Rob Bowman Posted August 1, 2010 Author Share Posted August 1, 2010 All,I'm a bit distracted right now. My father-in-law passed away last night, and we are getting ready to drive our family 2000 miles for the memorial service and funeral. I doubt I will be posting for the next couple of weeks, and if I do post at all, it will be, by necessity, "hit and run." Link to comment
zerinus Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 All,I'm a bit distracted right now. My father-in-law passed away last night, and we are getting ready to drive our family 2000 miles for the memorial service and funeral. I doubt I will be posting for the next couple of weeks, and if I do post at all, it will be, by necessity, "hit and run."Well, I didn't think you needed any excuse for that. LOL! That was uncalled for. You are out of the thread. Link to comment
rodheadlee Posted August 1, 2010 Share Posted August 1, 2010 All,I'm a bit distracted right now. My father-in-law passed away last night, and we are getting ready to drive our family 2000 miles for the memorial service and funeral. I doubt I will be posting for the next couple of weeks, and if I do post at all, it will be, by necessity, "hit and run." My condolences, I'm in the same boat. Link to comment
erichard Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 My condolences.My condolences to him and his wife also.Rob may irr in doctrine, but we cannot judge his goodness on that.RichardI did not like the old man being called up for erring in doctrine. It looks too much like the Methodist, and not like the Latter-day Saints. Methodists have creeds which a man must believe or be asked out of their church. I want the liberty of thinking and believing as I please. It feels so good not to be trammeled. It does not prove that a man is not a good man because he errs in doctrine." -- Joseph Smith(History of the Church 5:340) Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 All,I'm a bit distracted right now. My father-in-law passed away last night, and we are getting ready to drive our family 2000 miles for the memorial service and funeral. I doubt I will be posting for the next couple of weeks, and if I do post at all, it will be, by necessity, "hit and run."All my best; you, your family, and your father in law will be in my prayers. Link to comment
MDesigns Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 First of all, I too want to give my heart-felt condolences to Rob. I dread the day I will have to go on in this world without my parents or in-laws. This can Link to comment
Benjamin McGuire Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Rob Bowman writes:Benjamin,Yes, Jesus has always been God.I find this an interesting response Rob. My understanding of traditional Christian theology is that Jesus could not always have been God. After all, Jesus is a man (just like us) as well as being God - and in your theology, mankind (including Jesus) must also be created. As Brendan Byrne once wrote:By the same token, it is important to stress that in speaking of pre-existence, one is not speaking of a pre-existence of Jesus' humanity. Jesus Christ did not personally pre-exist as Jesus. Hence one ought not to speak of a pre-existence of Jesus. Even to use the customary expression of the pre-existence of Christ can be misleading since the word "Christ" in its original meaning simply designates the Jewish Messiah, a figure never thought of as pre-existent in any personal sense. But in view of the Christian application of "Christ" to Jesus, virtually as a proper name and in a way going beyond his historical earthly existence, it is appropriate to discuss the issue in terms of the pre-existence of Christ, provided one intends thereby to designate simply the subject who came to historical human existence as Jesus, without any connotation that he pre-existed as a human being.[Christ's pre-existence in Pauline Soteriology, (Theological Studies, Jun97, Vol. 58, Issue 2)]Or, even more, as Roger Haight wrote:And with the clarity that historical consciousness has conferred relative to Jesus' being a human being in all things substantially like us, many things about the meaning of Incarnation too can be clarified. One is that one cannot really think of a preexistence of Jesus. ... But one cannot think in terms of the preexistence of Jesus; what is preexistent to Jesus is God, the God who became incarnate in Jesus. Doctrine underscores the obvious here that Jesus is really a creature like us, and a creature cannot preexist creation. one may speculate on how Jesus might have been present to God's eternal intentions and so on, but a strict preexistence of Jesus to his earthly existence is contradictory to his consubstantiality with us, unless we too were preexistent.[("The Case For Spirit Christology", Theological Studies, Jun92, Vol. 53, Issue 2)]So, let me ask: how you deal with this particular conundrum in your assertion that 'Jesus has always been God'?Seeing that Rob won't get to this, perhaps I will re-raise this topic in a couple of weeks.Ben McGuire Link to comment
David T Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Rob Bowman writes:I find this an interesting response Rob. My understanding of traditional Christian theology is that Jesus could not always have been God. After all, Jesus is a man (just like us) as well as being God - and in your theology, mankind (including Jesus) must also be created. As Brendan Byrne once wrote:Or, even more, as Roger Haight wrote:So, let me ask: how you deal with this particular conundrum in your assertion that 'Jesus has always been God'?Seeing that Rob won't get to this, perhaps I will re-raise this topic in a couple of weeks.Ben McGuireBen, most Trinitarians understand Jesus being the incarnate form of the Second Person of the Godhead, the Logos, the Word, who was the active agent of the Father in the Creation, and is Co-Eternal and of one Substance with the Father. Link to comment
Mola Ram Suda Ram Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 All,I'm a bit distracted right now. My father-in-law passed away last night, and we are getting ready to drive our family 2000 miles for the memorial service and funeral. I doubt I will be posting for the next couple of weeks, and if I do post at all, it will be, by necessity, "hit and run."Sorry for you loss, I wish you a safe trip. Link to comment
Hestia Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Well, I didn't think you needed any excuse for that. LOL! This is in very poor taste. You can take a break from this thread. Link to comment
Zakuska Posted August 2, 2010 Share Posted August 2, 2010 Since Rob will be occupied for a while (my condolances Rob)... perhaps we could continue the conversation by pointing to others...This from CARM...In apologising for Jesus being a God that didn't know something. (Day of his return)Before Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection He said the Father alone knew the day and hour of His return. It wasn't until after Jesus' crucifixion and resurrection that omniscience is attributed to Jesus. As I said before, Jesus was cooperating with the limitations of being a man and completed His ministry on this earth. He was then glorified in His resurrection. Yet, He was still a man (cf. Col. 2:9; 1 Tim. 2:5). After Jesus' resurrection, He was able to appear and disappear at will. This is not the normal ability of a man. But, it is, apparently, the normal ability of a resurrected and glorified man. Jesus was different after the resurrection. There had been a change. He was still a man and He knew all things.http://www.C***.org/christianity/christian-doctrine/if-jesus-god-then-why-did-he-not-know-time-his-returnSome of the loops people have to jump through to harmonize their conundrums is amazing. Link to comment
Benjamin McGuire Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 Nackhadlow writes:Ben, most Trinitarians understand Jesus being the incarnate form of the Second Person of the Godhead, the Logos, the Word, who was the active agent of the Father in the Creation, and is Co-Eternal and of one Substance with the Father.And, as I pointed out, there are extreme theological problems if you don't differentiate between Jesus (who is among other things a created man) and the God that precedes Jesus. Creedal Christianity denies the pre-existence of Jesus. It doesn't deny the pre-existence (of course) of God. Jesus isn't the incarnate form of the Second Person of the Godhead. He is also a created man in traditional Christian theology - and the creeds say that you cannot separate the two natures. So while we can speak of Jesus, and we can speak of the Second person of the Godhead that pre-exists Jesus, we can't really say that Jesus pre-exists as the second person of the Godhead, or even as God - otherwise (at least in traditional Christian theology), he isn't a man substantially like us.Ben McGuire Link to comment
David T Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 Nackhadlow writes:And, as I pointed out, there are extreme theological problems if you don't differentiate between Jesus (who is among other things a created man) and the God that precedes Jesus. Creedal Christianity denies the pre-existence of Jesus. It doesn't deny the pre-existence (of course) of God. Jesus isn't the incarnate form of the Second Person of the Godhead. He is also a created man in traditional Christian theology - and the creeds say that you cannot separate the two natures. So while we can speak of Jesus, and we can speak of the Second person of the Godhead that pre-exists Jesus, we can't really say that Jesus pre-exists as the second person of the Godhead, or even as God - otherwise (at least in traditional Christian theology), he isn't a man substantially like us.Ben McGuireI think this shows a misrepresentation and strawman of traditional Christianity's views on the subject. Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 Nackhadlow writes:And, as I pointed out, there are extreme theological problems if you don't differentiate between Jesus (who is among other things a created man) and the God that precedes Jesus. Creedal Christianity denies the pre-existence of Jesus. It doesn't deny the pre-existence (of course) of God. Jesus isn't the incarnate form of the Second Person of the Godhead. He is also a created man in traditional Christian theology - and the creeds say that you cannot separate the two natures. So while we can speak of Jesus, and we can speak of the Second person of the Godhead that pre-exists Jesus, we can't really say that Jesus pre-exists as the second person of the Godhead, or even as God - otherwise (at least in traditional Christian theology), he isn't a man substantially like us.Ben McGuireA good point, meaning that we should always use the name Jehovah instead of "Jesus" in this context- is that the substance of what you are saying? Link to comment
Vance Posted August 3, 2010 Share Posted August 3, 2010 I think this shows a misrepresentation and strawman of traditional Christianity's views on the subject.Perhaps you could expound on this, no? Link to comment
Benjamin McGuire Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Nackhadlow writes:I think this shows a misrepresentation and strawman of traditional Christianity's views on the subject. Which is why I provided some specific quotes that deal with that issue from Christian theologians. Perhaps you could set me right and explain exactly what the straw man is? What does it mean when it says that Jesus is co-substantial with man? Perhaps you could provide scriptural reference to the pre-existence of Jesus (not the "word" or the second Person of the Godhead, and so on - but the pre-existence of the person of Jesus). You do understand that I am not suggesting that there wasn't a pre-existent second person of the Godhead in these statements, or a pre-existant "Wisdom" or "Logos" or perhaps even a pre-existent "Son of God". What pre-exists is God - and Chalcedon tells us that Jesus is wholly God and wholly man. What pre-exists Jesus is not wholly man - unless you also want to concede (as Byrne pointed out above) that all mankind also pre-exists. Byrne, by the way, was saying this a bit tongue in cheek, since he does not believe in the pre-existence of mankind at all.mfbukowski writes:A good point, meaning that we should always use the name Jehovah instead of "Jesus" in this context- is that the substance of what you are saying?Not at all. Within LDS thought (assuming for a moment that we were actually concerned with Chalcedon), all of mankind pre-exists. So in this case, we can speak of a pre-existent Jesus that is also just like us - because we too are pre-existent. Jesus can pre-exist in a personal fashion as both God and man within LDS thought - two natures in one. Link to comment
Storm Rider Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Nackhadlow writes:Which is why I provided some specific quotes that deal with that issue from Christian theologians. Perhaps you could set me right and explain exactly what the straw man is? What does it mean when it says that Jesus is co-substantial with man? Perhaps you could provide scriptural reference to the pre-existence of Jesus (not the "word" or the second Person of the Godhead, and so on - but the pre-existence of the person of Jesus). You do understand that I am not suggesting that there wasn't a pre-existent second person of the Godhead in these statements, or a pre-existant "Wisdom" or "Logos" or perhaps even a pre-existent "Son of God". What pre-exists is God - and Chalcedon tells us that Jesus is wholly God and wholly man. What pre-exists Jesus is not wholly man - unless you also want to concede (as Byrne pointed out above) that all mankind also pre-exists. Byrne, by the way, was saying this a bit tongue in cheek, since he does not believe in the pre-existence of mankind at all.mfbukowski writes:Not at all. Within LDS thought (assuming for a moment that we were actually concerned with Chalcedon), all of mankind pre-exists. So in this case, we can speak of a pre-existent Jesus that is also just like us - because we too are pre-existent. Jesus can pre-exist in a personal fashion as both God and man within LDS thought - two natures in one.In the Ante-Nicene Fathers, The Epistle of Barnabas, p. 140: "For the scripture says concerning us, while He speaks to the Son, "Let Us make man after Our image, and after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the beasts of the earth, and the fowls of heaven, and beholding the fair creature man, increase and multiply, and replensih the earth. These things [were spoken[ to the Son." I understand this is not scripture, but it would represent the common Christian theology in A.D. 100. This not only represents the pre-existent Jesus, but also as an "other" in the Godhead. Link to comment
hooberus Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Back to the original thread subject:I an not LDS, however I think that the following point (touched on previously) should be noted:In the King Follett Discourse, [of which past LDS president Hinckley stated: "The text of that address has become an important doctrinal document in the theology of the Church." (Ensign, Sept. 1994)] Joseph Smith stated:"We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, . . ."What idea was it that Joseph Smith was refuting?, Was it not "that God was God from all eternity"?, If the LDS God the Father was not "God from all eternity" then how could a spirit child of his have been? Link to comment
rpn Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 I'm not sure how he could be God in the same sense as Heavenly Father until after his earthly baptism, ordination and marriage. But He was clearly ordained to become such from the pre-existence. It would not be inconsistent if He had always been God in the sense that the Holy Ghost is God, because the Holy Ghost still is a personage of spirit with great power to inspire all of us. We came to earth because we had progressed as far as we could without learning to control mortal bodies. It seems clear that since He never sinned, He didn't take long to learn to control His mortal body (which was also immortal). Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 I am on your side- I am just having trouble reconciling how these two statements fit together. I am a TBM, so I know the LDS pov.So while we can speak of Jesus, and we can speak of the Second person of the Godhead that pre-exists Jesus, we can't really say that Jesus pre-exists as the second person of the Godhead, or even as God - otherwise (at least in traditional Christian theology), he isn't a man substantially like us.Ben McGuireJesus can pre-exist in a personal fashion as both God and man within LDS thought - two natures in one.So you are characterizing the creedal position in the first quote? Link to comment
Benjamin McGuire Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 Storm Rider writes:In the Ante-Nicene Fathers, The Epistle of Barnabas, p. 140: "For the scripture says concerning us, while He speaks to the Son, "Let Us make man after Our image, and after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the beasts of the earth, and the fowls of heaven, and beholding the fair creature man, increase and multiply, and replensih the earth. These things [were spoken[ to the Son." I understand this is not scripture, but it would represent the common Christian theology in A.D. 100. This not only represents the pre-existent Jesus, but also as an "other" in the Godhead.Actually, I disagree with your interpretation here. You will notice above that I distinguish between "the Son" and "Jesus". Creedal Christianity has no problem with an "other" in the Godhead - prior to the incarnation. They don't have a problem calling this "other" the Son of God even. It identifies the other as the second person of the Godhead. Now, if Barnabas had actually said "He speaks to Jesus", then we might have something to discuss with respect to this, but, he didn't. So, I think that your interpretation that "this represents the pre-existent Jesus" does not necessarily describe Christian theology in A.D. 100 at all. It is instead a representation of the second person of the Godhead prior to the incarnation - and this is not Jesus - unless, of course, you want to assert that mankind pre-exists their individual mortal creation - see the quote below for a bit more of an expansion on this topic.mfbukowski writes:So you are characterizing the creedal position in the first quote?Yes. I was not engaging LDS thought when I originally asked the question of Rob - since he is not LDS.Let me provide a bit from the introduction to the article that Brendan Byrne wrote that I quoted earlier:In the context of this stress upon the humanity of Christ, the notion of his pre-existence as eternal Son of God which figured prominently in the traditional formulations and found renewed emphasis in the dialectical theology of Karl Barth, has proved to be a grave embarrassment. Kuschel's massive survey of the question from Barth to Schillebeeckx provides ample evidence of this. The British scholar John Macquarrie even dubs the claim that Jesus Christ, prior to his birth, had a conscious, personal pre-existence in heaven something destructive of his true humanity.Those theologians who are not prepared, as was R. Bultmann, to regard pre-existence as simply a mythological relic in biblical thought and to state bluntly, "We no longer need that particular conception," face the problem of somehow saving the biblical and early conciliar affirmations of the pre-existence of the Word, on the one hand, without injury to the full humanity of Jesus, and, on the other hand, without belaboring Christian proclamation with concepts meaningless to contemporary understanding.In the face of this dilemma, many systematic theologians have found blessed relief in a growing tendency among biblical scholars to regard statements of pre-existence as relatively isolated and rare across the broad spectrum of the New Testament. What might be called a full-blown notion of pre-existence -- the belief that the one subsequently known as Jesus Christ somehow had a personal history with God prior to his human life -- is regarded as more or less confined to the Johannine literature and other late documents. It is notably absent from the three Synoptic Gospels, the chief resource for the human history of Jesus, while the earliest documents, the authentic letters of Paul (Romans, 1-2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians, Philemon), if they contain the notion at all, feature it simply in the attenuated, figurative sense of Christ's pre-temporal presence in the mind and purpose of God, without any implication of personal pre-existence. From this perspective the significance of the motif is severely relativized as regards the total witness of the New Testament and its right to exercise so dominant an influence on doctrinal formulations, as in traditional Christology, put in question.Among biblical scholars, the outstanding representative and indeed champion of this view has been the British exegete James D. G. Dunn, with whom can be associated in particular Jerome Murphy-O'Connor, John A. T. Robinson, and now Stanley K. Stowers. The influence of this tendency is clear in the caution of scholars who adopt more moderate positions, such as John Ziesler.John Macquarrie offers a notable example of the impact such views have had upon systematic theologians. Macquarrie enthusiastically endorses a Christology from below in the form proposed by Dunn:This ... type of interpretation not only fits well with the modern insistence on the full humanity of Christ ... , but also dispenses with the mythological idea of a personal pre-existence of Jesus Christ.... It is perfectly compatible with (and probably demands) the idea that Jesus Christ pre-existed in the mind and purpose of God.... If one wants to go beyond this and claim that Jesus Christ had prior to his birth a conscious, personal pre-existence in `heaven', this is not only mythological but is, I believe, destructive of his true humanity.And there we go.In other words, to make the statement that Jesus has eternally been God is problematic in light of the fact that Jesus is a man co-substantial with us. It is - to use Macquarrie's comment - destructive of the humanity of Jesus.Ben McGuire Link to comment
mfbukowski Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 In other words, to make the statement that Jesus has eternally been God is problematic in light of the fact that Jesus is a man co-substantial with us. It is - to use Macquarrie's comment - destructive of the humanity of Jesus.Ben McGuireUnless of course, as you point out, we as humans are also pre-existent.Great insight- great quote- thanks! I think it becomes less and less possible to hold the creedal position the more we know about both the Bible and the destructive influence of Neo Platonism on western culture. Link to comment
consiglieri Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 So you believe in reincarnation?I see "reincarnation" as multiple incarnations on the same world.In that sense, I do not believe in reincarnation.But I think that God probably believes in reincarnation on successive worlds.All the Best!--Consiglieri Link to comment
consiglieri Posted August 4, 2010 Share Posted August 4, 2010 All,I'm a bit distracted right now. My father-in-law passed away last night, and we are getting ready to drive our family 2000 miles for the memorial service and funeral. I doubt I will be posting for the next couple of weeks, and if I do post at all, it will be, by necessity, "hit and run."No problem. We'll wait for you to get back.In the meantime, I hope you will accept my heartfelt condolences and prayers to you and yours for comfort in this difficult time. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.