'God became man so that man may become God'

[David_2010]

I hope this is the right place to post this (if not, please feel free to move it ), but, I was wondering something, I've heard of the statement before - 'God became man so that man may become God', but, I'm not sure what it mean, does it mean that the goal of the Christian tradition is to evolve into beings like God, or become like Jesus, or does it mean something else?.

Also, and, I hope it's ok to ask another related question, but, what does it mean, when it's stated that Jesus was/is fully human and fully Divine?.

Thanks for any help, as I've been curious about these questions for awhile now, and really enjoy learning about different traditions and beliefs.

 

[Wessexman]

Evolve is the wrong word, evolution is contrary to traditional metaphysics because it seeks to explain life by horizontal or naturalistic causality alone and violates numerous precepts of that traditional metaphysics and philosophy(not to say that YEC creationism or nominalist creationism is correct.). But certainly man is to become like God. Whether that means one is to seek union with, nearness to or to become God has been debated and is perhaps not something that can be settled at the level of discursive thought, just as in the East Enlightenment cannot be fully defined by reason.

When it comes to the Trinity, Incarnation and Christology one must remember what dogmatic theology is. It is certainly metaphysically truthful to a large degree but its mission is to provide for religious belief, and salvation for all. It therefore simplifies. This is certainly the case with these doctrines, where clear, even rigid formulas have been chosen over metaphysical nuance, probably to a degree beyond what is wise causing unnecessary conflicts. I say this as a traditionalist and not a liberal.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

I hope this is the right place to post this (if not, please feel free to move it ), but, I was wondering something, I've heard of the statement before - 'God became man so that man may become God', but, I'm not sure what it mean, does it mean that the goal of the Christian tradition is to evolve into beings like God, or become like Jesus, or does it mean something else?.
Also, and, I hope it's ok to ask another related question, but, what does it mean, when it's stated that Jesus was/is fully human and fully Divine?.
Thanks for any help, as I've been curious about these questions for awhile now, and really enjoy learning about different traditions and beliefs.

Dear David_2010,
This may not be the conventional view on Jesus’ humanity/divinity , but it is my favourite non the less:
Jesus is fully human in that he has a physical body and brain with which to cognitively sense the world. This, inevitably results in him possessing a human Ego; a personal perspective and individual will, so to speak. But, because he is also fully Divine, Jesus - as opposed to man in general - remains in command of his personal Ego and lives solely by God’s [ego-less] Will. In doing so, he is a role model for his followers.

Your main question, addresses a rather interesting aspect of Christianity which is not too often discussed, I think. My interpretation of the idea however, is somewhat long and I should like to share it later, as I do not have the time required at moment.

Sincerely,
Hermit

 

[Midnight Pete]

'God became man so that man may become God'

Incorrect. God became man so that man's sins could be atoned for on the cross. The whole notion of "man becoming God" is blasphemous and dangerous. At least from a Christian perspective.

 

[Wessexman]

No Pete, that comment comes from St.Irenaeus of Lyon, one of the early church fathers. There is nothing anti-Christian about such a perspective, indeed it is a positively Christian perspective. It is expressed in Eastern Christianity, the purest and most balanced form of Christianity, by the idea of Deification or Theosis.

 

[Midnight Pete]

No Pete, that comment comes from St.Irenaeus of Lyon, one of the early church fathers. There is nothing anti-Christian about such a perspective, indeed it is a positively Christian perspective. It is expressed in Eastern Christianity, the purest and most balanced form of Christianity, by the idea of Deification or Theosis.

I'm not familiar with those terms. There's a difference between "beccoming godly" and "becoming God" isn't there? A person becoming God is an idea from Mormonism, as far I know. As far as I know, that idea is blasphemous in Christian circles. I do not understand how it could not be. There's still a lot I don't know about my own faith, Wessexmen. I'll not hide that. My knowledge of Christianity is imperfect. What makes Eastern Christianity the purest and most balanced? As opposed to Catholicism? Help me out, here.

 

[Wessexman]

It is true that Christian mysticism has never quite defined whether the goal is to join with God, become near God or be God but really these terms are all indistinct, discursive thought can never understand the exactitudes. It is the same with Nirvana and Enlightenment. It is certainly not blasphemous, that very phrase is from an early church father and has echoed down the ages.

Eastern Christianity is purest because it is that which most reflects early Christian, not in terms of trying to reconstruct first century Christianity but in terms of continuing the practice and thinking of Christian of 3rd to 5th century Christianity. It is the most balanced because it best balances the different elements of Christianity, like in church organisation, in terms of reason versus gnosis versus faith, esotericism versus exotericism and so forth.

 

[Onkara]

It is certainly not blasphemous, that very phrase is from an early church father and has echoed down the ages.

I agree. Blasphemous for Moses, perhaps. These words can be liberating and give much value to life. Take these words out of the Christian DIR for better understanding.

 

[Rhi_bran_y_hud]

When Christians say the Jesus is fully human and fully divine, we are saying that He really was (and is) human, and that He really always was (and is) God. Why bother? Because our salvation would not be possible otherwise. God, by His holiness and love is obligated to kill every single one of us, because we are unholy, hateful sinners. This idea that humanity in its present state is essentially "bad" (though we were originally created good in the Garden), morally unable to climb up to "goodness," and deserving only of death and judgment is not very popular. But a Christian must start with an acute awareness of the fact that they deserve hell. Yet this presents God with a dilema: He loves us and does not want to condemn us--He did not create us for that end!

The only way He could save us from death would be to die in our place. Yet another problem: God cannot die... unless of course He takes on humanity. When we say that Jesus is "the Son of God" we do not mean that God had a kid with some girl (like Zeus or some other pagan god), but that Jesus is the embodiment of God in human flesh (Colossians 2:9-10, Hebrews 1:3).

The idea that "man may become God" may indeed be an idea Christian tradition (it is definitely a Mormon idea), but I would argue it is anything but a Biblical idea. I think Moses would agree along with Paul. Dare I invoke Jesus too? Yes, He would strongly disagree with any Christian trying to become God, and instead remind him the He alone is God and no one else. Becoming "gods" is what got Adam and Eve in trouble in the first place (Genesis 3), not just bad fruit.

But remember this: God has already made us like Him, we are made in His image. This is a mystery, but true. And He certainly calls us to "be holy, for [He] the LORD your God [is] holy" Lev. 19:2. The NT affirms this standard, which none of us will ever meet, but it also affirms this: "[Abraham] believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6).

So you could say instead that God became man in order to make man holy like Himself. We receive our righteousness from God through trusting in the sacrifice of Jesus. If you persist in being Spiritual, as you say that is your religion, then it is like you are trying to approach God with your holiness or righteousness, and He will not accept that at judgment. I hope you follow Abraham's course instead!

 

[David_2010]

Evolve is the wrong word, evolution is contrary to traditional metaphysics because it seeks to explain life by horizontal or naturalistic causality alone and violates numerous precepts of that traditional metaphysics and philosophy(not to say that YEC creationism or nominalist creationism is correct.). But certainly man is to become like God. Whether that means one is to seek union with, nearness to or to become God has been debated and is perhaps not something that can be settled at the level of discursive thought, just as in the East Enlightenment cannot be fully defined by reason.

When it comes to the Trinity, Incarnation and Christology one must remember what dogmatic theology is. It is certainly metaphysically truthful to a large degree but its mission is to provide for religious belief, and salvation for all. It therefore simplifies. This is certainly the case with these doctrines, where clear, even rigid formulas have been chosen over metaphysical nuance, probably to a degree beyond what is wise causing unnecessary conflicts. I say this as a traditionalist and not a liberal.

Thanks for informing me, I find that quite interesting, would you say the Eastern tradition of achieving Enlightenment/Nirvana is the same as what a Christian Mystic seeks?.

Dear David_2010,
This may not be the conventional view on Jesus’ humanity/divinity , but it is my favourite non the less:
Jesus is fully human in that he has a physical body and brain with which to cognitively sense the world. This, inevitably results in him possessing a human Ego; a personal perspective and individual will, so to speak. But, because he is also fully Divine, Jesus - as opposed to man in general - remains in command of his personal Ego and lives solely by God’s [ego-less] Will. In doing so, he is a role model for his followers.

Your main question, addresses a rather interesting aspect of Christianity which is not too often discussed, I think. My interpretation of the idea however, is somewhat long and I should like to share it later, as I do not have the time required at moment.

Sincerely,
Hermit

I'd definitely love to hear your interpretation, if you wouldn't mind .

Also, thanks for your perspective on what being "fully human & fully divine" means.

 

[David_2010]

When Christians say the Jesus is fully human and fully divine, we are saying that He really was (and is) human, and that He really always was (and is) God. Why bother? Because our salvation would not be possible otherwise. God, by His holiness and love is obligated to kill every single one of us, because we are unholy, hateful sinners. This idea that humanity in its present state is essentially "bad" (though we were originally created good in the Garden), morally unable to climb up to "goodness," and deserving only of death and judgment is not very popular. But a Christian must start with an acute awareness of the fact that they deserve hell. Yet this presents God with a dilema: He loves us and does not want to condemn us--He did not create us for that end!

The only way He could save us from death would be to die in our place. Yet another problem: God cannot die... unless of course He takes on humanity. When we say that Jesus is "the Son of God" we do not mean that God had a kid with some girl (like Zeus or some other pagan god), but that Jesus is the embodiment of God in human flesh (Colossians 2:9-10, Hebrews 1:3).

The idea that "man may become God" may indeed be an idea Christian tradition (it is definitely a Mormon idea), but I would argue it is anything but a Biblical idea. I think Moses would agree along with Paul. Dare I invoke Jesus too? Yes, He would strongly disagree with any Christian trying to become God, and instead remind him the He alone is God and no one else. Becoming "gods" is what got Adam and Eve in trouble in the first place (Genesis 3), not just bad fruit.

But remember this: God has already made us like Him, we are made in His image. This is a mystery, but true. And He certainly calls us to "be holy, for [He] the LORD your God [is] holy" Lev. 19:2. The NT affirms this standard, which none of us will ever meet, but it also affirms this: "[Abraham] believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6).

So you could say instead that God became man in order to make man holy like Himself. We receive our righteousness from God through trusting in the sacrifice of Jesus. If you persist in being Spiritual, as you say that is your religion, then it is like you are trying to approach God with your holiness or righteousness, and He will not accept that at judgment. I hope you follow Abraham's course instead!

What about the Eastern Christians, and the Desert Fathers & Mothers, though?, they predate Mormonism.

 

[Midnight Pete]

When Christians say the Jesus is fully human and fully divine, we are saying that He really was (and is) human, and that He really always was (and is) God. Why bother? Because our salvation would not be possible otherwise. God, by His holiness and love is obligated to kill every single one of us, because we are unholy, hateful sinners. This idea that humanity in its present state is essentially "bad" (though we were originally created good in the Garden), morally unable to climb up to "goodness," and deserving only of death and judgment is not very popular. But a Christian must start with an acute awareness of the fact that they deserve hell. Yet this presents God with a dilema: He loves us and does not want to condemn us--He did not create us for that end!

The only way He could save us from death would be to die in our place. Yet another problem: God cannot die... unless of course He takes on humanity. When we say that Jesus is "the Son of God" we do not mean that God had a kid with some girl (like Zeus or some other pagan god), but that Jesus is the embodiment of God in human flesh (Colossians 2:9-10, Hebrews 1:3).

The idea that "man may become God" may indeed be an idea Christian tradition (it is definitely a Mormon idea), but I would argue it is anything but a Biblical idea. I think Moses would agree along with Paul. Dare I invoke Jesus too? Yes, He would strongly disagree with any Christian trying to become God, and instead remind him the He alone is God and no one else. Becoming "gods" is what got Adam and Eve in trouble in the first place (Genesis 3), not just bad fruit.

But remember this: God has already made us like Him, we are made in His image. This is a mystery, but true. And He certainly calls us to "be holy, for [He] the LORD your God [is] holy" Lev. 19:2. The NT affirms this standard, which none of us will ever meet, but it also affirms this: "[Abraham] believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6).

So you could say instead that God became man in order to make man holy like Himself. We receive our righteousness from God through trusting in the sacrifice of Jesus. If you persist in being Spiritual, as you say that is your religion, then it is like you are trying to approach God with your holiness or righteousness, and He will not accept that at judgment. I hope you follow Abraham's course instead!

Excellent post! :highfive:

Welcome to RF.

 

[Hermit Philosopher]

Dear David_2010,
Our friend Wessexman mentions the Mystics, and I believe it is precisely amongst them that we find the best thoughts on the topic of your main question.

Below are a few different ways of saying the exact same thing - and worse; I still don’t know whether I managed to say what I wanted to at all! My humblest apologies to everybody J

Mystical interpretation involves thinking of God as an organising [of abstract Chaos], self-conscious awareness, continuously obtaining greater self-comprehension/understanding, by substantiating chosen Order into physicality.

Now, we may wish to recall the differences between knowledge, understanding and wisdom. For G is aware of everything that is, at the time that it is [with immediate access to everythingness] and so, is - abstractly speaking - all-knowing. But G’s understanding is not complete; instead it increases, much like Man’s own.

Both G and M, within very different surroundings, seek self-comprehension and, it is purely for this purpose that G becomes M. M on the other hand, can only fully understand his existence, by returning to G. Once full-circle is realised, knowledge is complete and wisdom obtained (this, otherwise known as [egoless] God’s [only, true] Will).

Perhaps, one could say that G and M have access to [knowledge of] different sides of existence: G, to abstract Chaos and the chosen Order for it (which physicality is illustrating) and; M, to the concrete illustration of the Order itself. So, to practically comprehend the meaning of x abstract Order made, G must - through the physicality of M - experience its manifestation. M in return, cannot understand much, before experiencing reality abstractly, as/through G.

 

[Rhi_bran_y_hud]

What about the Eastern Christians, and the Desert Fathers & Mothers, though?, they predate Mormonism.

I included the teachings of the Church Fathers as part of Christian tradition and/or Christian mysticism, which is not necessarily in harmony with Biblical teaching all the time, so it is often irrelevant to me. Man becoming God would be a case in point.

That said, Mormonism's general idea is not new, though it does introduce a new twist: God is already human by nature and the only difference between us and Him really only comes down elevation of status. It isn't far from the difference between the CEO and the mail room worker of a large corporation. Biblical Christianity however, has always seen God as totally "other" and we are an echo of what He is.

I would have to disagree with Wessexman here though:

"Eastern Christianity is purest because it is that which most reflects early Christian, not in terms of trying to reconstruct first century Christianity but in terms of continuing the practice and thinking of Christian of 3rd to 5th century Christianity. It is the most balanced because it best balances the different elements of Christianity, like in church organisation, in terms of reason versus gnosis versus faith, esotericism versus exotericism and so forth."

I really don't think we should look to later forms of Christianity to inform us as to what ought to be the most "balanced" and therefore "pure" form of Christianity. Why not look back to Acts chapter 2 for a prototype to guide our idea of a balanced Christianity? They where more concerned with praying, learning doctrine, preaching the gospel and feeding the poor than anything else. Ask them about seeking gnosis etc. and you'd get a blank stare.

 

[Rhi_bran_y_hud]

Excellent post! :highfive:

Welcome to RF.

thank you!

 

[Wessexman]

Thanks for informing me, I find that quite interesting, would you say the Eastern tradition of achieving Enlightenment/Nirvana is the same as what a Christian Mystic seeks?.

Sort of, all these terms though are vague by their very nature. Human language and mental conceptions cannot completely capture or describe them completely, it would be like completely explaining God with discursive thought.

 

[Rhi_bran_y_hud]

Dear David_2010,
...

Mystical interpretation involves thinking of God as an organising [of abstract Chaos], self-conscious awareness, continuously obtaining greater self-comprehension/understanding, by substantiating chosen Order into physicality.
...

Take issue would He, God of the Bible, with being referred to as a "self-conscious awareness." Very aware of Himself he is. Think He is like you, does He? Always obtaining greater understanding is He? Disagree He may... :yoda:

 

[Wessexman]

I would have to disagree with Wessexman here though:

"Eastern Christianity is purest because it is that which most reflects early Christian, not in terms of trying to reconstruct first century Christianity but in terms of continuing the practice and thinking of Christian of 3rd to 5th century Christianity. It is the most balanced because it best balances the different elements of Christianity, like in church organisation, in terms of reason versus gnosis versus faith, esotericism versus exotericism and so forth."

I really don't think we should look to later forms of Christianity to inform us as to what ought to be the most "balanced" and therefore "pure" form of Christianity. Why not look back to Acts chapter 2 for a prototype to guide our idea of a balanced Christianity? They where more concerned with praying, learning doctrine, preaching the gospel and feeding the poor than anything else. Ask them about seeking gnosis etc. and you'd get a blank stare.

For several reasons, firstly because we only have a very limited view of the times. Secondly because there is far more to Christianity than simply what is in the written scripture and thirdly because they were in quite a different situation and mindset.

I'd say the early church was basically an esotericism, it was more concerned with gnosis than with the forms of an exoteric church.

It is the Eastern church which forms the most balance and purity because it can best combine this overwhelming, esoteric spirituality of the early church into a massive, organised religion for all.

 

[Rhi_bran_y_hud]

For several reasons, firstly because we only have a very limited view of the times. Secondly because there is far more to Christianity than simply what is in the written scripture and thirdly because they were in quite a different situation and mindset.

I'd say the early church was basically an esotericism, it was more concerned with gnosis than with the forms of an exoteric church.

It is the Eastern church which forms the most balance and purity because it can best combine this overwhelming, esoteric spirituality of the early church into a massive, organised religion for all.

I think we are probably in two totally different camps on what the early church was like, or what Christianity is and what it ought to be. So we will probably end up having to agree to disagree.

If I had to guess by what you've said so far, I'd say you believe that early Christianity was more like Gnosticism, and/or both that and "Orthodoxy" were two equally valid forms of Christianity which formed side by side. I don't know if you'd go so far as to accept things like the Gospel of Thomas, etc., as simply other expressions of Christianity, but maybe you would. Not sure.

But as for early Christianity being "esoteric" a knowledge for the select few in order to gain a greater "gnosis" and thereby transcend to salvation (i.e. enlightenment, pure spirit), I would have to strongly disagree based again on Acts. There was nothing "eso" about Peter's first sermon--it was all "exo," 3,000 people in one day baptized. "what I tell you in secret, proclaim from the rooftops..."

Sure, Biblical Christianity acknowledges a difference between milk and meat types of knowledge, but you never really get any deeper than the simple message that Jesus saves because he died and rose again to pay for our sins. There is no special initiation to learn this, it's up front, in the open.

Paul as well, did not go forming secret inner circles from town to town, but went straight into synagogues and Greek temples. Christianity is out in the open and for every body. Going back to Jesus: sure, He had his 12 as any rabbi would and gave them private instruction, but also spent most of His time ministering and teaching in public. What he taught in private, as alluded to before, he told them to tell others publicly. Paul considered Himself on a mission to delivery "the full counsel of God" to the churches at large.

The esoteric search for gnosis is flat opposed to the simple Gospel. It creates divisions among God's people by creating a hierarchy which is based on the level of gnosis one has been initiated into. It constantly tries to usurp the oneness and equality we have before God by implying some are closer to God than others which is quite different than saying some are more spiritually mature. The one with the gnosis has the power to initiate or not initiate you, while the one who has become mature has done so by reading their Bible and applying it in life, which you can do too. The hunt for the gnosis, and the hierarchy structure it brings about led to the sad state of the Church just before the Reformation.

 

[RickDeVon]

When Christians say the Jesus is fully human and fully divine, we are saying that He really was (and is) human, and that He really always was (and is) God. Why bother? Because our salvation would not be possible otherwise. God, by His holiness and love is obligated to kill every single one of us, because we are unholy, hateful sinners. This idea that humanity in its present state is essentially "bad" (though we were originally created good in the Garden), morally unable to climb up to "goodness," and deserving only of death and judgment is not very popular. But a Christian must start with an acute awareness of the fact that they deserve hell. Yet this presents God with a dilema: He loves us and does not want to condemn us--He did not create us for that end!

The only way He could save us from death would be to die in our place. Yet another problem: God cannot die... unless of course He takes on humanity. When we say that Jesus is "the Son of God" we do not mean that God had a kid with some girl (like Zeus or some other pagan god), but that Jesus is the embodiment of God in human flesh (Colossians 2:9-10, Hebrews 1:3).

The idea that "man may become God" may indeed be an idea Christian tradition (it is definitely a Mormon idea), but I would argue it is anything but a Biblical idea. I think Moses would agree along with Paul. Dare I invoke Jesus too? Yes, He would strongly disagree with any Christian trying to become God, and instead remind him the He alone is God and no one else. Becoming "gods" is what got Adam and Eve in trouble in the first place (Genesis 3), not just bad fruit.

But remember this: God has already made us like Him, we are made in His image. This is a mystery, but true. And He certainly calls us to "be holy, for [He] the LORD your God [is] holy" Lev. 19:2. The NT affirms this standard, which none of us will ever meet, but it also affirms this: "[Abraham] believed the LORD, and he counted it to him as righteousness" (Genesis 15:6).

So you could say instead that God became man in order to make man holy like Himself. We receive our righteousness from God through trusting in the sacrifice of Jesus. If you persist in being Spiritual, as you say that is your religion, then it is like you are trying to approach God with your holiness or righteousness, and He will not accept that at judgment. I hope you follow Abraham's course instead!

Very well put...Just like Sunday School...