Divinity

[Norah63]

We must partake of the devine nature to be the son or daughter of God.
Made in His image, called for His purpose. Refined by His love.
Those who have ears will hear.

 

[drstevej]

We must partake of the devine nature to be the son or daughter of God.
Made in Him image, called for His purpose. Refined by His love.
Those who have ears will hear.

All humans are made in His image (See Genesis 9:6).

 

[Norah63]

And that would be for what purpose?

 

[Imagican]

See, Norah seems to be on the same track. Not necessarily in agreement with me on the entire concept, but certainly capable of recognizing the words offered concerning our 'partaking of the divine nature'.

For that is EXACTLY what we were designed for. We WERE made in the IMAGE of God. That image is certainly NOT the 'bodily form' we possess. It is the SPIRITUAL sense that is that image. And in that 'spiritual sense' those that are capable are certainly ABLE to become a PART of the 'divine nature'. That IS our PURPOSE though ALL will NEVER come to this conclusion or STATE.

And how IMPORTANT that we BECOME 'sons or daughters'. Some say that for Christ to BE the 'Son of God', that God could ONLY produce GOD. As a duck produces 'duckings', so too would God PRODUCE God the Son.

And to me that makes NO SENSE whatsoever. For God is NOT a duck nor is He a MAN. So that means that God CAN, (and I believe DID), produce a Son that was NOT God Himself. For we are TOLD that we TOO can share in that very inheritance. That WE TOO can be SONS and DAUGHTERS.

While Christ will ALWAYS hold a position that IS HIS and CANNOT BE MATCHED, that does NOT eliminate the ability of US to SHARE it with Him: Sonship. While He will always remain the ONLY BEGOTTEN, either WE TOO can become sons and daughters or ALL that is offered concerning the principle makes NO SENSE. All indications are that those that are 'born again' and continue in faith and following will be SEEN 'as Christ' by God, His Father. For EVERYTHING revolves around FORGIVENESS. And IF we receive the forgiveness of God THROUGH Christ, we will be 'LIKE CHRIST' in the respect of 'sonship'. God will BE a Father to us JUST as He is the Father to Christ.

And wouldn't this be us partaking in the divine nature? Sharing 'sonship' with God, the Father, THROUGH Jesus Christ?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

All humans are made in His image (See Genesis 9:6).

And this simply means that we, (humans), were created with the CAPACITY to understand and SHARE what God IS: LOVE. And "I" believe that this can ONLY be achieved, in TRUTH, through Spirit. Humans can ONLY understand and share TRUE love through REBIRTH: being BORN AGAIN in Spirit.

But that image in which we were 'created' is CERTAINLY not the fleshly vessels that now contain our TRUE essence.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Phantasman]

Of course I'm serious, because I know that the concept of a Godhead existed in Judaism during the 2nd temple period.

Here is some research about it:

Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism: Alan F. Segal: 9781602585492: Amazon.com: Books

I can understand that you're unaware of it. But among scholars it's well known.

Get a load of this 1st-century Jewish commentary on Deuteronomy 4:



Catch that? The 1st-century Jewish commentaries, called "Targums", are awash with this stuff. In them, "the Word of the Lord" is personified and repeatedly substituted in place of God. So when the Apostle John wrote "and the Word was with God and the Word was God", he was just repeating what Jews of his time were already being taught: the Word of the Lord was a manifestation of the Lord himself.

Here's Etheridge's translation of Targum Jonathan: The Targum of Jonathan Ben Uzziel On the Pentateuch. You don't even need to be a scholar to see how the "Word of the Lord" is treated as divine. Just search for "Word of the Lord" in the text. You'll find it in there hundreds of times. Here are just a few:



As revealed by Dr. Segal, those Jewish beliefs were declared heretical by the rabbis in the 2nd century AD. I'm sure it's no coincidence that it was done after the first Christians, who were Jews, took that belief and applied it to Jesus of Nazareth.

You capitalize the W in "word" to try and make us think it is Jesus. Unless you are using a certain revised Bible that changes it to a capital W, then the verse is "word", not proper. The word of the "Lord", not the "Word" of the Lord.

 

[ChetSinger]

You capitalize the W in "word" to try and make us think it is Jesus. Unless you are using a certain revised Bible that changes it to a capital W, then the verse is "word", not proper. The word of the "Lord", not the "Word" of the Lord.

In John 1 and Revelation 19 the "Word of God" is a title for Jesus, so of course it's capitalized there.

In Etheridge's translation of Targum Jonathan he capitalizes it whenever the Jewish authors replaced "Lord" or "YHWH" with it. That makes sense, because the Jewish authors are replacing God's name with it, and we capitalize names.

Since I'm referring to and quoting the Targums, I choose to use the same capitalization rule used by the translators.

 

[Phantasman]

In John 1 and Revelation 19 the "Word of God" is a title for Jesus, so of course it's capitalized there.

In Etheridge's translation of Targum Jonathan he capitalizes it whenever the Jewish authors replaced "Lord" or "YHWH" with it. That makes sense, because the Jewish authors are replacing God's name with it, and we capitalize names.

Since I'm referring to and quoting the Targums, I choose to use the same capitalization rule used by the translators.

We shouldn't pick and choose different translators that change things that could mislead us. The NKJV capitalizes A in antichrist to make it proper (as a person) while the majority of translators don't. The word means "against Christ" in some and a leading figure in others. Since Orthodoxy has come to believe there is an "Antichrist" coming, the translators take it on themselves to make the change to confirm what may not be truth.

 

[ChetSinger]

We shouldn't pick and choose different translators that change things that could mislead us. The NKJV capitalizes A in antichrist to make it proper (as a person) while the majority of translators don't. The word means "against Christ" in some and a leading figure in others. Since Orthodoxy has come to believe there is an "Antichrist" coming, the translators take it on themselves to make the change to confirm what may not be truth.

The capitalization of the word of the lord in the Targums makes no actual difference, since the meaning is determined via the context and usage.

 

[Norah63]

We may never know how many Christians are simply not willing to partake of the divine nature of our creator.
Responsibility has been a tough job for most. That's what repentance is about,
correcting our lazy natural flesh.
When Jesus said to go and heal the sick, cast out demons, preach the gospel, ect..
Part of his people are just bystanders, saved an waiting. Willing to preach their understanding of the truth. How many signs following?
Looking at the state of society, can we tell if any are partaking of the divine nature? And believe me I'm not letting myself off the hook, we are all writing our own book of acts.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

I would think it could take multiple meanings including our reception of God's gifts of His Grace on us.

 

[Imagican]

I would think it could take multiple meanings including our reception of God's gifts of His Grace on us.

I believe that would fall into belief or faith more so than a 'partaking of the divine nature'.

I believe that the 'partaking of the divine nature' would be what happens when we grow INTO Christ and His Father.

While we certainly receive God's gifts and grace, (even more deeply as we grow), what I sense in the offering concerning 'divine nature' is that WE TOO can be a PART of the divine nature itself. That we can be LIKE God and His Son so far as divinity is concerned.

Which was the point: if we TOO can share divinity, that word does NOT mean GOD so much as it means LIKE God.

In other words, Christ's divinity, (being LIKE God), does not make Christ GOD Himself. He TOO shares divinity with the Father. Just as WE can share divinity with both Father and Son.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[DrBubbaLove]

DrBubbaLove][/B]

I would think it could take multiple meanings including our reception of God's gifts of His Grace on us.
​

I believe that would fall into belief or faith more so than a 'partaking of the divine nature'.

I believe that the 'partaking of the divine nature' would be what happens when we grow INTO Christ and His Father.

While we certainly receive God's gifts and grace, (even more deeply as we grow), what I sense in the offering concerning 'divine nature' is that WE TOO can be a PART of the divine nature itself. That we can be LIKE God and His Son so far as divinity is concerned.

Which was the point: if we TOO can share divinity, that word does NOT mean GOD so much as it means LIKE God.

In other words, Christ's divinity, (being LIKE God), does not make Christ GOD Himself. He TOO shares divinity with the Father. Just as WE can share divinity with both Father and Son.

Blessings,

MEC

That first statement is double speak. Our belief and faith is that we partake in His Divine Nature when He bestows His Graces (multiple forms of Grace) upon us. To then say that belief is more a matter of belief or faith than actually partaking makes no sense. Of course it is a matter of belief and faith, but the matter of belief and faith is that we do and can partake daily and partake in various ways.

And the teaching of that faith has always been that the partaking of those Graces joins us, unites us in One Body wtih Jesus, not that it makes us gods as He is God, at least not in the Mormon sense. Yes we become like Jesus in the sense that these same teachings says we can have glorified Resurrected bodies as He did when His Human Soul was rejoined with glorified flesh. But since that same faith says He has Two Natures, we are only becoming like one of those. However as to the other Nature, in a very real way we FULLY become sons of God in that process, restoring us essentially to the best we can be and the way the human race was meant to be, in a full relationship and perfectly aligned with the Will of God.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Borrow someones else's application but noting that this reference focuses on ONLY one form of participation in receiving God's Grace - there are many others:

"The Offertory at Mass, in both the old and the new Roman rite, contains the prayer “By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to
share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity.”
If we did not share in his divinity, then there would be only actual grace. But from Baptism onwards we receive Supernatural Graces—graces above our human nature.
If we did not share in his divinity, then we would be capable of only human faith, hope and charity as a result of our own strength of character. But we receive Supernatural Virtues—Faith, Hope and Charity by the power of God.
If we did not share in his divinity, then we would receive only his humanity in Holy Communion. But we receive the whole Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity."

—Fr. Joseph Ponessa, S.S.D., co-author of the “Come and See” Catholic Bible Study Series on the Gospel of John from Emmaus Road Publishing

 

[Imagican]

Which comes first: belief or faith, or the renewing of one's spirit, (rebirth)?

And does EVERYONE that is 'reborn' actually GROW into Christ?

Blessings,

MEC

 

[Imagican]

Borrow someones else's application but noting that this reference focuses on ONLY one form of participation in receiving God's Grace - there are many others:

"The Offertory at Mass, in both the old and the new Roman rite, contains the prayer “By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to
share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity.”
If we did not share in his divinity, then there would be only actual grace. But from Baptism onwards we receive Supernatural Graces—graces above our human nature.
If we did not share in his divinity, then we would be capable of only human faith, hope and charity as a result of our own strength of character. But we receive Supernatural Virtues—Faith, Hope and Charity by the power of God.
If we did not share in his divinity, then we would receive only his humanity in Holy Communion. But we receive the whole Christ, Body, Blood, Soul and Divinity."

—Fr. Joseph Ponessa, S.S.D., co-author of the “Come and See” Catholic Bible Study Series on the Gospel of John from Emmaus Road Publishing

You'll have to forgive me if I do not agree with the author you have quoted. I am not a 'Catholic' nor do I subscribe to many Catholic views. While I accept that they are 'other views' than my own, I am bound to follow that which I understand.

I don't agree with the 'share IN His divinity'. I believe that the use of the word "IN" actually alters what we are offered in scripture. We simply SHARE divinity. For to partake MEANS to share. I don't know WHY the author added the word "IN" but it seems to water down an actual SHARING.

But the point was: Over and over I have heard 'trinitarians' state that 'if Christ is DIVINE, then He MUST be God'. The Bible would indicate otherwise. For the Bible tells us that WE TOO can share that very divinity. But that certainly doesn't make US God.

So my argument is NOT whether Christ IS or is NOT God. My statement is that Christ being divine does NOT make Him God. Any more than us sharing that divinity would make US God.

Blessings,

MEC

 

[DrBubbaLove]

You'll have to forgive me if I do not agree with the author you have quoted. I am not a 'Catholic' nor do I subscribe to many Catholic views. While I accept that they are 'other views' than my own, I am bound to follow that which I understand.

I don't agree with the 'share IN His divinity'. I believe that the use of the word "IN" actually alters what we are offered in scripture. We simply SHARE divinity. For to partake MEANS to share. I don't know WHY the author added the word "IN" but it seems to water down an actual SHARING.

But the point was: Over and over I have heard 'trinitarians' state that 'if Christ is DIVINE, then He MUST be God'. The Bible would indicate otherwise. For the Bible tells us that WE TOO can share that very divinity. But that certainly doesn't make US God.

So my argument is NOT whether Christ IS or is NOT God. My statement is that Christ being divine does NOT make Him God. Any more than us sharing that divinity would make US God.

Blessings,

MEC

I understand. If Christ is not God but simply sharing God's Nature, then those statements would mean we too simply share. But as you noted, we believe Jesus is God, not simply sharing something.

Am unclear how simply sharing something would allow Him to speak and act with the Authority He did, as shown in the Gospels, without acknowledging the source of what He was simply sharing. Especially since the source in that construct would be God. Moses was punished for usurping God's Authority. If someone has shared something with us to use it is a dishonor to claim whatever that is as being or coming from our own.

The reason "share in" is used is because it more accurately reflects the relatiohsip children have as heirs of the father in receiving/participating in their inheritence. The Father "shares" His inheritence in making that possible through His Son, for the children to "share in". It also helps distinguish the idea of something coming from ourselves (as earned) as opposed to something supernatural being granted us. It doesn't belong to us or our nature, but is granted us to share in.

We must also understand that the Church distinguishes what they call "actual grace" from "santifying grace". The first being any supernatural aide/help granted us, the later being a permanent state (of grace - whole other topic) all of which represent an inheritence which we can share in.

 

[Noxot]

when you eat God, God eats you. now i'm confused and I wonder how I even exist at all if God is real. even as a dream how can i be or why would this one who is real ever desire to make me? and yet here I am, a thought of God, having my own freedom and yet having my life from God. if my foundation has no beginning or end, do I? I was told that God made me from Himself and now I know that i'm nothing until i forget again. i'm infinite desire and God is infinite love and He made me from His love but I have no being of my own. neither do i need anything if God is for me. as I see it the only one above me is God and that is exactly how I want it to be. it's not like He has a authority problem like blind humanity has. love is true authority and I have no reason to exist but God. until I forget God I will abide in peace, but when I forget, I will think myself to be a creature. just because I play a game... does not make the true one playing the game, a game character. it does make me have a character in a game though and i'm sure I play many games. children like to play games and visible reality points to higher concepts of truth of which I obtain my being from, who is God. so I suppose I do a lot of things with God, since the highest part of me is united to God.