I think this is exactly right.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
|
I think this is exactly right.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
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!Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Mariamembers 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Scripture suggests resurrection similar to Christ's who was risen both body and soul.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
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
Sweet dreams. I hope I don't give you nightmares.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
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…Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
JoeT
Hey, I'm still here am I not? That's got to count for something.Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeT777
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
Fred,Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
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.
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
This is, of course, not scriptural.
So you are saying that I said something factually incorrect when I expressed my agreement with De Maria with the following six word post:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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.Quote:
I think this is exactly right.
I don't agree with that. But, as I've told you a great many times, I am not a sola scripturist.Quote:
Divinization means to deify, or to make men gods or God (as the CCC says).
This is, of course, not scriptural.
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.
John 10:35Quote:
Originally Posted by Tj3
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.
Define "vestigium".Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
What are spiritual faculties?Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Ecclesiasticus 24 31 They that explain me shall have life everlasting.Quote:
Originally Posted by cozyk
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
But we will retain our uniqueness, our identity, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
I think we are one with God, now. We are temples of the Holy Spirit.Quote:
Originally Posted by arcura
The first thing that came to mind was "vestigial limb". So I suspected something as you describe.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
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.
As I suspected. Do we believe that animals and other things in nature have these as well?Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
Yeah, I was going through systematically and came to it after I posted the question.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Based on a feeling or on logical deduction or what?Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
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?
Could that be the joy of life? Is joy an expression of love?Quote:
that God has provided the means for his creatures, whom he loves, to feel that love and return it.
As you said, the angels also worship and ours is an extension of their heavenly liturgy.Quote:
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.
Agreed.Quote:
And yes, I do believe this is further reason to believe that all of creation is to be redeemed.
I think I've given all the reasons I have at the moment, here and on the Romans thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
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.
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.Quote:
Could that be the joy of life? Is joy an expression of love?
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?
What you said was right was in fact wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Akoue
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Also, as the discussion on this thread and the Romans thread bears out, your understanding of what divinization means is also profoundly deficient.
You opinion, based upon past experience, carries no weight with me.Quote:
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 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
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:37 PM. |