Literal Son Of God

[mfbukowski]

From my own view, what happened was the actualizing of what has always been where the LDS view might be more like the actualizing of what was planned but has yet to occur.

Good to hear from you!

I am having trouble seeing the difference. So what I am getting from the above, is that our present time line, in your view, in some sense, "has always been" but it it is in the process of being "actualized". So in some sense, that implies fate, or a kind of predestination thing, a definite dose of Calvin. Is that about right?

But indeed I think you are right about that second half- that we see the plan as it is unfolding. Yes I think we do believe in an open universe and that God allows us to alter the plan. He may know what we will do to alter it, but he lets us do it anyway.

Kind of like a road trip with little kids. We can plan to stop every 3 hours, but we know in reality that that is not going to happen.

[mfbukowski]

The problem is, without time, there is no way to distinguish events. Either everything happens all at once, or nothing happens at all.

God certainly appears to function within time - certainly, he can distinguish between events, and seems to speak one word after another.

Agreed- that is the notion of immanence vs transcendentalism.

But some think God just put the machine together and left the building and doesn't bother speaking to us at all, since he has already given us the instructions, not that they matter much anyway.

[Mudcat]

Good to hear from you!

I am having trouble seeing the difference. So what I am getting from the above, is that our present time line, in your view, in some sense, "has always been" but it it is in the process of being "actualized". So in some sense, that implies fate, or a kind of predestination thing, a definite dose of Calvin. Is that about right?

Hey Bukowski!

Hope your doing well. Been awhile. To be clear I am not implying Calvinism, though I could see why you might think that. Actually my own view of the existence of free will and synergism disallows for Calvinistic interpretations. To be clear, I don't view our will's as "free" in the sense that our decisions are random.. rather they are free because they are causally self determined. We choose what we choose because it's what we have determined ourselves to choose... hope that made sense.

That being said, yes I do believe all events from the beginning until Christs return, judgment and so forth are completely foreknown by God. My own position holds to the concept of God's knowledge of counterfactuals. IOW, God is intimately aware of us and he knows what we would freely choose in any feasible scenario.

To give you a brief "picture" of how I think this works.

If God is aware of what we would freely do in any possible circumstance, then God is aware of when the witness of the Holy Spirit is going to be most receptive for any individual or generally when a person will be most receptive to belief relating to their own personal background experiences, interactions with others, when and how God answers our prayers... any possible variable you could think of and then some.. I suppose.

God would also be aware of when to prompt a believer through the Spirit to reach out to other individuals at the best moments.to do so and so forth. God's pupose seems to be to draw his children to Him in the best manner possible. My thought is that God's plan is to draw all that will be saved to Him, but those that are drawn to him are those that God knows will willingly choose Him rather than a Calvinistic view of election where God's sovereign will sort of trumps our own will. Rather I see it as God creating the best possible situation for us to come to Him willingly.

But indeed I think you are right about that second half- that we see the plan as it is unfolding. Yes I think we do believe in an open universe and that God allows us to alter the plan. He may know what we will do to alter it, but he lets us do it anyway.

For the record, I do believe as far as our perceptions are concerned the universe is open. So from a pragmatic sense it is.

I think God's perspective on the matter is a different matter. In one sense, God is fully interactive with us... reaching out through the Spirit, interventions, answering prayers and so on. God appears to be acting "in time" so it would be proper to think that He is "in time", but the notion that God not only knows what both He and I will do 6 months from now.. , and that He also has the same knowledge of all creation and His children puts the way He must see things in an entirely different way. If to God what will happen in the next 20 years is as certain and concrete as what has happened in the last 20 years.. it must be very different view than our grasp of moment to moment.

I know you look at things a bit differently, just wanted to clarify a bit.

Kind of like a road trip with little kids. We can plan to stop every 3 hours, but we know in reality that that is not going to happen.

Taking the kids to the beach for a long weekend.. 8 hours one way. So your analogy is well timed.

Regards,

Mudcat

[mfbukowski]

Hey Bukowski!

Hope your doing well. Been awhile. To be clear I am not implying Calvinism, though I could see why you might think that. Actually my own view of the existence of free will and synergism disallows for Calvinistic interpretations. To be clear, I don't view our will's as "free" in the sense that our decisions are random.. rather they are free because they are causally self determined. We choose what we choose because it's what we have determined ourselves to choose... hope that made sense.

That being said, yes I do believe all events from the beginning until Christs return, judgment and so forth are completely foreknown by God. My own position holds to the concept of God's knowledge of counterfactuals. IOW, God is intimately aware of us and he knows what we would freely choose in any feasible scenario.

To give you a brief "picture" of how I think this works.

If God is aware of what we would freely do in any possible circumstance, then God is aware of when the witness of the Holy Spirit is going to be most receptive for any individual or generally when a person will be most receptive to belief relating to their own personal background experiences, interactions with others, when and how God answers our prayers... any possible variable you could think of and then some.. I suppose.

God would also be aware of when to prompt a believer through the Spirit to reach out to other individuals at the best moments.to do so and so forth. God's pupose seems to be to draw his children to Him in the best manner possible. My thought is that God's plan is to draw all that will be saved to Him, but those that are drawn to him are those that God knows will willingly choose Him rather than a Calvinistic view of election where God's sovereign will sort of trumps our own will. Rather I see it as God creating the best possible situation for us to come to Him willingly.

For the record, I do believe as far as our perceptions are concerned the universe is open. So from a pragmatic sense it is.

Agree with every single word, and think you put it very well

I think God's perspective on the matter is a different matter. In one sense, God is fully interactive with us... reaching out through the Spirit, interventions, answering prayers and so on. God appears to be acting "in time" so it would be proper to think that He is "in time", but the notion that God not only knows what both He and I will do 6 months from now.. , and that He also has the same knowledge of all creation and His children puts the way He must see things in an entirely different way. If to God what will happen in the next 20 years is as certain and concrete as what has happened in the last 20 years.. it must be very different view than our grasp of moment to moment.

I know you look at things a bit differently, just wanted to clarify a bit.

Well yes, but not really that much. I think it could be pretty much the way you say since we cannot know of course, but my model of what I think happens is that there are two timelines- his and ours- and I think that is pretty scriptural. So yes, he is "in" time- but it's his time and not our time. So he can be eternal (to us in our time line) while yet being immanent in his time line, and could exist in "time" in his time line.

But yes, I agree that he knows the future perfectly well, but of course that does not interfere with us making choices- at least as far as we can know it, and anything else is pretty irrelevant in a pragmatic sense. Maybe it is totally determined that I will decide to do something- but all that is important is that I THINK I am making the decision. That distinction gets so blurry at some point that it is meaningless to discuss, and somewhat self-contradictory.

Does it make sense to say that I "thought I made a decision but really didn't?" I don't know how we could know that a statement of that kind was true, so why bother worrying about it!

Taking the kids to the beach for a long weekend.. 8 hours one way. So your analogy is well timed.

Regards,

Mudcat

Good for you- that is what life is all about- enjoy it while you can!

[Solitario]

'Maureen'

Storm, non-LDS Christians who accept the Trinity, believe that God has always existed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

To me this is a clear contradiction about the Concept of Trinity, of Gods being only One. How can there be One God, if we can count three?

This is my hypthesis, derived from teachings of Joseph;

Joseph never believed in Trinity, Nicene Creed or Athanasius. To Joseph these Creeds didn't make sense.

I sound little speculative here but I strongly believe that Joseph Believed Jesus attained Godhood on the Cross.

[thesometimesaint]

Solitario:

Welcome to the glass menagerie.

I think a better argument would be that Joseph believed that Christ was a member of the Godhead from before the foundations of this earth were laid.

[Solitario]

Solitario:

Welcome to the glass menagerie.

I think a better argument would be that Joseph believed that Christ was a member of the Godhead from before the foundations of this earth were laid.

I respect that too.

[Maureen]

'Maureen'

Storm, non-LDS Christians who accept the Trinity, believe that God has always existed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

To me this is a clear contradiction about the Concept of Trinity, of Gods being only One. How can there be One God, if we can count three?

This is my hypthesis, derived from teachings of Joseph;

Joseph never believed in Trinity, Nicene Creed or Athanasius. To Joseph these Creeds didn't make sense.

I sound little speculative here but I strongly believe that Joseph Believed Jesus attained Godhood on the Cross.

How can the Trinity be a contradiction of itself? I can see if you believe the Trinity doctrine contradicts your own beliefs; but it does not contradict itself. The Trinity doctrine in essense is, the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God, there is only one God. Since the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each described in terms of distinct and sovereign personality, these three persons are the one true God.

M.

[thesometimesaint]

The Trinity is nowhere mentioned in the Scriptures, but is a formulation some 3 centuries after the fact. The Bible does however speak of a Godhead.

[Maureen]

The Trinity is nowhere mentioned in the Scriptures, but is a formulation some 3 centuries after the fact. The Bible does however speak of a Godhead.

The word "Trinity" is not in the scriptures but the concept of the Trinity is in the scriptures.

M.

[Kenngo1969]

Trinity, Godhead ... you say to-MAY-to, I say to-MAH-to!

[Log]

The word "Trinity" is not in the scriptures but the concept of the Trinity is in the scriptures.

M.

The NT does not actually speak of triunity. We seek this in vain in the triadic formulae of the NT. . . . Early Christianity itself . . . does not yet have the problem of the Trinity in view.[10]

The New Testament itself is far from any doctrine of the Trinity or of a Triune God who is three co-equal Persons of One Nature.[11]

In the N.T. there is no direct suggestion of a doctrine of the Trinity.[12]

The formal doctrine of the Trinity as it was defined by the great church councils of the fourth and fifth centuries is not to be found in the NT.[13]

[10]Gerhard Kittel, Theological Dictionary of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1965), 3:108–9.

[11]William J. Hill, The Three-Personed God: The Trinity as a Mystery of Salvation (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America, 1982), 27.

[12]Ernest F. Scott, in An Encyclopedia of Religion, ed. Vergilius Ferm (New York: Philosophical Library, 1945), 344.

[13]Harper's Bible Dictionary (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1985), 1099.

[mfbukowski]

Perhaps David Waltz has forgotten about us, but should he ever return I was thinking about this thread when I read this article today, written by Chantal Bax, a promising new Phd who writes about the nature of subjectivity and how it ultimately applies to religion:

On my reading, Wittgenstein’s seemingly anti-philosophical remarks do not

reject philosophy as inherently confused.3 Far from arguing that philosophers are at fault

for aspiring to understand the nature of things, he is merely trying to explain that, to the

extent in which they hope to find simple and sublime essences, philosophers are prevented

from ever gaining such understanding.

Indeed, this makes Wittgenstein’s writings highly appropriate, not for undermining

investigations into subjectivity, but for actually contributing to our understanding of

human being. I think that his observations about the nature of language apply to the nature

of man, too, in the sense that this does not come in the form of one straightforward

element or entity either. Human beings have no essence in this sense of the word. What

makes human being into human being rather takes the form of a number of

(inter)relations, or can only be understood by looking into a number of (inter)relations.

The Wittgensteinian approach, designed as it is to bring relationships and “connexions”4

to light, is accordingly as suitable for investigating subjectivity as it is for investigating

languagehood.

Seeking after essences is really only about seeking after interrelations and how we speak about them. This is clearly the direction I think we need to be headed philosophically.

http://home.medewerker.uva.nl/c.bax/bestanden/InnerOuterSelfOther.pdf

http://home.medewerker.uva.nl/c.bax/publications.html

[Aliwe]

Joseph never believed in Trinity, Nicene Creed or Athanasius. To Joseph these Creeds didn't make sense. I sound little speculative here but I strongly believe that Joseph Believed Jesus attained Godhood on the Cross.

Perhaps J. Smith believed that, but in 2 Nephi 9:5 he translated, "... it behooveth the great Creator that he suffereth himself to become subject unto man in the flesh, and die for all men, that all men might become subject unto him."

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Perhaps J. Smith believed that, but in 2 Nephi 9:5 he translated, "... it behooveth the great Creator that he suffereth himself to become subject unto man in the flesh, and die for all men, that all men might become subject unto him."

Sounds great. And??

Oh I see. "Great Creator" means God the Father.

Sorry but I simply just don't see it that way sorry.

[Aliwe]

Sounds great. And??

Oh I see. "Great Creator" means God the Father.

Sorry but I simply just don't see it that way sorry.

Mosiah 3:8 identifies the one who died on the cross as the Creator:

And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.

[altersteve]

Mosiah 3:8 identifies the one who died on the cross as the Creator:

And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.

Yes, that is LDS doctrine. Your point?

[Aliwe]

Yes, that is LDS doctrine. Your point?

"If the one who died on the Cross is described in Joseph's book of Mormon as the Great Creator, and God the Father, then Solitario's post #105 has been refuted when he indicated that he strongly believed that Joseph believed that Jesus attained godhood on the cross," Aliwe said, folding her hands in a parody of exasperation.

[altersteve]

The one who died on the cross is not described in the Book of Mormon as God the Father. He is described as the Father of heaven and earth, i.e., the Creator. Jesus Christ is God the Son, not God the Father.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mosiah 3:8 identifies the one who died on the cross as the Creator:

And he shall be called Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Father of heaven and earth, the Creator of all things from the beginning; and his mother shall be called Mary.

THe bible also calls Christ the Creator of Heaven and earth. No were in the BoM is Christ equated as being God the Father.

Christ is the Creator of Heaven and Earth. He is the great Creator. Like I said "Great Creator" does not = God the Father.

Since when did mainstream Christians think that God the Father did all of the creating? That is a new one to me.

Edited June 21, 2012 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

"If the one who died on the Cross is described in Joseph's book of Mormon as the Great Creator, and God the Father, then Solitario's post #105 has been refuted when he indicated that he strongly believed that Joseph believed that Jesus attained godhood on the cross," Aliwe said, folding her hands in a parody of exasperation.

Um if Solitario did claim that Chrsit "attained godhood on the cross" I dont agree with that. And further more I am not sure what that even has to do with the idea that JS taught the Trinity or believed in it. One could argue that there is Trinitarian elements in the BoM. Fine. but to say that Nicean concept of the Trinity is found in the BoM is something I reject.

[Aliwe]

The one who died on the cross is not described in the Book of Mormon as God the Father. He is described as the Father of heaven and earth, i.e., the Creator. Jesus Christ is God the Son, not God the Father.

I see. Thank you for making this clear, I didn't know.