Physical Body

[mfbukowski]

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".

Dude, I have nothing but the greatest respect for you and would never do that to you!

I think it is pretty consistent for a Catholic to hold these views because that is your tradition and your theology. THAT is your consistent world view. It doesn't work for me, but it works for you. You have respect for us, and that is why so many here find your posts enriching.

On the other hand, there are those here who are anti-Mormons with no respect for our positions, who accept a grab-bag of Catholic immaterialism which is inconsistent with their rejection of Catholicism as a whole because they do not have their own philosophy to back them up.

Those people are a whole different case!

[zerinus]

I think the politically correct term would be.

Thank you Zak, that was a good observation.

[Calm]

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:.

While it can be stated that way it would be wrong to do so.

There are ways to resolve the alleged contradiction. All one has to do is to state that the attribute set of human and God do not overlap or that "God" and "man" describe two different categories. Using the same example as before, one doesn't insist one is half brunette and half tall if someone is stated to be both brunette and tall.

[zerinus]

While it can be stated that way it would be wrong to do so.

There are ways to resolve the alleged contradiction. All one has to do is to state that the attribute set of human and God do not overlap or that "God" and "man" describe two different categories. Using the same example as before, one doesn't insist one is half brunette and half tall if someone is stated to be both brunette and tall.

Sorry calm, but the logical flaw in his theology cannot be fixed that way.

[Jesterss]

Sorry calm, but the logical flaw in his theology cannot be fixed that way.

What about the fact that Jesus is not God anymore.. He gave up his equality when he became human.. you have two different time frames of his "being"..

[Ahab]

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 follow his reasoning like this:

If you're God, you're God no matter what else you are in addition to being God. Being Man doesn't make him not God, in his perspective. He is both God AND Man at the same time, whether the "Man" side of him is a mortal man or a deified man.

Personally, I like that idea, and I consider it to be very much in agreement with what our Lord has revealed to us through some of his prophets in these latter days.

[Calm]

What about the fact that Jesus is not God anymore.. He gave up his equality when he became human.. you have two different time frames of his "being"..

Confused on what you mean.....explain some more, please.

[Calm]

I follow his reasoning like this:

If you're God, you're God no matter what else you are in addition to being God. Being Man doesn't make him not God, in his perspective. He is both God AND Man at the same time, whether the "Man" side of him is a mortal man or a deified man.

Personally, I like that idea, and I consider it to be very much in agreement with what our Lord has revealed to us through some of his prophets in these latter days.

Discussion always works better when one looks for the strong points in the others' beliefs, not the (allegedly) weak ones.

Edited September 24, 2011 by calmoriah

[zerinus]

I follow his reasoning like this:

If you're God, you're God no matter what else you are in addition to being God. Being Man doesn't make him not God, in his perspective. He is both God AND Man at the same time, whether the "Man" side of him is a mortal man or a deified man.

Personally, I like that idea, and I consider it to be very much in agreement with what our Lord has revealed to us through some of his prophets in these latter days.

If the logical flaw in his theology could be fixed that easy, he would have done it by now. You are trying to do his thinking for him, and you are not doing a good job of it. Here is how the thread of the argument went. In response to something calmoriah had said, he posted this message:

Let me clear up this common misunderstanding about God having a body being a limitation. The correct understanding of the orthodox position is not that it would somehow diminish God's attributes if he were to take on bodily form. We believe that God did just that in the Incarnation. The orthodox position is that the idea that God's essential nature necessarily includes that he is embodied limits his personal, direct presence to the location of that body. In short, it denies God's omnipresence. The doctrine of the Incarnation does not do this because it teaches that Jesus Christ, the incarnate Son, has two natures: deity, which is omnipresent, and humanity, which is not. The eternal Son of God is omnipresent (e.g., Matt. 18:20; 28:20), but his physical body is not. [emphasis mine.]

There are some gaping holes in that theology from an LDS perspective. From an LDS point of view, the idea that God's essential nature includes that he is embodied does NOT limit his personal, direct presence to the location of that body; and it does NOT deny God’s omnipresence. His idea of the omnipresence of God is that He is literally present in all locations. In other words, He is big enough to be literally everywhere at the same time—something that He would not be able to do if He were confined to a body; or if He had or was a spatially limited body. That is utterly false from an LDS perspective. From an LDS point of view, God not only has a physical body, but He also has a spiritual body. His “essential nature” necessitates that He has some form of a body—if not a physical body then a spiritual body. His “omnipresence” is achieved by means of the Spirit that proceeds from Him, by means of which He is able to know everything, be everywhere, and be in control of all of His creation. But He is confined to a body; if not a physical body then a spiritual body. Hence to his above post I gave the following reply:

That is false doctrine even by traditional Christian theological standards. Traditional Christian theology teaches that Jesus deified the "human nature" that He assumed in mortality, so that He is now fully divine in all aspects of His nature, not that part of Him is still human and part of Him divine:

* * *

That was a correct response to his earlier post because if his earlier argument is valid, the “human part” of Jesus would not be omnipresent; which is not correct. Jesus is as omniscient and as omnipresent in his physical body as He is in His spiritual body; or alternatively, He is as confined spatially in His spiritual body as He is in His physical body. From that point of view His physical body and His spiritual body share the same attributes. He is as omnipresent (or confined) in either body. Once his physical, or natural, or human body is resurrected and glorified, it possesses all the divine attributes of His spiritual body. He is as all-knowing and all-seeing in His physical body as He is in His spiritual body; or alternatively, He is as spatially confined in his spiritual body as He is in His physical body.

The conversation then continued as follows:

Can you provide a reference showing that any of the church fathers understood the "deification" or "divinization" of man to make human beings omnipresent?

It makes them divine. They become "partakers of the divine nature". That means that they acquire the attributes of divinity, including omniscience and omnipresence. They shall "know as they are known" (1 Cor 13:12). How else can somebody become "divine," without acquiring divine attributes?

Which again I believe was the correct reply to him. Deified individuals acquire the attributes of divinity. They “see as they are seen and know as they are known” (D&C 76:94). They become “glorified in truth and know all things” (D&C 93:28). “Wherefore, all things are theirs, whether life or death, or things present, or things to come, all are theirs and they are Christ's, and Christ is God's” (D&C 76:59). He sees the Deity and man of such an essentially different natures that it would be impossible for man to acquire the attributes of divinity such as omnipresence because man has a body, and God does not. That of course is entirely flawed form an LDS perspective.

And the remainder of the conversation went as follows:

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?

Which I believe was a correct response to him, in continuation of the previous dissuasions. I think you guys are fighting a lost cause I am afraid. Rob was smarter! He realized that he had lost the argument, and you guys are still turning the first corner!

Edited September 24, 2011 by zerinus

[Calm]

I think you guys are fighting a lost cause I am afraid.

I am not actually defending Mr. Bowman's belief system when I point out the gaps in your own arguments. I do not know enough about its particulars to do so. You may (or may not) be quite right about his theology. However, there are others whose theology you would be wrong about because with the premises they use in construction, the statement "fully man and fully God" is not contradictory.

If you are limiting your criticism to Mr. Bowman's theology and not applying it to the wider Trinitarian position, then I will leave it between you and Mr. Bowman as it should be.

[zerinus]

I am not actually defending Mr. Bowman's belief system when I point out the gaps in your own arguments. I do not know enough about its particulars to do so. You may (or may not) be quite right about his theology. However, there are others whose theology you would be wrong about because with the premises they use in construction, the statement "fully man and fully God" is not contradictory.

If you are limiting your criticism to Mr. Bowman's theology and not applying it to the wider Trinitarian position, then I will leave it between you and Mr. Bowman as it should be.

Sorry calm, but you don't make a lot of sense to me.

[altersteve]

What about the fact that Jesus is not God anymore.. He gave up his equality when he became human.. you have two different time frames of his "being"..

I have no idea what you're talking about, but Jesus was still God even when He entered mortality. There never was, nor will there ever be, a time when Jesus stopped being God.