Physical Body

[wenglund]

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-

The Random House Dictionary defines the sun as "the central body of the universe around which the earth and other planets revolve." It also defines the sun as "sunlight." The sun, then, is both a finite, tangible, celestial body, as well as an infinite, intangible, essence or force; each distinguishable from the other, yet each is the sun.

To me, the same is true for Heavenly Father and His Spirit. In the Bible, the term "God" is used in reference to both the glorified personage who is the ruler of heaven and earth, as well as the infinite and intangible spirit essence which is emitted by Him. Here are a sampling of biblical passages that echo the sun analogy:

"For the LORD God is a sun and shield: the LORD will give grace and glory: no good thing will he withhold from them that walk uprightly." (Ps 84:11)

"Blessed be the name of God...the light dwelleth in Him." Dan 2: 20,22

"God is light." 1Jn 1:5;

"Lord is my light." Isa 60:19

"...send out thy light and truth." Ps 27:1

"The spirit of the Lord shall rest upon him." Isa 11:2 (42:1; See also: Lk 4:1; Joh 5:26: 3:19; 14:20-21; 1Co 12:6; Gal 3:5; Col 1:19; 2:9; 3:11; 1Ti 6:13; 1Jn 3:24; 4:12-17)

"...cometh down from the Father of lights." Jm 1:17 (See also: Ps 4:6; 44:3; 89:15; Re 1:16)

"I will send unto you from the Father, even the spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father." Joh 15:26

"...the spirit of glory and of God rest upon you." 1Pe 4:14

"For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." 2Co 4:6

"They need no candle, neither light of the sun; for the Lord God giveth them light." Rev 22:5; see also Ps 104:30; Joh 15:26; 1Co 2:12; Eph 1:23)

As God's children, we have hope of becoming like him, a source from which the light of truth may shine to fill the universe:

"Ye are all the children of light." 1Th 5;5

"The Father, which hath made us meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light." Col 1:12

"Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father." Mt 13:43

"Ye are the light of the world....Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father which is in heaven." Mt 5:14-16

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited September 19, 2011 by wenglund

[Ahab]

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.

Well, yes, his statement does seem to contradict his belief, but what he is saying is actually true. Everything that is true of human nature is true of Christ, if he's talking about how Christ was when he was mortal and like us in that way, and while Christ was mortal he was also divine, just as we are divine in that way.

What Rob doesn't seem to get is that we have a divine nature just as Christ did when he was mortal, and that when we are resurrected we will also be just as divine and human as Jesus Christ still is today.

[wenglund]

Here are some additional biblical passages that echo the notion of God as likened to the sun, where his spirit of light, glory, and truth shines forth from his resurrected body to fill the universe and rest upon the righteous and those desiring truth:

"Wherefore is light given to him that is in misery, and life unto the bitter in soul." Job 3:20

(Job is full of statements about God's "light")

"O send out thy light and thy truth: let them lead me..." Psalm 43:3 (Psalms is also full of statements about God's light)

"O house of Jacob, come ye, and let us walk in the light of the LORD." Isaiah 2:5

"The people that walked in darkness have seen a great light: they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them hath the light shined." Isaiah 9:2

"The sun shall be no more thy light by day; neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee: but the LORD shall be unto thee an everlasting light, and thy God thy glory." Isaiah 60:19

"And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light." Matthew 17:2

"His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow..." Matthew 28:3

"For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part under heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day." Luke 17:24

"In him was life; and the life was the light of men. nd the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." John 1:3-5

"That was the true Light, which lighteth every man that cometh into the world." John 1:9

"I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life." John 8:12

"For God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness, hath shined in our hearts, to give the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." 2 Corinthians 4:6

"Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light." Ephesians 5:14

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

Here are a few more (evidently, the word "glory" is at times used in reference to God's body, as well as the light that shines therefrom):

"And the sight of the glory of the LORD was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel." Exodus 24:17

"Then a cloud covered the tent of the congregation, and the glory of the LORD filled the tabernacle." Exodus 40:34

"But as truly as I live, all the earth shall be filled with the glory of the LORD." Numbers 14:21

"for the glory of the LORD had filled the house of the LORD." 1 Kings 8:11

"...and let the whole earth be filled with his glory; Amen, and Amen." Psalm 72:19

"...Holy, holy, holy, is the LORD of hosts: the whole earth is full of his glory." Isaiah 6:3

"And the glory of the LORD shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it." Isaiah 40:5

"As the appearance of the bow that is in the cloud in the day of rain, so was the appearance of the brightness round about. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the LORD." Ezekiel 1:28

"nd, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid." Luke 2:9

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Flyonthewall]

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.

Are you coming from an LDS perspective or non-LDS perspective? Piecing together the non-LDS position is difficult enough without mixing in some LDS pieces by mistake.

I am well aware of the LDS position as I am LDS...it is the non-LDS position I am curious about.

I am trying to figure out, from a non-LDS position, just where the physical body fits in the grand scheme of things. Us humans are open to many different reasons as to why we have bodies, but the reason God/Jesus took one...well I just haven't heard how that fits in the grand scheme of things.

[altersteve]

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"?

What are your thoughts on this, Rob?

[mfbukowski]

For me, the whole idea of "nature" as in "human nature" cannot be defined and therefore makes no sense.

It is always (I think) defined in terms which beg the question, like "Human nature includes all the qualities which make us human".

Note that that is essentially saying that "What makes us human = what makes us human".

What makes God divine = what makes God divine.

To me, that doesn't say much.

[Tarski]

Doesn't God want us to be like Him? Is the resurrection limiting us?

Maybe not. If he is a totally different ontological species (not a creature of any kind) as most other Christian denominations think, then we shouldn't expect him to want us to be like him. Perhaps such would be actually impossible depending on what it means to be a God. Perhaps the proper notion of God includes uniqueness.

I think you are just too used to the Mormon way of thinking and this leads you to suppose that certain things are just undeniably natural.

Edited September 20, 2011 by Tarski

[thesometimesaint]

Tarski:

It is a safe bet that the LDS on this MB believe that what the Church teaches is correct.

At least according to the Bible we will become like God. See John 17

Ps. Long time no see. Welcome back.

[wenglund]

Maybe not. If he is a totally different ontological species (not a creature of any kind) as most other Christian denominations think, then we shouldn't expect him to want us to be like him. Perhaps such would be actually impossible depending on what it means to be a God. Perhaps the proper notion of God includes uniqueness.

I think you are just too used to the Mormon way of thinking and this leads you to suppose that certain things are just undeniably natural.

In a way, I agree. While we LDS may view things differently and believe we are correct, that doesn't mean that what other Christians may believe isn't reasonable in their own right, any more than our beliefs may be deemed unreasonable by them. I believe their beliefs are rational. If they weren't, to a sufficient extent, reasonable in their own right, people wouldn't believe them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Flyonthewall]

Maybe not. If he is a totally different ontological species (not a creature of any kind) as most other Christian denominations think, then we shouldn't expect him to want us to be like him. Perhaps such would be actually impossible depending on what it means to be a God. Perhaps the proper notion of God includes uniqueness.

I think you are just too used to the Mormon way of thinking and this leads you to suppose that certain things are just undeniably natural.

That maybe so...it is difficult to set aside all LDS influence...and some things seem obvious.

[3DOP]

In a way, I agree. While we LDS may view things differently and believe we are correct, that doesn't mean that what other Christians may believe isn't reasonable in their own right, any more than our beliefs may be deemed unreasonable by them. I believe their beliefs are rational. If they weren't, to a sufficient extent, reasonable in their own right, people wouldn't believe them.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Thank you Wade! I am satisfied with that. More. I love it. In some ways I like it better than if you changed your mind and said we were correct. We can disagree without thinking of the other as unreasonable. Successful error (I started a thread on the topic once I think) is always intellectually satisfying. Lots of people over a period of generations are never continuously drawn to that which is easily demonstrated to be crazy!

[3DOP]

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"?

Catholics are confident that Adam was more authentically human before he sinned than after. We think the Mother of God was born without original sin, and never sinned thereafter either. Of course, Jesus never sinned. These truths encourage us to doubt your presupposition that "part of human nature is sinfulness". God never made anything with a nature that was disordered. In fact, part of the horror of sin lies in the fact that it is disordered and violates the purpose for which the creature was made (its nature).

Edited September 21, 2011 by 3DOP

[altersteve]

Catholics are confident that Adam was more authentically human before he sinned than after. We think the Mother of God was born without original sin, and never sinned thereafter either. Of course, Jesus never sinned. These truths encourage us to doubt your presupposition that "part of human nature is sinfulness". God never made anything with a nature that was disordered. In fact, part of the horror of sin lies in the fact that it is disordered and violates the purpose for which the creature was made (its nature).

Interesting. Do you have biblical support for this? Do you believe newborn babies are "more authentically human" than the rest of us since they do not sin?

[3DOP]

Interesting. Do you have biblical support for this? Do you believe newborn babies are "more authentically human" than the rest of us since they do not sin?

"Authentically human" is not an expression that you will find in the Catholic Scriptures. I am just saying that the way we interpret revelation, man was made without sin. The way we interpret revelation, redeemed man will not sin in heaven. If the beginning and end of man is sinless, it doesn't seem appropriate to consider the sin that happens for a mere instant of time to be natural. If God created man sinless, and redeems man to be sinless, what warrant have we for saying that sinfulness is in man's nature? Taking my cues from my fathers in the faith, my conclusion is that sin makes a man a monster that is wholly unnatural, though capable, happily, of redemption.

Babies do not commit actual sin because of their rational incapacity. Upon gaining the accountability that is due to a knowledge of right and wrong, they invariably sin. As a Catholic, I would attribute this to the wound of original sin with which they are born. I am aware that this doctrine is considered most pernicious by LDS commentators. I do not see how it is any more pernicious than a doctrine which states that every man is created by nature sinful!

Edited September 22, 2011 by 3DOP

[Flyonthewall]

"Authentically human" is not an expression that you will find in the Catholic Scriptures. I am just saying that the way we interpret revelation, man was made without sin. The way we interpret revelation, redeemed man will not sin in heaven. If the beginning and end of man is sinless, it doesn't seem appropriate to consider the sin that happens for a mere instant of time to be natural. If God created man sinless, and redeems man to be sinless, what warrant have we for saying that sinfulness is in man's nature? Taking my cues from my fathers in the faith, my conclusion is that sin makes a man a monster that is wholly unnatural, though capable, happily, of redemption.

Babies do not commit actual sin because of their rational incapacity. Upon gaining the accountability that is due to a knowledge of right and wrong, they invariably sin. As a Catholic, I would attribute this to the wound of original sin with which they are born. I am aware that this doctrine is considered most pernicious by LDS commentators. I do not see how it is any more pernicious than a doctrine which states that every man is created by nature sinful!

Interesting...by our nature we are sinful but we are more naturally sinless...? I think there is more than one meaning for "nature/natural" going on here.

[3DOP]

Interesting...by our nature we are sinful but we are more naturally sinless...? I think there is more than one meaning for "nature/natural" going on here.

Hi fly.

I am really motivated by your expressed desire to understand us without trying to refute you. That is why I have come out of semi-hibernation. If I said that we are by nature sinful, I retract the statement. There is a need for some precision, and if I failed to be precise, what do you expect? I am only human? Heh.

[Flyonthewall]

Hi fly.

I am really motivated by your expressed desire to understand us without trying to refute you. That is why I have come out of semi-hibernation. If I said that we are by nature sinful, I retract the statement. There is a need for some precision, and if I failed to be precise, what do you expect? I am only human? Heh.

lol...No, I don't believe you stated that, I may be confusing/intermixing other statements made in the past by others with the point you are making.

I think I would agree with you to some extent...how far that extent extends is yet to be determined.

I would say that "human" nature is not sinful, but our fallen nature is...that is, in our fallen state, our instinct is to satisfy our wants and needs of this fallen body...hunger, thirst, pleasure, etc. To be spiritual is to overcome those things...which is what the teachings of Christ help us do.

We are not born sinful, but born into a sinful/fallen environment...at least that is how I understand what it means to be born in sin. Would you say this is similar to your beliefs?

What would you say is the difference, if any, between human nature and divine nature?

[3DOP]

I think our beliefs about human nature appear to be fairly similar.

As for the divine nature, if one says too much, one is guilty of attempting to define the ineffable (literally indescribable), to put God in a nice little box. If one says too little, one is guilty of obfuscation, of mere word play without really saying anything. I will hope to err in the latter direction. But first to work. See you on the flip side.

3DOP

Edited September 22, 2011 by 3DOP

[CV75]

As for the divine nature, if one says too much, one is guilty of attempting to define the ineffable (literally indescribable), to put God in a nice little box. If one says too little, one is guilty of obfuscation, of mere word play without really saying anything.

I think this strikes the right balance:

John 14:6-7, “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.”

[wenglund]

lol...No, I don't believe you stated that, I may be confusing/intermixing other statements made in the past by others with the point you are making.

I think I would agree with you to some extent...how far that extent extends is yet to be determined.

I would say that "human" nature is not sinful, but our fallen nature is...that is, in our fallen state, our instinct is to satisfy our wants and needs of this fallen body...hunger, thirst, pleasure, etc. To be spiritual is to overcome those things...which is what the teachings of Christ help us do.

We are not born sinful, but born into a sinful/fallen environment...at least that is how I understand what it means to be born in sin. Would you say this is similar to your beliefs?

What would you say is the difference, if any, between human nature and divine nature?

I view human nature in a dualistic sense, where we are comprised of a spirit and physical body, the one being inclined towards the things of God, and the other inclined towards sin--the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak, as the saying goes. So, as humans, we are both good and not so good, and our dualistic nature is at war with itself.

As I see it, the divine objective for us is to bring the physical under subjugation to the spirit, burying the natural man, and raising up a spiritual man--this burial and raising up being analogized in baptism and ultimately completed, or made perfect, through our resurrection.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[3DOP]

fly

What would you say is the difference, if any, between human nature and divine nature?

3DOP

I would say that the main difference between the divine nature and human nature is also the main difference between the divine nature and all other nature. The difference between created and uncreated.

The created is contingent while that which always was, is, and shall be is self-existent and the cause of any subsequent thing. The divine nature then, according to Catholic theology, is being, as is vouched for in Scripture and Tradition:

1) Ex. 3:14: I am

2) Wis. 13:1: "But all men are vain, in whom there is not the knowledge of God: and who by these good things that are seen, could not understand him that is..."

3) "Nothing can be conceived which is more appropriate to God than Being."---St. Hilary

4) "God always was, is, and will always be: or rather, He is always, for 'was' and 'will be' are divisions of our time and nature which are in constant flow. But He is the Constant Being; and thus He called Himself, when He answered Moses on the mountain. He holds sealed off in Himself the whole fullness of being, which has neither a beginning nor an end, like an endless and boundless ocean of being, transcending every notion of time and (created) nature".---St. Gregory Nazianzen

5) "One may call God good or great or blessed or wise or whatever one will, all is contained in the phrase, 'He is""---St. Bernard of Clairvaux

I could multiply citations but hopefully you get the point. I don't imagine that such a view about God will be to your taste. My intent here is neither to persuade nor to debate but to inform with all simplicity and candor and let God tend to the results. Isn't it weird? I can see my buddy mfbukowski going into agonies of mixed amusement and frustration over the fact that what we would perceive to be PURE BEING, Latter-day Saints would perceive to be PURE NOTHING. But there you have it. We believe in non-material realities. You are materialists. On this, everything follows. Your beliefs are consistent with materialism and ours are consistent with, shall we say "immaterialism".

I am so convinced of the consistency of both of our views, that the reason for my self-imposed semi-exile from posting here stems from the constant unwillingness of either side to consider the other's beliefs from within the other's philosophical foundations. Failure to do so inevitably results in disdainful rejection, expressed or unspoken, of how the other is absurd and ridiculous. I grow weary of seeing each side misunderstand the other. Your thread here flyonthewall, seemed like it came from one wanting to make a break from that frustrating unwillingness to understand the other point of view from the inside. If we will understand each other, we have to shed every presupposition that we personally believe as we behold the full picture of the other through an uncolored lens.

I said that I would err on the side of word play as opposed to inadequate description. St. Bernard says it best. We can name all of the attributes of God that we may think of and fall woefully short of mirroring God's greatness. If we have erred, it is in believing the words very literally that were spoken to Moses when Moses asked for God's name. As we see it, The Incarnate Son of God aligns Himself with this metaphysical revelation when he replied as God, to those who were speculating upon His own age as a man. "Before Abraham was, I AM".

What I have proposed begs the question, "So what is being?" I make no attempt to answer.

3DOP

Edited September 22, 2011 by 3DOP

[zerinus]

Well, yes, his statement does seem to contradict his belief, but what he is saying is actually true. Everything that is true of human nature is true of Christ, if he's talking about how Christ was when he was mortal and like us in that way, and while Christ was mortal he was also divine, just as we are divine in that way.

What Rob is saying cannot be true because it is a contradiction; it doesn't just seem to be. His theology can be simply stated as follows:

.

(1) Jesus = God + Man

(2) Man ≠ God

(3) Therefore Jesus = part God and part not God

Jesus is a hybrid! Some of Him is God, and some of Him is not God! That is according to his statement of the doctrine. The conclusion logically follows from the two given premises. If the conclustion is wrong, either his premises are wrong, or the reasoning is flawed. It is up to him to either correct his premises, or demonstrate a flaw in the reasoning.

And of course his conclusion is wrong even according to his own theological tradition, because according to the ECFs, Jesus deified the "human part" that He acquired in mortality, so that all of Him is now God, not part of Him being God and part of Him not being God.

Edited September 23, 2011 by zerinus

[Flyonthewall]

fly

What would you say is the difference, if any, between human nature and divine nature?

The only difference I would say is that of maturity or refinement. As you may already know, we believe we are the literal offspring of God, so it would be similar to the difference between an infant and a mature adult. God of course is perfect, we are still working on it.

3DOP

I would say that the main difference between the divine nature and human nature is also the main difference between the divine nature and all other nature. The difference between created and uncreated.

The created is contingent while that which always was, is, and shall be is self-existent and the cause of any subsequent thing. The divine nature then, according to Catholic theology, is being, as is vouched for in Scripture and Tradition:

1) Ex. 3:14: I am

2) Wis. 13:1: "But all men are vain, in whom there is not the knowledge of God: and who by these good things that are seen, could not understand him that is..."

3) "Nothing can be conceived which is more appropriate to God than Being."---St. Hilary

4) "God always was, is, and will always be: or rather, He is always, for 'was' and 'will be' are divisions of our time and nature which are in constant flow. But He is the Constant Being; and thus He called Himself, when He answered Moses on the mountain. He holds sealed off in Himself the whole fullness of being, which has neither a beginning nor an end, like an endless and boundless ocean of being, transcending every notion of time and (created) nature".---St. Gregory Nazianzen

5) "One may call God good or great or blessed or wise or whatever one will, all is contained in the phrase, 'He is""---St. Bernard of Clairvaux

I could multiply citations but hopefully you get the point. I don't imagine that such a view about God will be to your taste. My intent here is neither to persuade nor to debate but to inform with all simplicity and candor and let God tend to the results. Isn't it weird? I can see my buddy mfbukowski going into agonies of mixed amusement and frustration over the fact that what we would perceive to be PURE BEING, Latter-day Saints would perceive to be PURE NOTHING. But there you have it. We believe in non-material realities. You are materialists. On this, everything follows. Your beliefs are consistent with materialism and ours are consistent with, shall we say "immaterialism".

I am so convinced of the consistency of both of our views, that the reason for my self-imposed semi-exile from posting here stems from the constant unwillingness of either side to consider the other's beliefs from within the other's philosophical foundations. Failure to do so inevitably results in disdainful rejection, expressed or unspoken, of how the other is absurd and ridiculous. I grow weary of seeing each side misunderstand the other. Your thread here flyonthewall, seemed like it came from one wanting to make a break from that frustrating unwillingness to understand the other point of view from the inside. If we will understand each other, we have to shed every presupposition that we personally believe as we behold the full picture of the other through an uncolored lens.

For me, I am not interested in refuting anyone else's beliefs, I really don't understand them enough to do so...and even if I did, it would be no different than someone else coming here to refute mine. Our 11th article of faith sums it up for me.

There is always an element of viewing the beliefs of others through an LDS filter so I ask to see how it all fits together for them.

I said that I would err on the side of word play as opposed to inadequate description. St. Bernard says it best. We can name all of the attributes of God that we may think of and fall woefully short of mirroring God's greatness. If we have erred, it is in believing the words very literally that were spoken to Moses when Moses asked for God's name. As we see it, The Incarnate Son of God aligns Himself with this metaphysical revelation when he replied as God, to those who were speculating upon His own age as a man. "Before Abraham was, I AM".

What I have proposed begs the question, "So what is being?" I make no attempt to answer.

3DOP

That's okay...I don't know all there is to know either, and some things I understand in my own mind better than I can express to others.

I thank you for your reply.

[Zakuska]

What Rob is saying cannot be true because it is a contradiction; it doesn't just seem to be. His theology can be simply stated as follows:

.

(1) Jesus = God + Man

(2) Man ≠ God

(3) Therefore Jesus = part God and part not God

Jesus is a hybrid! Some of Him is God, and some of Him is not God! That is according to his statement of the doctrine. The conclusion logically follows from the two given premises. If the conclustion is wrong, either his premises are wrong, or the reasoning is flawed. It is up to him to either correct his premises, or demonstrate a flaw in the reasoning.

And of course his conclusion is wrong even according to his own theological tradition, because according to the ECFs, Jesus deified the "human part" that He acquired in mortality, so that all of Him is now God, not part of Him being God and part of Him not being God.

I think the politically correct term would be.

Demigod

The term "demigod" (or "demi-god"), meaning "half-god", is commonly used to describe mythological figures whose one parent was a god and whose other parent was human;^[1] as such, demigods are human-god hybrids. In some mythologies it also describes humans who became gods, or simply extremely powerful figures whose powers approach those of the gods even though they are not gods themselves.