Is Jesus Christ true man AND true God?

[Riders]

God, by very definition is paradoxical. To try to squeeze God into the box your mind can comprehend is what is an absolute absurdity. Your mind can contain the depth and breadth of God, no problem! Quite laughable. Good one. What's the next joke?

Its a mystery that no human can understand. That's a good one and a good copout.

 

[Riders]

A human person is made up of two parts. A physical body and a spirit. Jesus had the physical body of a human but He did not have a human spirit. He had God's holy spirit. Therefore Jesus was indeed fully human ( in body ( and fully God ( in spirit ). Like all humans, his physical body died and turned to dust But his spirit returned to be with the Father in Heaven. The good news is that a human can receive God's spirit and also return to God.

Oh his body turned to dust then God didn't raise him from the dead?

 

[Riders]

Actually, there are a couple different ways to understand it. I understand it in a literal sense, as in, I don't think He was ever 'exactly like us'. That is why He walks on water, ascends into the air, can't be crucified, etc.
The crucifixion is a type symbolic ''sacrifice''. That is why it's conditional. Some people think that Jesus was a 'man', but sort of spoke on behalf of Deity.

That doesn't make sense and its not easy to understand.

 

[godnotgod]

Its a mystery that no human can understand. That's a good one and a good copout.

That's not exactly what he said. No human can understand the mystery via the rational mind. The harder you try, the further away you will be.

escerpted from: Behold The Spirit, by Alan Watts, p.127

 

[godnotgod]

Actually, there are a couple different ways to understand it. I understand it in a literal sense, as in, I don't think He was ever 'exactly like us'. That is why He walks on water, ascends into the air, can't be crucified, etc.

Sheer poppycock! The key to understanding Yeshua is:

"Before Abraham was, I Am"

The awakened consciousness that is 'I Am' is not a product of history, as Abraham was; of time or space; of birth or death. It is alive only in this eternal present moment, where there is no history; no birth; no death. It is consciousness that is unconditioned, unborn, uncreated. But you can only understand this when you awaken yourself. That is why the mystic puts the scriptures aside and looks to the Source within.

The crucifixion is a type symbolic ''sacrifice''. That is why it's conditional.

Not so. The Crucifixion was real; but it is remembered symbolically in the Mass. Actually, The Crucifixion is the true centerpiece of Christianity, as it is about the shedding of divine blood that has the redemptive power for sin. But Christianity (via Paul) has made The Resurrection the centerpiece, because it is (for them) 'proof' that Jesus was who he said he was.

 

[Deeje]

It is The Infinite manifesting Itself as the finite.

"God became man, that man might become God"
St. Atanasius

Is Atanasius someone I should take notice of....like Jesus Christ? Where did Jesus ever make such a statement?

 

[Deeje]

God, by very definition is paradoxical. To try to squeeze God into the box your mind can comprehend is what is an absolute absurdity. Your mind can contain the depth and breadth of God, no problem! Quite laughable. Good one. What's the next joke?

Since the scriptures never put Christ and his Father on the same level, I believe that your own position is in error.
The trinity is not a Bible based teaching but was adopted well after the death of Christ and his apostles, by an apostate church in the 4th century. Why did it take almost 400 years to incorporate the belief that Jesus was God into church doctrine? Because Jesus never taught it, yet it is the very foundation doctrine of Christendom.....Christendom was invented by the church. Jesus has never been there. (Matthew 7:21-23)

I have provided a scripturally based argument for my belief about the ransom, explaining why Jesus cannot be God incarnate.....what have you provided? (apart from insults)

If you find some scriptural error in my post, please bring it to our attention. I will gladly discuss it.

 

[godnotgod]

Is Atanasius someone I should take notice of....like Jesus Christ? Where did Jesus ever make such a statement?

mmmm...don't know. Did I say that he did?

At any rate, if you are any serious student of theology, yes, you should definitely take notice. See why, here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed

St. Athanasius, one of the Church Fathers, is quoted in this regard as follows:

Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria (c. 296–373), stated his belief in literal deification:"The Word was made flesh in order that we might be made gods. ... Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life." Athanasius also observed: "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."

In addition, there are the following citations:

Augustine of Hippo (354–430) said: "But he himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. 'For he has given them power to become the sons of God' [referring to John 1:12]. If then we have been made sons of god, we have also been made gods."[12] "To make human beings gods," Augustine said, "He was made man who was God" (sermon 192.1.1). Augustine goes on to write that "[they] are not born of His Substance, that they should be the same as He, but that by favour they should come to Him... (Ibid)".

Other references to divinization in the writings of the Church Fathers include the following:

• Irenaeus (c. 130-200)
  • "[T]he Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself."[Primary 1]
  • "'For we cast blame upon [God], because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods; although God has adopted this course out of His pure benevolence, that no one may impute to Him invidiousness or grudgingness he declares, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High." "[Primary 2]
  • "For it was necessary, at first, that nature should be exhibited; then, after that, that what was mortal should be conquered and swallowed up by immortality, and the corruptible by incorruptibility, and that man should be made after the image and likeness of God."[Primary 2]
• Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215)
  • "[T]he Word of God became man, that thou mayest learn from man how man may become God."[Primary 3]
  • "For if one knows himself, he will know God; and knowing God, he will be made like God"[Primary 4]
  • "[H]is is beauty, the true beauty, for it is God; and that man becomes God, since God so wills. Heraclitus, then, rightly said, “Men are gods, and gods are men.” For the Word Himself is the manifest mystery: God in man, and man God"[Primary 4]
  • "[H]e who listens to the Lord, and follows the prophecy given by Him, will be formed perfectly in the likeness of the teacher—made a god going about in flesh."[Primary 5]
  • "And to be incorruptible is to participate in divinity..."[Primary 6]
• Justin Martyr (c. 100-165)
  • "[Men] were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons, and yet they, becoming like Adam and Eve, work out death for themselves; let the interpretation of the Psalm be held just as you wish, yet thereby it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming “gods,” and of having power to become sons of the Highest."[Primary 7]
• Theophilus of Antioch (c. 120-190)
  • "For if He had made him immortal from the beginning, He would have made him God. Again, if He had made him mortal, God would seem to be the cause of his death. Neither, then, immortal nor yet mortal did He make him, but, as we have said above, capable of both; so that if he should incline to the things of immortality, keeping the commandment of God, he should receive as reward from Him immortality, and should become God..."[Primary 8]
• Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-235)
  • "And you shall be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For you have become God: for whatever sufferings you underwent while being a man, these He gave to you, because you were of mortal mould, but whatever it is consistent with God to impart, these God has promised to bestow upon you, because you have been deified, and begotten unto immortality."[Primary 9]
  • "If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead."[Primary 10]
• Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373)
  • "Therefore He was not man, and then became God, but He was God, and then became man, and that to deify us"[Primary 11]
  • "for as the Lord, putting on the body, became man, so we men are deified by the Word as being taken to Him through His flesh."[Primary 12]
  • "For He was made man that we might be made God."[Primary 13]
• Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-395)
  • "Since the God who was manifested infused Himself into perishable humanity for this purpose, viz. that by this communion with Deity mankind might at the same time be deified, for this end it is that, by dispensation of His grace, He disseminated Himself in every believer."[Primary 14]
  • "For just as He in Himself assimilated His own human nature to the power of the Godhead, being a part of the common nature, but not being subject to the inclination to sin which is in that nature (for it says: "He did no sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth), so, also, will He lead each person to union with the Godhead if they do nothing unworthy of union with the Divine."[Primary 15]
• Augustine of Hippo (c. 354-430)
  • "'For He hath given them power to become the sons of God.'[John 1:12] If we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods."[Primary 16]
• Maximus the Confessor
  • "Nothing in theosis is the product of human nature, for nature cannot comprehend God. It is only the mercy of God that has the capacity to endow theosis unto the existing... In theosis, man (the image of God) becomes likened to God, he rejoices in all the plenitude that does not belong to him by nature, because the grace of the Spirit triumphs within him, and because God acts in him."[13]
• Cyril of Alexandria
  • "For we too are sons and gods by grace, and we have surely been brought to this wonderful and supernatural dignity since we have the Only Begotten Word of God dwelling within us."[14]
• Gregory of Nazianzus
  • implores humankind to "become gods for (God's) sake, since (God) became man for our sake."[citation needed].
  • Likewise, he argues that the mediator "pleads even now as Man for my salvation; for He continues to wear the Body which He assumed, until He make me God by the power of His Incarnation." [15]
  • "Through the medium of the mind he had dealings with the flesh, being made that God on earth, which is Man: Man and God blended. They became a single whole, the stronger side predominating, in order that I might be made God to the same extent that he was made man."[16]
• Basil of Caesarea stated that "becoming a god is the highest goal of all" [17]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinization_(Christian)

 

[godnotgod]

That is not the Christian understanding of things, it's clearly something else. The sacrifice is important, the ''crucifixion'', is merely a stage by which the conditional sacrifice is presented.
Christians don't believe in that type of sacrifice, in the first place.

The cross is pre-''crucifixion'' symbol for Christians. It's other meanings, via the empty cross, are also implied in usage.
Most crosses are 'empty', /don't have Jesus on it, because the meaning of that 'cross', ie other symbology, is more important, than the ''crucifixion''.

I completely disagree; you seem to want to water everything down and dismissing it as insignificant. Without the Crucifixion and the shedding of divine blood, there is no Salvation.

At the Last Supper, just before his crucifixion, Jesus said:

26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." 29

The cross is both a symbol of the Crucifixion and of man's suffering. But everyone associates it primarily with the Crucifixion of Jesus, and with the shedding of divine blood as a means of redemption of sin.

I was raised a Catholic, and was an altar boy for many years. We celebrated the symbolic partaking of divine flesh and blood each time in the Mass. This is known as transubstantiation.

 

[Deeje]

Negative Ghost Rider. Divinity is "churchianity" as you put. Theology is the academic degree that deals with religion, history, language, hermeneutics and apologetics.

The Pharisees flashed their credentials at the Jews too, so that they could discredit these "uneducated" men who followed this cult leader, Jesus. Studying "religion, history, language, hermeneutics and apologetics" makes you what? Proficient in things that Jesus never taught....skewed by a religious system, so far off the rails that Jesus would not recognize the ones who claim to be Christians today. (Matthew 7:21-23)

My degree is something none of your NWT authors ever achieved. As a matter of fact, none of the NWT authors were even fluent with Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek. They were all laymen.

The ones who wrote the Bible were not educated men either. (Acts 4:13; John 7:14-16)

The NWT was a scholarly work based on the text of Westcott and Hort.

"A 2003 study by Jason BeDuhn, associate professor of religious studies at Northern Arizona University in the United States, of nine of "the Bibles most widely in use in the English-speaking world," including the New American Bible, The King James Bible and The New International Version, examined several New Testament passages in which "bias is most likely to interfere with translation." For each passage, he compared the Greek text with the renderings of each English translation, and looked for biased attempts to change the meaning. BeDuhn reported that the New World Translation was "not bias free", but emerged "as the most accurate of the translations compared", and thus a "remarkably good translation", adding that "most of the differences are due to the greater accuracy of the NW as a literal, conservative translation"."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Translation_of_the_Holy_Scriptures

"Laymen" is a term invented by the church. There were no "clergy" in first century Christianity, which means that there were no "laymen" either..........

Matthew 23:1-12:
"Then Jesus spoke to the crowds and to his disciples, saying: 2 “The scribes and the Pharisees have seated themselves in the seat of Moses. 3 Therefore, all the things they tell you, do and observe, but do not do according to their deeds, for they say but they do not practice what they say. 4 They bind up heavy loads and put them on the shoulders of men, but they themselves are not willing to budge them with their finger. 5 All the works they do, they do to be seen by men, for they broaden the scripture-containing cases that they wear as safeguards and lengthen the fringes of their garments. 6 They like the most prominent place at evening meals and the front seats in the synagogues 7 and the greetings in the marketplaces and to be called Rabbi by men. 8 But you, do not you be called Rabbi, for one is your Teacher, and all of you are brothers. 9 Moreover, do not call anyone your father on earth, for one is your Father, the heavenly One. 10 Neither be called leaders, for your Leader is one, the Christ. 11 But the greatest one among you must be your minister. 12 Whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted."

All were on the same level.....with one teacher....one leader....one Father. "One Lord....one faith...one baptism".
The congregations had humble uneducated shepherds, not a titled hierarchy with degrees. That was the Pharisees, whom Jesus denounced at every opportunity.
Sorry, but your credentials mean nothing to me or to my God......

 

[godnotgod]

It was the fulfillment of Jehovah's justice.....in the Law it was stated that if an innocent life was taken, "....then you shall pay life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe." (Exodus 21:23-24)

God's law was not about superstition but it demanded equivalency to serve God's perfect justice.

Adam lost his own life for the theft of something so serious, that it carried the death penalty. That one act of disobedience would also ultimately take the life of all his children. But there was no one to atone for them. This would mean an endless cycle of sin and death if no one volunteered to balance the scales of justice and offer their perfect "life for a life". No human on earth could even offer because no human life was now without defect.....sin infected every one of them. A volunteer came from outside the human race and unselfishly offered to pay the debt. There is nothing superstitious about any of it. It was an act of genuine love. (John 15:13)

You are confusing two doctrines. An 'eye for an eye', etc. is the action of revenge as payment for wrongdoing of man against man. Here there is no atonement or forgiveness. That of a deity descending from heaven to earth to be crucified is atonement as payment for man's wrongdoing against God. But the problem with the entire scenario of the Crucifixion is that of God not only blaming his children for his flawed 'test', but in the silly notion of their 'sin' being indelibly transferred to all of Adam and Eve's progeny, and then the added silly notion of a divine being having to be crucified to pay for those sins. This is the working of fear and superstition, I am afraid.

 

[Desert Snake]

I completely disagree; you seem to want to water everything down and dismissing it as insignificant. Without the Crucifixion and the shedding of divine blood, there is no Salvation.

At the Last Supper, just before his crucifixion, Jesus said:

26 While they were eating, Jesus took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to his disciples, saying, “Take and eat; this is my body.”

27 Then he took a cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying, “Drink from it, all of you. 28 This is my blood of the new covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." 29

The cross is both a symbol of the Crucifixion and of man's suffering. But everyone associates it primarily with the Crucifixion of Jesus, and with the shedding of divine blood as a means of redemption of sin.

I was raised a Catholic, and was an altar boy for many years. We celebrated the symbolic partaking of divine flesh and blood each time in the Mass. This is known as transubstantiation.

Wouldn't the 'Catholic' position, be that Jesus is G-d? ie trinity?

 

[godnotgod]

I agree to a point, The adoption of Mythraic rites, Roman sun worship, and a bodily resurrection were never part of the Holy Scriptures.....but the virgin birth was prophesied in the Hebrew scriptures (Isa 7:14) and the blood of atonement was part of the Law that Jesus himself scrupulously kept all his earthly life.

There was no 'blood of atonement' as part of the Law that Yeshua the Nazarene practiced. The Crucifixion as atonement for sin with Yeshua as the 'Lamb of God' was a doctrine overwritten onto the teachings of Yeshua. He had no idea he was about to be crucified.

Fact is, the Mithraic rites DID include the shedding of blood as sin atonement, as well as the washing of the initiate in the divine blood of the bull, AS WELL as a Eucharist in which both flesh and blood were literally consumed.

1. Mithras was born of a virgin who was given the title of "Mother of God"
2. Mithras was born on December 25. Before Constantine (a follower of Mithras) changed the date, the birth date Yeshua's followers observed was January 6. However, Yeshua's birth, based on the descriptions, would actually have been in the spring.
3. Mithras was born in a cave (stable), and his birth was attended by shepherds bearing gifts.
4. Mithras was considered a great traveling teacher and master.
5. Mithras had 12 companions or disciples.
6. Mithras performed miracles.
7. Mithras' followers were baptized.
8. Mithras suffered to bring salvation to a sin-cursed humankind.
9. Mithras was buried in a tomb and rose after three days. (Yeshua rose after a day and a half, but the gospel accounts used the three days to fit with Mithras' story, in spite of the obvious disparity in the timeline.)
10. Mithras' resurrection was celebrated every year.
11. Mithras ascended into heaven after finishing his deeds.
12. Mithras' followers were promised immortality.
13. Mithras was called “the good shepherd” and identified with both the lamb and the lion.
14. Mithras was called the “way, the truth and the light,” " logos,” "word," “redeemer,” “savior” and “messiah.”
15. On the Judgment Day, Mithras would use the keys of heaven to unlock the gates of Paradise to receive the faithful. All the unbaptized living and dead would perish.
16. Mithra's sacred day was Sunday, called the “Lord’s day” because Mithraism was a sun religion. Yeshua's sacred day was changed from the Jewish Sabbath, Saturday, to match Mithras' day.
17. Mithras had his principal festival on the day that was later to become Easter for Christians.
18. Mithras' religion had a Eucharist or “Lord’s Supper,” at which Mithras said, “He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved.”
19. On a final day of judgment, the dead would resurrect and in a final conflict, the existing order would be destroyed and light would triumph over darkness.

Since all of these characteristics of Mithras predated Yeshua by fourteen hundred years, Mithraism could not have copied the Yeshua story; it had to be the reverse. These details about Yeshua were not in the earliest sources. They appeared later.

http://30ce.com/mithras.htm

In addition:

It is said that the birth of Mithras was a virgin birth, like that of Jesus. David Ulansey speculates that this was a belief derived from thePerseus myths, which held he was born from an underground cavern.[18]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mithras_in_comparison_with_other_belief_systems

 

[godnotgod]

Wouldn't the 'Catholic' position, be that Jesus is G-d? ie trinity?

Sure, one of the 3 persons of the Trinity.

 

[Desert Snake]

You are confusing two doctrines. An 'eye for an eye', etc. is the action of revenge as payment for wrongdoing of man against man. Here there is no atonement or forgiveness. That of a deity descending from heaven to earth to be crucified is atonement as payment for man's wrongdoing against God. But the problem with the entire scenario of the Crucifixion is that of God not only blaming his children for his flawed 'test', but in the silly notion of their 'sin' being indelibly transferred to all of Adam and Eve's progeny, and then the added silly notion of a divine being having to be crucified to pay for those sins. This is the working of fear and superstition, I am afraid.

You seem to be ''agreeing'' with me, without realizing it.
Hence you've posted two opposing opinions

 

[godnotgod]

You seem to be ''agreeing'' with me, without realizing it.
Hence you've posted two opposing opinions

mmm...I don't think so, but be more specific.

 

[Desert Snake]

Not so. The Crucifixion was real; but it is remembered symbolically in the Mass. Actually, The Crucifixion is the true centerpiece of Christianity, as it is about the shedding of divine blood that has the redemptive power for sin. But Christianity (via Paul) has made The Resurrection the centerpiece, because it is (for them) 'proof' that Jesus was who he said he was.

.........

I completely disagree; you seem to want to water everything down and dismissing it as insignificant. Without the Crucifixion and the shedding of divine blood, there is no Salvation.



The cross is both a symbol of the Crucifixion and of man's suffering. But everyone associates it primarily with the Crucifixion of Jesus, and with the shedding of divine blood as a means of redemption of sin.

I was raised a Catholic, and was an altar boy for many years. We celebrated the symbolic partaking of divine flesh and blood each time in the Mass. This is known as transubstantiation.

........

But the problem with the entire scenario of the Crucifixion is that of God not only blaming his children for his flawed 'test', but in the silly notion of their 'sin' being indelibly transferred to all of Adam and Eve's progeny, and then the added silly notion of a divine being having to be crucified to pay for those sins. This is the working of fear and superstition, I am afraid.

.......

There was no 'blood of atonement' as part of the Law that Yeshua the Nazarene practiced.

Fact is, the Mithraic rites DID include the shedding of blood as sin atonement, as well as the washing of the initiate in the divine blood of the bull, AS WELL as a Eucharist in which both flesh and blood were literally consumed.

......

 

[Deeje]

Romans 11:36

Just one example of a prayer to Jesus, ie 'God.'

There are many other examples, but you seem to be interpreting the titles in manner that you can never be incorrect, so, I'm just bringing this up for interest.

Thank you for bringing up this point. Firstly we note that in context these verses say....

Romans 11:33-36:
"O the depth of God’s riches and wisdom and knowledge! How unsearchable his judgments are and beyond tracing out his ways are! 34 For “who has come to know Jehovah’s mind, or who has become his adviser?” 35 Or, “who has first given to him, so that it must be repaid to him?” 36 Because from him and by him and for him are all things. To him be the glory forever. Amen." (NWT)

Or from the NASB...
"Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! 34 FOR WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR? 35 OR WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? 36 For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen."

We can see by the inverted commas or the capital letters that Paul is quoting OT scripture. In the first instance, Isaiah 40:13 (where the tetragrammaton appears in the text) and the second, Job 41:11. Both are directed to God the Father, not to Jesus Christ. Hence Paul is directing this prayer to God.

Paul wrote to the Corinthians....
"For even though there are so-called gods, whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many “gods” and many “lords,” 6 there is actually to us one God, the Father, from whom all things are and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are and we through him." (1 Corinthians 8:5-6)

Father and son are clearly separated in the minds of the apostles. Jesus is not included in the description of their "one God"....he is their Lord, but not their God.

So it wasn't as if there was any confusion as to who their "one God" was....it was the Father, not Jesus.

 

[godnotgod]

.........


........


.......


......

Yes, but I did not say I personally believe in any of it. I'm just reiterating the doctrines involved.

 

[Deeje]

mmmm...don't know. Did I say that he did?

At any rate, if you are any serious student of theology, yes, you should definitely take notice. See why, here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasian_Creed

St. Athanasius, one of the Church Fathers, is quoted in this regard as follows:

Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria (c. 296–373), stated his belief in literal deification:"The Word was made flesh in order that we might be made gods. ... Just as the Lord, putting on the body, became a man, so also we men are both deified through his flesh, and henceforth inherit everlasting life." Athanasius also observed: "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."

That is a complete contradiction of everything Christ taught. I have no interest in his ramblings....I have no interest in theology. It is not remotely connected to the teachings of Jesus. Churchianity is not Christianity.

In addition, there are the following citations:

Augustine of Hippo (354–430) said: "But he himself that justifies also deifies, for by justifying he makes sons of God. 'For he has given them power to become the sons of God' [referring to John 1:12]. If then we have been made sons of god, we have also been made gods."[12] "To make human beings gods," Augustine said, "He was made man who was God" (sermon 192.1.1). Augustine goes on to write that "[they] are not born of His Substance, that they should be the same as He, but that by favour they should come to Him... (Ibid)".

Other references to divinization in the writings of the Church Fathers include the following:

• Irenaeus (c. 130-200)
  • "[T]he Word of God, our Lord Jesus Christ, who did, through His transcendent love, become what we are, that He might bring us to be even what He is Himself."[Primary 1]
  • "'For we cast blame upon [God], because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods; although God has adopted this course out of His pure benevolence, that no one may impute to Him invidiousness or grudgingness he declares, "I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are sons of the Most High." "[Primary 2]
  • "For it was necessary, at first, that nature should be exhibited; then, after that, that what was mortal should be conquered and swallowed up by immortality, and the corruptible by incorruptibility, and that man should be made after the image and likeness of God."[Primary 2]
• Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215)
  • "[T]he Word of God became man, that thou mayest learn from man how man may become God."[Primary 3]
  • "For if one knows himself, he will know God; and knowing God, he will be made like God"[Primary 4]
  • "[H]is is beauty, the true beauty, for it is God; and that man becomes God, since God so wills. Heraclitus, then, rightly said, “Men are gods, and gods are men.” For the Word Himself is the manifest mystery: God in man, and man God"[Primary 4]
  • "[H]e who listens to the Lord, and follows the prophecy given by Him, will be formed perfectly in the likeness of the teacher—made a god going about in flesh."[Primary 5]
  • "And to be incorruptible is to participate in divinity..."[Primary 6]
• Justin Martyr (c. 100-165)
  • "[Men] were made like God, free from suffering and death, provided that they kept His commandments, and were deemed deserving of the name of His sons, and yet they, becoming like Adam and Eve, work out death for themselves; let the interpretation of the Psalm be held just as you wish, yet thereby it is demonstrated that all men are deemed worthy of becoming “gods,” and of having power to become sons of the Highest."[Primary 7]
• Theophilus of Antioch (c. 120-190)
  • "For if He had made him immortal from the beginning, He would have made him God. Again, if He had made him mortal, God would seem to be the cause of his death. Neither, then, immortal nor yet mortal did He make him, but, as we have said above, capable of both; so that if he should incline to the things of immortality, keeping the commandment of God, he should receive as reward from Him immortality, and should become God..."[Primary 8]
• Hippolytus of Rome (c. 170-235)
  • "And you shall be a companion of the Deity, and a co-heir with Christ, no longer enslaved by lusts or passions, and never again wasted by disease. For you have become God: for whatever sufferings you underwent while being a man, these He gave to you, because you were of mortal mould, but whatever it is consistent with God to impart, these God has promised to bestow upon you, because you have been deified, and begotten unto immortality."[Primary 9]
  • "If, therefore, man has become immortal, he will also be God. And if he is made God by water and the Holy Spirit after the regeneration of the laver he is found to be also joint-heir with Christ after the resurrection from the dead."[Primary 10]
• Athanasius of Alexandria (c. 296-373)
  • "Therefore He was not man, and then became God, but He was God, and then became man, and that to deify us"[Primary 11]
  • "for as the Lord, putting on the body, became man, so we men are deified by the Word as being taken to Him through His flesh."[Primary 12]
  • "For He was made man that we might be made God."[Primary 13]
• Gregory of Nyssa (c. 335-395)
  • "Since the God who was manifested infused Himself into perishable humanity for this purpose, viz. that by this communion with Deity mankind might at the same time be deified, for this end it is that, by dispensation of His grace, He disseminated Himself in every believer."[Primary 14]
  • "For just as He in Himself assimilated His own human nature to the power of the Godhead, being a part of the common nature, but not being subject to the inclination to sin which is in that nature (for it says: "He did no sin, nor was deceit found in his mouth), so, also, will He lead each person to union with the Godhead if they do nothing unworthy of union with the Divine."[Primary 15]
• Augustine of Hippo (c. 354-430)
  • "'For He hath given them power to become the sons of God.'[John 1:12] If we have been made sons of God, we have also been made gods."[Primary 16]
• Maximus the Confessor
  • "Nothing in theosis is the product of human nature, for nature cannot comprehend God. It is only the mercy of God that has the capacity to endow theosis unto the existing... In theosis, man (the image of God) becomes likened to God, he rejoices in all the plenitude that does not belong to him by nature, because the grace of the Spirit triumphs within him, and because God acts in him."[13]
• Cyril of Alexandria
  • "For we too are sons and gods by grace, and we have surely been brought to this wonderful and supernatural dignity since we have the Only Begotten Word of God dwelling within us."[14]
• Gregory of Nazianzus
  • implores humankind to "become gods for (God's) sake, since (God) became man for our sake."[citation needed].
  • Likewise, he argues that the mediator "pleads even now as Man for my salvation; for He continues to wear the Body which He assumed, until He make me God by the power of His Incarnation." [15]
  • "Through the medium of the mind he had dealings with the flesh, being made that God on earth, which is Man: Man and God blended. They became a single whole, the stronger side predominating, in order that I might be made God to the same extent that he was made man."[16]
• Basil of Caesarea stated that "becoming a god is the highest goal of all" [17]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divinization_(Christian)

You present these Church "Fathers" as if they were the authors of scripture.....they were not. We are to call no man "Father" on earth...remember? (Matthew 23:9) We are taught by the son of God all we need for salvation.

I accept the Bible...the teachings of Jesus and the apostles.....nothing written after the first century is of any real interest to me if it deviates from what Jesus taught. The history of the early church is a sad tale, leading to full apostasy, as Jesus and the apostles foretold.