Lds Apologetics And The Early Church Fathers

[Spammer]

Immaterial...what does that mean? How can something that is immaterial have substance? Wouldn't the substance be a type of material...thus it cannot be immaterial...?

If something is immaterial, does that mean it is like a thought? or an idea? or a philosophy? I can see those being immaterial and without substance...but then someone else has to generate them, and that doesn't fit what is being said.

In the LDS view, everything is made up of material or matter. A spirit is material made of matter more refined.

So when a non-LDS person says God is immaterial... That is like saying God does not exist...or is only a thought, idea, or philosophy that does not exist independently.

So what does "immaterial" mean?

(sorry if this doesn't fit this thread, or if it is a given that is already understood by the majority)

A thought or idea is immaterial. We traditional Christians believe God and spirit are immaterial. This comes from our belief that God 'resides', 'lives' outside time and space (whatever that means, we have no reference points, so we can't imagine it, although we can conceive it). He transcends. Matter and materiality only exist within space. If you leave (transcend) space, you leave matter behind. Moving from one place to another just means you're only occupying some other space. Moving from this universe to another means you're still in space. You haven't moved beyond space. The problem is how can a body transcend space and still remain a body? How can God be material and still be thought to transcend? Great question! The LDS view (as I understand it) is that there is nothing 'beyond' time and space. There's only the material cosmos, time and space, and spirit is just a refined kind of matter. Perhaps the idea is that his mind transcends, but not his body. God lives in space, has a body of finite dimensions, and possesses spatial coordinates, meaning he's somewhere "over there" therefore He isn't "here". He won't be "here" unless he moves. The Catholic-Orthodox view is that divinized categories such as "place", "region", "area", "movement", "time", "space', don't apply to God, as he is outside time and space. We believe that, through the process of deification, matter is able to somehow transcend. As resurrected, divinized beings, we will somehow transcend, just like Jesus. The matter of our bodies will be the kind of matter of Jesus's resurrected, glorified body. I supposed it's the same kind of idea behind Joseph Smith's "refined matter" idea. It's matter that's somehow different. Heaven will be the new heaven and new, transformed cosmos and we will dwell in it with Christ in the Presence of the Father. Stuck in the non-divinized physical cosmos as we currently are, we have no reference points to understand what this will be like. All we know is that matter in its current state is subject to degredation and change. Divinized, matter will be qualitatively different. Christ's atonement was accomplished precisely to enable this transformation. All will be wrapped up and completed when He comes again. As I said earlier, C.S. Lewis tried to get a handle on all of this in his book "The Great Divorce".

Edited May 24, 2013 by Spammer

[Stone holm]

A thought or idea is immaterial. We believe God and spirit is immaterial. This comes from our belief that God 'resides', 'lives' outside time and space. Matter and materiality only exist within space. If you leave (transcend) space, you leave matter behind. Moving from one place to another just means you're only occupying some other space. You haven't moved beyond space. The problem is how can a body transcend space and still remain a body? How can God be material and still be thought to transcend? Great question! The Catholic-Orthodox view is that divinized matter is able to somehow transcend. As resurrected, divinized beings, we will transcend, just like Jesus. Heaven will be the new heaven and new earth. Stuck in the non-divinized physical cosmos as we are, we have no reference points to understand what this will be like. As I said earlier, C.S. Lewis tried to get a handle on this in his Great Divorce.

So you believe that there is an existence beyond the ball that went "big bang" as first cause. Not sure it is really true that thought is immaterial, a fair number of neurologists would probably contest that statement.

[ChristKnight]

Immaterial...what does that mean? How can something that is immaterial have substance? Wouldn't the substance be a type of material...thus it cannot be immaterial...?

If something is immaterial, does that mean it is like a thought? or an idea? or a philosophy? I can see those being immaterial and without substance...but then someone else has to generate them, and that doesn't fit what is being said.

In the LDS view, everything is made up of material or matter. A spirit is material made of matter more refined.

So when a non-LDS person says God is immaterial... That is like saying God does not exist...or is only a thought, idea, or philosophy that does not exist independently.

So what does "immaterial" mean?

(sorry if this doesn't fit this thread, or if it is a given that is already understood by the majority)

From my understanding, "immaterial" means not composed of matter. Catholics/Orthodox believe that God "transcends" matter, since He created it. Matter did not exist before God created it, therefore God is immaterial (or so it goes). Presumably, being "material" is not the only way something or someone can exist in this viewpoint. "Substance", in the [philosophical] sense used by Catholics/Orthodox when talking about "one substance" or "consubstantial", is not talking about what something is made of, or a type of material. Instead, it is talking about what something "is". A better word is "nature".

LDS have a different understanding. LDS believe that matter is eternal, and exists independently of God. Catholics/Orthodox believe that nothing exists independently of God, and God created everything in existence (God is the only entity or "thing" that is uncreated and eternal). "Spirit" is therefore seen as immaterial.

When Joseph Smith said that there "is no such thing as immaterial matter", traditional Christians would agree. They don't claim that something is immaterial and matter/material at the same time, as that would be illogical. They do however believe that something can be immaterial and still exist.

[Spammer]

So you believe that there is an existence beyond the ball that went "big bang" as first cause. Not sure it is really true that thought is immaterial, a fair number of neurologists would probably contest that statement.

Whether God is material or immaterial, it's clear that something (God) existed beyond the ball that went "big bang". Unless there is nothing beyond that ball and God has always lived within the material universe and was right there physically present inside the compressed singularity, tiny in size, when it went bang. If there was no existence beyond the ball before the bang and God is material and has always existed, then by implication God was inside the singularity and itty-bitty in size before it exploded.

Regarding the neurologists, belief in the materiality of thought necessarily leads to determinism and the denial of free will. If our thoughts are only particles in motion subject to the laws of physics, then they are determined by physical forces, energy and particles impinging upon them and causing change, and subject to the laws of causation.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Spammer

[Darren10]

We also believe that being material does not limit Jesus' divine abilities. God cannot be limited. I think the flaw you perceive lies in the fact that perhaps you think we believe that the Father cannot be material. We don't believe this. The Father can become incarnate should he choose to do so. We believe only the Son was incarnate. Only one incarnation of God is required and it was the Son who did this.

Material is corrupt or so the thinking goes from my understanding. Also, Since Jesus took upon Himself material, was He not subject to space ant time? If so than doesn't that limit Him? If not than material does not necessitate having to take space and time as we know it. That's my realy purpose in focusing on Jesus' materiality.

We really aren't all that far apart. We Orthodox (and Catholics, too) believe we will become just like Jesus, with the caveat that Jesus is the God-Man, two natures (divine and human) in one person (we don't believe Jesus is half-God, half-man; he is fully God, fully man). We will be divinized men retaining only our one human nature.

Than tha goes to show that being man is not inherently limited. Not by nature but by choice. Jesus always made perfect, uncorruptable choices and thus was never limited; even by having material.

[Spammer]

Material is corrupt or so the thinking goes from my understanding. Also, Since Jesus took upon Himself material, was He not subject to space ant time? If so than doesn't that limit Him? If not than material does not necessitate having to take space and time as we know it. That's my realy purpose in focusing on Jesus' materiality.

Yes, Jesus's body was subject to space and time, and the vagaries of corrupted nature (weakness, death), before His resurrection.

Than tha goes to show that being man is not inherently limited. Not by nature but by choice. Jesus always made perfect, uncorruptable choices and thus was never limited; even by having material.

Like Jesus before His resurrection, our bodies are subject to space and time. Unlike Jesus, our wills are also corrupted. We are weak and sinful.

[Darren10]

How is it possible for man to know God and, at the same time, affirm that God is by nature unknowable? St. Gregory answered this question by quoting St. Basil the Great who said "We know our God from His energies, but we do not claim that we can draw near to His essence. For His energies come down to us, but His essence remains unapproachable". St. Gregory added "God is not a nature, for He is above all beings.... No single thing of all that is created has or ever will have even the slightest communion with the supreme nature, or nearness to it". Even though God's essence may be remote from us, He has revealed Himself through His energies (or grace). These energies do not exist apart from God, but are God Himself in His action and revelation to the world. It is through these energies that God enters into a direct and immediate relationship with us. When we say that the saints are 'deified' by the grace of God, we mean that they have a direct experience of God Himself through his energies (or grace), not in His essence.

St Gregory Palamas (~1359 AD)

[Flyonthewall]

A thought or idea is immaterial. We traditional Christians believe God and spirit are immaterial. This comes from our belief that God 'resides', 'lives' outside time and space (whatever that means, we have no reference points, so we can't imagine it, although we can conceive it). He transcends. Matter and materiality only exist within space. If you leave (transcend) space, you leave matter behind. Moving from one place to another just means you're only occupying some other space. Moving from this universe to another means you're still in space. You haven't moved beyond space. The problem is how can a body transcend space and still remain a body? How can God be material and still be thought to transcend? Great question! The LDS view (as I understand it) is that there is nothing 'beyond' time and space. There's only the material cosmos, time and space, and spirit is just a refined kind of matter. Perhaps the idea is that his mind transcends, but not his body. God lives in space, has a body of finite dimensions, and possesses spatial coordinates, meaning he's somewhere "over there" therefore He isn't "here". He won't be "here" unless he moves. The Catholic-Orthodox view is that divinized categories such as "place", "region", "area", "movement", "time", "space', don't apply to God, as he is outside time and space. We believe that, through the process of deification, matter is able to somehow transcend. As resurrected, divinized beings, we will somehow transcend, just like Jesus. The matter of our bodies will be the kind of matter of Jesus's resurrected, glorified body. I supposed it's the same kind of idea behind Joseph Smith's "refined matter" idea. It's matter that's somehow different. Heaven will be the new heaven and new, transformed cosmos and we will dwell in it with Christ in the Presence of the Father. Stuck in the non-divinized physical cosmos as we currently are, we have no reference points to understand what this will be like. All we know is that matter in its current state is subject to degredation and change. Divinized, matter will be qualitatively different. Christ's atonement was accomplished precisely to enable this transformation. All will be wrapped up and completed when He comes again. As I said earlier, C.S. Lewis tried to get a handle on all of this in his book "The Great Divorce".

So...if I am understanding correctly, "immaterial" simply means outside of time and space...no "here" or "there" but just is. Not that God is made up of nothing, but something we are not aware of....?

Sounds like the difference between a mortal body and a glorified and exalted body.

It seems like the more some differences are explained to me, the less of a difference there really is. Oh, we may use different terminology, "immaterial" vs "golrified & exalted", but basically it is a tomayto / tomahto thing. We may try to force differences, but in the end, when the concept is cleaned up by God, we both will be looking at the same thing.

[Darren10]

Yes, Jesus's body was subject to space and time, and the vagaries of corrupted nature (weakness, death), before His resurrection.

How could Jesus be subject top space, time, and weakness if He is "fully God" and God not be?

[Spammer]

How could Jesus be subject top space, time, and weakness if He is "fully God" and God not be?

See St. Gregory's statement I quoted earlier. Christ assumed our nature, he emptied himself, became one of us while also retaining his divinity (fully God and fully man). He united his divine nature with our human nature, willingly subjecting his divinity to corrupt material nature (change, aging, weakness, death) in order to transform that nature.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Spammer

[Spammer]

So...if I am understanding correctly, "immaterial" simply means outside of time and space...no "here" or "there" but just is. Not that God is made up of nothing, but something we are not aware of....?

Sounds like the difference between a mortal body and a glorified and exalted body.

It seems like the more some differences are explained to me, the less of a difference there really is. Oh, we may use different terminology, "immaterial" vs "golrified & exalted", but basically it is a tomayto / tomahto thing. We may try to force differences, but in the end, when the concept is cleaned up by God, we both will be looking at the same thing.

Yes, no here or there, but just is. God IS. He is the I AM. He is Being itself. I agree that the differences are slighter than normally thought, but the Trinitarian foundation of our belief (the Father is not a man and never has been) seems insurmountable.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Spammer

[Darren10]

See St. Gregory's statement I quoted earlier. Christ assumed our nature, he emptied himself, became one of us while also retaining his divinity (fully God and fully man).

Must be an energy/essence thing.

[Flyonthewall]

Yes, no here or there, but just is. God IS. He is the I AM. He is Being itself. I agree that the differences are slighter than normally thought, but the Trinitarian foundation of our belief (the Father is not a man and never has been) seems insurmountable.

Not to me. Like the 5 blind men and the elephant, while one may argue that an elephant is like a wall, and could never be like a tree/rope/spear/snake, when our blinders are off we will still be looking at the same thing.

If LDS are correct and God is an Exalted Man, Glorified and Perfected, and you were standing before Him, will you reject Him because your understanding was off?

I know if my understanding in this life was wrong, and He was never a man, I would not reject Him, because the concept of God was still true even though I did not understand it correctly.

[Spammer]

Not to me. Like the 5 blind men and the elephant, while one may argue that an elephant is like a wall, and could never be like a tree/rope/spear/snake, when our blinders are off we will still be looking at the same thing.

If LDS are correct and God is an Exalted Man, Glorified and Perfected, and you were standing before Him, will you reject Him because your understanding was off?

I know if my understanding in this life was wrong, and He was never a man, I would not reject Him, because the concept of God was still true even though I did not understand it correctly.

I see what you're saying now. I agree 100% with your statement here. The insurmountability I mentioned only applies to our current differing conceptions of the divine, while we still live in mortality and "see through a glass, darkly".

[thesometimesaint]

Yes, no here or there, but just is. God IS. He is the I AM. He is Being itself. I agree that the differences are slighter than normally thought, but the Trinitarian foundation of our belief (the Father is not a man and never has been) seems insurmountable.

How do you explain

Genesis 3:22

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

[Spammer]

Must be an energy/essence thing.

I don't think so. We participate only in the energies. Jesus shares in the essence and did, even while he was voluntarily subject in his flesh to change, aging, weakness, and death.

[Ahab]

So...if I am understanding correctly, "immaterial" simply means outside of time and space...no "here" or "there" but just is. Not that God is made up of nothing, but something we are not aware of....?

Sounds like the difference between a mortal body and a glorified and exalted body.

No, because a glorified and exallted body is still material and it still exists in space and time just as our mortal bodies do.

What they're really describing is a being which doesn't really exist. Any kind of being that isn't composed of some kind of matter and isn't here or there or anywhere else in particular in any place or at any time? Come on now. You couldn't describe a non-existent being any more clearly than that no matter how hard you might try.

[Darren10]

I don't think so. We participate only in the energies. Jesus shares in the essence and did, even while he was voluntarily subject in his flesh to change, aging, weakness, and death.

Exactly my statement. Jesus shares in God's essence, man does not or cannot and therefore Jesus and only Jesus can be both subjet to space and time and not subject to space and time at the same. Neat. Weird, but neat.

[Spammer]

Exactly my statement. Jesus shares in God's essence, man does not or cannot and therefore Jesus and only Jesus can be both subjet to space and time and not subject to space and time at the same. Neat. Weird, but neat.

Oh ok, I get you now. Yes, that's what we believe. After our divinization, we'll have bodies just like Jesus, the God-Man's body. Our bodies will be resurrected and glorified in just the same way. It's in that sense that we believe man will be God.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Spammer

[Darren10]

Oh ok, I get you now. Yes, that's what we believe. After our divinization, we'll have bodies just like Jesus, the God-Man's body. Our bodies will be resurrected and glorified in just the same way. It's in that sense that we believe man will be God.

Um, no, that's not what I meant though true.

Edited May 24, 2013 by Darren10

[Spammer]

Um, no, that's not what I meant though true.

I was only noting that I agreed with your characterization of the belief's implications.

[Stone holm]

How do you explain

Genesis 3:22

And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:

Well obviously he had just eaten a prune and appeared to be turning into a gaseous substance without form...

[MormonMason]

Are all of the verses intended to be interpreted literally or allegorically? How do you know? What was the intention of the authors? How do you know? The interpretive framework you bring to the text, even if reading the original greek, governs the way those questions are answered. LDS church members assume an Apostasy and Restoration so the references to the Father's "face", "shape", "image", and "form" are interpreted literally. The Catholic-Orthodox tradition interprets those same references allegorically.

...

The basic rule of thumb is whether or not there is the presence of symbolical and/or allegorical imagery, and lack of comparative, literal elements, in the original language texts. When such allegorical and/or symbolical elements are absent, the texts are intended by the authors to be taken literally, particularly more so if there is the presence of comparative, literal elements in that text and other texts of related meaning and usage.

The Catholic-Orthodox tradition was forced to make every anthropomorphic text allegorical due to changes to the doctrines underlying the concept of the Trinity over time. The same occurred in Judaism under the influence of Greek philosophy, and particularly so under the influence of Maimonides.

Edited May 24, 2013 by MormonMason

[Stone holm]

The basic rule of thumb is whether or not there is the presence of symbolical and/or allegorical imagery, and lack of comparative, literal elements, in the original language texts. When such allegorical and/or symbolical elements are absent, the texts are intended by the authors to be taken literally, particularly more so if there is the presence of comparative, literal elements in that text and other texts of related meaning and usage.

The Catholic-Orthodox tradition was forced to make every anthropomorphic text allegorical due to changes to the doctrines underlying the concept of the Trinity over time. The same occurred in Judaism under the influence of Greek philosophy, and particularly so under the influence of Maimonides.

What does an "allegorical face" describe?

[Spammer]

The basic rule of thumb is whether or not there is the presence of symbolical and/or allegorical imagery, and lack of comparative, literal elements, in the original language texts. When such allegorical and/or symbolical elements are absent, the texts are intended by the authors to be taken literally....[snip]

Who established this rule and on what authority?