Rob Bowman Posted September 18, 2011 Posted September 18, 2011 calmoriah,Is it your position that the Holy Ghost is omnipresent? If so, what does that mean, in your understanding?No it doesn't. It is just an assertion that keeps being made over and over again. One has to rely on assumptions that are not supported scripturally. There is nothing inherent in a spirit that just because it possesses a physical body that it must be localized in every attribute to that body. It is possible that the spirit has an attribute that allows it to be omnipresent even while having some sort of connection to physicality. After all the Holy Ghost manages it when he connects with our spirits with their physical bodies, his contact with that physical nature does not limit him in anyway. Nor did it limit Christ in any fashion for him to have a physical body, it was not as if his divine spirit was totally unconnected to his physical body after all.
Rob Bowman Posted September 18, 2011 Posted September 18, 2011 Wade,Your very nice analogy illustrates the fact that in your view the members of the Godhead are not omnipresent. The sun is not omnipresent in the solar system, let alone the universe; the light and heat that emanate from the sun are not the sun itself.I often use the analogy of the sun to explain this. The sun has a physical body of limited size and resides at the center of our solar system. It also shines forth its warmth and light to fill the universe. The same is true for each of the members of the Godhead. The Father and Son have resurrected bodies that reside in heaven, Yet their spirit of light, truth, and love, shines forth to fill the universe. In this sense they are omnipresent.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
Calm Posted September 18, 2011 Posted September 18, 2011 I often use the analogy of the sun to explain this. The sun has a physical body of limited size and resides at the center of our solar system. It also shines forth its warmth and light to fill the universe. The same is true for each of the members of the Godhead. The Father and Son have resurrected bodies that reside in heaven, Yet their spirit of light, truth, and love, shines forth to fill the universe. In this sense they are omnipresent.Thanks, -Wade Englund-LDS already have the teaching of the Light of Christ which is omnipresent...and Christ most certainly has a physical body now yet this is not diminished in any way.
Calm Posted September 18, 2011 Posted September 18, 2011 Wade,Your very nice analogy illustrates the fact that in your view the members of the Godhead are not omnipresent. The sun is not omnipresent in the solar system, let alone the universe; the light and heat that emanate from the sun are not the sun itself.Yes they are in that they are part of the energy that is the sun.
Calm Posted September 18, 2011 Posted September 18, 2011 calmoriah,Is it your position that the Holy Ghost is omnipresent? If so, what does that mean, in your understanding?It means he's omnipresent.
zerinus Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 (edited) zerinus,We don't believe that Jesus is half-divine and half-human. You are attacking a straw man.That is what you said in an earlier post. You said that Jesus is made of a divine nature and a human nature which is not divine. That makes Him half divine and half human. How else am I supposed to read that statement? Edited September 19, 2011 by zerinus
zerinus Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 (edited) deleted Edited September 19, 2011 by zerinus
Calm Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 That what you said in an earlier post. You said that is that Jesus is made of a divine nature and a human nature which is not divine. That makes Him have divine and half human. How else am I supposed to read that statement?It would if divine and human were in the same category (think of "dog" and "cat" as "animal" natures). If "divine nature" is something completely different than "human nature" than one can be both as one can be both a "brunette" and "tall".However having said that, the way human and divine nature are discussed in opposition to each other makes this difference somewhat problematic in most discussions, I believe. It needs to be clear if they are not thought to be different attributes of the same thing ("divine" being a higher form of whatever "human" describes, for example).
Flyonthewall Posted September 19, 2011 Author Posted September 19, 2011 Is it a physical body that brought about Jesus' human nature?
wenglund Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 Wade,Your very nice analogy illustrates the fact that in your view the members of the Godhead are not omnipresent. The sun is not omnipresent in the solar system, let alone the universe; the light and heat that emanate from the sun are not the sun itself.I disagree with your dogmatic assertion. By definition, and to many of us, the sun consist of both its body and its omnipresent warmth and light. To my way of thinking, the same is true for the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, and I believe there are several scriptural passages which echo this analogy.. You are free to think otherwise.Thanks, -Wade Englund-
zerinus Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 (edited) It would if divine and human were in the same category (think of "dog" and "cat" as "animal" natures). If "divine nature" is something completely different than "human nature" than one can be both as one can be both a "brunette" and "tall".It is correct to say that Jesus in mortality possessed, or had acquired, a human nature as well as a divine nature--provided the meaning of those terms are correctly understood and defined. The point I was making was that according to the ECFs (which Rob accepts as being authoritative), Jesus had deified that "human nature" which He had acquired in mortality, so that He does not now possess "two natures," a human and a divine; but all of Him is divine. That goes counter to his argument that Jesus currently has "two natures," and therefore half of Him can be "omnipresent" and half of Him can't be. Edited September 19, 2011 by zerinus
zerinus Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 Is it a physical body that brought about Jesus' human nature?Yes; but that is another story that Rob and his like don't understand.
Rob Bowman Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 zerinus,You wrote:That is what you said in an earlier post. You said that Jesus is made of a divine nature and a human nature which is not divine. That makes Him half divine and half human. How else am I supposed to read that statement?Jesus has two complete natures: a fully divine nature, and a fully human nature. He does not possess only half of a divine nature or only half of a human nature. Everything that is true of God by nature is true of Christ; everything that is true of human nature is true of Christ.If you were at all familiar with orthodox theology, you would already know this. I don't say this to criticize you, but to suggest that perhaps you are rejecting a doctrine you haven't actually considered.
altersteve Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 zerinus,You wrote:Jesus has two complete natures: a fully divine nature, and a fully human nature. He does not possess only half of a divine nature or only half of a human nature. Everything that is true of God by nature is true of Christ; everything that is true of human nature is true of Christ.If you were at all familiar with orthodox theology, you would already know this. I don't say this to criticize you, but to suggest that perhaps you are rejecting a doctrine you haven't actually considered.Part of human nature is sinfulness. So if Jesus is perfect and sinless, how can "everything that is true of human nature [be] true of Christ"?
Vance Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 Jesus has two complete natures: a fully divine nature, and a fully human nature.If the two are incompatible, then this statement is a logical contradiction.
zerinus Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 (edited) Jesus has two complete natures: a fully divine nature, and a fully human nature. He does not possess only half of a divine nature or only half of a human nature. Everything that is true of God by nature is true of Christ; everything that is true of human nature is true of Christ.Is what you call His "human nature" divine? Did He "deify" that "human nature" (according to Athanasius) or didn'g He?If you were at all familiar with orthodox theology, you would already know this. I don't say this to criticize you, but to suggest that perhaps you are rejecting a doctrine you haven't actually considered.That could very well be, but in that case I would say that there is a logical problem with "orthodox theology" that needs to be resolved. Edited September 19, 2011 by zerinus
zerinus Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 (edited) Part of human nature is sinfulness. So if Jesus is perfect and sinless, how can "everything that is true of human nature [be] true of Christ"?We also accept the scriptural teaching that He "became man". But His spirit was divine, and possessed the power to remain sinless by never yielding to temptation, which power the rest of us do not have. Edited September 19, 2011 by zerinus
Vance Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 The idea that God in his divine being has a body entails that he is not omnipresent.Right, which you dogmatically insist upon.
Ahab Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 Is it a physical body that brought about Jesus' human nature?Yes, in a sense, or more specifically the type of physical body rather than just "a" physical' body.The human side of Jesus, and our human side for that matter, was the part of him that made his physical body mortal and thus subject to death, while his divine side, and ours for that matter, was and still is the part of him which is eternal and not subject to death, also referred to as his "spirit". Now both parts of him are divine, wtih both his "physical' body and his spirit being eternal and no longer subject to death, and once we reach that stage of our existence we will also be completely divine.
altersteve Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 (edited) If the two are incompatible, then this statement is a logical contradiction.I don't think the two are entirely incompatible. Latter-day Saints believe that human beings are "divine" to a small degree, as the Bible teaches, but I also think that's why Jesus being fully divine and fully human is something that we can't accept, because we don't believe that the two are totally separate. One cannot be "fully divine" yet still be "fully human." Like I said in my last post, to be "fully human" means to be imperfect, which Jesus of course is not.We also accept the scriptural teaching that He "became man". But His spirit was divine, and possessed the power to remain sinless by never yielding to temptation, which power the rest of us do not have.I understand this, but Rob said that "everything that is true of human nature is also true of Christ." If this is true, though, then Jesus can sin, get sick or injured, die, and so forth. But obviously that is false, so Jesus cannot be "fully human" as Rob says He is. Edited September 19, 2011 by altersteve
altersteve Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 (edited) Context is key here. The idea that God in his divine being has a body entails that he is not omnipresent.God is omnipresent through His creations, power, glory, and influence, or what we like to call the Light of Christ. Having a body in no way limits this.So you're exactly right, context is key. Edited September 19, 2011 by altersteve
zerinus Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 I understand this, but Rob said that "everything that is true of human nature is also true of Christ." If this is true, though, then Jesus was/is a sinner, but obviously, that is false, so Jesus cannot be "fully human" as Rob says He is.The Catholics solve that problem by claiming that Jesus was born free from "original sin," hence the doctrine of the "immaculate conception" of Mary (which the Evans reject!) So it gets really complicated for them I guess.
altersteve Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 (edited) The Catholics solve that problem by claiming that Jesus was born free from "original sin," hence the doctrine of the "immaculate conception" of Mary (which the Evans reject!) So it gets really complicated for them I guess.It must get extremely complicated, because part of being human, especially "fully human," is being subject to the Fall. So again, if Jesus is free from "original sin," then He is not fully human.I think the logic behind the "fully human, fully divine" idea has fallen apart. Edited September 19, 2011 by altersteve
Ahab Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 It must get extremely complicated, because part of being human, especially "fully human," is being subject to the Fall. So again, if Jesus is free from "original sin," then He is not fully human.I think the logic behind the "fully human, fully divine" idea has fallen apart.It depends upon what you think it is that makes him and us, "human", as well as what it is that makes him and us "divine".See my post above for some reasoning which shows how those terms should be understood.
altersteve Posted September 19, 2011 Posted September 19, 2011 It depends upon what you think it is that makes him and us, "human", as well as what it is that makes him and us "divine".See my post above for some reasoning which shows how those terms should be understood.I saw your post and I really do understand what you're saying, but I'm merely pointing out that Rob said that Jesus is "fully human" and that "everything that is true of human nature is true of Christ." Everything includes more than just having a body and being able to die. Rob's statement is a logical contradiction and the idea is therefore impossible. I'm just pointing out something that, to my perspective, doesn't make any sense, and I can't understand how it can make sense to anyone else's, though I encourage Rob to clarify his position if I misunderstand it.
Recommended Posts