Lds Apologetics And The Early Church Fathers

[Spammer]

Spammer #122;

Therefore Jesus did not become man so that man 'may become God' is what you are saying.

This is just semantics and playing games. Both creedal trinitarians and Mormons believe that "God became man so that man could become God". Taken literally, without understanding the phrase in context, a pantheist can find support in that statement for their belief that we'll eventually dissolve into God and actually "become God". Neither creedal trinitarians nor Mormons believe that. Instead, both traditions believe man will become "like God". So of course I believe I may "become God", same as you. I (and the ECFs) just mean something different by the phrase "become God".

Don't care what faith you're in, that's just sad.

It's only sad if you believe God is a man and is able to be hugged. Wishing something was true doesn't make it true.

I don't know of an LDS apologist who quotes the Early Christian Fathers for support in immateriality. in fact, since that's entirely nonbiblical, why should believing it be of any importance to a Christian?

That's not what I was saying. I said that creedal trinitarians start from that premise of an immaterial God. Mormons start from a different premise - that the Father has a body. Your conclusion that the former is unbiblical depends on your paradigm. The Bible doesn't shout its meaning at you. People from different traditions all read the same verses but come up with something different and all believe the Spirit is on their side. Everyone reading the Bible thinks "the Bible is crystal clear and obvious when I read it. Other people are the one's who are misinterpreting." Catholics interpret the verses one way, Mormons, another way, Protestants another way, and non-Christians reading the same verses intepret them another way. It all depends on what you bring with you when you open the book.

Exaltation of man "to become God" is not in the least limiting, sir. Even if the premesis is that the Father is an exalted man. God being exalted is the key. Jesus christ is an exalted man yet I hardly think you'll find it limiting to say that deification is to become like Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ is also material. I don't know of any Christians who believe He got rid of His human body after ascending to heaven. The body, it seems, is a tool which empowers one's spirit in the eternities.

Sorry, I typed too fast. I intended to say "It's only limiting if you start from the premise that the Father is uncreated and immaterial." I can see how you see the creedal view of theosis limiting; you believe God is an exalted man and you believe you will become exactly what he is. That's was what I was trying to say, badly. But since I don't believe God is a man, I don't view this as limiting, not by a long shot. We won't and can't be exactly what God is. He is uncreated and immaterial; we are created and material. But it's amazing what we will become, that we can even dare to approach the ineffable holy God, and that he will bestow his divinity upon us. It's mindboggling. It all depends on the kind of God you believe in. The ECF's believed in an immaterial God,too, and they were just as mystified and amazed by the possibility of being divinized by the ineffable God.

You mentioned that seeing Jesus is seeing the Father and Jesus is embodied and takes up space and time, no? In fact, Jesus declared the doctrine of seeing Him is seeing the Father while embodied and while taking up space and time. How the Early Christian Fathers came to conclude that God is immaterial is controversial howbeit largly accepted as an eternal paradigm.

"Even the presumption that spirit means being immaterial is not scriptural, and is the product of later thinking: "in Scripture...there is no indication that by spirit and soul were meant any such principles as form or immateriality."^[2]"

http://en.fairmormon...God/Corporality

" For it is also to be a subject of investigation how God himself is to be understood—whether as corporeal, and formed according to some shape, or of a different nature from bodies—a point which is not clearly indicated in our teaching.^[9]"

http://en.fairmormon...oreality_of_God

Yes, Jesus and the Father are One. They share one divine essence and are One God. That's the trinitarian view. We interpret all of the bibilical verses in that framework. You have your own mode of interpretation. The verses in question can be, and are, viewed in different ways.

Thak you!!! So when Iranaeus said "man may become God" you must specify that he did not really mean "man may become God", correct? But within LDS theological circles, that's very much what it means.

You don't realy mean "man may become God" either, not literally, like a pantheist. Both of us mean "man may become [like] God". The difference lies in the issue of "how much like?" Obviously, the LDS view is that we will be "exactly like" God, since you believe you and God are of the same species.

How is beginning with the premise that man is of the same essence of an exalted, omnipotent being limiting to man?

I hope I cleared that up. I wasn't saying that.

You're saying philosophy comes first, doctrine second. I tend to hold to the inverse as truth.

No one approaches the Bible as a blank slate. Everyone interprets and reinterprets based on their paradigm. Bible verses alone are insufficient to find the truth. They don't scream their inner meaning at you when you open the book to a particular page. You look at a verse and your paradigm-rooted thoughts tell you what the verse means when you read it. The interpretive framework comes first. Philosophy is only a part of that framework.

Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!

But that's OK. The Bible rejects yours.

Says you. Or rather, so says your interpretation.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Spammer

[Ahab]

It's only sad if you believe God is a man and is able to be hugged. Wishing something was true doesn't make it true.

We do, though, and that explains why it is a sad thought, to us. He is able to be hugged. What's sad is that you don't know that.

[Stone holm]

Yes, Jesus and the Father are One. They share one divine essence and are One God. That's the trinitarian view. We interpret all of the bibilical verses in that framework.

.

If that is your interpretation, then do we in becoming like God share his essence? To what extent is that essence shared? Does Jesus, under your view, still exist? What was the point of the resurrection of His physical body? Does He still have it? If He doesn't still have it, then what was all the fuss about eating fish, having people poke him in the side, etc.?

[Spammer]

No, we participate in his energies, not his essence. Only Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share in that essence. Jesus was resurrected, his glorified, resurrected body is physical and also to transcend space-time. The matter of his body is divinized. We will likewise receive such a glorified body in the resurrection. Of the members of the Trinity, only Jesus has acquired a body like ours.

[Ahab]

If that is your interpretation, then do we in becoming like God share his essence? To what extent is that essence shared? Does Jesus, under your view, still exist? What was the point of the resurrection of His physical body? Does He still have it? If He doesn't still have it, then what was all the fuss about eating fish, having people poke him in the side, etc.?

Why are you asking him questions as if he can give you the correct answers? Try thinking of God's essence as something like God's DNA.

[MormonMason]

Yes, Jesus and the Father are One. They share one divine essence and are One God. That's the trinitarian view. We interpret all of the bibilical verses in that framework. You have your own mode of interpretation. The verses in question can be, and are, viewed in different ways.

And the vast majority of manuscripts of the Greek New Testament also tell us that we will be one with Father and Son just as Father and Son are one, one spirit with the Lord in the same realm of power as the Son, joint heirs with Christ of all God has and common sharers of the divine nature with the same glory as that of God himself. So says the Greek New Testament at any rate.

[MormonMason]

No, we participate in his energies, not his essence. Only Father, Son, and Holy Spirit share in that essence. Jesus was resurrected, his glorified, resurrected body is physical and also to transcend space-time. The matter of his body is divinized. We will likewise receive such a glorified body in the resurrection. Of the members of the Trinity, only Jesus has acquired a body like ours.

And this is where I believe that the Orthodox went wrong, in part. The Greek New Testament is clear that we may become common sharers of the divine nature (the nature that makes God what he is). God's nature is his essence. It is also clear that mankind are descendants of God. Early Christianity abandoned and/or redefined those beliefs long ago.

[Spammer]

We do, though, and that explains why it is a sad thought, to us. He is able to be hugged. What's sad is that you don't know that.

I understand. I'd be sad, too, if I still believed what you believe.

Edited May 22, 2013 by Spammer

[MormonMason]

So, when Jesus suggested that the Father had a shape (shape is a characteristic of 3-dimensionality, by the way), he was only kidding?

[Darren10]

It's only sad if you believe God is a man and is able to be hugged. Wishing something was true doesn't make it true.

All I know is that when I graduate from mortality I'll need a big hug. I want it from my Father.

That's not what I was saying. I said that creedal trinitarians start from that premise of an immaterial God. Mormons start from a different premise - that the Father has a body. Your conclusion that the former is unbiblical depends on your paradigm. The Bible doesn't shout its meaning at you. People from different traditions all read the same verses but come up with something different and all believe the Spirit is on their side. Everyone reading the Bible thinks "the Bible is crystal clear and obvious when I read it. Other people are the one's who are misinterpreting." Catholics interpret the verses one way, Mormons, another way, Protestants another way, and non-Christians reading the same verses intepret them another way. It all depends on what you bring with you when you open the book.

But injecting immateriality is philosophy and you advocate that philosophy should predicate and set things up for doctrine. I find this the very antithesis of how Jesus taught. The Sermon on the Mount, for example, was purely doctrinal and founded on doctrines already understood. "Immasteriality" is not doctrinal but the conclusions of man regarding doctrine therefore has no place in establishing a foundation of doctrinal truths in Christianity.

We won't and can't be exactly what God is.

You and I agree that no one will ever superceed or become His equal regarding who is praised and adored throughout eternity. Elohim is our God and forever will be our God. His Lamb is our God and will forever be our God. The Holy Ghost's role in the eternities is not explictly stated but no doubt He will be our eternal God as the third person of the Godhead.

He is uncreated and immaterial;

The only explicit doctrine I know of declares the Father uncreated and I find the best way to understand that is uncreated ex nihilo. Even Jesus is uncreated ex nihilo but by being created ex materia He is both created and eternal in existence.

But it's amazing what we will become, that we can even dare to approach the ineffable holy God, and that he will bestow his divinity upon us. It's mindboggling.

No doubt.

You don't realy mean "man may become God" either, not literally, like a pantheist.

In terms of replacing God, your correct but in glory and pwoer, yes. And as our glory and power raises to that of God, God Himself receives ultimate glory and praise eternal.

The difference lies in the issue of "how much like?"

Exactly and thus far you have made arguments which set up God as something we are not and will never be. Thus I say that the phease in and of itsel is strange amongst Christians except for the LDS.

Obviously, the LDS view is that we will be "exactly like" God, since you believe you and God are of the same species.

Correct but I'd like to qualify that God will forever be exalted above man, no matter what state of exaltation man receives from God's grace.

Bible verses alone are insufficient to find the truth.

That opens up the notion for the need for living revelation both personal and via a living prophet of God. For another time, perhaps.

Says you. Or rather, so says your interpretation.

Heh!!!

[Darren10]

I understand. I'd be sad, too, if I still believed what you believe.

Do you believe you can hug Jesus but not the Father?

[Spammer]

Dostoevsky of course changed much to suit his own conceptions, but the monastery of Optina Pustyn did have a profound influence on him, and the Brothers Karamzov is saturated with Hesychastic notions. Definitely tome for me to reread it.

I love Dostoevsky. The Idiot is next on my list. That's one I have yet to read.

[Ahab]

I understand. I'd be sad, too, if I still believed what you believe.

No, if you believed what I believe you'd be as happy as me unless you'd just rather not be able to hug our Father.

[Stone holm]

And the vast majority of manuscripts of the Greek New Testament also tell us that we will be one with Father and Son just as Father and Son are one, one spirit with the Lord in the same realm of power as the Son, joint heirs with Christ of all God has and common sharers of the divine nature with the same glory as that of God himself. So says the Greek New Testament at any rate.

So if you believe that Christ is one with the Father and the Trinitarians believe Heis without body parts or passion, etc. and we are to be one in the same manner ...then...oh well

[MormonMason]

So if you believe that Christ is one with the Father and the Trinitarians believe Heis without body parts or passion, etc. and we are to be one in the same manner ...then...oh well

Origen actually tried to pull that one in one of his arguments. He was of the opinion that the Father was immaterial rather than physical. He had much difficulty with the idea of corporeality of Christ and of man with deification, and tried to reconcile the earlier doctrine of theosis with such a view by implying that even the body of Christ itself would become immaterial and that the bodies of all the Saints also would become such and lose the physical character over time. To him, it was either accept that view or forever despair of ever living the kind of life that God lives because our conditions would have to be the conditions in which God exists. I'm tired and am having trouble concentrating at the moment so, before retiring, I'll just quote him:

“Since, as I have often said, a new beginning springs from the end, it may be asked whether bodies will then continue to exist, or whether, when they have been annihilated, we shall live without bodies and be incorporeal as we know God to be. Now there can be no doubt but that, if bodies or, as the apostle calls them, visible things, belong only to our sensible world, the life of the disembodied will be incorporeal.” And a little farther on: “when the apostle writes, ‘the creation shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the glory of the children of God,’ I explain his words thus. Reasonable and incorporeal beings are the highest of God’s creatures, for not being clothed with bodies they are not the slaves of corruption. Since where there are bodies, there corruption is sure to be found. But hereafter ‘the creation shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption,’ and then men shall receive the glory of the children of God and God shall be all in all.” And in the same passage he writes: “that the final state will be an incorporeal one is rendered credible by the words of our Saviour’s prayer: ‘as thou, Father, art in me and I in thee, that they also may be one in us.’ For we ought to realize what God is and what the Saviour will finally be, and how the likeness to the Father and the Son here promised to the Saints consists in this that as They are one in Themselves so we shall be one in Them. For if in the end the life of the Saints is to be assimilated to the life of God, we must either admit that the Lord of the universe is clothed with a body and that he is enveloped in matter as we are in flesh; or, if it is unbecoming to suppose this, especially in persons who have but small clues from which to infer God’s majesty and to guess at the glory of His innate and transcendent nature, we are reduced to the following dilemma. Either we shall always have bodies and in that case must despair of ever being like God; or, if the blessedness of the life of God is really promised to us, the conditions of His life must be the conditions of ours.”

(Jerome Epistle to Avitus, Letter CXXIV.10. Cited from here.)

[Spammer]

Friends, the Orthodox life is a life of prayer. We call our churches temples and every one of them has a veil covered with icons, a holy of holies behind the veil, and an altar inside the holy of holies. Our prayers are chanted and sung. In fact, our Divine Liturgy and other services (e.g., Vespers, Orthros) are entirely sung and chanted. Every service is nothing but prayer to God, except for a homily in the middle during the Liturgy. I just thought I'd share a few examples of how Orthodox Christians pray. Russian and Byzantine melodies are the most common. The Russian example is a service. The Byzantine example is a performance, but this will give you an idea of what services in the Greek churches sound like. My own parish is tiny and we don't sound this awesome, but this will give you an idea of the way we pray. You'll also notice that white shirts in the temple are rare and all men are encouraged to wear beards.

Russian chant:

Byzantine chant: [media=]

Edited May 23, 2013 by Spammer

[Stone holm]

Origen actually tried to pull that one in one of his arguments. He was of the opinion that the Father was immaterial rather than physical. He had much difficulty with the idea of corporeality of Christ and of man with deification, and tried to reconcile the earlier doctrine of theosis with such a view by implying that even the body of Christ itself would become immaterial and that the bodies of all the Saints also would become such and lose the physical character over time. To him, it was either accept that view or forever despair of ever living the kind of life that God lives because our conditions would have to be the conditions in which God exists. I'm tired and am having trouble concentrating at the moment so, before retiring, I'll just quote him:

Yeah I think you nailed the problem, that is why our belief in an anthropomorphic God is at the crux of this issue, and I have a lot of faith in your average Christian, and I think that despite the creeds the average Christian carries around in his head the vision of Heavenly Father as a very vigorous grandfather who is stern but loving. And if asked what they really thought of the Trinitarian doctrine they would say they were without a clue what that doublespeak means.

[Spammer]

Why are you asking him questions as if he can give you the correct answers? Try thinking of God's essence as something like God's DNA.

I can give him correct answers about what Orthodox Christians believe and we believe God's essence is nothing like DNA.

[Spammer]

And the vast majority of manuscripts of the Greek New Testament also tell us that we will be one with Father and Son just as Father and Son are one, one spirit with the Lord in the same realm of power as the Son, joint heirs with Christ of all God has and common sharers of the divine nature with the same glory as that of God himself. So says the Greek New Testament at any rate.

I don't know how to read greek, so I'll have to take your word for it or the word of others who read the same text in greek and arrive at a different conclusion.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Spammer

[Spammer]

And this is where I believe that the Orthodox went wrong, in part. The Greek New Testament is clear that we may become common sharers of the divine nature (the nature that makes God what he is). God's nature is his essence. It is also clear that mankind are descendants of God. Early Christianity abandoned and/or redefined those beliefs long ago.

It may be clear to you and those who agree with you, but others who can read greek read the same Greek NT and arrive at a different conclusion.

[Spammer]

So, when Jesus suggested that the Father had a shape (shape is a characteristic of 3-dimensionality, by the way), he was only kidding?

Maybe when Jesus said no one has seen the Father's shape that's because he doesn't have a shape. Or maybe he was speaking allegorically. Or maybe he meant it literally, as you supposed. Hard to say. People don't agree on what that verse means, not even Bible scholars who can read greek.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Spammer

[Spammer]

All I know is that when I graduate from mortality I'll need a big hug. I want it from my Father.

I used to feel the same way.

But injecting immateriality is philosophy and you advocate that philosophy should predicate and set things up for doctrine. I find this the very antithesis of how Jesus taught. The Sermon on the Mount, for example, was purely doctrinal and founded on doctrines already understood. "Immasteriality" is not doctrinal but the conclusions of man regarding doctrine therefore has no place in establishing a foundation of doctrinal truths in Christianity.

Injecting materiality is just as philosophical. The NT text is ambiguous and we all bring philosophy and assumptions to it.

You and I agree that no one will ever superceed or become His equal regarding who is praised and adored throughout eternity. Elohim is our God and forever will be our God. His Lamb is our God and will forever be our God. The Holy Ghost's role in the eternities is not explictly stated but no doubt He will be our eternal God as the third person of the Godhead.

The only explicit doctrine I know of declares the Father uncreated and I find the best way to understand that is uncreated ex nihilo. Even Jesus is uncreated ex nihilo but by being created ex materia He is both created and eternal in existence.

I'm not sure what you're saying here. For us, uncreated means always existing. Eternal means the same. Both terms apply to the uncreated life outside time and space.

In terms of replacing God, your correct but in glory and pwoer, yes. And as our glory and power raises to that of God, God Himself receives ultimate glory and praise eternal.

Exactly and thus far you have made arguments which set up God as something we are not and will never be. Thus I say that the phease in and of itsel is strange amongst Christians except for the LDS.

Ok, as long as the LDS belief is that "man can become just like God because God is a man and is of the same species as men" then I agree. That phrase is strange amongst Christians except for the LDS.

Correct but I'd like to qualify that God will forever be exalted above man, no matter what state of exaltation man receives from God's grace.

Yes, that's what I was taught when I was LDS.

That opens up the notion for the need for living revelation both personal and via a living prophet of God. For another time, perhaps.

Heh!!!

Or, it opens the need for a Tradition delivered by the apostles to the bishops and church councils guided by the Spirit. We've come full circle.

Edited May 23, 2013 by Spammer

[Spammer]

Do you believe you can hug Jesus but not the Father?

That's right. The Son is Incarnate; the Father is not. But the distinction is irrelevant as there is only one God, not three. Jesus is God in the flesh.

[Spammer]

No, if you believed what I believe you'd be as happy as me unless you'd just rather not be able to hug our Father.

I'm glad you're happy. I'm happy, too. My life is richly blessed.

[Spammer]

So if you believe that Christ is one with the Father and the Trinitarians believe Heis without body parts or passion, etc. and we are to be one in the same manner ...then...oh well

The confusion you perceive only follows if you first assume that the Father is embodied and adopt a materialist cosmos.