A.Suarez's Treatment on a Pope's Formulation for Original Sin's Transmission!

[AntoineSuarez]

@Randy

@AntoineSuarez

If you keep to the axiom that we are worthier than fish, then you can’t help acknowledging that God became human to make humankind in the image of God.

I’m not sure God has made anything inferior to the other. Fish are our forebears. We are more intelligent. God doesn’t make junk.

For sure, fish are not junk!

They are suitable food for us, precisely because they are genetically our “forebears”:

Fish are given us by God as food (see Genesis 9:2-3), and thus we are allowed to kill them.

By contrast each human being is accountable to God for killing another human being, for God made humankind in the image of God (Genesis 9:5-6).

Humans are made by God to share in God’s eternal life.

Fish are made by God (through evolution) for the flourishing of human life on earth.

@Randy

@AntoineSuarez

In fact, the truth of God’s incarnation is strongly darkening today and, as a consequence, the very term ‘human’ is called into question: The mindset that humans are not worthier than animals or machines is becoming a major intellectual pandemic.

I am concerned we are looking at a mystic difference that can be misconstrued. However, I’m not sure it really matters. The fact that God became man, and we are to worship Him in all we say and do, is an axiom that we share. Thanks.

YES, we share this axiom, and in this is crucial common ground!

“The fact that God became man” is the deep meaning hidden in the biblical declaration that “God made humankind in the image of God”.

By God’s incarnation we are taught how great is man’s dignity! Or as St. Augustine brilliantly states: “God has proved to us how high a place human nature holds amongst creatures, inasmuch as He appeared to men as a true man.”

[Randy]

@AntoineSuarez

“The fact that God became man” is the deep meaning hidden in the biblical declaration that “God made humankind in the image of God”.

this is a bit of a mystery in some ways, though Pete Enns illustrates it to mean that we’re like the ANE images that a king set up to represent him. I 'm not that we can extrapolate much more than that.

What are your thoughts on the concept of “felix culpa”? Thanks.

[beaglelady]

@AntoineSuarez

Fish are given us by God as food (see Genesis 9:2-3), and thus we are allowed to kill them.

Maybe they have value to God simply by being part of creation.

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

Other wise it begins to seem that valuing God highly is indirectly about loving ourselves since according to some all of creation is basically about providing man with three square meals a day.

[AntoineSuarez]

@beaglelady

But all this stuff isn’t in the Bible, right?

Thanks for this stimulating comment!

In my view it is.

I am doing nothing other than answering Dale’s good questions by reading into:

1 Corinthians 15:28:

Once the resurrection of the dead is fulfilled, then “God may be all in all”.

And Colossians 3:11:

This deification comes from the fact that “Christ is all, and is in all”.

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@AntoineSuarez

by reading into

By reading into them things that are not there and ignoring the larger context of scripture. Might they not just be referring to attention, purpose and motivation. Yeah, I think so. Hardly deification with all attributes identical!

[beaglelady]

@Dale

By reading into it things that are not there

Indeed. That’s called eisegesis.

[AntoineSuarez]

@Randy

this is a bit of a mystery in some ways, though Pete Enns illustrates it to mean that we’re like the ANE images that a king set up to represent him. I 'm not that we can extrapolate much more than that.

Pete Enns illustration is certainly very valuable but may be completed with what I think is the main principle of “exegesis”: “Scripture interprets Scripture”.

Accordingly, to better approaching the mystery of the “image of God” it seems fitting to keep in mind passages like the following ones:

Colossians 1:15
The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation.

Hebbrews 1:3
The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being, sustaining all things by his powerful word. After he had provided purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty in heaven.

Ephesians 1:4
For God chose us in Jesus Christ before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight.

Acts 17:28
As some of your own poets have said, ‘We are his offspring.’

1 John 3:2
we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

John 6:57:
The one who eats Me will live because of Me.

John 14:23:
Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them.”

All these passages support the idea that, according to Scripture, humans are in the image of God because God became true human in Jesus Christ, and then we humans are image of Jesus Christ, i.e. of God.

And this is very much what Pete Enns says after all:

The images a king set up to represent him are representations of the king’s body; God’s body is the body of Jesus Christ, the image of the invisible God!

@Randy

What are your thoughts on the concept of “felix culpa”? Thanks.

In this respect I have many thoughts!

To avoid going lengthy, could you please specify in which particular aspect or context are you interested in?

[Randy]

@AntoineSuarez

we know that when Christ appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is.

@AntoineSuarez

And this is very much what Pete Enns says after all:

Well, but the image Enns notes is clay, and has no power like the king himself. And we should try to be like Christ, but no one assumes that we will be Christ, or God; after all, the image of the elders worshipping Him in Revelation affirms His dominance and Godhood.

Thanks.
Regarding “felix culpa,” I’m a bit concerned that we imply we can get God to do something better, by sinning (disobeying Him) first. Thus, I don’t think that the immanence of Christ with us is any better than walking and talking with God (not as equals, but as created beings) in the mythical Eden.

Thus, it’s not the culpa, but God’s first goodness, that is to be preferred. Thanks.

[AntoineSuarez]

@Dale

I participated in my biological father’s humanity. Did I become him?

By fully participating in your father’s humanity you did not become the same person as your father, but you did become perfectly human.

By fully participating in the divinity of our Father in heaven through Jesus-Christ, we do not become the same person as our Father in heaven, but we become perfectly divine, we become God.

It is important to keep in mind that the term ‘God’ does not refer to a ‘single person’.

When I claim (with St. Irenaeus, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and on the very basis of Scripture) that

“God was made man, that man might be made God”,

I am NOT stating that we become the same person as God-Father.

[beaglelady]

@AntoineSuarez

It is important to keep in mind that the term ‘God’ does not refer to a ‘single person’ .

So the idea of the Trinity, God in three persons, is wrong, according to you.

[AntoineSuarez]

@MarkD

Other wise it begins to seem that valuing God highly is indirectly about loving ourselves since according to some all of creation is basically about providing man with three square meals a day.

John 21: 9-13:
When they landed, they saw a fire of burning coals there with fish on it, and some bread. Jesus said to them, “Bring some of the fish you have just caught.” So Simon Peter climbed back into the boat and dragged the net ashore. It was full of large fish, 153, but even with so many the net was not torn. Jesus said to them, “Come and have breakfast.” None of the disciples dared ask him, “Who are you?” They knew it was the Lord. Jesus came, took the bread and gave it to them, and did the same with the fish.

It looks like the Creator enjoys “about providing man with three square meals a day”!

By contrast, you convey the impression that you are not very fond of humankind, are you?

[MarkD (A Whateverist, not a Christian)]

I believe almost everything can be good in moderation, even mankind. I’m amazed at how special it is to be human but also disappointed to see how we are restricting use of arable lands to only ourselves and the animals on which we feed, driving many creatures into extinction. Rats, mosquitoes and roaches get by our defenses but we’d certainly destroy those too if we possibly could. We wreck the climate and exhaust resources like a bacteria on its way to over running its Petri dish. But as much as I find mankind fascinating, if had to choose between watching us destroy the biome and saying goodbye to our species while there is still some biodiversity, I’d opt for the latter. For all our potential our dark side is just as exceptional.

Sent from my iPhone

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

@AntoineSuarez

we become God .

Do we become omnipotent and omniscient? Oh wait, we’ve been over this. No.
 

@AntoineSuarez

When I claim (with St. Irenaeus, St. Athanasius, St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and on the very basis of Scripture) that

“God was made man, that man might be made God”

Citations please (not that I am afraid to disagree with them).

[beaglelady]

@AntoineSuarez

It is important to keep in mind that the term ‘God’ does not refer to a ‘single person’ .

Are you thinking of the word Elohim? Literally it means gods, but that word as used in the Hebrew Bible doesn’t mean there are multiple gods. If you believe in the Trinity, you know that God exists in three persons. God the Father is one person, God the Son is one person, God the Holy Spirit is one person.

[AntoineSuarez]

@beaglelady

If you believe in the Trinity, you know that God exists in three persons. God the Father is one person, God the Son is one person, God the Holy Spirit is one person.

Thanks for this fitting clarification.

I firmly believe in the Trinity! And think the Trinity is the very foundation of truth.

What I mean is this:

The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.

However, the Father is not the Son, and is not the Holy Spirit. And the Son is not the Father, and is not the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit is not the Father, and is not the Son.

This means that God is a full relational entity, the absolute being consisting in pure relationship.

Accordingly, the meaning of the expression that “man might be made God” (by the Greek and Latin Fathers and Doctors of the Church) means that God will make us participants of the Trinitarian life: We will become part of the Trinitarian relationship as a person more within the Trinity, but we will be neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit.

The ultimate end of the whole divine economy (God’s plan of creation-salvation-glorification) is the entry of God’s creatures into the perfect unity of the Blessed Trinity, according to:

John 17: 22-26
I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me— so that they may be brought to complete unity. Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. […] 26 I have made you[e] known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.

We are called to be a dwelling for the Most Holy Trinity:

John 14: 23-26
Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. […] 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

[beaglelady]

@AntoineSuarez

Thanks for this fitting clarification.

I firmly believe in the Trinity! And think the Trinity is the very foundation of truth.

What I mean is this:

The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God.

However, the Father is not the Son, and is not the Holy Spirit. And the Son is not the Father, and is not the Holy Spirit. And the Holy Spirit is not the Father, and is not the Son.

This means that God is a full relational entity, the absolute being consisting in pure relationship.

Accordingly, the meaning of the expression that “man might be made God” (by the Greek and Latin Fathers and Doctors of the Church) means that God will make us participants of the Trinitarian life: We will become part of the Trinitarian relationship as a person more within the Trinity , but we will be neither the Father, nor the Son, nor the Holy Spirit.

The ultimate end of the whole divine economy (God’s plan of creation-salvation-glorification) is the entry of God’s creatures into the perfect unity of the Blessed Trinity , according to:

John 17: 22-26
I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me— so that they may be brought to complete unity. Father, I want those you have given me to be with me where I am, and to see my glory, the glory you have given me because you loved me before the creation of the world. […] 26 I have made you[e] known to them, and will continue to make you known in order that the love you have for me may be in them and that I myself may be in them.

We are called to be a dwelling for the Most Holy Trinity:

John 14: 23-26
Jesus replied, “Anyone who loves me will obey my teaching. My Father will love them, and we will come to them and make our home with them. […] 26 But the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

A very long answer! But do you still claim that ‘God’ does not refer to a ‘single person’ .

[AntoineSuarez]

@Dale

That’s easy. We will still exist bodily in some manner of time snd space and thus still be finite, and certainly not be omnipresent, correct? If we are not omnipresent, how will we know every detail of every others’ lives, their whereabouts and actions, not to mention their thoughts. I also would not be surprised if how our omnitemporal God works to providentially to intervene into time and space or how he works supernaturally to affect physical reality will both still be beyond our grasp.

What you are featuring here is the situation for the “first heaven and the first earth”, “the old order” that we have now and will last till the last judgement.

By contrast, I am referring to “the new heaven and the new earth”, the final state that will start after the last judgement, according to:

Revelation 21: 1-4

Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. […] And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death’[b] or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

[Dale (evolutionary providentialist)]

That seems to be a digression, distracting (intentionally?) from the issue at hand, namely, do we ourselves ‘become God’, omnipotent and omniscient. We do not.

[beaglelady]

@Dale

That seems to be a digression, distracting (intentionally?) from the issue at hand, namely, do we ourselves ‘become God’, omnipotent and omniscient.

Speak for yourself, mortal! I’m all-knowing and it’s time for me to hit the stock market. Imma make a killing!