Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Broker

Children of "A" Heavenly Father

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, USU78 said:

Thou art my son. This day have I begotten thee.

/potstirring

That has always confused me. I wonder if it has to do with the fulfillment of a covenant or Jesus growing into the fullness during mortality. Not sure though..

Share this post


Link to post
On 7/6/2019 at 9:02 PM, Jane_Doe said:

Sorry if that sounds downplaying-- I'm trying to be respectful here.  But from an LDS standpoint...honestly I find that Creedal Christians have a much more negative or lesser view of man than LDS Christians (speaking both of present-day man and eventual perfected man).  

I think you are spot on here..... you correctly identify a distinct difference from the LDS and traditional Christians. 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, snowflake said:

I think you are spot on here..... you correctly identify a distinct difference from the LDS and traditional Christians. 

It's one difference, but not the largest.  The largest difference between LDS Christians and Creedal Cristians is the of course the Creedal Cristians embracing of post-Bibilical philosophical statements as foundational theology, versus LDS Christians embracing of latter-day revelations.  That source of authority is HUGE.

Edited by Jane_Doe
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 7/7/2019 at 8:32 PM, SettingDogStar said:

That has always confused me. I wonder if it has to do with the fulfillment of a covenant or Jesus growing into the fullness during mortality. Not sure though..

I believe it confuses you because orthodoxy has confused the issue. I believe this a major reason the Lord told Joseph Smith that their creeds are an abomination. In other words I believe the creeds stop one from seeking the truth about this issue, which I believe goes to the oracles of God. If Christ is "eternally begotten" as the Catholics say, how can Christ have a beginning as the Son or this represent the beginning of a covenant? 

I once discussed this issue with a more "traditional" Christian who also believed that the Son had a covenantal relationship with the Father - that He is the Son by covenant. If he believed that, I didn't understand how he could believe that the Son had no beginning. The thing is that readers limit their thinking from "the beginning." What if Christ was begotten as the Son before "the beginning" of this world? I believe this was the major root of the debate in early Christianity which caused the Nicene Council to be convened. At that point I do not believe the NT contained any scripture showing that Christ has been begotten as the Son at some point in His earthly visit. Indeed, in a later codex known as the Bezae Codex, it appears in Luke's gospel at the time of Yeshua's baptism, that the Father told Him "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee" instead of "Behold my Son in whom I am well pleased" like it does in its gospel of Matthew. 

I guess what I am saying is this has been a point of debate for many years in Christianity, and that I now soundly reject the orthodox side in favor of a more literal understanding of the scriptures - that at some point Christ actually was begotten as the Son, when the Father told him "this day I have begotten thee." I believe it goes to the heart of the phrase coined by Snow that "As man now is, God once was; as God now is, man may become." How can man become as Christ unless man is begotten in covenant as Christ was? It seems to me that Joseph Smith either understood this or was on the cusp of understanding it, while BY did not. I am not being particularly critical of BY, but he led the Church in a somewhat different direction than it was headed at the death of JS. At the death of JS he was beginning to see and teach the heart of the oracles of God as is evidenced by the King Follet discourse. I know at this point the Church still considers this speculation, but I proffer that it will become common knowledge in the seventh seal. I hope I helped you some...

Edited by RevTestament

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
On 7/7/2019 at 9:32 PM, SettingDogStar said:

That has always confused me. I wonder if it has to do with the fulfillment of a covenant or Jesus growing into the fullness during mortality. Not sure though..

Let's go "there." 

In LDS cosmology (BofA), we are all eternal beings (whatever that means), co-eternal with the Master (at very least).  We enter as pre-earth-life beings into covenant with the Father to be His children in order to become joint heirs with the Master to all the Father has.  That we don't know much at all about what that means is unsurprising.  

Things are required of us in order to fulfill our part of the covenant, however, and two of three parts of those who accepted G-d's invitation passed the first requirement we know of, entering into a great and strange change of being and location, agreeing to be born here.  Then, in this life, we have further requirements in order to receive what the Father promised as His promised performance of the covenant (D&C 76).

At what point is it true that we are "[His] Son[.]  This day [has He] begotten [us]" is unclear.  In at least one early manuscript of one of the Gospels, the Father recites "Thou art My Son ..." instead of "This is my beloved Son" upon the Master's baptism.  It's all very lovely and mysterious and profound.

 

Edited by USU78

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, USU78 said:

At what point is it true that we are "[His] Son[.]  This day [has He] begotten [us]" is unclear.  In at least one early manuscript of one of the Gospels, the Father recites "Thou art My Son ..." instead of "This is my beloved Son" upon the Master's baptism.  It's all very lovely and mysterious and profound.

When one is able to take in the correct interpretation of the scriptures, it is not so mysterious as it first appears. Orthodoxy has "trained" men to think one way, when the scriptures say something different. That I think is the cause of the "mystery." God will always be a "mystery" to them because you can't stuff the truth into their square hole - it just doesn't fit. I proffer even LDS have fallen prey to that to various extents. The Father has never told us "thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee," because the Son is a unique office of one - one chosen as our "elder brother" to be our teacher and our Savior who agreed to the task. Isn't the latter correct LDS teaching? 

Let me do a little mind bending here. To whom is this being spoken and who is doing the speaking?

Isaiah 60:16 Thou shalt also suck the amilk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of bkings: and thou shalt know that I the Lord am thy cSaviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
19 hours ago, Jane_Doe said:

It's one difference, but not the largest.  The largest difference between LDS Christians and Creedal Cristians is the of course the Creedal Cristians embracing of post-Bibilical philosophical statements as foundational theology, versus LDS Christians embracing of latter-day revelations.  That source of authority is HUGE.

Well if one is honest with the differences between LDS Christians and Creedal Christians (and I think you are very fair and honest about the differences Jane_Doe) you have a different Gods, and a different Jesus.....

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

 

Quote

 

The largest difference between LDS Christians and Creedal Cristians is the of course the Creedal Cristians embracing of post-Bibilical philosophical statements as foundational theology

[/quote]

Another interpretation is that ancient Creedal Christians embraced Greek philosophical statements, not as, but to explain foundational theology. I'm an orthodox Creedal Christian and that's my interpretation of the data, grounded on my rejection of the historical claim that there was a Great Apostasy.

Regardless, elements of Greek philosophy align with both traditions (LDS and Creedal), so using similarity to Greek philosophy as evidence of apostasy is a double-edged sword.  For instance, ex nihilo creation was a Christian innovation.  No Greek philosopher (that I know of) taught it.  Greek philosophy (whether Stoic, Platonist, Neoplatonist or Aristotelian) teaches that matter is eternal, the same as the LDS church.  So either tradition (Creedal or LDS) can validly say (speaking from within their own paradigm) that the pagan Greeks got something right and got other things wrong.  

Edited by Spammer

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, snowflake said:

 The largest difference between LDS Christians and Creedal Cristians is the of course the Creedal Cristians embracing of post-Bibilical philosophical statements as foundational theology

Another interpretation is that ancient Creedal Christians embraced Greek philosophical statements, not as, but to explain foundational theology. I'm an orthodox Creedal Christian and that's my interpretation of the data, which, of course, is grounded on my rejection of the historical claim that there was a Great Apostasy. That rejection leads to different presuppositions underlying my worldview. Similarity with Greek philosophy is therefore not a problem for me, further evidence of which is the anathematization  of certain Neoplatonist teachings of the otherwise completely orthodox St Justin Martyr and Origen of Alexandria.

 LDS church members begin with different presuppositions and an underlying worldview.  The same data points are interpreted differently, yielding varying conclusions.

Regardless, elements of Greek philosophy align with both traditions (LDS and Creedal), so using similarity to Greek philosophy as evidence of apostasy is a double-edged sword.  For instance, ex nihilo creation is unique to Christianity.  No Greek philosopher (that I know of) taught it.  Greek philosophy (whether Stoic, Platonist, Neoplatonist or Aristotelian) teaches that matter is eternal, the same as the LDS church teaches.  The bare fact of similarity with Greek philosophy condemns (if the similarity is bad) or supports (if the similarity is good) either tradition (Creedal or LDS). Similarity with Greek philosophy demonstrates nothing. Either tradition can validly say (speaking from within their own paradigm) that the pagan Greeks got something right and got other things wrong.  

2 hours ago, snowflake said:

Well if one is honest with the differences between LDS Christians and Creedal Christians (and I think you are very fair and honest about the differences Jane_Doe) you have a different Gods, and a different Jesus.....

I would agree with this.  The demi-god Jesus of the LDS Church is not the same as the God-Man Jesus of Creedal Christianity.

Edited by Spammer
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, snowflake said:

Well if one is honest with the differences between LDS Christians and Creedal Christians (and I think you are very fair and honest about the differences Jane_Doe) you have a different Gods, and a different Jesus.....

True. Our Yeshua was actually begotten as the Son when the Father saith unto Him "thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee" per Acts and Hebrews, and your Yeshua is unscripturally eternally begotten somehow. Our Yeshua is the Son by covenantal relationship with the Father, and yours has an inexplicable and eternally mysterious status with the Father. Our Yeshua will be called the Eternal Father by inheritance, and yours can never be the Father because the Son is not the Father, and the Father is not the Son. We will give the Son His inheritance, and yours is unchanging....

3 hours ago, Spammer said:

The demi-god Jesus of the LDS Church is not the same as the God-Man Jesus of Creedal Christianity.

 To whom is this being spoken and who is doing the speaking?

Isaiah 60:16 Thou shalt also suck the amilk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of bkings: and thou shalt know that I the Lord am thy cSaviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, RevTestament said:

True. Our Yeshua was actually begotten as the Son when the Father saith unto Him "thou art my Son. This day I have begotten thee" per Acts and Hebrews, and your Yeshua is unscripturally eternally begotten somehow. Our Yeshua is the Son by covenantal relationship with the Father, and yours has an inexplicable and eternally mysterious status with the Father. Our Yeshua will be called the Eternal Father by inheritance, and yours can never be the Father because the Son is not the Father, and the Father is not the Son. We will give the Son His inheritance, and yours is unchanging....

 To whom is this being spoken and who is doing the speaking?

Isaiah 60:16 Thou shalt also suck the amilk of the Gentiles, and shalt suck the breast of bkings: and thou shalt know that I the Lord am thy cSaviour and thy Redeemer, the mighty One of Jacob.

Yahweh is speaking to Jerusalem. It’s a message of consolation to the post-exilic community.

Edited by Spammer

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Spammer said:

I would agree with this.  The demi-god Jesus of the LDS Church is not the same as the God-Man Jesus of Creedal Christianity.

While the word demigod is in some senses accurate it does not capture Jesus. He was God before he took up flesh though not as complete as the Father until He could claim an immortal physical form.

His spirit was divine due to the attributes He developed or had before He came to the Earth and even before He created the Earth. His mortal body was a mix of divine and fallen mortal. The word demigod is a bit loaded because it creates unfavorable comparisons to Hercules or Achilles who were not divine gods before taking mortal form.

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Spammer said:

Yahweh is speaking to Jerusalem. It’s a message of consolation to the post-exilic community.

So they are the branch?

21 Thy people also shall be all arighteous: they shall inherit the bland for cever, the dbranch of my planting, the ework of my hands, that I may be glorified.

22 A alittle one shall become a thousand, and a small one a bstrong nation: I the Lord will hasten it in chis time.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
31 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

So they are the branch?

21 Thy people also shall be all arighteous: they shall inherit the bland for cever, the dbranch of my planting, the ework of my hands, that I may be glorified.

22 A alittle one shall become a thousand, and a small one a bstrong nation: I the Lord will hasten it in chis time.

Given the context of the oracle, it seems so...they being the exiled people of Jerusalem. They will be restored and the people of the Holy City will be made stronger than any nation. 

Heres the same passage from the Bible translation I use: 

21 Your people, all of them upright, will possess the country for ever, the shoot I myself have planted, my handiwork, for my own glory.

22 The smallest will grow into a thousand, the weakest one into a mighty nation. When the time is ripe, I, Yahweh, shall quickly bring it about.

 

Edited by Spammer

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Spammer said:

Given the context of the oracle, it seems so...they being the exiled people of Jerusalem. They will be restored and the people of the Holy City will be made stronger than any nation. 

Is that why they will be called YHVH?1

Jeremiah 33:16

16 In those days shall Judah be saved, and Jerusalem shall dwell safely: and this is the name wherewith she shall be called, YHVH our righteousness.

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

They will be called by the name of Yahweh, like Christians are called by the name of Christ. 

16 In those days Judah will triumph and Israel live in safety. And this is the name the city will be called: Yahweh-is-our-Saving-Justice.

Share this post


Link to post
51 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

While the word demigod is in some senses accurate it does not capture Jesus. He was God before he took up flesh though not as complete as the Father until He could claim an immortal physical form.

His spirit was divine due to the attributes He developed or had before He came to the Earth and even before He created the Earth. His mortal body was a mix of divine and fallen mortal. The word demigod is a bit loaded because it creates unfavorable comparisons to Hercules or Achilles who were not divine gods before taking mortal form.

Got it and I agree. What about Jesus, the God who becomes (LDS) and Jesus, the God who is (Creedal)?

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Spammer said:

Got it and I agree. What about Jesus, the God who becomes (LDS) and Jesus, the God who is (Creedal)?

I would argue Jesus is both for us but it works.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I would argue Jesus is both for us but it works.

Cool

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Spammer said:

They will be called by the name of Yahweh, like Christians are called by the name of Christ. 

16 In those days Judah will triumph and Israel live in safety. And this is the name the city will be called: Yahweh-is-our-Saving-Justice.

Isaiah 56:5-6

5 Even unto them will I give in mine ahouse and within my walls a place and a name better than of bsons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
25 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

Isaiah 56:5-6

5 Even unto them will I give in mine ahouse and within my walls a place and a name better than of bsons and of daughters: I will give them an everlasting name, that shall not be cut off.

...spoken to foreign eunuchs who observe the Sabbath and keep to the covenant.

So it’s not just the post-exilic community: anyone who serves Yahweh will be grafted into the true vine. 

Edited by Spammer

Share this post


Link to post
15 hours ago, Spammer said:

Similarity with Greek philosophy is therefore not a problem for me, further evidence of which is the anathematization  of certain Neoplatonist teachings of the otherwise completely orthodox St Justin Martyr and Origen of Alexandria.

One man's "orthodoxy" is another man's apostasy.  

I don't recall reading any of those works in the bible.  ;)

Of course we did not pick those "biblical" texts and define them as "orthodox" either.  :)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Spammer said:

...spoken to foreign eunuchs who observe the Sabbath and keep to the covenant.

So it’s not just the post-exilic community: anyone who serves Yahweh will be grafted into the true vine. 

Oh yeah.

Just like in the Book of Mormon.  ;)

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

One man's "orthodoxy" is another man's apostasy.  

I don't recall reading any of those works in the bible.  ;)

Of course we did not pick those "biblical" texts and define them as "orthodox" either.  :)

 

Of course not. You stand outside the Apostolic Tradition. Why would you? :)

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Oh yeah.

Just like in the Book of Mormon.  ;)

 

Yes, foreign eunuchs and even Book of Mormon devotees can enjoy those benefits. The true church is open to all.  😎 

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...