Did Christ die to redeem Creation or just man?

Hi, Joe, Akoue, Jakester and all who participated in the Romans 8 thread.

I am in agreement with Joe that the Redemption began as soon as Adam fell. The ProtoEvangelium (Genesis 3:15) already foretells the coming of the Messiah in the very beginning.

And, in my opinion, it is Jesus' mission to redeem all Creation. But man is different than the rest of known Creation. (Except for the Angels) We are the only ones who can worship God and thus know our Creator.

Therefore it is difficult for me to believe that animals know "true" love. God is love and if animals can't know God, how can they know love?

As I'm thinking about it, when Jesus became man, He entered Creation and became a creature. He did not thereby cease to be the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. If He had, then Mary would not be the Mother of God.

I am very anxious to hear more about the glorified body.

Sincerely,

De Maria

did Christ die to redeem Creation or just man?

I'm just curious if it makes a difference.

Therefore it is difficult for me to believe that animals know "true" love. God is love and if animals can't know God, how can they know love?


I totally disagree. I can't say this about all animals but I know my dog has the purest love for me. It lacks any of the strings attached that most humans have for each other.
With the exception of a parents love for his child, it is the only unconditional love I know. They don't need to "know" God because they are of God.

De Maria:

Below I answered your question with an opinion, but I think I failed to offer sufficient support for that opinion. I hope you do appreciate that I got a headache trying to find the necessary intellect! In fact, I think my frontal lobe had a meltdown – well it would have if I had one to start with!


…But man is different than the rest of known Creation. (Except for the Angels) We are the only ones who can worship God and thus know our Creator.

Yes, I agree. Man is different from all the other creatures in God's Creation, including the Angles. Paraphrasing St. Thomas, the essence of man consists of two parts, body and soul; the Body obeying natural laws and the soul obeying spiritual laws. It's my opinion that man is not whole without both parts; the body cannot live without the soul, and the soul is lost without the body. The only thing we can say of the essence of the soul is that it is spiritual, whereas the essence of the body can be determined by its corporeal nature. Man's soul is said to be rational, moving the intellect and animates the body. Furthermore, it is said that man's soul is the only rational soul in Creation. Angles do not have bodies or rationality; many consider angles less than man, although being God's ministers they are considered less because of this lack rationality.

It was the characteristics of rationality that caused all the trouble in Eden. Man, (I'd like to add, “because of Woman” – but I dare not) erred by eating the fruit of the forbidden tree. Thus, God's Justice brought death to mankind. God in his infinite love for his creation provided a means of redemption.


Therefore it is difficult for me to believe that animals know "true" love. God is love and if animals can't know God, how can they know love?

The animal's soul animates the body of the beast, however it is said to be irrational. Furthermore, the soul of the animal operates in the realm of instinct. To sin requires cooperation with evil, and being that animals have an irrational soul, they cannot sin. Thus, they have no need for redemption; remaining in perfect harmony with the Creator.

This does not say that animals can't exist in heaven.


And, in my opinion, it is Jesus' mission to redeem all Creation.

I'm really winging it here, and this is solely my opinion. It seems to me that the primary objection to the argument that 'Christ redeems all Creation' is that all of Creation, except man, is already in harmony with God, perfect in accordance with God's will. Only man has fallen, presumably because he has rationalization which gives him the unenviable propensity for sin. Thus, man finds himself in need of redemption to re-establish the harmony of Creation. And too, saying God redeems his Creation is to say Creation was not made good in the eyes of the Creator; which we know not to be true. All things created by God were made good and pronounced good by God. (honest I'm not trying to be funny, It sounds like doubletalk, but I can't figure a better way to say it.)

Considering all the above, the language in Romans 8, “Sons of God” or “Children of God” seems more tenable in that it implies a redemption that brings man in harmony with God's Creation without out actually consuming or incorporating into the essence of God. It seems to me that to say otherwise, would be to say that man can 'transcend' his current condition of his own wherewithal.

You and Akoue convinced me that animals had souls – something I didn't previously believe. SO NOW you have the responsibility to expose any errors in my logic here; such correction would be appreciated.

JoeT

DeMaria,
I agree with Joe to some extent on this.
But mankind has three parts, body, mind and spirit (which I believe is our soul).
We can not exist as mortals without those three parts.
Animals have those three parts although they are different than man.
How about plants? Do they have three parts? They have life, body and??
About the glorified body...
Jesus had His after he rose from the dead.
Note what he could do with it.
He could walk through walls, eat food, appear and disappear, appear differently so He was not recognized, He could be felt by others, He could speak, walk, break bread, appear instantly miles way, and he could ascend.
I believe those who are saved and in heaven will have bodies similar to what Jesus now has.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I believe those who are saved and in heaven will have bodies similar to what Jesus now has.
Peace and kindness,
Fred
[/QUOTE]
Are you talking about fleshey bodies that have to be fed, groomed, rested, have traits like blond hair, brown hair, short , tall etc.

I totally disagree. I can't say this about all animals but I know my dog has the purest love for me.

I can't argue with what you know. But I wonder how you know?


It lacks any of the strings attached that most humans have for each other.

Such as?


With the exception of a parents love for his child, it is the only unconditional love I know.

How do you measure love? How do you know that this dog has unconditional love for you?


They don't need to "know" God because they are of God.

Everything is of God. God created all.


Yet, apparently you don't believe that all can have unconditional love. So, what is so special about one particular dog?

And do other animals share that trait?

Which ones? Cats, dogs, lizards, insects? Or are humans the only ones that don't have unconditional love (except in the case of mothers and their children)?

Are you talking about fleshey bodies that have to be fed, groomed, rested, have traits like blond hair, brown hair, short , tall etc. [/QUOTE]

I'm pretty sure he means a glorified body.

De Maria:

Below I answered your question with an opinion, but I think I failed to offer sufficient support for that opinion. I hope you do appreciate that I got a headache trying to find the necessary intellect! In fact, I think my frontal lobe had a meltdown – well it would have if I had one to start with!

I believe you. Mine had a meltdown reading what you wrote.:D

Quite a bit to think about and very well expressed. I hope I can do it justice.


Yes, I agree. Man is different from all the other creatures in God’s Creation, including the Angles. Paraphrasing St. Thomas, the essence of man consists of two parts, body and soul; the Body obeying natural laws and the soul obeying spiritual laws. It’s my opinion that man is not whole without both parts; the body cannot live without the soul, and the soul is lost without the body. The only thing we can say of the essence of the soul is that it is spiritual, whereas the essence of the body can be determined by its corporeal nature. Man’s soul is said to be rational, moving the intellect and animates the body. Furthermore, it is said that man’s soul is the only rational soul in Creation. Angles do not have bodies or rationality; many consider angles less than man, although being God’s ministers they are considered less because of this lack rationality.

I can forgive no references for the rest of the message. But the idea that Angels are not rational is something I never imagined. I've heard that Muslims believe this. But I always thought we considered Angels in every way superior to men.

So, please provide a reference for that idea.


It was the characteristics of rationality that caused all the trouble in Eden. Man, (I'd like to add, “because of Woman” – but I dare not)

Talkin' about lack of rational... :eek: (just kidding!)


erred by eating the fruit of the forbidden tree. Thus, God's Justice brought death to mankind. God in his infinite love for his creation provided a means of redemption.

OK.

I would only change one word. "erred" implies that it was not intentional. And therefore not a sin.

So I would say that Adam intentionally sinned. In my opinion, this was the first "mortal" sin. And caused death of the soul. A simple error would not suffice for this. Adam, in committing this sin, INTENTIONALLY turned away from God and somehow indulged in selfish desires. Thus committing the first mortal sin.


The animal's soul animates the body of the beast, however it is said to be irrational.

Agreed.


Furthermore, the soul of the animal operates in the realm of instinct. To sin requires cooperation with evil, and being that animals have an irrational soul, they cannot sin. Thus, they have no need for redemption; remaining in perfect harmony with the Creator.

Not exactly.

Remember that Satan is considered the "prince of this world". He it is who has enslaved this world and caused the chaotic (read "random") elements which cause pain and suffering in the world.

Although animals and nature function, for the most part, in the way which God intended. Their nature has also been impaired by Satan who can now affect them and use them to punish, tempt and enslave humanity in sin.


This does not say that animals can’t exist in heaven.

What is heaven?

Without getting too technical and hopefully without getting too basic, in my opinion, heaven is being lovingly united to God for eternity and understanding with one's heart, mind and soul that this is so.

Now, according to how I understand the attribute of Divine Omnipresence, we are even now in God's presence. Yet we don't call this heaven.

What's the difference? God loves us doesn't He? But we don't love God as we ought. We are still encumbered by selfish attachments to other things which are not God.

You and I are both Catholic and believe in purgatory. According to my understanding of Divine Omnipresence, God is present in purgatory also. Yet, we don't call purgatory, heaven. Why? Again, God loves them, but their love is still being perfected. Their love is still being purified of selfish attachments.

How about hell? Well, according to my understanding of Omnipresence, God is also present in Hell. And God also loves them. But they don't love God. They resent His love for them and want nothing but to escape from God's presence. But this is impossible. God is OMNIPRESENT. Where ever we go, He is there.

Well, how about animals? Do they understand that they have a Creator? I doubt it. Although they will be free of suffering when they die, they won't know why. They will be eternally blissful. Eternally happy. But they will never praise their Creator intentionally.

At least, that is my opinion. No one can know these things absolutely but God.


I’m really winging it here, and this is solely my opinion. It seems to me that the primary objection to the argument that ‘Christ redeems all Creation’ is that all of Creation, except man, is already in harmony with God, perfect in accordance with God’s will.

See my explanation of why Creation must be redeemed from Satan above.


Only man has fallen, presumably because he has rationalization which gives him the unenviable propensity for sin.

Remember, the Angels are part of Creation. And they fell first and are now trying to drag us with them.


Thus, man finds himself in need of redemption to re-establish the harmony of Creation. And too, saying God redeems his Creation is to say Creation was not made good in the eyes of the Creator; which we know not to be true. All things created by God were made good and pronounced good by God. (honest I’m not trying to be funny, It sounds like doubletalk, but I can’t figure a better way to say it.)

It is true. But you forget that Satan fell and was expelled from loving union with God in heaven and exiled to earth.

Apocalypse 12
7 And there was a great battle in heaven, Michael and his angels fought with the dragon, and the dragon fought and his angels: 8 And they prevailed not, neither was their place found any more in heaven. 9 And that great dragon was cast out, that old serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, who seduceth the whole world; and he was cast unto the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him. 10 And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying: Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: because the accuser of our brethren is cast forth, who accused them before our God day and night.

11 And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of the testimony, and they loved not their lives unto death. 12 Therefore rejoice, O heavens, and you that dwell therein. Woe to the earth, and to the sea, because the devil is come down unto you, having great wrath, knowing that he hath but a short time.


Considering all the above, the language in Romans 8, “Sons of God” or “Children of God” seems more tenable in that it implies a redemption that brings man in harmony with God’s Creation without out actually consuming or incorporating into the essence of God. It seems to me that to say otherwise, would be to say that man can ‘transcend’ his current condition of his own wherewithal.

I disagree. If we are incorporated into God's Divine essence, it would be all God's doing. I said, "if".

And this does seem to be the case. I believe both St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas used the metaphor of the "iron in the fire" which blazed so hot as to be indistinguishable from the fire.


You and Akoue convinced me that animals had souls – something I didn’t previously believe. SO NOW you have the responsibility to expose any errors in my logic here; such correction would be appreciated.

Thanks for the contribution. There was one complete surprise as I noted. I ask the same of you. If you see anything with which you disagree, let me know.


JoeT

Juan

I can't argue with what you know. But I wonder how you know?

For one thing he is by my side right this minute as he is EVERY minute that I am in the same house with him. He can't seem to get close enough to me. I think he would just melt into me if he could. Other people can call his name and he will think about whether he thinks it's worth coming. I call his name and he is by my side in a flash. Even my husband had a hard time kissing me good bye in the mornings because my dog gets all bent out of shape. He feels the need to protect me all the time. One day I was laying on the couch. My son was leaving and he bent down over me to kiss me good bye. Ty (dogs name) had a fit. He gets along with other family members just fine when I am not being "threatened in his eyes". If he senses one ounce
Aggression toward me, he gets defensive. When I go out of town, my husband says he doesn't eat, and lays around in a depressed mopey mood. Often times he will not come out from under the bed. I have friends that have a relationship with their dogs just as devoted as mine.




Such as?


See above

How do you measure love? How do you know that this dog has unconditional love for you?


See above





Yet, apparently you don't believe that all can have unconditional love. So, what is so special about one particular dog?

I don't know why that is. It just apparently is. I mean my goldfish never showed me the love and devotion that my dog does. Do you believe every human has unconditional love for you?



And do other animals share that trait?

I haven't witnessed any others, except maybe horses. I've seen similar recognition and affection by the horse. Example, my niese and her horse. A definite soul to soul connection there.


Which ones? Cats, dogs, lizards, insects? Or are humans the only ones that don't have unconditional love (except in the case of mothers and their children)?

See above. Plus there is a lot I don't know, nor can explain. I only go by my life experiences. I've had close relationships with cats and dogs. So far, a lizard, nor an insect has shown any interest in me. Have you had other experiences?

Even my husband had a hard time kissing me good bye in the mornings because my dog gets all bent out of shape.

What you perceive as love, I perceive is possession. The dog thinks he owns you.

You might consider reading up on dog psychology.
Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Leader of the Pack (http://www.amazon.com/Leader-Pack-Nancy-Baer/product-reviews/0061010197/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R1RR2O53HG5280)

Be the leader of your pack! (http://www.gooddoghometraining.com/pack_theory.htm)

Welcome to Cesar Millan's Official Web Site (http://www.cesarmillaninc.com/)

Amazon.com: Customer Reviews: Leader of the Pack (http://www.amazon.com/Leader-Pack-Nancy-Baer/product-reviews/0061010197/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R1RR2O53HG5280)

If you love your dog, as much as you think he loves you, you owe it to him to learn how to raise a well balanced pet.

I know, I know, the subject matter seems way off topic. We've been discussing whether animals can truly feel love. Back to the subject.

As I said in my opening statement, based on what you've described, I don't believe this animal feels love towards you but possession. He displays the symptoms of a spoiled dog who is accustomed to getting whatever he wants when you are around. That is why he is so unhappy when you are gone.

In regard to who is created greater men or angels consider this.

Psalms 8
1. O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is thy name in all the earth! Thou whose glory above the heavens is chanted
2. by the mouth of babes and infants, thou hast founded a bulwark because of thy foes, to still the enemy and the avenger.
3. When I look at thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars which thou hast established;
4. what is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou dost care for him?
5. Yet thou hast made him little less than God, and dost crown him with glory and honor.
6. Thou hast given him dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet,
7. all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field,
8. the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the sea.
9. O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is thy name in all the earth! To the choirmaster: according to Muth-labben. A Psalm of David.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

In regard to who is created greater men or angels consider this.

Psalms 8
1. O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is thy name in all the earth! Thou whose glory above the heavens is chanted
2. by the mouth of babes and infants, thou hast founded a bulwark because of thy foes, to still the enemy and the avenger.
3. When I look at thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars which thou hast established;
4. what is man that thou art mindful of him, and the son of man that thou dost care for him?
5. Yet thou hast made him little less than God, and dost crown him with glory and honor.
6. Thou hast given him dominion over the works of thy hands; thou hast put all things under his feet,
7. all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field,
8. the birds of the air, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the sea.
9. O Lord, our Lord, how majestic is thy name in all the earth! To the choirmaster: according to Muth-labben. A Psalm of David.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Some versions say:

Psalms 8 6 Thou hast made him a little less than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour:

Some versions say:

Psalms 8 6 Thou hast made him a little less than the angels, thou hast crowned him with glory and honour:

Let's get Akoue to give us a professional opinion of this given Heb 2:7-8 (see below)


I believe you. Mine had a meltdown reading what you wrote.:D

Quite a bit to think about and very well expressed. I hope I can do it justice.

I'm doing my taxes so I'm expecting an epileptic breakdown just any minute! So, I'll only answer what I can now and save the rest for later.



Talkin' about lack of rational... :eek: (just kidding!)

Hey, Don't accuse me of being rational; especially while I'm doing taxes!


I would only change one word. "erred" implies that it was not intentional. And therefore not a sin.

So I would say that Adam intentionally sinned. In my opinion, this was the first "mortal" sin. And caused death of the soul. A simple error would not suffice for this. Adam, in committing this sin, INTENTIONALLY turned away from God and somehow indulged in selfish desires. Thus committing the first mortal sin.

Agreed 100%. Just a poor choice of words on my part.



Angles do not have bodies or rationality; many consider angles less than man, although being God's ministers they are considered less because of this lack rationality.


…the idea that Angels are not rational is something I never imagined. I've heard that Muslims believe this. But I always thought we considered Angels in every way superior to men.

So, please provide a reference for that idea.

Well, you're not hearing it from me, even though I wrote it. I was wrong. Of course Angels are rational, and they have a free will. And no doubt you know this explains why we have Angels and fallen angels. And too, no doubt you are aware that the powers of Angels are greater than man, but what makes man superior is that man can be redeemed.

My thrust was that Angles were less than man in the ordering of species.

Note, further, that what in the case of man is death is a fall in the case of angels. For after the fall there is no possibility of repentance for them, just as after death there is for men no repentance . St. John Damascene, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith Book II, 4.

St. John of Damascus notes of preeminence of man over angel which helps explain the teaching of man's superiority of man over Angel in Hebrews.

"Being made [man]so much better than the angels as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they I" (Heb 1:4). And, if we compare the meanings of Psalm 8, and Hebrews 2:6-8 we see that what is being meant in Hebrews is that Christ, the Son of Man is brought lower than the Angels, for a time, so that His sacrifice glorifies God and Himself all the more.


What is heaven?

I really never gave it much thought to heaven other than, if it be God's will, someday I'll get to go there (as an understatement – indeed a very good place to go). But, you know, get rid of the snow and I can't see why heaven couldn't be right here in His perfect Creation called Tennessee!

Pope John Paul II taught, Heaven as the fullness of communion with God was the theme of the Holy Father's catechesis at the General Audience of 21 July 1999. Heaven "is neither an abstraction not a physical place in the clouds, but a living, personal relationship with the Holy Trinity. It is our meeting with the Father which takes place in the risen Chrsit through the communion of the Holy Spirit," the Pope said.

When the form of this world has passed away, those who have welcomed God into their lives and have sincerely opened themselves to his love, at least at the moment of death, will enjoy that fullness of communion with God which is the goal of human life.
As the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, "this perfect life with the Most Holy Trinity this communion of life and love with the Trinity, with the Virgin Mary, the angels and all the blessed is called "heaven'. Heaven is the ultimate end and fulfilment of the deepest human longings, the state of supreme, definitive happiness" (n.1024).

Today we will try to understand the biblical meaning of "heaven", in order to have a better understanding of the reality to which this expression refers.

In biblical language "heaven"", when it is joined to the "earth", indicates part of the universe. Scripture says about creation: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gn 1:1).

Heaven is the transcendent dwelling-place of the living God

Metaphorically speaking, heaven is understood as the dwelling-place of God, who is thus distinguished from human beings (cf. Ps 104:2f.; 115:16; Is 66:1). He sees and judges from the heights of heaven (cf. Ps 113:4-9) and comes down when he is called upon (cf. Ps 18:9, 10; 144:5). However the biblical metaphor makes it clear that God does not identify himself with heaven, nor can he be contained in it (cf. 1 Kgs 8:27); and this is true, even though in some passages of the First Book of the Maccabees "Heaven" is simply one of God's names (1 Mc 3:18, 19, 50, 60; 4:24, 55).

The depiction of heaven as the transcendent dwelling-place of the living God is joined with that of the place to which believers, through grace, can also ascend, as we see in the Old Testament accounts of Enoch (cf. Gn 5:24) and Elijah (cf. 2 Kgs 2:11). Thus heaven becomes an image of life in God. In this sense Jesus speaks of a "reward in heaven" (Mt 5:12) and urges people to "lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven" (ibid., 6:20; cf. 19:21).

The New Testament amplifies the idea of heaven in relation to the mystery of Christ. To show that the Redeemer's sacrifice acquires perfect and definitive value, the Letter to the Hebrews says that Jesus "passed through the heavens" (Heb 4:14), and "entered, not into a sanctuary made with hands, a copy of the true one, but into heaven itself" (ibid., 9:24). Since believers are loved in a special way by the Father, they are raised with Christ and made citizens of heaven. It is worthwhile listening to what the Apostle Paul tells us about this in a very powerful text: "God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by grace you have been saved), and raised us up with him, and made us sit with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus" (Eph 2:4-7). The fatherhood of God, who is rich in mercy, is experienced by creatures through the love of God's crucified and risen Son, who sits in heaven on the right hand of the Father as Lord.

After the course of our earthly life, participation in complete intimacy with the Father thus comes through our insertion into Christ's paschal mystery. St Paul emphasizes our meeting with Christ in heaven at the end of time with a vivid spatial image: "Then we who are alive, who are left, shall be caught up together with them in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air; and so we shall always be with the Lord. Therefore comfort one another with these words" (1 Thes 4:17-18).

Sacramental life is anticipation of heaven

In the context of Revelation, we know that the "heaven" or "happiness" in which we will find ourselves is neither an abstraction nor a physical place in the clouds, but a living, personal relationship with the Holy Trinity. It is our meeting with the Father which takes place in the risen Christ through the communion of the Holy Spirit.

It is always necessary to maintain a certain restraint in describing these "ultimate realities" since their depiction is always unsatisfactory. Today, personalist language is better suited to describing the state of happiness and peace we will enjoy in our definitive communion with God.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church sums up the Church's teaching on this truth: "By his death and Resurrection, Jesus Christ has "opened' heaven to us. The life of the blessed consists in the full and perfect possession of the fruits of the redemption accomplished by Christ. He makes partners in his heavenly glorification those who have believed in him and remained faithful to his will. Heaven is the blessed community of all who are perfectly incorporated into Christ" (n. 1026).

5. This final state, however, can be anticipated in some way today in sacramental life, whose centre is the Eucharist, and in the gift of self through fraternal charity. If we are able to enjoy properly the good things that the Lord showers upon us every day, we will already have begun to experience that joy and peace which one day will be completely ours. We know that on this earth everything is subject to limits, but the thought of the "ultimate" realities helps us to live better the "penultimate" realities. We know that as we pass through this world we are called to seek "the things that are above, where Christ is seated at the right hand of God" (Col 3:1), in order to be with him in the eschatological fulfilment, when the Spirit will fully reconcile with the Father "all things, whether on earth or in heaven" (Col 1:20).

Sorry for the length of the quote, I just think John Paul II was an excellent teacher in some respects.



JoeT

Let's get Akoue to give us a professional opinion of this given Heb 2:7-8 (see below)

Good idea.


I’m doing my taxes so I’m expecting an epileptic breakdown just any minute! So, I’ll only answer what I can now and save the rest for later.

Aw man! Thanks for the reminder. I'll get started on mine tomorrow.


My thrust was that Angles were less than man in the ordering of species.

??


Note, further, that what in the case of man is death is a fall in the case of angels. For after the fall there is no possibility of repentance for them, just as after death there is for men no repentance . St. John Damascene, An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith Book II, 4.

The reason for that is clear to me.

Angels are spirits. Sin is spiritual death. Therefore, for Angels, sin is death.

Another definition of sin is separation from God. Because the spiritual world is timeless, being in eternity. The Angels had one chance to choose, God or self. Those who chose self, essentially chose separation from God for eternity.

We are not pure spirit. We are body and spirit. Souls. And we live in time. Therefore, we live in a different dimension. We live in the physical world. If we commit sin in this dimension, it does not automatically kill our spirit. Perhaps, somehow, our physical body is a buffer. We get a chance to repent from sin and save our lives.


St. John of Damascus notes of preeminence of man over angel which helps explain the teaching of man’s superiority of man over Angel in Hebrews.

"Being made [man]so much better than the angels as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they I" (Heb 1:4). And, if we compare the meanings of Psalm 8, and Hebrews 2:6-8 we see that what is being meant in Hebrews is that Christ, the Son of Man is brought lower than the Angels, for a time, so that His sacrifice glorifies God and Himself all the more.

This is certainly a different rendition of the Hebrews text with which I'm familiar. The Douay says:

6 But one in a certain place hath testified, saying: What is man, that thou art mindful of him: or the son of man, that thou visitest him? 7 Thou hast made him a little lower than the angels: thou hast crowned him with glory and honour, and hast set him over the works of thy hands: 8 Thou hast subjected all things under his feet. For in that he hath subjected all things to him, he left nothing not subject to him. But now we see not as yet all things subject to him.

And we see that this is in reference to Jesus:
9 But we see Jesus, who was made a little lower than the angels, for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honour: that, through the grace of God, he might taste death for all. 10 For it became him, for whom are all things, and by whom are all things, who had brought many children into glory, to perfect the author of their salvation, by his passion.

So, although, members of the Church will be divinized, deified, because we will be sons in the Son, members of the body of Christ and are raised to a status higher than the angels because of our union with Christ.

We were not thus created.


... Sorry for the length of the quote, I just think John Paul II was an excellent teacher in some respects.

Agreed!

During a sanity-break from taxes, it occurred to me to look up what St. John Damascene might have to say about heaven. I’ll just post a link this time. See Chapter 6.- It seems to lean toward your rendition of ‘heaven’; at least in part.

CHURCH FATHERS: An Exposition of the Orthodox Faith, Book II (John of Damascus) (http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/33042.htm)


JoeT

Joe,
'Thanks much for all pf that.
Fred

Romans 8, 19-23
Everything, God made is waiting with excitement for God to show his children's
Glory completely. Every thing God made was changed to become useless, not by its own
Wish but because God wanted it, and because all along there was this hope, that everything God made would be set free from ruin to have the freedom and glory that belongs to God's children. We know that everything God made has been waiting until now in pain,
Like a woman ready to give birth. Not only the world but we also have been waiting with pain inside us. We have the spirit as the first part of God's promise . So we are waiting for God to finish making us His own children, which means our bodies will be made free.
(New Century Version) This tells me all creation will be set free. It makes sense to me.

Maggie 3

Magie3.
You posted this, "Every thing God made was changed to become useless, not by its own
wish but because God wanted it"
I very much disagree.
The soil and water still are useful to feed God's children
The plants and trees are still very useful for food, medicines, and for building homes, furniture, and other uses.
The animals are still useful for food, clothing, and other uses.
The Holy Bible is still the most useful book ever published.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

On Psalms 8.6:

The Hebrew word translated "angel" is actually "elohim". The Septuagint rendered this as "aggelos" (pronounced angelos), and hence the translation given above. But the Hebrew reads: "You have made them a little less than a god (or a little less than gods)." Either way, the meaning is clearly that God created human beings to be nearly equal to the beings of the heavenly realm.

Hope this helps.

On Psalms 8.6:

The Hebrew word translated "angel" is actually "elohim". The Septuagint rendered this as "aggelos" (pronounced angelos), and hence the translation given above. But the Hebrew reads: "You have made them a little less than a god (or a little less than gods)." Either way, the meaning is clearly that God created human beings to be nearly equal to the beings of the heavenly realm.

Hope this helps.

Oh where o where has Akoue gone? Oh where o where can he be?

On Psalms 8.6:

The Hebrew word translated "angel" is actually "elohim". The Septuagint rendered this as "aggelos" (pronounced angelos), and hence the translation given above. But the Hebrew reads: "You have made them a little less than a god (or a little less than gods)." Either way, the meaning is clearly that God created human beings to be nearly equal to the beings of the heavenly realm.

Hope this helps.

Juan:

Doesn’t Akoue’s opinion validate my statement that in God's creation, man is above the angels? But, before I gloat maybe I need ask if in Heb 1:4 uses the same ‘elohim’. The inference here is that Christ is made, like man better than the angles. "Being made so much better than the angels as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they I" (Heb 1:4).


JoeT

Fred... We are all living under the curse of sin. Sickness, disease, disasters, any of these things can strike us in this world that we live in today. And we will until Jesus comes to redeem us. This is our hope " Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer " (Romans 12;12 ).
Love and blessings,

MAGGIE 3

Juan:

Doesn’t Akoue’s opinion validate my statement that in God's creation, man is above the angels? But, before I gloat maybe I need ask if in Heb 1:4 uses the same ‘elohim’. The inference here is that Christ is made, like man better than the angles. "Being made so much better than the angels as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they I" (Heb 1:4).


JoeT

That sounds logical to me. It sounds as though the context would have that being the angels and not the gods.

Juan:

Doesn’t Akoue’s opinion validate my statement that in God's creation, man is above the angels? But, before I gloat maybe I need ask if in Heb 1:4 uses the same ‘elohim’. The inference here is that Christ is made, like man better than the angles. "Being made so much better than the angels as he hath inherited a more excellent name than they I" (Heb 1:4).


JoeT

Hi Joe,

Heb.1.4 has aggelon, angels. It's fair to say that it is based on the Septuagint rendering of the Hebrew of Ps.8.6. In other words, it is based on a Greek mistranslation of the Hebrew.

Oh where o where has Akoue gone? Oh where o where can he be?

Akoue has been dealing with the dismantling and rebuilding of a bathroom in his house. Ugh!

But it's done which means he can now do his part to breed confusion and consternation among you all. Hahahahaha!

Akoue has been dealing with the dismantling and rebuilding of a bathroom in his house. Ugh!

But it's done which means he can now do his part to breed confusion and consternation among you all. Hahahahaha!

Ha!Ha!

WAIT! You did hire it out, didn't you?

JoeT

Akoue has been dealing with the dismantling and rebuilding of a bathroom in his house. Ugh!

But it's done which means he can now do his part to breed confusion and consternation among you all. Hahahahaha!

Did you remember to turn the water back on?



Hi Joe,

Heb.1.4 has aggelon, angels. It's fair to say that it is based on the Septuagint rendering of the Hebrew of Ps.8.6. In other words, it is based on a Greek mistranslation of the Hebrew.


So, which is greater/more perfect by nature, man or angel?

Ha!Ha!

WAIT! You did hire it out, didn't you?

JoeT

All right, you, that's hitting below the belt. And, no, I'm not going to answer. You can infer from that whatever you like.

Did you remember to turn the water back on?

Oh, man, I'm getting it from all sides!


So, which is greater/more perfect by nature, man or angel?

I think angels are greater by nature. Angels are rational, spiritual beings without the sorts of bodily desires that afflict us. And, of course, according to some traditions, Satan fell because he was appalled that despite the loftiness of the angelic nature God loved humans more.

In any case, angels aren't subject to contingency: they don't die, their bodies don't decay, and they enjoy an immediacy with God that would kill us (Moses only glimpsed God's backside and look what it did to him). They are messengers because they are faithful, they can be trusted to convey the Divine word. Their love is pristine, untainted by selfishness or self-interest. Our higher faculties (the ones Aquinas talks about so much), the spiritual and intellectual faculties, are a dim reflection of the spiritual and intellectual being of the angels, this because in us these faculties are married to appetive and sensuous faculties of which the angels are free.

I also think that Ps.-Dionysius is right, that the earthly liturgy is a recapitulation of the divine liturgy of the angels and that the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Church is a recapitulation of the celestial hierarchy of the angels.

Okay, take your shots. I've got it coming!

Oh, man, I'm getting it from all sides!



I think angels are greater by nature. Angels are rational, spiritual beings without the sorts of bodily desires that afflict us. And, of course, according to some traditions, Satan fell because he was appalled that despite the loftiness of the angelic nature God loved humans more.

In any case, angels aren't subject to contingency: they don't die, their bodies don't decay, and they enjoy an immediacy with God that would kill us (Moses only glimpsed God's backside and look what it did to him). They are messengers because they are faithful, they can be trusted to convey the Divine word. Their love is pristine, untainted by selfishness or self-interest. Our higher faculties (the ones Aquinas talks about so much), the spiritual and intellectual faculties, are a dim reflection of the spiritual and intellectual being of the angels, this because in us these faculties are married to appetive and sensuous faculties of which the angels are free.

I also think that Ps.-Dionysius is right, that the earthly liturgy is a recapitulation of the divine liturgy of the angels and that the ecclesiastical hierarchy of the Church is a recapitulation of the celestial hierarchy of the angels.

Okay, take your shots. I've got it coming!


I didn’t like that answer. Go back to plumbing! Besides you probably don’t know what a pipe wrench is any how!


JoeT

Something I should have said:

The angels are higher in the order of beings or natures, but this does not mean that they are favored above humans. Notice that the fallen angels did not lose their angelic natures: They are lower than us on the moral hierarchy, but still higher on the ontological hierarchy (the hierarchy of being). My take on this is that God's love is not determined by placement on the hierarchy--this is another reason that I do hold that animals can love and worship God in a manner appropriate to them, and that they can in turn experience God's love. St. Irenaeus acknowledges this at, e.g. Adversus haereses 4.38.4, when he says of animals that "each one, just as he has been created, gives thanks that he has been created". And St.Gregory Nazianzen and St.Augustine both believe that animals worship God, because God created them in such a way as to be capable of worship according to their nature.

Remember that all of creation is a vestigium of God. What makes humanity special is that we are not just a vestigium, but also the image, of God. Angels are similitudes or God, not images of God. We lost the similitude through sin and regain it by grace. So we get the following picture:

Human beings with grace: similitudo
Human beings as nature: imago
All beings: vestigium

It might also help to have scholastic anthropology in mind.
Human beings are rational animals. Our soul is our form, our body our matter. The spiritual faculties (through which we receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit) of intellect and will are both formal and material, because we are form (soul) and matter (body). And we have to distinguish the spiritual faculties from the inner senses of common sense (sensus communis), memory, cognition, imagination, and judgment.

Angels have spiritual faculties, and like us, they can use them well or badly. But these higher faculties give them a greater intimacy with God than we can, at this time, even begin to fathom.

I must be missing something because all I can think of as I try to follow all of this is...

Much ado about nothing!

I didn’t like that answer. Go back to plumbing! Besides you probably don’t know what a pipe wrench is any how!


JoeT

See what you get? If you hadn't challenged my masculinity I would happily have gone along with everything you've said.

See what you get?! If you hadn't challenged my masculinity I would happily have gone along with everything you've said.


I’ll remember that next time – well have called in a ‘real’ plumber yet?

I’ll remember that next time – well have called in a ‘real’ plumber yet?

I'm not listening...


And now we should stop otherwise De Maria's very nice thread is going to end up getting closed.

Akoue disagrees: Then don't participate. If you have something to offer, by all means do. If not, no one is holding a gun to your head.

Ooh, did I step on a sensitive toe?? Call me an optimist. I kept reading on in hopes of finding some real substance rather than bickering back and forth and back and forth again.

Ooh, did I step on a sensitive toe??? Call me an optimist. I kept reading on in hopes of finding some real substance rather than bickering back and forth and back and forth again.


The opening proposition was, “Did Christ die to redeem Creation or just man?”

As for my part in the discussion, my argument was essentially God only redeems man. The reason presented was that the Remainder of Creation had proclaimed good and as such Creation had no need to be redeemed, only man.

As presented in post no. 5

It seems to me that the primary objection to the argument that ‘Christ redeems all Creation’ is that all of Creation, except man, is already in harmony with God, perfect in accordance with God’s will. Only man has fallen, presumably because he [is a rational being] which gives him the unenviable propensity for sin. Thus, man finds himself in need of redemption to re-establish the harmony of Creation. And too, saying God redeems his Creation is to say Creation was not made good in the eyes of the Creator; which we know not to be true. All things created by God were made good and pronounced good by God.

Arcura hasn’t come straight out and said it but I think he agrees with this position.

De Maria and Maggie 3 have indicated their position that God does indeed redeem all Creation.

At my request, Akoue provided an opinion on the interpretation of a verse. It appears that he was doing some plumbing work – which is where the bantering came in - never mess with a man who has a pipe wrench in his hands – especially if he can’t plumb!

So, besides standing there stirring the caldron; where do you stand?

JoeT

I still stand at much ado about nothing.

members of the Church will be divinized, deified, because we will be sons in the Son, members of the body of Christ and are raised to a status higher than the angels because of our union with Christ.

We were not thus created.

I think this is exactly right.

Akoue.
I agree.
Fred

Akoue.
I agree.
Fred

Careful, Fred. Tom doesn't understand what we're talking about so you may get a dreaded "reddie" from him. Eek!

Akoue
What's a dreaded "reddie"?
Fred

Akoue
What's a dreaded "reddie"?
Fred

The little red disagree box that comes up when someone rates an answer and disagrees. It seems Tom likes to give them out not for factually incorrect responses--as the site rules stipulate--but when he just doesn't like what someone says.

I keep forgetting that some people expect to be literally wearing crowns in heaven. They have no deep understanding, of the sort that you and De Maria and Joe have been discussing (here and on the Romans thread), of what union with God really means. The Greek word for this, "theosis", is translated "divinized" or "deified"--i.e. to become one with the Divine nature.

members of the Church will be divinized, deified, because we will be sons in the Son, members of the body of Christ and are raised to a status higher than the angels because of our union with Christ.


I think this is exactly right.

Not that anybody asked, but I can go along with this – even with the word 'divinized.' However, if stated as a formula, I’d feel compliant with the Magisterium if it read just slightly different: members of the Church will be divinized, deified, because we will be adopted sons of God, members of the body of Christ and are raised to a status higher than the angels because of our union with Christ.

JoeT

Not that anybody asked, but I can go along with this – even with the word 'divinized.' However, if stated as a formula, I’d feel compliant with the Magisterium if it read just slightly different: members of the Church will be divinized, deified, because we will be adopted sons of God, members of the body of Christ and are raised to a status higher than the angels because of our union with Christ.

JoeT

Fair enough. But note that we are already adopted sons and daughters of God. This is one of the reasons I think that what awaits is more intimate than adopted sonship. It is a thoroughgoing oneness with God's nature. Hence talk of divinization or deification: It is incorporation into the Divine.

What do you think? Am I missing the point of your reservations? (I fear I may be.)

Akoue,
Thanks for the reddie information.
I do think that to be "theosis" with God is to become one with Him as Jesus so prayed.
I also thank Rickj for his help to me.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Here's something that's related to what we're discussing in a general way and which I didn't get the chance to bring up on the Romans thread: The Transfiguration. Here we have another great example of the union of the divine and the human (of course the Incarnation itself gives us that). But at the Transfiguration, the Divine shone through the human.

Any thoughts about what we are supposed to learn from that?

Akoue,
Thanks for the reddie information.
I do think that to be "theosis" with God is to become one with Him as Jesus so prayed.


That's a great point, Fred. To become one "as you and I are one". And this gets to the question about angels as well, because, as I understand it, the union promised and vouchesafed by Christ is a union that the angels themselves don't enjoy. So while our nature is inferior to that of the angels in the order of creation, we are to receive a union that surpasses their own intimacy with God. Whether in the end they too will enjoy this union I have no idea.

Fair enough. But note that we are already adopted sons and daughters of God. This is one of the reasons why I think that what awaits is more intimate than adopted sonship. It is a thoroughgoing oneness with God's nature. Hence talk of divinization or deification: It is incorporation into the Divine.

What do you think? Am I missing the point of your reservations? (I fear I may be.)

Well yeah you're missing it, but probably only because I haven't actually voiced it yet. I've always held that the promise of redemption meant that we would be resurrected as men. And as such, men have both body and soul. Consequently, when drawn to heaven, we would be whole beings; such beings can't be incorporated into another. I can understand corporation as an allegorical statement; but not in a literal physical sense. And, then again maybe I'm just hung up on the physics of it all.

Scripture suggests resurrection similar to Christ's who was risen both body and soul.

JoeT

Well yeah you’re missing it, but probably only because I haven’t actually voiced it yet. I’ve always held that the promise of redemption meant that we would be resurrected as men. And as such, men have both body and soul. Consequently, when drawn to heaven, we would be whole beings; such beings can’t be incorporated into another. I can understand corporation allegorical statement; but not in a literal physical sense. And, then again maybe I’m just hung up on the physics of it all.

JoeT

I totally get where you're coming from. You're right, resurrection of the body means that theosis won't be just a spiritual union of souls but one of bodies as well. Here's my one bit of insight on that--although I'm not sure how insightful it really is: We aren't unified with other bodies and then unified with God. Our union with others comes by way of our union with God. In other words, God draws each of us into his nature and in this way we each become one with him and with others. So it has to be a union that isn't the total annihilation of differentiation. But this makes sense, since the Father was one with Jesus the man. There was unity there, but also differentiation.

BTW, when I say it makes sense, I don't mean to suggest that I completely understand it. Only that we know it is possible.

What do you think? Could it be the fumes from the bathroom repair killing my few functioning brain cells, or does this seem like it's at least pointing in the right direction?

Akoue.
Your point about the Transfiguration is well taken.
And yes I do believe that we were created "a little less than the angels" but that will change when we become one with God in heaven.
We will be still human to some extent but also in glorified bodies as Jesus had after he rose from the dead and ascended into the "clouds" of heaven.
As I understand it back in the days of those who wrote Holy Scripture the clouds were the beginnings or entry into heaven.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I totally get where you're coming from. You're right, resurrection of the body means that theosis won't be just a spiritual union of souls but one of bodies as well. Here's my one bit of insight on that--although I'm not sure how insightful it really is: We aren't unified with other bodies and then unified with God. Our union with others comes by way of our union with God. In other words, God draws each of us into his nature and in this way we each become one with him and with others. So it has to be a union that isn't the total annihilation of differentiation. But this makes sense, since the Father was one with Jesus the man. There was unity there, but also differentiation.

BTW, when I say it makes sense, I don't mean to suggest that I completely understand it. Only that we know it is possible.

What do you think? Could it be the fumes from the bathroom repair killing my few functioning brain cells, or does this seem like it's at least pointing in the right direction?


My head hurts!

Seriously, I've got to hit the sack. I'll think this over. Don't take me wrong, I conceptualize these things in a way I can visualize, idealize or calculate – I just 'work' in this way. However, as all things are possible with God, I wouldn't be at all surprised, when I walk to the Pearly Gates, in my body, ring the bell only to be told that bodies have gone out of style. It's the JoeT luck!

JoeT

My head hurts!

Seriously, I’ve got to hit the sack. I’ll think this over. Don’t take me wrong, I conceptualize these things in a way I can visualize, idealize or calculate – I just 'work' in this way. However, as all things are possible with God, I wouldn’t be at all surprised, when I walk to the Pearly Gates, in my body, ring the bell and was told that bodies have gone out of style. It’s the JoeT luck!

JoeT

Sweet dreams. I hope I don't give you nightmares.

Or... after the plumbing cracks... Yeah, I kind of do hope I give you nightmares!

Sweet dreams. I hope I don't give you nightmares.

Or... after the plumbing cracks... Yeah, I kind of do hope I give you nightmares!

Well, If I dream about how good a plumber you are - it'll forsure be a nightmare!! Water on the floor... broken faucets... damaged walls… waterlogged foundations…

JoeT

Well, If I dream about how good a plumber you are - it'll forsure be a nightmare!!! Water on the floor... broken faucets...damaged walls… waterlogged foundations…

JoeT

Hey, I'm still here am I not? That's got to count for something.

Just don't ask me how many lives I shaved off the cats. I think the dog was rooting for a solid eight apiece.

Joe and Akoue.
You guys are hilarious.
It's also my bed time but...
I do want to mention that Akoue's thoughts on our glorified bodies becoming one with God does make sense to me.
One in spirit and one in body as Jesus is with the Father and the Holy Spirit seems to be the example Jesus has set for us.
Peace and kindness and good night with sweet dreams of heaven,
Fred

Akoue,
Thanks for the reddie information.
I do think that to be "theosis" with God is to become one with Him as Jesus so prayed.
I also thank Rickj for his help to me.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Fred,
Do you remember the conversation we had about a month ago?

NOW, I understand why you have never "rated" any posts. Instead, you just started new a
Post that said I agree or disagree.

The little red disagree box that comes up when someone rates an answer and disagrees. It seems Tom likes to give them out not for factually incorrect responses--as the site rules stipulate--but when he just doesn't like what someone says.

I give them out for factually incorrect responses, not like the one that you gave me. Divinization means to deify, or to make men gods or God (as the CCC says).

This is, of course, not scriptural.

I give them out for factually incorrect responses, not like the one that you gave me.

So you are saying that I said something factually incorrect when I expressed my agreement with De Maria with the following six word post:


I think this is exactly right.

That wasn't factually incorrect because I DO agree with what he said. And the reddies I have given you have been for factually incorrect claims that you've made, most recently concerning the meaning of the word "petros" in Koine, a language you do not know.


Divinization means to deify, or to make men gods or God (as the CCC says).

This is, of course, not scriptural.

I don't agree with that. But, as I've told you a great many times, I am not a sola scripturist.

The discussion on this thread has been as much about post-Biblical theology as about the Bible. We have every right in the world to discuss Catholic theology on this forum without constantly being told by you that to discuss theology beyond the parroting of Biblical passages is somehow illicit. You have rejected Catholicism, a point you have made quite evident at every conceivable opportunity. That is your right. But those who have not chosen as you have also have the right to discuss Catholic theology with one another. Your assumption that the Bible is the total of God's revelation is exactly that, an assumption, and one that many of us do not share. Moreover, many of us find your understanding of Scripture to be woefully deficient, and as a result your claim that something is or is not Scriptural is itself less than compelling. But, again, that is not the sole measure by which theological claims are to be adjudicated.

Also, as the discussion on this thread and the Romans thread bears out, your understanding of what divinization means is also profoundly deficient. You like to fancy yourself an expert on Catholicism, but those of us who actually study Catholic theology find this not to be the case. And this is something that has been pointed out to you many times by many different posters. I have enjoyed many exchanges at this site with people with whom I disagree, and I haven't been shy about letting them know that. But you seem determined to make this an unpleasant place for those who do not adhere to your quixotic interpretations of Scripture and you have driven a good many people away from the Christianity boards because of it. Those of us who have remained see absolutely no reason to recognize your authority to determine what counts as authentic Christianity. Perhaps it would be good for you to make your peace with that fact.

I give them out for factually incorrect responses, not like the one that you gave me. Divinization means to deify, or to make men gods or God (as the CCC says).

This is, of course, not scriptural.

John 10:35
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

2 Peter 1:4
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust.

Something I should have said:

The angels are higher in the order of beings or natures, but this does not mean that they are favored above humans. Notice that the fallen angels did not lose their angelic natures: They are lower than us on the moral hierarchy, but still higher on the ontological hierarchy (the hierarchy of being). My take on this is that God's love is not determined by placement on the hierarchy--this is another reason that I do hold that animals can love and worship God in a manner appropriate to them, and that they can in turn experience God's love. St. Irenaeus acknowledges this at, e.g., Adversus haereses 4.38.4, when he says of animals that "each one, just as he has been created, gives thanks that he has been created". And St.Gregory Nazianzen and St.Augustine both believe that animals worship God, because God created them in such a way as to be capable of worship according to their nature.

Remember that all of creation is a vestigium of God. What makes humanity special is that we are not just a vestigium, but also the image, of God. Angels are similitudes or God, not images of God. We lost the similitude through sin and regain it by grace. So we get the following picture:

Human beings with grace: similitudo
Human beings as nature: imago
All beings: vestigium

It might also help to have scholastic anthropology in mind.
Human beings are rational animals. Our soul is our form, our body our matter. The spiritual faculties (through which we receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit) of intellect and will are both formal and material, because we are form (soul) and matter (body). And we have to distinguish the spiritual faculties from the inner senses of common sense (sensus communis), memory, cognition, imagination, and judgment.

Angels have spiritual faculties, and like us, they can use them well or badly. But these higher faculties give them a greater intimacy with God than we can, at this time, even begin to fathom.

Define "vestigium".

Something I should have said:

The angels are higher in the order of beings or natures, but this does not mean that they are favored above humans. Notice that the fallen angels did not lose their angelic natures: They are lower than us on the moral hierarchy, but still higher on the ontological hierarchy (the hierarchy of being). My take on this is that God's love is not determined by placement on the hierarchy--this is another reason that I do hold that animals can love and worship God in a manner appropriate to them, and that they can in turn experience God's love. St. Irenaeus acknowledges this at, e.g., Adversus haereses 4.38.4, when he says of animals that "each one, just as he has been created, gives thanks that he has been created". And St.Gregory Nazianzen and St.Augustine both believe that animals worship God, because God created them in such a way as to be capable of worship according to their nature.

Remember that all of creation is a vestigium of God. What makes humanity special is that we are not just a vestigium, but also the image, of God. Angels are similitudes or God, not images of God. We lost the similitude through sin and regain it by grace. So we get the following picture:

Human beings with grace: similitudo
Human beings as nature: imago
All beings: vestigium

It might also help to have scholastic anthropology in mind.
Human beings are rational animals. Our soul is our form, our body our matter. The spiritual faculties (through which we receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit) of intellect and will are both formal and material, because we are form (soul) and matter (body). And we have to distinguish the spiritual faculties from the inner senses of common sense (sensus communis), memory, cognition, imagination, and judgment.

Angels have spiritual faculties, and like us, they can use them well or badly. But these higher faculties give them a greater intimacy with God than we can, at this time, even begin to fathom.

What are spiritual faculties?

I must be missing something because all I can think of as I try to follow all of this is...

Much ado about nothing!

Ecclesiasticus 24 31 They that explain me shall have life everlasting.

Define "vestigium".

A vestigium is a trace or footprint. As St. Augustine shows in the De Trinitate, God left traces [vestigia] of himself throughout the whole of creation. In book three, he holds that science is a kind of worship because by studying the physical world it is--even if secular scientists aren't self-conscious about it--working toward a deeper understanding of God. Animals, too, are vestigia of traces of God. All things bear the mark of their creator deep within their being, and all living things are provided a means by God through which to love him and praise him.

What are spiritual faculties?

Spiritual faculties, intellect and will, are those by means of which we apprehend and conform to spiritual truths. They are the faculties through which we receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

Fair enough. But note that we are already adopted sons and daughters of God. This is one of the reasons why I think that what awaits is more intimate than adopted sonship. It is a thoroughgoing oneness with God's nature. Hence talk of divinization or deification: It is incorporation into the Divine.

What do you think? Am I missing the point of your reservations? (I fear I may be.)

But we will retain our uniqueness, our identity, right?

But we will retain our uniqueness, our identity, right?

That's what I was trying to get at, not altogether felicitously alas, by the idea that union doesn't annihilate differentiation. Our union with God is a union enjoyed by each of us at once individually and collectively.

I totally get where you're coming from. You're right, resurrection of the body means that theosis won't be just a spiritual union of souls but one of bodies as well. Here's my one bit of insight on that--although I'm not sure how insightful it really is: We aren't unified with other bodies and then unified with God. Our union with others comes by way of our union with God. In other words, God draws each of us into his nature and in this way we each become one with him and with others. So it has to be a union that isn't the total annihilation of differentiation. But this makes sense, since the Father was one with Jesus the man. There was unity there, but also differentiation.

BTW, when I say it makes sense, I don't mean to suggest that I completely understand it. Only that we know it is possible.

What do you think? Could it be the fumes from the bathroom repair killing my few functioning brain cells, or does this seem like it's at least pointing in the right direction?

This is where the metaphor by St. Thomas? Augustine? Is so useful to me. He spoke of iron in the fire, glowing red as to be indistinguishable from the fire. Yet retaining its form.

Akoue.
Your point about the Transfiguration is well taken.
And yes I do believe that we were created "a little less than the angels" but that will change when we become one with God in heaven.
We will be still human to some extent but also in glorified bodies as Jesus had after he rose from the dead and ascended into the "clouds" of heaven.
As I understand it back in the days of those who wrote Holy Scripture the clouds were the beginnings or entry into heaven.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I think we are one with God, now. We are temples of the Holy Spirit.

A vestigium is a trace or footprint. As St. Augustine shows in the De Trinitate, God left traces [vestigia] of himself throughout the whole of creation. In book three, he holds that science is a kind of worship because by studying the physical world it is--even if secular scientists aren't self-conscious about it--working toward a deeper understanding of God. Animals, too, are vestigia of traces of God. All things bear the mark of their creator deep within their being, and all living things are provided a means by God through which to love him and praise him.

The first thing that came to mind was "vestigial limb". So I suspected something as you describe.

Now, this is evidence for the redemption of Creation, correct?

Now, although Scripture speaks of animals and nature praising God, I always thought of that as metaphorical.

It isn't that the animals and nature praise God literally, but that we praise God because we detect the vestigial presence of God in all Creation. Therefore, it is said that Creation praises God, but it is the Angels and the Saints who praise God when we see the beauty of nature.

Spiritual faculties, intellect and will, are those by means of which we apprehend and conform to spiritual truths. They are the faculties through which we receive the gifts of the Holy Spirit.

As I suspected. Do we believe that animals and other things in nature have these as well?

That's what I was trying to get at, not altogether felicitously alas, by the idea that union doesn't annihilate differentiation. Our union with God is a union enjoyed by each of us at once individually and collectively.

Yeah, I was going through systematically and came to it after I posted the question.

Why not felicitiously? I think that was a marvelous explanation. Of course, I agree.

Sorry to swamp you guys with all those questions. I was trying to catch up and the responses are so interesting, I didn't want to miss any.

Have we moved any closer to answering the question of the OP?

The first thing that came to mind was "vestigial limb". So I suspected something as you describe.

Now, this is evidence for the redemption of Creation, correct?

Now, although Scripture speaks of animals and nature praising God, I always thought of that as metaphorical.

It isn't that the animals and nature praise God literally, but that we praise God because we detect the vestigial presence of God in all Creation. Therefore, it is said that Creation praises God, but it is the Angels and the Saints who praise God when we see the beauty of nature.

I have come to believe that it isn't metaphorical, that God has provided the means for his creatures, whom he loves, to feel that love and return it. Each in a manner appropriate to the nature it has received from its Creator. Human worship is distinctive in all sorts of ways, but I don't believe it to be exclusive. And yes, I do believe this is further reason to believe that all of creation is to be redeemed.

I have come to believe that it isn't metaphorical,

Based on a feeling or on logical deduction or what?

I don't think absolute proof can be gained either way. But my "feeling" is based on my childhood disappointment at the idea I had (very much like the lady on this forum and her dog) that my pets had unconditional love for me.

Then, when that love was put to the test, it turned out they didn't. That's when I realized that, not only did they not have unconditional love for me, but I didn't have it for them.

So, my ideas are also based on subjective feelings, for the most part. But, I'm wondering whether you have something more substantive?


that God has provided the means for his creatures, whom he loves, to feel that love and return it.

Could that be the joy of life? Is joy an expression of love?


Each in a manner appropriate to the nature it has received from its Creator. Human worship is distinctive in all sorts of ways, but I don't believe it to be exclusive.

As you said, the angels also worship and ours is an extension of their heavenly liturgy.


And yes, I do believe this is further reason to believe that all of creation is to be redeemed.

Agreed.

Based on a feeling or on logical deduction or what?

I don't think absolute proof can be gained either way. But my "feeling" is based on my childhood disappointment at the idea I had (very much like the lady on this forum and her dog) that my pets had unconditional love for me.

Then, when that love was put to the test, it turned out they didn't. That's when I realized that, not only did they not have unconditional love for me, but I didn't have it for them.

So, my ideas are also based on subjective feelings, for the most part. But, I'm wondering whether you have something more substantive?

I think I've given all the reasons I have at the moment, here and on the Romans thread.

As far as unconditional love goes, I'm not worried about that. I believe that the only unconditional love is that which God has for us, so I don't expect dogs or humans to have unconditional love for each other. Nor even for themselves. I do, though, think that dogs have been given the ability by their Creator to love their Creator. This isn't based on a feeling, but is supported by it. It is based on the considerations I've offered and on the testimony and teachings of the Fathers and my understanding of Romans 8.


Could that be the joy of life? Is joy an expression of love?

I think it can be. But there can be love of God in the absence of the joy of life. For some people life feels very heavy and painful. I don't expect them to feel joy. But I've known more than a few whom I believe to love God.

God is generous. He created out of generosity. He redeems us out of generosity. I believe that his generosity isn't stingy: I don't think it is reserved only for humanity. If I can love God's creation and the animals that fill it, how much more must God love it and them, Who is capable of a much greater love than I?

So you are saying that I said something factually incorrect when I expressed my agreement with De Maria with the following six word post:

What you said was right was in fact wrong.


And the reddies I have given you have been for factually incorrect claims that you've made, most recently concerning the meaning of the word "petros" in Koine, a language you do not know.

You were wrong. Apparently you feel that you have the right demean other's knowledge, but odd that so many of the most highly recognized experts say that those who hold your opinion don't know Koine Greek. I'll stick with the experts who do know what they are talking about.



Moreover, many of us find your understanding of Scripture to be woefully deficient, and as a result your claim that something is or is not Scriptural is itself less than compelling.

And many of us who have studied scripture find your knowledge of scripture to be woefully deficient. But like I said, I'll quite happily stand by what scripture says, and hold to what the experts in the Greek and Hebrew languages say.


Also, as the discussion on this thread and the Romans thread bears out, your understanding of what divinization means is also profoundly deficient.

Perhaps you ought to explain the experts who wrote the dictionaries. Apparently, in addition to thinking that you know Greek better than the experts, you seem to think that you are qualified to redefine the words in English.


You like to fancy yourself an expert on Catholicism, but those of us who actually study Catholic theology find this not to be the case.

You opinion, based upon past experience, carries no weight with me.

And I note that you failed to respond to the question regarding the CCC which states specifically that men become gods and men become God. Avoiding the question in fact answers it nicely.

Tj3,
That is just your opinion as far as I am concerned.
Fred

I think we are one with God, now. We are temples of the Holy Spirit.

Right, but our oneness with God hasn't been perfected yet. The work of redemption set in motion with the Incarnation has an historical trajectory. So, to return to something Joe has rightly emphasized, we are adopted children of God awaiting a still more perfect, more intimate, sonship that is to come with the end of salvation history.

Tj3,
That is just your opinion as far as I am concerned.
Fred

That is fine. I recognize what you say to be just your opinion.

Sorry to swamp you guys with all those questions. I was trying to catch up and the responses are so interesting, I didn't want to miss any.

Have we moved any closer to answering the question of the OP?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly feel I am gaining a deeper understanding of the OP as a result of our conversation. There seems to be very good reason to say that Christ redeems the whole of creation and not just human beings.

That said, I am still mulling over something else Joe said, viz. that creation didn't fall and so doesn't need redemption. You have made a case that sin disrupted creation, and I think I have also endorsed something like this, but I don't think it's a slam-dunk yet.

At least, this is more or less where I am at the moment. I look forward to hearing your take on where we are with respect to the OP.

For those who wonder.
I do not know how to rate a post pr answer.
I see nothing that provides the ability to do that.
Fred

I can't speak for anyone else, but I certainly feel I am gaining a deeper understanding of the OP as a result of our conversation. There seems to be very good reason to say that Christ redeems the whole of creation and not just human beings.

That said, I am still mulling over something else Joe said, viz. that creation didn't fall and so doesn't need redemption. You have made a case that sin disrupted creation, and I think I have also endorsed something like this, but I don't think it's a slam-dunk yet.

At least, this is more or less where I am at the moment. I look forward to hearing your take on where we are with respect to the OP.

I feel as though I've learned quite a bit.

I'm wondering whether we need to define "redemption". What does it mean as it pertains to man and to creation?

And I'm wondering about the fact that God made man sovereign of this world. Did, in the fall of man, man take creation with him out of paradise?

Therefore, even though creation did not sin, when man is redeemed, creation is redeemed with him.

Just a question offered in hopes of reconciling with Joe's hypothesis.

....

And I note that you failed to respond to the question regarding the CCC which states specifically that men become gods and men become God. Avoiding the question in fact answers it nicely.

And you failed to respond to the Scripture which says the same.

John 10:35
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

2 Peter 1:4
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust

And you failed to respond to the Scripture which says the same.

John 10:35
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Let's look at it in context. I don't think anyone would or should want to be the "gods" that Jesus refers to here. First, what does Jesus say about the men that he is calling "gods" in this passage:

John 10:25-27
25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.
NKJV

So these are men who oppose Jesus, and who oppose God. They are non-believers.

Jesus refers to the Old Testament as the source for his comment, and there is only one place in the Old Testament where this is said and that is Psalm 82. Let's look at it in context.

Ps 82
God stands in the congregation of the mighty;
He judges among the gods.
2 How long will you judge unjustly,
And show partiality to the wicked?
Selah
3 Defend the poor and fatherless;
Do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver the poor and needy;
Free them from the hand of the wicked.

5 They do not know, nor do they understand;
They walk about in darkness;
All the foundations of the earth are unstable.

6 I said, "You are gods,
And all of you are children of the Most High.
7 But you shall die like men,
And fall like one of the princes."

8 Arise, O God, judge the earth;
For You shall inherit all nations.
NKJV

The word used there in Hebrew is a word that can be used to mean "gods" or "judges", referring to those who are mighty or in positions of leadership. God does not die. These "gods" do. These people are referred to as judging issues before a court, and therefore are in fact evil judges, but the context of John 10:34 shows that these men thought themselves to be gods, and they were falsely judging Jesus. There is no other way to take it in context. Jesus was clearly condemning them and Psalm 82 clearly condemns them.

Look at the characteristics of these "gods" from John 10 and Psalm 82:

- They do not believe in God.
- They rejected Jesus as Saviour
- They show partiality to the wicked
- They judge unjustly
- They do not know
- They do not understand
- They walk about in darkness
- They die like men
- Fall like the princes

Also note that there are no other Gods, according to God.

Ex 23:13
13 And in all that I have said to you, be circumspect and make no mention of the name of other gods, nor let it be heard from your mouth.
NKJV

Isa 44:8
You are My witnesses.
Is there a God besides Me?
Indeed there is no other Rock;
I know not one.'"
NKJV

Isa 45:5
5 I am the LORD, and there is no other;
There is no God besides Me.
NKJV

Isa 45:14
They will make supplication to you, saying, 'Surely God is in you,
And there is no other;
There is no other God.'"
NKJV

Isa 45:18
18 For thus says the LORD,
Who created the heavens,
Who is God,
Who formed the earth and made it,
Who has established it,
Who did not create it in vain,
Who formed it to be inhabited:
"I am the LORD, and there is no other.
NKJV

Isa 45:21-22
And there is no other God besides Me,
A just God and a Savior;
There is none besides Me.

22 "Look to Me, and be saved,
All you ends of the earth!
For I am God, and there is no other.
NKJV

So the Bible is explicit in saying that there are no other gods, and that those who claim to be gods in scripture are those who Jesus was condemning.


2 Peter 1:4
Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust

This refers to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit spoken of elsewhere in scripture. This is not saying that our nature changes to that of God.

Let's look at it in context. I don't think anyone would or should want to be the "gods" that Jesus refers to here. First, what does Jesus say about the men that he is calling "gods" in this passage:

Jesus is not calling those men gods. Jesus is calling all men gods to whom the word of God came. Read the Scripture:

John 10:35
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;


John 10:25-27
25 Jesus answered them, "I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in My Father's name, they bear witness of Me. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep, as I said to you.
NKJV

These are men with whom Jesus is arguing. Jesus doesn't say, YOU ARE GODS.


So these are men who oppose Jesus, and who oppose God. They are non-believers.

Besides the point. Jesus didn't call them gods. You have twisted the Scripture to your own end.


Jesus refers to the Old Testament as the source for his comment, and there is only one place in the Old Testament where this is said and that is Psalm 82. Let's look at it in context.

Ps 82
God stands in the congregation of the mighty;
He judges among the gods.
2 How long will you judge unjustly,
And show partiality to the wicked?
Selah
3 Defend the poor and fatherless;
Do justice to the afflicted and needy.
4 Deliver the poor and needy;
Free them from the hand of the wicked.

5 They do not know, nor do they understand;
They walk about in darkness;
All the foundations of the earth are unstable.

6 I said, "You are gods,
And all of you are children of the Most High.
7 But you shall die like men,
And fall like one of the princes."

8 Arise, O God, judge the earth;
For You shall inherit all nations.
NKJV

The word used there in Hebrew is a word that can be used to mean "gods" or "judges", referring to those who are mighty or in positions of leadership. God does not die. These "gods" do. These people are referred to as judging issues before a court, and therefore are in fact evil judges, but the context of John 10:34 shows that these men thought themselves to be gods, and they were falsely judging Jesus. There is no other way to take it in context. Jesus was clearly condemning them and Psalm 82 clearly condemns them.

No, Jesus was arguing with the men who denied His Divinity. Therefore, He said, why do you doubt, if Scripture says that those who receive His word are gods?

Those who receive His word are men like Moses:
Exodus 7:1
And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

And the rulers of Israel:
Exodus 22:28
Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.

These are they who received the word of God and are called gods.


Look at the characteristics of these "gods" from John 10 and Psalm 82:

- They do not believe in God.
- They rejected Jesus as Saviour
- They show partiality to the wicked
- They judge unjustly
- They do not know
- They do not understand
- They walk about in darkness
- They die like men
- Fall like the princes

Also note that there are no other Gods, according to God.

Your eseigesis makes no sense. Lets read the actual text.

34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Jesus said that it is written in Scripture.

35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

That those who have received the word of God are gods.

36Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Jesus is therefore astounded, that if the Prophets themselves are called gods, they should consider Him a blasphemer because he said that he is the Son of God.

Now, if Jesus were comparing himself to sinners and unbelievers, your eseigesis. But Jesus is comparing Himself to just men who have received the word of God and thereby have a claim to Divintiy.


Ex 23:13
13 And in all that I have said to you, be circumspect and make no mention of the name of other gods, nor let it be heard from your mouth.NKJV

God is here speaking of the gods of other nations.


Isa 44:8
You are My witnesses.
Is there a God besides Me?
Indeed there is no other Rock;
I know not one.'"
NKJV

Yet God has called Abraham the Rock from whom we are hewn.



Isa 45:5
5 I am the LORD, and there is no other;
There is no God besides Me.
NKJV

No there isn't. But as we have seen, God appointed Moses god of pharoa and Jesus appointed Simon the Rock of the Church.


Isa 45:14
They will make supplication to you, saying, 'Surely God is in you,
And there is no other;
There is no other God.'"
NKJV

Agreed. There is no other God with a capital G. But God has named them gods who have received His word. And the Scripture can't be broken.


Isa 45:18
18 For thus says the LORD,
Who created the heavens,
Who is God,
Who formed the earth and made it,
Who has established it,
Who did not create it in vain,
Who formed it to be inhabited:
"I am the LORD, and there is no other.
NKJV

Isa 45:21-22
And there is no other God besides Me,
A just God and a Savior;
There is none besides Me.

22 "Look to Me, and be saved,
All you ends of the earth!
For I am God, and there is no other.
NKJV

So the Bible is explicit in saying that there are no other gods, and that those who claim to be gods in scripture are those who Jesus was condemning.

Nope. The Scripture is clear that those who receive God's word are considered gods, with a small g and the Scripture can't be broken. Jesus was not comparing Himself to sinners. Otherwise His comments would not make sense.


This refers to the indwelling of the Holy Spirit spoken of elsewhere in scripture. This is not saying that our nature changes to that of God.

Neither did we say that we became God. That is how you have twisted the Catholic teaching and attempted to twist our understanding of the Scripture.

Jesus is not calling those men gods. Jesus is calling all men gods to whom the word of God came. Read the Scripture:

John 10:35
If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

Jesus referred to the OT and this is the one and only place in the entire OT where men are called gods. BTW, to whom did the word of God come? To the Jews. These men were Jews.

Read what scripture says:

John 10:31-35
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, "Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?" 33 The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God." 34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods" '?
NKJV


Those who receive His word are men like Moses:
Exodus 7:1
And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet.

And the rulers of Israel:
Exodus 22:28
Thou shalt not revile the gods, nor curse the ruler of thy people.

These are they who received the word of God and are called gods.

Ex 7:1
7:1 So the LORD said to Moses: "See, I have made you as God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.
NKJV

Moses was not made into a God. once again, the context is so important, as is ensuring that you are areading a translation in modern language unless you are perfectly fluent in old English.

Ex 22:28
28 "You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people.
NKJV



Jesus is therefore astounded, that if the Prophets themselves are called gods, they should consider Him a blasphemer because he said that he is the Son of God.

Wow - where did you get that the prophets are called gods? Show me that in scripture. That is quite a creative interpretation that you have.


Agreed. There is no other God with a capital G.

The original text was not capitalized.


Neither did we say that we became God.

The Catechism of the Catholic Church does.

Jesus referred to the OT and this is the one and only place in the entire OT where men are called gods. BTW, to whom did the word of God come? To the Jews. These men were Jews.

I showed you another verse where men are called gods.


Read what scripture says:

John 10:31-35
31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus answered them, "Many good works I have shown you from My Father. For which of those works do you stone Me?" 33 The Jews answered Him, saying, "For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy, and because You, being a Man, make Yourself God." 34 Jesus answered them, "Is it not written in your law, 'I said, "You are gods" '?
NKJV

Jesus is not calling them GOD.

As I said before:
34Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

Jesus said that it is written in Scripture.

35If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

That those who have received the word of God are gods.

36Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

Jesus is therefore astounded, that if the Prophets themselves are called gods, they should consider Him a blasphemer because he said that he is the Son of God.

Now, if Jesus were comparing himself to sinners and unbelievers, your eseigesis. But Jesus is comparing Himself to just men who have received the word of God and thereby have a claim to Divintiy.


Ex 7:1
7:1 So the LORD said to Moses: "See, I have made you as God to Pharaoh, and Aaron your brother shall be your prophet.
NKJV

Moses was not made into a God. Once again, the context is so important, as is ensuring that you are areading a translation in modern language unless you are perfectly fluent in old English.

Did I say that Moses was made into God? Scripture says so and the Scripture can't be broken.


Ex 22:28
28 "You shall not revile God, nor curse a ruler of your people.
NKJV

Wow - where did you get that the prophets are called gods? Show me that in scripture. That is quite a creative interpretation that you have.

You yourself admit that the Jews received the word of God. The prophets are Jews, are they not. And who amongst the Jews received the word of God from God?

Put two and two together.


The original text was not capitalized.

No, it wasn't. Why did you capitalize it?


The Catechism of the Catholic Church does.

Just as the Scriptures do.

De Maria,
Excellent, but I fear that Jj3 will never accept what you and the bible teaches about gods who accept and believe in Jesus because it is to Catholic for him to accept.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

De Maria,
Excellent, but I fear that Jj3 will never accept what you and the bible teaches about gods who accept and believe in Jesus because it is to Catholic for him to accept.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

You are partly right. I will never accept what De Maria teaches when it goes against scripture. I accept only what the God's word teaches.

I showed you another verse where men are called gods.

But you have not shown me any place when God endorses men as gods. It is always a condemnation.



Jesus is not calling them GOD.

Right. Because men are not gods or God.


Did I say that Moses was made into God? Scripture says so and the Scripture can't be broken.

Scripture does not say it - only you did.


You yourself admit that the Jews received the word of God.

You do a really lousy job of speaking for me. Give it up. Jesus IS the Word of God in the flesh.


The prophets are Jews, are they not. And who amongst the Jews received the word of God from God?

Put two and two together.

And what is your claim?


No, it wasn't. Why did you capitalize it?


Capitalization was your argument not mine.


Just as the Scriptures do.

Really? Where do scripture says that man becomes God?

John 10:34 and 35: Christ is calling the Jews Gods should also be referenced to Deu 1:17 and also reference Ex 21:6. The reference does come from Ps 82:6 but it's a term used for 'judges' because they exercised divine prerogative to judge. Referenced - “The New American Bible” (foot notes).

The verses here implies that the Jews do not recognize God in spite of the works exhibited by Christ. And an out and out declaration by Christ: I am God.

JoeT

Tj3,
How men become gods (little g) is well explained in the CCC and has been done so by De Marian and others, including me on other boards, but you continue to bring it up.
You should know by now that you can not win the argument, so I must assume that you just want to continue to argue.
Actually I have enjoyed watching the argument continue and learning more in the process of what Scripture and Jesus says about men becoming gods
You have brought more learning from others who know the subject well for me so I thank you.
Fred

John 10:34 and 35: Christ is calling the Jews Gods should also be referenced to Deu 1:17 and also reference Ex 21:6.

Neither of which says what Jesus said - "you are gods". That is Psalm 82.


The reference does come from Ps 82:6 but it's a term used for 'judges' because they exercised divine prerogative to judge. Referenced - “The New American Bible” (foot notes).

So nowhere in scripture does it endorse the belief that men become god or god.

Tj3,
How men become gods (little g) is well explained in the CCC and has been done so by De Marian and others, including me on other boards, but you continue to bring it up.

It may be taught in the CCC, but not in the Bible. That is the point.



You should know by now that you can not win the argument,

Fred,

I keep hoping that you and De Maria will some day seriously discuss the topic, but I do recognize, as you suggest, that to date that has not happened and does not seem likely. But I never give up hope.

Tj3,

I haven't yet seen your answer to the OP. Did Christ die to redeem creation or just man? Do you care to participate in the conversation that was going along quite affably prior to your entrance, or are you just grinding axes yet again?

Tj3,

I haven't yet seen your answer to the OP. Did Christ die to redeem creation or just man? Do you care to participate in the conversation that was going along quite affably prior to your entrance, or are you just grinding axes yet again?

Do you plan to just make snide remarks or discuss?

Do you plan to just make snide remarks or discuss?

The OP, Tom. Why don't you try addressing the OP.

The OP, Tom. Why don't you try addressing the OP.

Well maybe if you get back on topic, we can all discuss it - how about that?

Yes please let us all get back to the OP.
It is very interesting.
Fred

Well maybe if you get back on topic, we can all discuss it - how about that?

WE were discussing it. WE have been discussing it all along. I've read other posters to this thread address the OP. I haven't seen you do it. Site rules require that posters address the OP. If you are going to continue to post to this thread, you should probably speak to the OP.

WE were discussing it. WE have been discussing it all along. I've read other posters to this thread address the OP. I haven't seen you do it. Site rules require that posters address the OP. If you are going to continue to post to this thread, you should probably speak to the OP.

Then let's get back on topic. I see so many folk trying to argue that men become gods rather than the topic.

Then let's get back on topic.

Great. So what's your answer to the OP?

Great. So what's your answer to the OP?

I'll join in when I see things are back on topic.

I'll join in when I see things are back on topic.

Riiight.

When did the Redemption begin and did Christ die to redeem Creation or just man?

Just to stir the pot, I'll put an oar in the water and mix a few other metaphors into the soup. I'm voting for Creation because I'm proCreation.
I like the idea of redeeming gophers, whales, poison ivy, and puffballs.

Just to stir the pot, I'll put an oar in the water and mix a few other metaphors into the soup. I'm voting for Creation because I'm proCreation.
I like the idea of redeeming gophers, whales, poison ivy, and puffballs.

I am decidedly pro-creation too, as you can tell. And, if I may be so narcissistic as to paraphrase my very own self, I think God is pro-creation too. We can love creation. But our love is profoundly limited in all sorts of ways. God's love is a far greater love, of course, and I see no reason to suppose that he has cut the creation off from the hope of redemption. Romans 8 and 1Cor.15 lend support to this.

I feel as though I've learned quite a bit.

I'm wondering whether we need to define "redemption". What does it mean as it pertains to man and to creation?

And I'm wondering about the fact that God made man sovereign of this world. Did, in the fall of man, man take creation with him out of paradise?

Therefore, even though creation did not sin, when man is redeemed, creation is redeemed with him.

Just a question offered in hopes of reconciling with Joe's hypothesis.

I second this. Does "redemption" mean the same thing when applied to humanity as to the rest of creation? If so, does it mean something different for each individual? I ask this, because if union with God preserves difference, then by virtue of two individuals' differences from each other, one might expect their union with the Godhead to be somewhat different. If differences aren't to be annihilated, then the uniqueness of each person, and of each animal, is going to be in some sense preserved. Yes?

In some sense, clearly the fall did take creation out of paradise. Animals, who don't sin, nevertheless die. They experience decay and illness. They are victims of contingency just as we are.

So, with an eye to Joe's idea, I would suggest that creation does need redemption, only not a redemption from the sort of fallenness from which humanity needs to be redeemed. This suggests to me that "redemption" isn't applied univocally to every case. That said, the end is the same, "that God may be all in all".

Akoue,
It does seem to me that because animals die as does plants, people, stars and planets that redemption is universe wide.
But in reality I thinks that only God knows for sure.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Akoue,
It does seem to me that because animals die as does plants, people, stars and planets that redemption is universe wide.
But in reality I thinks that only God knows for sure.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Yeah, but what's the fun of that, Fred?

I suppose you're going to tell me that I shouldn't start a thread on the topic, "If God wore sneakers what would be his favorite brand?", on the grounds that only God knows for sure. And here I was all excited about it.

Kill-joy.

Akoue,
OOPS, sorry.
But really, how much do we really know about God. He seems to be pretty much hidden from us event though we have what we learned from the bible and his apostles.
The fun is still to speculated, ponder, discus and ponder, don't you think?
I'm off to bed now.
Have a great night.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

Akoue,
OOPS, sorry.
But really, how much do we really know about God. He seems to be pretty much hidden from us event though we have what we learned from the bible and his apostles.
The fun is still to speculated, ponder, discus and ponder, don't you think?
I'm off to bed now.
Have a great night.
Peace and kindness,
Fred

I was just kidding, Fred. But this


He seems to be pretty much hidden from us

Would make for a really interesting question to discuss in its own right.

You do have a knack for asking interesting questions. And I'm glad you do.

If His life's work is the Creation, you should be able to infer something about Him from his Work. Yes?

If His life's work is the Creation, you should be able to infer something about Him from his Work. Yes?

This is exactly St. Augustine's approach in the De Trinitate.

Quite a bit more has been learned about the Creation since Augustine.
If you extend his approach to current knowledge, what do you infer?

Quite a bit more has been learned about the Creation since Augustine.
If you extend his approach to current knowledge, what do you infer?

My apologies, but I'm not quite sure what you're asking. Could I trouble you to formulate your question another way?

Yeah, but what's the fun of that, Fred?

I suppose you're going to tell me that I shouldn't start a thread on the topic, "If God wore sneakers what would be his favorite brand?", on the grounds that only God knows for sure. And here I was all excited about it.

Kill-joy.

So KNOWING that God has a thing about beetles*, for example, or that he balances cooperation and competition in his Work, and that He made lots of planetary systems besides ours--to name a few interesting tidbits out of several millions--what do you infer about the Artist?

*There are more known species of beetles (more than 350,000) than all species of plants together. Beetles make up more than a quarter of all animal species.

So KNOWING that God has a thing about beetles*, for example, or that he balances cooperation and competition in his Work, and that He made lots of planetary systems besides ours--to name a few interesting tidbits out of several millions--what do you infer about the Artist?

*There are more known species of beetles (more than 350,000) than all species of plants together. Beetles make up more than a quarter of all animal species.

Thank you. That helps a lot.

I have to confess--and I'm not being coy here--that I don't see any straight inferential path from the arrangement of things in the creation to the nature of the Creator. In other words, I don't know what the vast array of beetle species or the conservation of angular momentum tells us about God. That isn't to say that these things don't tell us anything. It is quite possible the fault is mine, but I have never been very deeply moved by natural theology, principally because (as I say) I don't see any clear inferential path that leads from the one to the other.

I suppose this is why I found Fred's way of putting it so intriguing, that the Divine remains hidden from us in all sorts of ways. That doesn't mean we shouldn't apply ourselves, that we shouldn't strive for a better and deeper understanding of the Divine. Only that I don't tend to find myself moved in one direction or another by natural theology.

Sadly, then, I am not really answering your question. Or, at least, not in as straightforward a way as I would like. But for reasons that I hope make some sense. I do not mean to challenge those who are moved by natural theology, nor do I wish to call that enterprise into question in any general way. I just am not a practitioner of it.

I hope that this makes sense, at least.

I misunderstood the direction of the conversation.

I misunderstood the direction of the conversation.

Not really. We're just asking for a bit more of your input. At least, I would like to know what you think "natural" theology, as Akoue describes it, has to say about the Creator.

I have no insights, really.

If I were a humanities kind of person used to drawing conclusions about the character of an artist based on their work, I might have better insights. The other thing I'm thinking is that it's one thing to look at two sculptures and say, this artist is more realistic and this one is more abstract, this one more romantic and that one more intellectual. But in that case you are comparing two things and you have context, including knowing what people are like generally. In the case of God, there's no other Creator to compare Him too.

So I can say He likes planets and beetles, but someone else might argue, compared to what? Maybe compared to some other Creator, he really short shrifted Earth in the beetle department. Maybe he doesn't like beetles but you have to have a certain minimum number or the ecology of the planet doesn't work.

I have no insights, really.

If I were a humanities kind of person used to drawing conclusions about the character of an artist based on their work, I might have better insights. The other thing I'm thinking is that it's one thing to look at two sculptures and say, this artist is more realistic and this one is more abstract, this one more romantic and that one more intellectual. But in that case you are comparing two things and you have context, including knowing what people are like generally. In the case of God, there's no other Creator to compare Him too.

So I can say He likes planets and beetles, but someone else might argue, compared to what? Maybe compared to some other Creator, he really short shrifted Earth in the beetle department. Maybe he doesn't like beetles but you have to have a certain minimum number or the ecology of the planet doesn't work.

I like the way you put this. I think you just helped me better to appreciate my own reservations about natural theology. Thanks for that.

The plan of redemption started after Adam and Eve sinned. God wants to redeem people. He made us to have fellowship with Him. Remember, God destroyed the creation and all living beings during the flood except for Noah, his family and 2 of every living thing.
All animals were created for our use and enjoyment, and we have dominion over them.
The process took so long for Christ to come as a baby because of human nature and our sin. Look back in the old testament and all the mistakes even the chosen ones made. I am so thankful God doen't hold me accountable for my sins because of Christ, my asking forgiveness every time I sin. He remembers them no more.

Closed