messiah" (called Christ) "is coming. When he comes, he will explain everything to us."
Then Jesus declared, "I who speak to you am he." John 4:19-26

Jesus is the temple and we are the temple. When Jesus died, He ripped the veil in two.

At any rate, Mormon temple rituals have more in common with Masonry than Judaism.

jester_in_the_Kings_court »

Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:22 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Hesadanza,
You said the temple is the House of the Lord...
As is the church. Insomuch as a church is a building, so is a temple. It is nothing more. If you wish to give it more credit than that, what will happen if your temple burns down? Can you not hear from God until you build a new one? Can you not gather together and perform the same "ordinances of His gospel"? If not, then your god is truly impotent.
We meet together in our building to do what His Word says. We worship and praise Him together in unity. We are taught. We fellowship with Him and each other. If that building were to burn down, nothing would change. We still would meet together to worship and praise and learn. The Word of God says the where two or more are gathered together in His name, He is there in their midst. That is true church. Only those who are carnally minded cannot grasp that. The early Christians met in homes. Because they understood the concept of where the temple truly was. It's not brick and mortar.
Those of the Spirit will understand and their ears will hear. They will be free from bondage of religion and tradition. They will be free from the law

Hesadanza »

Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Going to church and worshiping Him there is different than going to the temple and performing ordinances of His gospel there. The temple is a special sacred place that is different than a church building (chapel). It is the House of the Lord.

jester_in_the_Kings_court »

Thu Jan 03, 2008 7:54 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Hes,
Duh! Of course He didn't do away with going to church and worshipping Him. Why would you think that?

Hesadanza »

Thu Jan 03, 2008 6:27 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Christ's death did not bring an end to temple worship. I have already shown numerous times throughout the New Testament where the early Christians worshiped in the temple.

seedplanter »

Wed Jan 02, 2008 7:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Alright Hes, on to more dramatic things: There is a connection to the topic of deification that underlines both the nature of Christ and the cultural context of His claim of being YHWH. One of the most historically pivotal questions raised about Christ is why did the Jewish Sanhedrin sentenced Him to death? Obviously it was not because they believed in eternal progression. If the Jews thought that everyone was a god or had the potential to become gods in the sense that Mormons believe, then it would not have been strange or blasphemous for Jesus to claim to be a god. Of course, this is not what Christ claimed directly, but rather that He was YHWH in skin, God incarnate, Immanuel. He literally was the embodiment of the Shekinah glory. He was the temple of God. When He died the veil that separated man from God was rent in two, signifying the culmination of all of the temple ritualistic sacrifices were satisfied in one death.

The points are as follows:
1. Historic Judaism as YHWH’s revelation to Moses did not include the concept of eternal progression.
2. Christ claimed not merely to be a god, but YHWH Himself.
3. It incensed the court to condemn Him.
4. His death brought an end to the temple rituals.
5. His blood pays for our salvation.

N.T. Wright notes, “Judaism had two great incarnational symbols. Temple and Torah: Jesus seems to have believed it was his vocation to upstage the one and outflank the other. Judaism spoke of the presence of her God in her midst, in the pillar of cloud and fire, in the Presence (“Shekinah”) in the Temple. Jesus acted and spoke as if he thought he were a one-man counter-temple movement... The Shekinah glory turns out to have a human face.” “For the loyal Jew, from that day to this, the fundamental confession of faith is, ‘Hear O Israel: YHWH our God, YHWH is one.’” This was prayed three times a day and was the most basic Jewish conviction.” N. T. Wright, Jesus and the Identity of God and Judas and the Gospel of Jesus (Deut. 6:4).

The crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis - it is not possible for any created being to become, ontologically, God, or even part of God (the henosis of Greek Neoplatonic philosophy).

That "God became God" is not only a pagan idea but it denies the very nature of God Himself, by rejecting His eternality as God (cf. Is. 43:10, LXX: "...So that you may know and believe Me and understand that I AM..." Notice "I AM" in the Greek LXX and not "I am He" as with 41:4. Jesus makes the same claim in John 8:24: "Unless you believe that I AM you will die in your sins"; cf. Gk.).

seedplanter »

Tue Jan 01, 2008 1:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

McGrath notes that it is "the Augustinian understanding of justification as both event and process, embracing the beginning, continuation, and perfection of the Christian life, and thereby subsuming regeneration under justification. More specifically, St. Augustine integrated theosis within his concept of justification, as Lampe explains: "Augustine makes much use of the idea of deification which he equates with sonship towards God. Justification implies deification, because by justifying men God makes them his sons; if we have been made sons of God (Jn. 1:12) we have also been made gods, not through a natural begetting but through the grace of adoption." In Augustine’s one words, "God wishes to make you a god, not by nature like him whom he begat, but by his gift and adoption. For as he through humanity became partaker of your mortality, so through exaltation he makes you partaker of his immortality" (serm. 166.4) [47]. And similarly: "It is clear that He (i.e. God) calls men gods through their being deified by His grace and not born of His substance. For He justifies, who is just of Himself and not of another; and He deifies, who is God of Himself and not by participation in another. Now He who justifies, Himself deifies, because by justifying He makes sons of God. For to them gave He power to become the sons of God. If we are made sons of God, we are also made gods; but this is by grace of adoption, and not by generation (Ennar. In Ps. 49, 2)’.

Theosis is not the same thing as Mormonism's eternal progression. Allow me to emphasize the following notation that I posted earlier: “Even if one were to say there is participation in the nature of God, this would not mean that a creature becomes God by nature, but that the nature of God is present in the being of the other entity, transforming it into a new mode of being.” Gregory of Nazianzus: Images and Reflections. Edited by JOSTEIN BØRTNES and TOMAS HÄGG, p. 270.

In other words, deification is not becoming like God in the Mormon sense. Since you posted theosis days ago, I have done my research on it. There is no continuity between the two. Not only is eternal progression not found in the early church fathers’ theosis, neither is it found in historic Judaism which I am prepared to argue at length as well.

seedplanter »

Mon Dec 31, 2007 6:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Happy New Year!

seedplanter »

Mon Dec 31, 2007 6:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. Isaiah 43:10

seedplanter »

Mon Dec 31, 2007 6:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Protestant scholar Allister McGrath points out, that "A deliberate and systematic distinction is made between the concept of justification itself (understood as the extrinsic divine pronouncement of man’s new status) and the concept of sanctification or regeneration (understood as the intrinsic process by which God renews the justified sinner)." He goes on to explain that: "The significance of the Protestant distinction between iustificatio and regeneratio is that a fundamental discontinuity has been introduced into the western theological tradition where none had existed before…The Reformation understanding of the nature of justification – as opposed to its mode – must therefore be regarded as a genuine theological novum.

seedplanter »

Mon Dec 31, 2007 6:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

“There is… [a] reason why Gregory’s doctrine of deification should not be taken in this radical sense, namely that he admits the terminology of participation. A doctrine of participation would normally hold that when one thing participates in another, a difference between them is indicated. Participation takes place across a line of division. When things of different hypostasis or different ontological status stand in a relation of participation, one entry, because of its receptivity, receives certain characteristics from the other, but without achieving identity with that other in essence. Even if one were to say there is participation in the nature of God, this would not mean that a creature becomes God by nature, but that the nature of God is present in the being of the other entity, transforming it into a new mode of being.” Gregory of Nazianzus: Images and Reflections. Edited by JOSTEIN BØRTNES (Russian Literature at the University of Bergen, former University Lecturer in Comparative Literature at the University of Oslo, in Slavonic Studies at the University of Cambridge and Director of Studies at Sidney Sussex College. He is the author of 'Visions of Glory' (1988) and has published extensively in the fields of Early and Modern Russian Literature, Literary Theory and Greek Patristic Literature. At present, Jostein Børtnes is working on Mikhail Bakhtin, and on the Cappadocian fathers, in particular on Gregory of Nazianz.) and TOMAS HÄGG, p. 270.

seedplanter »

Mon Dec 31, 2007 6:27 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Continued…

Now let’s see what your Mormon quotation looks like in its context: “But in the version of the Seventy it is written, Behold, ye die like men, and fall like one of the princes, in order to manifest the disobedience of men,--I mean of Adam and Eve,--and the fall of one of the princes, i.e., of him who was called the serpent, who fell with a great overthrow, because he deceived Eve. But as my discourse is not intended to touch on this point, but to prove to you that the Holy Ghost reproaches men because they were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons, and yet they, becoming like Adam and Eve, work out death for themselves; let the interpretation of the Psalm be held just as you wish, yet thereby it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming "gods," and of having power to become sons of the Highest; and shall be each by himself judged and condemned like Adam and Eve.” St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho.

Theosis is obviously referring to salvation in this context.

Here is another quote from Justin Martyr that reveals the dichotomy of our corruptible nature apart from Christ, “For those things which exist after God, or shall at any time exist, these have the nature of decay, and are such as may be blotted out and cease to exist; for God alone is unbegotten and incorruptible, and therefore He is God, but all other things after Him are created and corruptible.” Dialogue with Trypho

seedplanter »

Mon Dec 31, 2007 6:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

St. Athanasius, whom you liberally quoted testifying to theosis, notes that "We are as God by imitation, not by nature;” and "Albeit we cannot become like God in essence, yet by progress in virtue imitate God." This is clearly not comparable to eternal progression.

seedplanter »

Mon Dec 31, 2007 5:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

All of us who are “born again” are kings and priests. This is no secret doctrine for the Mormon Temple elite. Martin Luther stood up against the hierarchy of the Roman Church that claimed special priesthood. Again, the apostles did not participate in temple rituals, unless you want to include praising God and preaching Christ to the people. Jesus revealed Himself as the temple. There was no longer a need for the temple at His death, thus the veil rent in two.

Quoting the patristic writings out of their context will get you nowhere with me. I have already done some of your homework for you, here we go again. Theosis does not in any way refer to eternal progression, unless Mormonism has changed its doctrine (again). By the way, thank you for reposting my list.

In St. Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho (which I noticed was copied from the Mormon friendly web ring) states the following chapters that I thought were interesting:

CHAPTER V -- THE SOUL IS NOT IN ITS OWN NATURE IMMORTAL.
CHAPTER XIV -- RIGHTEOUSNESS IS NOT PLACED IN JEWISH RITES, BUT IN THE CONVERSION OF THE HEART GIVEN IN BAPTISM BY CHRIST.
CHAPTER XXVIII -- TRUE RIGHTEOUSNESS IS OBTAINED BY CHRIST.
CHAPTER XXIX -- CHRIST IS USELESS TO THOSE WHO OBSERVE THE LAW.

Not very supportive of Mormon doctrine.

Hesadanza »

Mon Dec 31, 2007 6:36 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Jewish thought, particularly in response to developing christology and its perceived threat to monotheism, was more reticent to speak of humans attaining divinity. Nevertheless, Jews shared some of the crucial biblical texts underlying deification. Talmudic Judaism tended to stress humanity´s obligation to imitate God´s holiness in consequence of being created in the divine image. Moses and other prophets were spoken of as sharing God´s glory and becoming "secondary gods" in relation to other mortals (Meeks, pp. 234–35). Philo described Moses´ glorification as "a prototype…of the ascent to heaven which every disciple hoped to be granted" (Meeks, p. 244).

Due to its incongruity with the doctrine of God in Western Christianity, deification fell out of favor as the preferred way of describing salvation. Catholic theology increasingly stressed the transcendence of God, who alone was self-existent and eternal. All other beings were created ex nihilo, "out of nothing," having only contingent being. This theological development culminated in Augustine. For him, God´s absolute oneness and otherness was so different from humanity´s created status and dependence on divine grace that salvation could not bridge the gap between the eternal Creator and the creatures contingent upon him. Ever since, talk of deification has been suspect or heretical in Western Christianity and has formed a major point of objection among traditional Christians to the teachings of Latter-day Saints on the subject.

Hesadanza »

Mon Dec 31, 2007 6:35 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

From the second to eighth centuries, the standard Christian term for salvation was theopoiesis or theosis, literally, "being made God," or deification. Such language survived sporadically in the mystical tradition of the West and is still used in Eastern Orthodoxy. LDS doctrines on eternal progression and exaltation to godhood reflect a similar view of salvation.

In its classical form, particularly in the works of Athanasius (fourth-century bishop of Alexandria), deification was built upon the concept of the incarnation of Christ. The Council of Nicaea (A.D. 325) defined the Son as homoousios (of the same substance) with the Father, and thus fully God. By taking upon himself our flesh through birth, Jesus as God united the essence of humanity to the divine nature. Eventually Christ´s divinity overcame the limits of the flesh through resurrection and glorification, transforming and raising his body to the full level of godhood. As Athanasius summarized, "God was made man that we might be made God" (On the Incarnation of the Logos 54).

Although the doctrine has been dismissed by later scholars as a mere "physical theory of redemption" focused on the Resurrection, deification is more than a synonym for immortality. Church Fathers argued that deification not only restores the image of God that was lost in the Fall, but also enables mankind to transcend human nature so as to possess the attributes of God. "I may become God as far as he became man," declared Gregory of Nazianzus in the late fourth century (Orations 29.19). Descriptions of deification included physical incorruptibility, immunity from suffering, perfect virtue, purity, fullness of knowledge and joy, eternal progression, communion with God, inheritance of divine glory, and joint rulership with Christ in the kingdom of God in heaven forever.

The roots of the Christian doctrine of deification are primarily biblical. Beginning with the creation of humanity in the image of God (Gen. 1:26–27), the church fathers developed aspects of deification from such concepts as the command to moral perfection and holiness (e.g., Lev. 19:1–2; Matt. 5:48; 1 Jn. 3:2; 1 Cor. 11:1; 2 Pet. 1:3–7), adoption as heirs of God (Rom. 8:15–17; Gal. 4:4–7), unification with God in Christ (John 17:11–23), and partaking in Christ´s sufferings in order to be elevated with him in glory (e.g., Rom. 8:16–18; 2 Cor. 3:18; 4:16–18; Philip. 3:20–21; 2 Tim. 2:10–12). They also pointed to examples of humans described as "gods" in scripture (Ex. 4:16; 7:1; Ps. 82:6; John 10:34–36).

Hesadanza »

Mon Dec 31, 2007 6:05 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

If divinization or deification is that we receive of God's divine nature, we in fact become divine as He is. We become deified. That is godhood.

Hesadanza »

Mon Dec 31, 2007 6:02 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

continued...

Though Latter-day Saints have often been ridiculed for believing that humans are gods in embryo, it was one of the most common teachings found in the early Christian church. Indeed, it is still a prominent doctrine of the Eastern Orthodox churches and is even acknowledged in passing in the current Roman Catholic catechism, of which paragraph 398 declares, “Created in a state of holiness, man was destined to be fully ‘divinized’ by God in glory.” Paragraph 1265 says that “Baptism not only purifies from all sins, but also makes the neophyte ‘a new creature,’ an adopted son of God, who has become a ‘partaker of the divine nature,’ member of Christ and co-heir with him, and a temple of the Holy Spirit.” Paragraph 460 reads:

"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.’”

In 1998, Jordan Vajda, O.P., a Roman Catholic priest, submitted his master’s thesis to the Graduate Theological Union in Berkeley, California. Entitled “‘Partakers of the Divine Nature’: A Comparative Analysis of Patristic and Mormon Doctrines of Divinization.” In his first chapter, Vajda writes, “Members of the LDS Church will discover unmistakable evidence that their fundamental belief about human salvation and potential is not unique nor a Mormon invention. Latin Catholics and Protestants will learn of a doctrine of salvation that, while relatively foreign to their ears, is nevertheless part of the heritage of the undivided Catholic Church of the first millennium. Members of Eastern Orthodox and Eastern Catholic Churches will discover on the American continent an amazing parallel to their own belief that salvation in Christ involves our becoming ‘partakers of the divine nature.’”

Hesadanza »

Mon Dec 31, 2007 6:00 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

The concept that mortals are destined to become gods is called theosis or apotheosis in Greek (meaning divinization or deification) and was one of the most common teachings found in the earliest centuries of Christianity. Citing the words of Jesus in John 10, the second-century A.D. Christian philosopher Justin Martyr wrote, “let the interpretation of the Psalm be held just as you wish, yet thereby it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming ‘gods,’ and of having power to become sons of the Highest” (Dialogue With Trypho 124). Another second-century Christian theologian, Irenaeus, cited Psalm 82 and commented, “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” (Against Heresies 4.38:4).

Other early Christian Fathers who read Psalm 82 in the same manner include Tertullian (died ca. A.D. 160), Cyprian of Carthage (mid-2nd century A.D.), Clement of Alexandria (died A.D. 215), Novation (3rd century A.D.), Maximus the Confessor (ca. A.D. 580-662), Athanasius of Alexandria (A.D. 296-373), Cyril of Jerusalem (A.D. 315-386), Gregory Nazianzen (ca. A.D. 325-389), John Chrysostom (A.D. 347-407), Jerome (ca. A.D. 340-420), Augustine of Hippo (ca. A.D. 354-371), and the Persian Aphrahat of Syria (4th century A.D.).

Commenting on Peter’s message concerning the divine nature, an early ninth-century Syriac Church Father, John of Dara, wrote, “Human nature cannot imitate God or unite with him except by the divine gifts that it receives from him. Of all these, the most excellent is that of the priesthood, by which we participate in the divine nature.” It interesting that he tied theosis to priesthood, which finds agreement with LDS teachings that we can become kings and priests, queens and priestesses to God.

seedplanter »

Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:02 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Hes: “I have given you my view, the LDS Church's view…”

Does this mean that you are not interested in studying the historical context of theosis for yourself? Sounds like a concession on the point? Theosis does not give warrant to the LDS’ eternal progression. To say otherwise would be dishonest. The historical Greek context is unique to us and can easily be misunderstood. The link that I posted gives the development of theosis by the Eastern Orthodox Church which is closer to the context than any of us westerners could ever hope to be. It is not honest to knowingly misuse a quote, twisting it out of context to the opposite meaning that it was originally intended.

St. Athanasius, whom you quoted testifying to theosis, notes that "We are as God by imitation, not by nature;” and "Albeit we cannot become like God in essence, yet by progress in virtue imitate God."

This is plain and simple for any rational person who genuinely wants to understand. There is a difference between becoming like God morally, in immortality, in ruling and reigning and becoming like God in essence, in power, in worship, in glory, in salvation over our own personal creation. If you want to believe these Mormon doctrines, that is your prerogative, but don’t twist the Scriptures and call it “Christian.”

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me. Isaiah 43:10

Hesadanza »

Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:07 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I have given you my view, the LDS Church's view, several scholars views, and the early Christian father's view on theosis. I'm not sure if there is much more we can say.

Satan desired to take away man's agency, and usurp God's glory for himself. Christ desired to do the will of the Father, and the glory would be to the Father. That was the difference.

seedplanter »

Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Not to get off the tract of theosis, I did not suggest that Mormonism teaches Jesus and Satan are equals in the since of righteousness. It is an LDS doctrine that states that they both offered some sort of plan to the Mormon Father, is that not correct?

Do you have a response to the quotes on theosis? Perhaps you need more time to study?

Hesadanza »

Sun Dec 30, 2007 6:29 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Putting Jesus and Satan as equals is precisely what we will not do, but our critics will not spare any effort to make it so appear!

The restored gospel of Jesus Christ teaches that every one of us is a spirit son or daughter of God the Father, and that includes Christ and Satan, and you and me. But that is where their similarities end. The gulf that divides Christ from Satan could not be more wide! Christ was the first-born who followed the will of the Father, while Satan rebelled and was cast down from heaven. Christ will receive endless glory, while Satan will receive endless damnation. Christ is our Savior and Redeemer, the only One by which we may be saved. Satan is our common enemy, Lucifer, the adversary, the evil one, the father of all lies. They are no more spiritual brothers than you or I are with Hitler. Do you understand?

Yes, Jesus is the Son of the eternal Father in heaven, for He declared it so! And if a Son, a begotten Son, there was a time when He was actually made so!

"15 He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am?
16 And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God.
17 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-jona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven" (Matt. 16:15-17).

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life" (John 3:16).

seedplanter »

Sun Dec 30, 2007 5:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

The interesting thing here is is that the very article that we are having this discussion is on the issue of Jesus and Satan being brothers according to Mormon doctrine. I understand that LDS teaches that everybody is born as brothers and sisters, but I think that Mormons are oblivious to the doctrinal implications of such an assertion. To put Jesus and Satan as equals reveals quite a theological quandary. It necessitates Jesus having been created, rather than eternal. Perhaps this is part of the reaction that you were having about “another Christ.” Mormonism is a mess!

seedplanter »

Sun Dec 30, 2007 5:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

St. Athanasius himself attested to the unity of the Cross and theosis: "The Word became flesh in order both to offer this sacrifice and that we, participating in His Spirit, might be deified"

Hesadanza »

Sun Dec 30, 2007 5:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I would say that Joseph immediately had a better understanding of the nature of God from the First Vision than many have had through entire lifetimes of theological study. For he actually saw them. Two individuals. Two men. Their glory above the brightness of the sun, so bright Joseph feared the trees might catch fire. Christ standing on the right hand side of the Father. The Father signaling to the Son as He introduced Him as His Beloved Son. Volumes could be written on what Joseph Smith understood about God just from this singular experience. Actually, there have been volumes written.

Yes, there are many similarities between Mormonism and Masonry, and there are only two options why that is so. One, Joseph pilfered them from the Masons to introduce them into Mormonism, although no one is sure exactly why he would want to do that. Or two, they both come from a much more ancient tradition and single all-embracing "pattern". As Hugh Nibley has noted, "There are, in fact, countless tribes, sects, societies, and orders from which he might have picked up this and that, had he known of their existence. The Near East in particular is littered with the archaeological and living survivals of practices and teachings which an observant Mormon may find suggestively familiar... Among the customs and religions of mankind there are countless parallels, many of them very instructive, to what the Mormons do" ("The Message of the Joseph Smith Papyri: An Egyptian Endowment", 2005, xxviii).

seedplanter »

Sun Dec 30, 2007 5:16 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

In Augustine’s one words, "God wishes to make you a god, not by nature like him whom he begat, but by his gift and adoption. For as he through humanity became partaker of your mortality, so through exaltation he makes you partaker of his immortality" (serm. 166.4).

seedplanter »

Sun Dec 30, 2007 5:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Sterling Professor Emeritus of History at Yale University and recent convert to Orthodoxy, explains that: "All of this Christian language about a humanity made divine was a part of a total Cappadocian system in which the Classical religion of deified men and women and of anthropomorphic gods and goddesses was described as ‘the superstition of polytheism’ and as the error of those mere mortals who had ‘turned aside the honor of God to themselves.’ Therefore, the Cappadocians insisted that it was as essential for theosis as it was for the incarnation itself not to be viewed as analogous to Classical theories about the promotion of human beings to divine rank, and in that sense not to be defined by natural theology at all; on such errors they pronounced their ‘Anathema!’"

seedplanter »

Sun Dec 30, 2007 5:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

G.W.H. Lampe points out, "Augustine repeats more often, perhaps, than any of the Greek theologians, the theme of the ‘interchange of places.’ ‘The Word,’ he says, became what we are that we might attain what we are not. For we are not God; but we can see God with the mind and interior eye of the heart’… ‘God hates you as you are, in order to make you what you are not yet. You will be what he is;’ but Augustine hastens to add that this means that we shall be God’s image in the sense in which a man’s reflection in a mirror is his image inasmuch as it is like him, not in the sense in which a man’s son is his image inasmuch as he is actually what his father is ‘according to substance.’"

Gerald Bonner stresses that "the notion of deification is to be found in Augustine, not as something added to his system as an afterthought, but as an integral whole. In itself, the notion of deification is no more than what is implied by the New Testament term uiothesia – sonship by adoption – by grace, that is to say, and not by nature. It is, indeed, the consequence of human flesh being assumed by the divinity in the Incarnation: that flesh has been taken into heaven by the ascended Christ, and if men participate in Him through membership of the Church, the Body of Christ, they too may hope, after death, to enjoy the divinisation effected by His flesh-taking. So Augustine writes, in the last chapter of the last book of The City of God: ‘We ourselves shall become that seventh day [i.e. the eternal Sabbath], when we have been replenished and restored by His blessing and sanctification. There we shall have leisure to be still, and we shall see that He is God, whereas we wished to be that ourselves when we fell away from Him, after listening to the seducer saying: You will be like gods. Then we abandoned the true God, by whose creative help we should have become gods, but by participating in Him, not by deserting Him"

seedplanter »

Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:59 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Isaiah 43:10

Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

seedplanter »

Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I do not think that it is logical to say that Smith had foreknowledge of each revelation that he purportedly received. I do not suppose that the revelations were authentic as you do. Nevertheless, even you should be able to recognize that Smith did not necessarily have the same understanding of the nature of the Mormon god at the beginning as at the latter “revelations.” Several Mormon scholars agree. I can give you names if you desire. Far be it to argue the point, unless you have a concluding thought.

I do see an awful lot of Masonry involved in Mormonism. It is a fact that many early Mormons were Masons. I was more or less chiding you on the aspect of the Grand Architect, but the shoe fits nonetheless.

Hesadanza »

Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:39 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

The LDS believe in an omnipotent, omnipresent, omniscient God. Is that a proper understanding?

Why do you believe the Masons worshipped a god? From what I understand, it was and is a fraternal brotherhood organization that allows its adherents to worship God however they please. It is not a religion. So I'm not sure how any kind of Masonic influence introduced any sort of conception of God into Mormonism. Joseph knew the nature of God from the very start with the First Vision, long before any masonry was involved.

We will not and can not ever become God the Father. He is and will always be our God. But He has promised us a crown, glory, honor, and dominion over His creations, even to sit down with Him and share His throne with Christ (Psalms 8; Rev. 3:21).

"I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High" (Ps. 82:6).

"And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together" (Romans 8:17).

seedplanter »

Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:11 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

The Eastern Orthodox Church is the oldest formal tradition that has maintained a riggid adherence to its traditions, including theosis. For further study you can investigate their doctrinal statement on the subject: "Likeness to God as Far as Possible": Deification Doctrine in Iamblichus and Three Eastern Christian Fathers, at:

http://www.theandros.com/iamblichus.html

seedplanter »

Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

The crucial Christian assertion, that God is One, sets an absolute limit on the meaning of theosis - it is not possible for any created being to become, ontologically, God, or even part of God (the henosis of Greek Neoplatonic philosophy).

seedplanter »

Sun Dec 30, 2007 4:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

That "God became God" is not only a pagan idea but it denies the very nature of God Himself, by rejecting His eternality as God (cf. Is. 43:10, LXX: "...So that you may know and believe Me and understand that I AM..." Notice "I AM" in the Greek LXX and not "I am He" as with 41:4. Jesus makes the same claim in John 8:24: "Unless you believe that I AM you will die in your sins"; cf. Gk.).

seedplanter »

Sun Dec 30, 2007 3:56 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Just because an elder said something, it doesn’t make it true, not even by Mormon standards. I understand perfectly well that Mormons and Christians disagree on the nature of The Trinity. I haven’t made that big of a deal about it with you. I think it is more important to have a proper understanding of an omnipotent, omniscient God first. I am not one to condemn adherents to modalism - oneness theology, although I do not subscribe to it. I think that it was a philosophical reaction to the Scriptural complexity regarding The Trinity. Interestingly enough Joseph Smith seemed to subscribe to it at the beginning according to some Mormon scholars.

I do not intend to conceptualize two different Christs and Gods in a literal sense. There are two strikingly different claims about who God is. I find the Biblical record pointing toward the traditional Christian understanding and completely opposed to the Mormon “god.” In other words, the Mormon god is no more real than Allah. Ironically, there seems to be more in common between the two then most people realize. The early Masonic influence comes to mind as well and their fascination with Allah and all the other gods along with it. Perhaps the Grand Architect of the universe fits within Mormon theology better than the Judaic/Christian revelation. It doesn’t seem to stress creation ex nihilo, and it does include secret temple rituals to attain godhood.

“For the loyal Jew, from that day to this, the fundamental confession of faith is, ‘Hear O Israel: YHWH our God, YHWH is one.’” This was prayed three times a day and was the most basic Jewish conviction.” N. T. Wright, Judas and the Gospel of Jesus p 116 (Deut. 6:4).

Hesadanza »

Sun Dec 30, 2007 3:51 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I guess when we pass through the veil one of us will be pretty suprised then, jester.

seedplanter »

Sun Dec 30, 2007 3:50 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

In the original Greek it reads, "God is spirit" (John 4:24). The predicate without the article emphasizes the character and nature (Also see John 1:1). The Bible does not say that God has a spirit.

seedplanter »

Sun Dec 30, 2007 2:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Yes Jester, I understand what you were trying to say.

jester_in_the_Kings_court »

Sun Dec 30, 2007 1:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

well, hesadanza, i will tell you this. we do worship differentd gods. I worshipe the true God of all creation. Who has no beginning and has no end...who is spirit and not a glorified man, who's salvation is based on the work of the cross,not of works, who will have not other gods besides Him. You worship a god who had a beginning, was a man, who will tolerate other gods beside him.

jester_in_the_Kings_court »

Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:48 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

seedplanter,
Have you figured out what I was getting across yet?

Hesadanza »

Sun Dec 30, 2007 12:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

You never claimed we were polytheistic, and then you immediately did so. Hmmm.

Elder Holland said it well, "To acknowledge the scriptural evidence that otherwise perfectly united members of the Godhead are nevertheless separate and distinct beings is not to be guilty of polytheism; it is, rather, part of the great revelation Jesus came to deliver concerning the nature of divine beings."

When you say you worship one God and that we worship another, you immediately create the conception of two different Gods. When you say that you worship one Christ and that we worship another, you create the conception that there are two different Christs. There aren't two different Gods. There aren't two different Christs. There are different conceptions of these beings, but there is only ONE God, and ONE Christ (1 Cor. 8:6) - "But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him." We all worship the same God.

We believe in and worship Almighty God, the Father of all, and His Son, our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. I don't know how that is compensating for inconsistencies. The apostles believed in the same three beings. These three beings are, in fact, three beings, three distinct and separate personages. They together form one Godhead.

I'm not sure why God having a father is so difficult to understand. Jesus Christ is a God, and it is pretty clear from the scriptures that He has a Father, for he refers to and prays to His Father all the way through.

But the only God with whom we are associated and concerned with is God the Father, His Son, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost. These three form the Godhead.

God has a Spirit, yes, but as I've shown before, that is not the end of His nature. It is one of His characteristics.

seedplanter »

Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:40 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I suppose it would misrepresent the secret mysteries of Mormonism if I was to point out that they "knew" "God" and that He in fact "is Spirit" without having to examine the peculiar revelations given prior to A.D. 30 and purportedly given again to Smith by the angels.

seedplanter »

Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:33 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship; for salvation is of the Jews .... God is Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth" (John 4:22,24).

seedplanter »

Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:31 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

When you posted:

"They are singular and unique in the universe, the only beings with whom we have to do"

Was "beings" in the plural intended?

seedplanter »

Sun Dec 30, 2007 9:28 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I had to flag myself since there are no editing options.

I never claimed you were polytheistic, although your doctrine of the Trinity and eternal progression is polytheistic. I however did not claim that Mormons worship other “gods.” I have not suggested that you even worship. I know you pray, but I don't know if it is possible to "worship" an exlated man. Be that as it may, I certainly have not said that you worship the “Father’s” “Father.” I merely pointed out the nature of such an exalted “god.”

When you quoted 1 Cor. 8:6 you gave the perfect example of Mormonism attempts to compensate for its inconsistencies. According to the following quotations by Smith, I would say that his re-interpretation would be like this: These are the only gods in whom we have to do; this does not however mean that there are no other gods. If I am wrong in this please explain this:

“I want to reason a little on this subject [that God himself has a father]. I learned it by translating the [Book of Abraham] papyrus that is now in my house. I learned a testimony concerning Abraham, and he reasoned concerning the God of heaven ... If Abraham reasoned thus — If Jesus Christ was the Son of God, and John discovered that God the Father of Jesus Christ had a Father, you may suppose that He had a Father also.” Joseph Smith, History of the Church, 7 vols., 2nd ed. (Salt Lake City: Deseret News, 1950), 6:473-479.

“Here, then, is eternal life — to know the only wise and true god; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves, and to be kings and priests to God, the same as all gods have done before you, namely, by going from one small degree to another, and from a small capacity to a great one; from grace to grace, from exaltation to exaltation, until you attain to the resurrection of the dead, and are able to dwell in everlasting burnings, and to sit in glory, as do those who sit enthroned in everlasting power.” King Follet Discourse by Joseph Smith, General Conference, April 1844, History of the Church, vol. 6

jester_in_the_Kings_court »

Sun Dec 30, 2007 7:55 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

seedplanter,
that is not an awful thing to say. its the truth. when a man of God first told me that same thing, i responded the same way you did. he merely told me to ask the Holy Spirit for wisdom in what he just said. so i went and prayed...and God showed me what it meant. i will ask the same of you. and if you'r still confused, i can explain it.