Incoherency of Mainstream Christology

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Does the bible teach that God made everything? I do not think that it does.

John 1:

1 IN the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

Does not say God and Jesus were alone, nor does it say they created everything -

â??That was madeâ? â?? IF it was made, He made it. However, some things are not madeâ?¦

God did not create everything. God did not create Himself. God did not create evil. He is all powerful â?? what He is surrounded by He can control, but there is no need that He created it from nothingâ?¦ He is forming, organizing, reformingâ?¦ If He created it there would be no need for reform. No evil, no lost souls.

Isaiah 64:8 But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.

The potter did not make the clay â?? he only forms what already existsâ?¦

This is interesting. I had not considered this in the way it is laid out. I acutally have to say this makes a lot of sense.

[ChristKnight]

It's a static state, so to speak. I gotcha. I have no problem with that consideration.

But water is divisible into oxygen and hydrogen. I think that's an irrelevant distinction to make.

Yes, all states of H2O are in various degrees of dissociation, however once we dissociate the H2O complex, we no longer have water. But I understand what you are saying here in comparison to the cotton example.

So a mother, father, and son are ontologically identical to the Trinity? Consubstantiality means they all participate in the exact same substance. It's as if I said my wife and I are wearing the same shirt. I don't mean we're both wearing charcoal Hanes T-shirts, I mean we're both squeezed into the same single shirt. Consubstantial does not mean taxonomical sameness, but ontological sameness the exact ontological substance of Christ is the very same substance as that in which the father participates. I don't know how to make this any more clear, but none of your responses give me the impressions you understand my point.

Can you tell me how Jesus can be consubstantial with humans (this is a Trinitarian view)? I think that makes the point of consubstantiality more explicit.

Consubstantial means having the same substance. The substance is what something is, the nature of being of that thing. I think that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit not only "participate" in the same substance, they are the same substance.

To not divide the substance means they all are squeezed into the same shirt, so to speak. They're not all wearing the same color, brand, and size, they are all three squeezed into the same single shirt. That is what the Athanasian creed means. You cannot assert that Christ participates in any substance that is separate ontologically, from the substance of the father, irrespective of their identical properties. They all participate in one and the same totality of substance. To say one part of the substance that represents Christ is in a bowl in one state and another part is in another state representing the Father on the other side of the table. That's the very definition of dividing the substance. Christ (water) is not God (ice) if you divide the substance, he's just the same species (H2O) as God.

Thank you. I think we need to note here that when we say that Christ is God, we do not mean that He is the Father. Therefore, I am confused as to why you say "Christ (water) is not God (ice) if you divide the substance...". Therefore, a better approximation is that Christ is God because He is H2O, in the same way that we believe that Christ is fully human through the Incarnation.

And the Incarnation is an important example of consubstantiality, and how it has never ceased, as well as the separateness of the Son and the Holy Spirit, yet them still being one in substance.

Yes, I agree that to say that "part" is in one bowl and "part" is in another is dividing the substance. I also agree that Christ does not participate in any substance that is separate ontologically. However, the emphasis here (and I do believe I noted that my water analogy is not a perfect example, though I do believe it greatly approximates the Trinity than anything else) is that the substance of the phases of water is the same, that is, H2O. The arrangement of those molecules is different among the phases, yet it is still H2O. Likewise, when Jesus incarnated, His Divine substance was still the same. However, it's "arrangement" was different, as He was now on earth, and a man as well.

Yes, there is. The molecules in the water are not the molecules in the ice or the steam. They are entirely separate molecules. Taxonomical identification does not = consubstantial.

The molecules in water are the same molecules in ice and steam. The arrangement of the molecules is different, through hydrogen bonding (or lack therof).

I brought up the Hypostatic Union, but consubstantiality was then brought up, and now we're discussing that. I'm aware the Hypostatic Union is a different animal altogether.

This doesn't address my concerns directly.

Okay, I brought it up to show that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are entirely the one substance. Yet they are separate and distinct.

[changed]

- Mola

You bring up an awesome point. What if the Father had done what Christ had done? Perhaps on a different earth?

(I am trying to not make this sound conry so bare with me.)

Or that Jesus did only what He saw His Father do.

Consider this verse of scripture.

John 5:19

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

This verse of scripture seems to have some very deep implicatings running through it.

"What did Jesus do". One might ask. He came down was born and recieved a phsycical body died and then was resurrected.

Reason stands that the Father did this also as "The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do".

What do you think?

Interesting. It certainly fits well with the Snow couplet

[ChristKnight]

There is no such thing as the creation of matter from nothing i physics - string theory starts with strings (not nothing), big bang starts with an incredibly dense core etc. etc. matter can become energy (E = mc^2) etc. but energy is a something, not a nothing.

"Big Bang generally refers to the idea that the universe has expanded from a primordial hot and dense initial condition at some finite time in the past, and continues to expand to this day."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Big Bang is basically everything in the entire universe crammed into a very small volume - incredible high density / high energy ball that exploded - everything's still expanding away from the original explosion site etc. etc. Nothing went out of existence, everything was just all crammed together.

I don't think spirits/ intelligences were part of the big bang... the universe is basically made out of two substances -

1.) that which acts

2.) that which is acted upon.

14 And now, my sons, I speak unto you these things for your profit and learning; for there is a God, and he hath created(formed) all things, both the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are, both things to act and things to be acted upon.

(Book of Mormon | 2 Nephi 2:4)

IMO what was in the big bang was all the stuff that "is acted upon".

LDS are not the only ones who believe in a pre-existence... Here is an example poem:

Our birth is but a sleep and a forgetting:

The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,

Hath had elsewhere its setting,

And cometh from afar:

Not in entire forgetfulness,

And not in utter nakedness,

But trailing clouds of glory do we come

From God, who is our home:

Heaven lies about us in our infancy!

http://www.poetry-chaikhana.com/W/WordsworthWi/5Ourbirthisb.htm

I think many people have the subconscious idea that babies are angels from heaven

just a random google example:

http://www.yuckles.com/babies.html

the stork bringing babies down to earth from the sky etc. etc.

People have this idea in their heads, but don't realize the full magnitude of it.

Here is something I dug out of my files:

Thanks. Again, the important point in mainstream Christian thought is that God is not constrained by the laws and rules of this world, though He can and does use them to interact with us. Therefore, when we consider God as "eternal", we not only think of Him as having no beginning or end, but also existing outside of time and space, i.e. outside of this universe and everything that exists in time and space. This relates to how we have no problem with the theories of physics on energy, matter, mass, etc., because God is not necessarily constrained by such rules. Of course, one question of the Big Bang would be, how did this expansion of the Universe start? Did it just start by itself? Interestingly, a Catholic priest proposed the Big Bang theory.

[ChristKnight]

Everyone, I'll be back a little later tonight or tomorrow. Time to take a little break from this thread! I have enjoyed the discussion!

[changed]

Thanks. Again, the important point in mainstream Christian thought is that God is not constrained by the laws and rules of this world, though He can and does use them to interact with us. Therefore, when we consider God as "eternal", we not only think of Him as having no beginning or end, but also existing outside of time and space, i.e. outside of this universe and everything that exists in time and space. This relates to how we have no problem with the theories of physics on energy, matter, mass, etc., because God is not necessarily constrained by such rules. Of course, one question of the Big Bang would be, how did this expansion of the Universe start? Did it just start by itself? Interestingly, a Catholic priest proposed the Big Bang theory.

from a famous sermon...

http://www.lds.org/ldsorg/v/index.jsp?vgnextoid=2354fccf2b7db010VgnVCM1000004d82620aRCRD&locale=0&sourceId=8b9a945bd384b010VgnVCM1000004d82620a____&hideNav=1

I have another subject to dwell upon, which is calculated to exalt man; but it is impossible for me to say much on this subject. I shall therefore just touch upon it, for time will not permit me to say all. It is associated with the subject of the resurrection of the dead—namely, the soul—the mind of man —the immortal spirit. Where did it come from? All learned men and doctors of divinity say that God created it in the beginning; but it is not so: the very idea lessens man in my estimation. I do not believe the doctrine; I know better. Hear it, all ye ends of the world; for God has told me so; and if you don’t believe me, it will not make the truth without effect. I will make a man appear a fool before I get through; if he does not believe it. I am going to tell of things more noble.

We say that God Himself is a self-existing being. Who told you so? It is correct enough; but how did it get into your heads? Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles? Man does exist upon the same principles. God made a tabernacle and put a spirit into it, and it became a living soul. (Refers to the Bible.) How does it read in the Hebrew? It does not say in the Hebrew that God created the spirit of man. It says, “God made man out of the earth and put into him Adam’s spirit, and so became a living body.”

The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal [co-eternal] with God himself. I know that my testimony is true; hence, when I talk to these mourners, what have they lost? Their relatives and friends are only separated from their bodies for a short season: their spirits which existed with God have left the tabernacle of clay only for a little moment, as it were; and they now exist in a place where they converse together the same as we do on the earth.

I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it has a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven.

I want to reason more on the spirit of man; for I am dwelling on the body and spirit of man—on the subject of the dead. I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man—the immortal part, because it had no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two; then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again, and it continues one eternal round. So with the spirit of man. As the Lord liveth, if it had a beginning, it will have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say that the spirit of man had a beginning, prove that it must have an end; and if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the housetops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself.

Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement.

The first principles of man are self-existent with God. God himself, finding he was in the midst of spirits and glory, because he was more intelligent, saw proper to institute laws whereby the rest could have a privilege to advance like himself. The relationship we have with God places us in a situation to advance in knowledge. He has power to institute laws to instruct the weaker intelligences, that they may be exalted with Himself, so that they might have one glory upon another, and all that knowledge, power, glory, and intelligence, which is requisite in order to save them in the world of spirits.

I love the bold part.

This is interesting. I had not considered this in the way it is laid out. I acutally have to say this makes a lot of sense.

This concept totally changed my viewpoint of God - from God being a hypocrite who created imperfect beings to lord it over... to someone who from the moment He could see took pity on what was around Him, whose only joy comes from helping others achieve exaltation. Now I can believe that He is actually a God of Love...

[Mudcat]

Ostler then lists 5 essential attributes of God and of Man, according to traditional orthodox views:

Essential Attributes of God

1.Uncaused Being or ontologically necessary

2. Incorporeal(immaterial)

3. Omniscient

4. Omnipotent

5. Omnipresent

Essential Attributes of Humans

1'. Created or ontologically contingent

2'. Corporeal(material)

3'. Not omniscient

4'. Not omnipotent

5'. Not omnipresent

Thoughts?

I think we have to bear in mind that we may not be adequately prepared to make an assessment of the situation with any efficacy.

From what I can gather, Ostler would like to portray mainstream views as a paradox. Much in the same way people have posited that if God was omnipotent he could/couldn't make a stone that was heavier than he could lift. And perhaps he is relaying a tongue in cheek statement that Mainstream Christianity is somehow agreeing with the notion that God is a man.

In regards to a paradoxical statement, I like what Lewis had to say about such things... though I quote him out of context, I am sure you could surmise the gist of it.

"This is no limit to His power. If you choose to say God can give a creature free will and at the same time withhold free will from it', you have not succeeded in saying anything about God: meaningless combination of words do not suddenly acquire meaning simply because we prefix to them to other words â??God canâ??". In the end, "not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God".

As to God being a man, well Jesus is a man and Jesus is God. It isn't at this point, in regards to Christ that I would take issue at all.

[ChristKnight]

This concept totally changed my viewpoint of God - from God being a hypocrite who created imperfect beings to lord it over... to someone who from the moment He could see took pity on what was around Him, whose only joy comes from helping others achieve exaltation. Now I can believe that He is actually a God of Love...

It's great that you have a good view of God, and rightly so. For Catholics, God is not a hypocrite that created imperfect being to lord over. God created us to know and love Him. He gave us the free will to choose what we do. Therefore, it is in that free will that we can and do fall short, and ultimately why the Fall happened. However we have a Savior in Jesus Christ, and through Him, we hope to be co-heirs in Him, partaking in the Divine nature, and eternally having the beatific vision of God. We believe that in church, at Mass and Divine Liturgy, we have a taste of Heaven on earth, with the earthly saints worshipping God with the Heavenly saints and angels, and joining ourselves with Christ in a special way in the Eucharist.

I think that it's usually Reformed theology Protestants that have a negative view of creation and the human state, taking Augustine and original sin to the max and claiming doctrines such as "total depravity".

[Brenda]

All this makes me appreciate that I have a God, my Father in Heaven, that I can comprehend. And that his son, my elder brother, Jesus Christ, loves me enough to have suffered for my sins so that I can return to them both.

[Hoops22]

Huh?

Rrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiiigggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhtttttttttttttt.

I'm wondering if you can give me an example of a statement of faith/doctrinal statement from any mc denomination that contradicts?

I rather doubt it.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I'm wondering if you can give me an example of a statement of faith/doctrinal statement from any mc denomination that contradicts?

I rather doubt it.

Yup. What ever. Since it would seem that the body of MC doesn't have an offical website how do you propose I go about that?

Some are modalists. Acutally it would seem the majority that I spoke with on my mission were modalists. Hence the refrence to "I am a father and a son and doctor". I heard that more times than I can count. Probabaly because most people in an area went to the same church.

It would seem that they all don't agree. If they did then there wouldn't be so many sect with in "Christianity".

[ChristKnight]

Yup. What ever. Since it would seem that the body of MC doesn't have an offical website how do you propose I go about that?

Some are modalists. Acutally it would seem the majority that I spoke with on my mission were modalists. Hence the refrence to "I am a father and a son and doctor". I heard that more times than I can count. Probabaly because most people in an area went to the same church.

It would seem that they all don't agree. If they did then there wouldn't be so many sect with in "Christianity".

I agree with this.

[blueadept]

All this makes me appreciate that I have a God, my Father in Heaven, that I can comprehend. And that his son, my elder brother, Jesus Christ, loves me enough to have suffered for my sins so that I can return to them both.

I believe this may be the crux of the matter......LDS believe that they can with a humble heart understand everything about HF.

For myself........I'm perfectly content that I don't need to know divine matters, especially the nature of God thing. I'll figure it out in the next life. There's more pressing issues to deal with now.

To each their own though.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I agree with this.

On an unrealated note the coolest people I met on my mission were Catholic. Dan and Chris was the couple. They had us over a few times for dinner and were so respectful. I could never forget them or thier hospitality. This was when I was in Lynchburg VA and that is EV town. Almost every door was a bible bash as it seemed ever converstaion started out like this, "Don't you believe you can be God"?? Most people there were nice. I remember it being 105 with a heat index of 115 as it is really humid out there. I remember so many people telling me that they felt sorry for us to be in the heat but "we are not going to let you in". Talk about giving a man a stone when he asks for a fish. Lol I am just joking on that last comment. People always offered water or iced tea.

Why did I just chare this with you? I don't know but I did.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I believe this may be the crux of the matter......LDS believe that they can with a humble heart understand everything about HF.

For myself........I'm perfectly content that I don't need to know divine matters, especially the nature of God thing. I'll figure it out in the next life. There's more pressing issues to deal with now.

To each their own though.

I woulnd't go that far. I think we as LDS think with a humble heart that we can understand most things in the flesh. But you are correct mostley. Oh that is right you are married to an LDS woman. You know all about this stuff.

[ChristKnight]

On an unrealated note the coolest people I met on my mission were Catholic. Dan and Chris was the couple. They had us over a few times for dinner and were so respectful. I could never forget them or thier hospitality. This was when I was in Lynchburg VA and that is EV town. Almost every door was a bible bash as it seemed ever converstaion started out like this, "Don't you believe you can be God"?? Most people there were nice. I remember it being 105 with a heat index of 115 as it is really humid out there. I remember so many people telling me that they felt sorry for us to be in the heat but "we are not going to let you in". Talk about giving a man a stone when he asks for a fish. Lol I am just joking on that last comment. People always offered water or iced tea.

Why did I just chare this with you? I don't know but I did.

Haha, thank you for that story! It's weird though, I've never had any LDS missionaries come to any of the places I've lived. I have seen them walking, but I guess it works better to just go up to people on the street than just knocking on doors. Maybe?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Haha, thank you for that story! It's weird though, I've never had any LDS missionaries come to any of the places I've lived. I have seen them walking, but I guess it works better to just go up to people on the street than just knocking on doors. Maybe?

No. Street contacting is less effective. I knocked on doors probably an average of 50hrs or more a week my whole mission. Some missions, people rarely knock on doors.

I never had any luck street contacting.

I bet the missionaries just knock on your door when you are at work. WEll it does depend on were you live. I heard (from some of the elders in Utah) that in Utah they don't go tracting (knocking on doors). Everthing is done by referals. If you really want a visit from the missionaries that could be arranged. Lol.

[ChristKnight]

No. Street contacting is less effective. I knocked on doors probably an average of 50hrs or more a week my whole mission. Some missions, people rarely knock on doors.

I never had any luck street contacting.

I bet the missionaries just knock on your door when you are at work. WEll it does depend on were you live. I heard (from some of the elders in Utah) that in Utah they don't go tracting (knocking on doors). Everthing is done by referals. If you really want a visit from the missionaries that could be arranged. Lol.

Haha true. Actually, way back in high school (I've been interested in studying Christianity and just religions in general for a long time), I ordered the free BOM from the LDS website. We then received a call from someone wanting to know if I'd like to have missionaries come. The parents were very happy about that one, hahaha.

[Hoops22]

Yup. What ever. Since it would seem that the body of MC doesn't have an offical website how do you propose I go about that?

Some are modalists. Acutally it would seem the majority that I spoke with on my mission were modalists. Hence the refrence to "I am a father and a son and doctor". I heard that more times than I can count. Probabaly because most people in an area went to the same church.

It would seem that they all don't agree. If they did then there wouldn't be so many sect with in "Christianity".

Well, you made the claim, or at least implied it, that denominational statements of faith/doctrinal statements regarding the Trinity would at best disagree and at worse be wildly over the board. I assumed you've researched the salient material and that you could provide examples.

Or was your response to me more bluster and entertainment than actual refutation? If not, please cite them.

Nevertheless, mc are firmly committed to a true and biblical understanding of the Trinity because we know, as should you, that any deviation of this understanding can, and usually does, leads to error.

[blueadept]

I heard (from some of the elders in Utah) that in Utah they don't go tracting (knocking on doors). Everthing is done by referals. If you really want a visit from the missionaries that could be arranged. Lol.

That's the way I felt when I went tracting the other weekend. One of the other pairs ran across a Jack Mormon who wanted to talk about the Catholic Church and I was brought into the visit since I have some knowledge about the LDS church............yep, it can be arranged. lol.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well, you made the claim, or at least implied it, that denominational statements of faith/doctrinal statements regarding the Trinity would at best disagree and at worse be wildly over the board.

You made the claim initially I just know from perosnal experiance that your claim is false so I questioned it.

[Hoops22]

You made the claim initially I just know from perosnal experiance that your claim is false so I questioned it.

You made the claim that mc christianity disagrees. Now I ask you to prove it. Show me two or more statements of faith/doctrinal statements from mc denomiations that fundamentally disagree on The Trinity.

I wait for your proof.

[Anticas]

You made the claim that mc christianity disagrees. Now I ask you to prove it. Show me two or more statements of faith/doctrinal statements from mc denomiations that fundamentally disagree on The Trinity.

I wait for your proof.

If you are referring to those who accept the Nicene Creed as "MC Christianity" (I don't know what the MC stands for) then all you need to look to is the creed itself for your proof. That document disagrees with itself at least two or more times.

[ChristKnight]

If you are referring to those who accept the Nicene Creed as "MC Christianity" (I don't know what the MC stands for) then all you need to look to is the creed itself for your proof. That document disagrees with itself at least two or more times.

Ok, can you show us where it disagrees with itself? I have recited it most Sundays at Mass as our Profession of Faith for over 13 years, so this should be interesting.

[Anticas]

Ok, can you show us where it disagrees with itself? I have recited it most Sundays at Mass as our Profession of Faith for over 13 years, so this should be interesting.

Ok. With no offense intended to yourself or your beliefs I will explain:

1- Begotten not made, consubstantial to the Father.

In my oppinion it is mutually exclusive to be begotten of and consubstantial with the father. He is either a seperate personage or he is not. There is no in-between.

2- And (I believe) in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father (and the Son), who together with the Father and the Son is to be adored and glorified, who spoke by the Prophets.

How can the Holy Ghost proceed from the father and the son? The HG can only (again, respectfully, from my point of view) proceed from one or the other (or neither if it is a self existant, seperate personage as we LDS would explain it) Either way it cannot proceed from both.

There are a few other places which I find confusing, but as they technically don't self contradict I won't include them.

I will admit however that I may be missing something as the line I originally thought of is nowhere to be found here. Thus I must in fairness admit I was not thinking of the same document when I made my post to which you replied. I will have to research into which document contains the writing I was originally thinking of.