For the sake of man as created in the image of God (Elie Wiesel)

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

If God and mankind are the same kind of being (of the same nature), then it seems to mean 
you view Adam and Eve as deities (i.e. gods, whether or not they are more mature than 
other spirits in the progression path)

Yeah, though not fully developed "gods".

I'm one of those of us who prefers to say we are all God (using the word God to refer to our kind of being), than to refer to each of us individually as "gods", though.

 

[Freedom]

4 hours ago, theplains said:

The post related to man as created in the image of God.

Jim

Again, you have to use some definitions otherwise we are talking past each other. Godhood is not a species, it is a state of being. Just as Adulthood is not a species. Children are not adults and Adam and Eve were not Gods. We are gods in the sense that we have the potential to become so, but just because God is our Father, this no more makes us Gods than my being an adult makes my younger children adults. 

[Ahab]

22 hours ago, Freedom said:

Again, you have to use some definitions otherwise we are talking past each other. Godhood is not a species, it is a state of being. Just as Adulthood is not a species. Children are not adults and Adam and Eve were not Gods. We are gods in the sense that we have the potential to become so, but just because God is our Father, this no more makes us Gods than my being an adult makes my younger children adults. 

It's no wonder that there is some confusion on this issue when it seems that even we (LDS) do not agree with each other about this.

If we all used the word "God" to refer to the kind of being our Father is while realizing that we are already the same kind of being as him then we wouldn't be having so much of a problem referring to the kind of being we are as "God" even if other people did not agree with us about that.

But, alas, it seems that some of us either haven't realized that yet or maybe they would just prefer not to say so.

[Five Solas]

On 7/7/2016 at 1:19 PM, mfbukowski said:

I will be glad to do so a little later, but I consider the idea of two natures a strictly semantic game which begs the question from the start.

Until I get back I suggest you look up "virus dormitiva", which is the creation of a supposed new category out of words alone. Also please read up on "category mistake"

Both will be prominent in our discussion. 

This two nature solution is dreamt up strictly to supposedly solve the problem but it doesn't. It is smoke and mirrors, logically 

You invariably make a little go a long way, mfbukowski (as evidenced by the reputation points you got for the above + your previous reply to me).  But it must be time for you to be back--given you've since replied to another poster on this thread.  So, how about it?  (Yes, I looked up your terms & no, I don't see how the Hypostatic Union is the linguistic equivalent of "time crawled"--however optimistic some LDS on the forum seem to be about your assertion.) 

--Erik

PS.  As long as it doesn't involve another Richard Rorty video...

PPS.  Conference in Toronto this coming week, flying out tomorrow bright & early--so might be a little slow to respond myself

:0)

[Freedom]

3 hours ago, Ahab said:

It's no wonder that there is some confusion on this issue when it seems that even we (LDS) do not agree with each other about this.

If we all used the word "God" to refer to the kind of being our Father is while realizing that we are already the same kind of being as him then we wouldn't be having so much of a problem referring to the kind of being we are as "God" even if other people did not agree with us about that.

But, alas, it seems that some of us either haven't realized that yet or maybe they would just prefer not to say so.

Since god is something we become then god is not our species. My neighbor is a plumber, does that make him a different species? Are those destined to outer darkness also gods?

[mfbukowski]

On 7/9/2016 at 8:16 PM, Five Solas said:

You invariably make a little go a long way, mfbukowski (as evidenced by the reputation points you got for the above + your previous reply to me).  But it must be time for you to be back--given you've since replied to another poster on this thread.  So, how about it?  (Yes, I looked up your terms & no, I don't see how the Hypostatic Union is the linguistic equivalent of "time crawled"--however optimistic some LDS on the forum seem to be about your assertion.) 

--Erik

PS.  As long as it doesn't involve another Richard Rorty video...

PPS.  Conference in Toronto this coming week, flying out tomorrow bright & early--so might be a little slow to respond myself

:0)

OK well I am not out to cause more strife in the world so I will keep it short.  The reason I get rep points for this is because I have been over it before and those who give me rep points understand it and agree with me- because I don't know how you can be LDS and NOT understand this

Here is just a plain old internet dictionary definition of "nature"

Quote

 

na·ture

ˈnāCHər/

noun

1.

the phenomena of the physical world collectively, including plants, animals, the landscape, and other features and products of the earth, as opposed to humans or human creations.

"the breathtaking beauty of nature"

synonyms:the natural world, Mother Nature, Mother Earth, the environment; More

2.

the basic or inherent features of something, especially when seen as characteristic of it.

"helping them to realize the nature of their problems"

synonyms:essence, inherent/basic/essential qualities, inherent/basic/essential features,character, complexion

"such crimes are, by their very nature, difficult to hide"

kind, sort, type, variety, category, ilk, class, species, genre, style, cast, order,kidney, mold, stamp, stripe

"experiments of a similar nature"

 

Let's look at that second definition

"The basic or inherent features of something, especially seen as a characteristic of it"

Fine.  Note that this is a question-begging definition.  It is circular.  Instead of using the word "nature" one could substitute the phrase "the inherent features of...."

But that defines nothing, it substitutes another debatable phrase to define the word.  The nature of a dog is to have the inherent features of a dog.  The nature of a man is to have the inherent features of a man.   The inherent features of an elephant is to have it's inherent features and on and on.

BUT WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?  What ARE the inherent features of any of these creatures?  Subject to debate!   Are we going to call dogs or elephants "intelligent"?   Is God intelligent?  Does that mean that dogs and elephants share aspects of the nature of God?

Can you see the problem?  Do dogs and elephants have a spirit?  Debatable.

So you can just imagine Apollinaris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union or someone trying to figure this out.  "OK now- we have Jesus here, a human being and yet he is God.  How could he be both?  Man's nature is debased and material and immanent, and God's nature is spirit and Transcendent and timeless!"

(Notice these are assumptions- unproven assumptions with no foundation that God must be this or that man must be debased and material etc)

Hypothetical Apollinaris says:

 "I've got it!  Just as there is spirit and matter as separate essences, substances, natures, then Christ must have TWO natures, substances, essences, just as the Trinity shares the same substance in three persons!!   Problem solved!""

Uh, no.  Not solved at all!

Notice ALL these terms, nature, substance, essence, are totally vague and could mean about anything.

This is called a "virtus dormitiva" which literally means "the property of inducing sleep"

To illustrate the absurdity of the position, Moliere, lampooned it https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dormitive_principle

He had some silly doctors discussing why opium produces sleep.   They supposedly said, translated, "Because of its sleep inducing properties!"

Obviously that tells us nothing just as "two natures" tells us nothing.

So we just have different definitions of "nature"- we don't need two, we just include the possibility of divinity included as part of the potential of man just as the nature of a caterpillar includes the possibility of including the nature of of a flying moth.

Do we really want to say that a caterpillar has two natures?  Why?   It is just a caterpillar doing what it's "inherent characteristic" IS, ie, becoming a moth, just as we can become godlike as part of our inherent nature

Furthermore, even those who believe this stuff admit that it is all a linguistic confusion.  From the wikipedia article linked above:

Quote

In recent times, leaders from the Eastern Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox Churches have signed joint statements in an attempt to work towards reunification. Likewise the leaders of the Assyrian Church of the East, which venerates Nestorius and Theodore, have in recent times signed a joint agreement with leaders of the Roman Catholic Church acknowledging that their historical differences were over terminology rather than the actual intended meaning.

 

Edited July 11, 2016 by mfbukowski
added final quote

[mfbukowski]

22 hours ago, Five Solas said:

You invariably make a little go a long way, mfbukowski (as evidenced by the reputation points you got for the above + your previous reply to me).  But it must be time for you to be back--given you've since replied to another poster on this thread.  So, how about it?  (Yes, I looked up your terms & no, I don't see how the Hypostatic Union is the linguistic equivalent of "time crawled"--however optimistic some LDS on the forum seem to be about your assertion.) 

--Erik

PS.  As long as it doesn't involve another Richard Rorty video...

PPS.  Conference in Toronto this coming week, flying out tomorrow bright & early--so might be a little slow to respond myself

:0)

Besides why would you want a 5th century version of philosophy the Catholics copped from the pagan Greeks?

Even Richard Rorty has to be better than that!!

And there are better examples of category mistakes which apply here.  One category mistake is mistaking a science question for a religious one.  Generally it involves taking words literally that should not be taken literally

"Time crawled" relies on taking it literally- obviously time is not a creature which crawls, so taking it literally is a mistake

The way that applies here is assuming that a "nature" of man is something real and definable, floating around out there that can be divided into one or two or three or a hundred "things".

If one is sometimes happy and sometimes sad does that mean you have a sad nature or a happy one?  What if you have a happy nature and a sweet tooth- does the sweet tooth qualify as part of your "nature" or a new one?

Does a homosexual have a different nature than a heterosexual?   If you are bisexual do you have two natures?  If you are transgender do you have two natures?   Do women have different natures than men?  If so, why do we lump all of these under "human" nature?

Edited July 11, 2016 by mfbukowski

[Ahab]

On 7/9/2016 at 8:38 PM, Freedom said:

Since god is something we become then god is not our species. My neighbor is a plumber, does that make him a different species? Are those destined to outer darkness also gods?

Would it help if I repeated what I just said?

I realize the word "God" refers to more than one thing but I still think it would help if we (LDS) made it known that we all agree that one of those things is the kind of being that our Father is, which is also the same kind of being we are.  

We're just not as perfect as he is, yet (?)

Edited July 11, 2016 by Ahab

[theplains]

On 08/07/2016 at 9:18 PM, Freedom said:

Again, you have to use some definitions otherwise we are talking past each other. Godhood is not a species, it is a state of being. Just as Adulthood is not a species. Children are not adults and Adam and Eve were not Gods. We are gods in the sense that we have the potential to become so, but just because God is our Father, this no more makes us Gods than my being an adult makes my younger children adults. 

From LDS literature that I have read, humans are referred to as 'gods in embyro' (a state of 
being a god). Likewise, children of human parents are considered humans themselves (a state 
of being). You can talk about babies, children, or adults (as different levels of growth), 
but the underlying theme is that all three are human (a species).

Thanks,
Jim

[Freedom]

9 hours ago, Ahab said:

Would it help if I repeated what I just said?

I realize the word "God" refers to more than one thing but I still think it would help if we (LDS) made it known that we all agree that one of those things is the kind of being that our Father is, which is also the same kind of being we are.  

We're just not as perfect as he is, yet (?)

I would disagree with this. Godhood is something obtain, and it is something that some will not obtain. If we are all gods already then there is nothing to obtain. God is the same being as we are just as a child is the same being as an adult. We have the potential to become god just as children become adults. Exaltation is the hope to become like God which  means we are not like God now. This is the root of deification. Becoming God. 

[Freedom]

2 hours ago, theplains said:

From LDS literature that I have read, humans are referred to as 'gods in embyro' (a state of 
being a god). Likewise, children of human parents are considered humans themselves (a state 
of being). You can talk about babies, children, or adults (as different levels of growth), 
but the underlying theme is that all three are human (a species).

Thanks,
Jim

Children are parents in embryo, not humans in embryos. We are gods in embryo which means it is something we can become but are not there yet. Exaltation is the gift of becoming like God. Those who are not exalted will not become gods. The sons of perdition, for example, are not gods. So we are not in a state of being a god, but in a state of potentially becoming a god. A caterpillar is not a butterfly. It only has the potential to become a butterfly. 

[theplains]

On 11/07/2016 at 10:08 PM, Freedom said:

Exaltation is the gift of becoming like God. A caterpillar is not a butterfly. It only has the potential to become a butterfly. 

Adam and Eve became like God, but they were not gods - i.e they were not in a state of exaltation 
(Genesis 3:22).

I'm not sure you caterpillar comparison would justly apply to God and man. The caterpillar's 
metamorphosis occurs as part of its growth cycle - the one designed by God.  The same for
tadpoles and frogs.  It has nothing to do with intelligence or good works.

Thanks,
Jim

[Freedom]

10 hours ago, theplains said:

Adam and Eve became like God, but they were not gods - i.e they were not in a state of exaltation 
(Genesis 3:22).

I'm not sure you caterpillar comparison would justly apply to God and man. The caterpillar's 
metamorphosis occurs as part of its growth cycle - the one designed by God.  The same for
tadpoles and frogs.  It has nothing to do with intelligence or good works.

Thanks,
Jim

I think I made my point. It is the closest example to a change in state. A university degree would be an example of something we can achieve, but this does not change our fundamental nature. 

[theplains]

16 hours ago, Freedom said:

I think I made my point. It is the closest example to a change in state. A university degree would be an example of something we can achieve, but this does not change our fundamental nature. 

Do you believe the fundamental nature of Jesus changed when he became a God like the LDS Church 
teaches? Or did his fundamental nature remain as his brother Lucifer?

"By obedience and devotion to the truth he attained that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked 
him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in his pre-existent state." (Religion 430-431 -
Doctrines of the Gospel - Student Manual).

Thanks,
Jim

 

[mfbukowski]

On 7/14/2016 at 1:36 PM, theplains said:

Adam and Eve became like God, but they were not gods - i.e they were not in a state of exaltation 
(Genesis 3:22).

I'm not sure you caterpillar comparison would justly apply to God and man. The caterpillar's 
metamorphosis occurs as part of its growth cycle - the one designed by God.  The same for
tadpoles and frogs.  It has nothing to do with intelligence or good works.

Thanks,
Jim

Naturalism!

You have discovered that we all die!  You are a budding scientist for sure!

You see this is called a "metaphor" or an "analogy", it is not a statement about science and human dna transforming us into gods.  The Plan of Salvation is a little different than a biological process.  Here a biological process is USED to teach a lesson of what it is LIKE.   Simile, NOT SCIENCE

Perhaps you should look up those words.  It is important to not take everything literally even if that is your tendency as it obviously is

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Do you believe the fundamental nature of Jesus changed when he became a God like the LDS Church 
teaches? Or did his fundamental nature remain as his brother Lucifer?

"By obedience and devotion to the truth he attained that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked 
him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in his pre-existent state." (Religion 430-431 -
Doctrines of the Gospel - Student Manual).

Thanks,
Jim

 

Please describe what "fundamental nature" even means.

Your description will be circular.  "Fundamental nature" is what you think it is.   We think it is godlike- you don't.   Impasse.

This is about the fundamental characteristics of human potential.  You get what you think it is.  

Don't limit yourself.  If you want to remain a caterpillar it's up to you

[mfbukowski]

On 7/10/2016 at 7:10 PM, mfbukowski said:

Besides why would you want a 5th century version of philosophy the Catholics copped from the pagan Greeks?

Even Richard Rorty has to be better than that!!

And there are better examples of category mistakes which apply here.  One category mistake is mistaking a science question for a religious one.  Generally it involves taking words literally that should not be taken literally

"Time crawled" relies on taking it literally- obviously time is not a creature which crawls, so taking it literally is a mistake

The way that applies here is assuming that a "nature" of man is something real and definable, floating around out there that can be divided into one or two or three or a hundred "things".

If one is sometimes happy and sometimes sad does that mean you have a sad nature or a happy one?  What if you have a happy nature and a sweet tooth- does the sweet tooth qualify as part of your "nature" or a new one?

Does a homosexual have a different nature than a heterosexual?   If you are bisexual do you have two natures?  If you are transgender do you have two natures?   Do women have different natures than men?  If so, why do we lump all of these under "human" nature?

Repeated for the plains

[mfbukowski]

error

Edited July 16, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 7/10/2016 at 4:38 PM, mfbukowski said:

OK well I am not out to cause more strife in the world so I will keep it short.  The reason I get rep points for this is because I have been over it before and those who give me rep points understand it and agree with me- because I don't know how you can be LDS and NOT understand this

Here is just a plain old internet dictionary definition of "nature"

Let's look at that second definition

"The basic or inherent features of something, especially seen as a characteristic of it"

Fine.  Note that this is a question-begging definition.  It is circular.  Instead of using the word "nature" one could substitute the phrase "the inherent features of...."

But that defines nothing, it substitutes another debatable phrase to define the word.  The nature of a dog is to have the inherent features of a dog.  The nature of a man is to have the inherent features of a man.   The inherent features of an elephant is to have it's inherent features and on and on.

BUT WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?  What ARE the inherent features of any of these creatures?  Subject to debate!   Are we going to call dogs or elephants "intelligent"?   Is God intelligent?  Does that mean that dogs and elephants share aspects of the nature of God?

Can you see the problem?  Do dogs and elephants have a spirit?  Debatable.

So you can just imagine Apollinaris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union or someone trying to figure this out.  "OK now- we have Jesus here, a human being and yet he is God.  How could he be both?  Man's nature is debased and material and immanent, and God's nature is spirit and Transcendent and timeless!"

(Notice these are assumptions- unproven assumptions with no foundation that God must be this or that man must be debased and material etc)

Hypothetical Apollinaris says:

 "I've got it!  Just as there is spirit and matter as separate essences, substances, natures, then Christ must have TWO natures, substances, essences, just as the Trinity shares the same substance in three persons!!   Problem solved!""

Uh, no.  Not solved at all!

Notice ALL these terms, nature, substance, essence, are totally vague and could mean about anything.

This is called a "virtus dormitiva" which literally means "the property of inducing sleep"

To illustrate the absurdity of the position, Moliere, lampooned it https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dormitive_principle

He had some silly doctors discussing why opium produces sleep.   They supposedly said, translated, "Because of its sleep inducing properties!"

Obviously that tells us nothing just as "two natures" tells us nothing.

So we just have different definitions of "nature"- we don't need two, we just include the possibility of divinity included as part of the potential of man just as the nature of a caterpillar includes the possibility of including the nature of of a flying moth.

Do we really want to say that a caterpillar has two natures?  Why?   It is just a caterpillar doing what it's "inherent characteristic" IS, ie, becoming a moth, just as we can become godlike as part of our inherent nature

Furthermore, even those who believe this stuff admit that it is all a linguistic confusion.  From the wikipedia article linked above:

 

Also repeated for theplains

[Freedom]

6 hours ago, theplains said:

Do you believe the fundamental nature of Jesus changed when he became a God like the LDS Church 
teaches? Or did his fundamental nature remain as his brother Lucifer?

"By obedience and devotion to the truth he attained that pinnacle of intelligence which ranked 
him as a God, as the Lord Omnipotent, while yet in his pre-existent state." (Religion 430-431 -
Doctrines of the Gospel - Student Manual).

Thanks,
Jim

 

You are aware that he has a body, right? And not only that, but it is an immortal body?

[Five Solas]

On 7/10/2016 at 4:38 PM, mfbukowski said:

OK well I am not out to cause more strife in the world so I will keep it short.  The reason I get rep points for this is because I have been over it before and those who give me rep points understand it and agree with me- because I don't know how you can be LDS and NOT understand this

Here is just a plain old internet dictionary definition of "nature"

Let's look at that second definition

"The basic or inherent features of something, especially seen as a characteristic of it"

Fine.  Note that this is a question-begging definition.  It is circular.  Instead of using the word "nature" one could substitute the phrase "the inherent features of...."

But that defines nothing, it substitutes another debatable phrase to define the word.  The nature of a dog is to have the inherent features of a dog.  The nature of a man is to have the inherent features of a man.   The inherent features of an elephant is to have it's inherent features and on and on.

BUT WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?  What ARE the inherent features of any of these creatures?  Subject to debate!   Are we going to call dogs or elephants "intelligent"?   Is God intelligent?  Does that mean that dogs and elephants share aspects of the nature of God?

Can you see the problem?  Do dogs and elephants have a spirit?  Debatable.

So you can just imagine Apollinaris https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union or someone trying to figure this out.  "OK now- we have Jesus here, a human being and yet he is God.  How could he be both?  Man's nature is debased and material and immanent, and God's nature is spirit and Transcendent and timeless!"

(Notice these are assumptions- unproven assumptions with no foundation that God must be this or that man must be debased and material etc)

Hypothetical Apollinaris says:

 "I've got it!  Just as there is spirit and matter as separate essences, substances, natures, then Christ must have TWO natures, substances, essences, just as the Trinity shares the same substance in three persons!!   Problem solved!""

Uh, no.  Not solved at all!

Notice ALL these terms, nature, substance, essence, are totally vague and could mean about anything.

This is called a "virtus dormitiva" which literally means "the property of inducing sleep"

To illustrate the absurdity of the position, Moliere, lampooned it https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dormitive_principle

He had some silly doctors discussing why opium produces sleep.   They supposedly said, translated, "Because of its sleep inducing properties!"

Obviously that tells us nothing just as "two natures" tells us nothing.

So we just have different definitions of "nature"- we don't need two, we just include the possibility of divinity included as part of the potential of man just as the nature of a caterpillar includes the possibility of including the nature of of a flying moth.

Do we really want to say that a caterpillar has two natures?  Why?   It is just a caterpillar doing what it's "inherent characteristic" IS, ie, becoming a moth, just as we can become godlike as part of our inherent nature

Furthermore, even those who believe this stuff admit that it is all a linguistic confusion.  From the wikipedia article linked above:

 

The crux of your argument is the bit I made bold and put in red.  And it all comes down to personal opinion--"we don't need two."

Yes, you typed/copied out a good deal more than that.  A definition of nature, allegations of question begging and circular reasoning, followed by some analogy between dogs, elephants & God.  Next came "Hypothetical Apollinaris" and then a brief discourse on "vitus dormitiva."  I do appreciate the effort.     

But at this point it might be worth recalling the question that got us started down this path, back on page 1: "Do you mean to suggest Imago Dei (the topic of my OP) and Hypostatic Union are in conflict?" 

Well, are they mfbokowski?  If so, how?  It's pretty clear you're not a fan of the latter, the particulars of your reasoning notwithstanding. 

One more thing worth calling out:  The basis of Hypostatic Union wasn't Apollinaris drawing on some earlier philosophical notions & having a eureka moment.  Its basis is Scripture, the Bible (which Apollinaris appears to have taken seriously).  And the Bible teaches things that sometimes fly in the face of human reason.  Of course people don't resurrect.  Of course donkey's don't talk.  A fish that swallows a man?  Oh plu-ease!  Jesus fully God and fully man--the Incarnation--more of the same silliness from a collection of books believed by people blind to the evidence around them.  And elsewhere you've told us you personally consider the Bible on par with texts from other world religions.  I get it.  But if you do give credence to the Bible, then you have to come to terms with what it teaches, including concepts many Christians express as Imago Dei and Hypostatic Union. 

And no, you won't find support therein for your caterpillar/moth analogy--you need Joseph Smith for that.       

;0)

--Erik

PS.  For an overview of Hypostatic Union in the context of the Incarnation and why the concept, if not the term, should matter to Christian worship--David Mathis's article is worth considering: http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-hypostatic-union

[mfbukowski]

52 minutes ago, Five Solas said:

The crux of your argument is the bit I made bold and put in red.  And it all comes down to personal opinion--"we don't need two."

Yes, you typed/copied out a good deal more than that.  A definition of nature, allegations of question begging and circular reasoning, followed by some analogy between dogs, elephants & God.  Next came "Hypothetical Apollinaris" and then a brief discourse on "vitus dormitiva."  I do appreciate the effort.     

But at this point it might be worth recalling the question that got us started down this path, back on page 1: "Do you mean to suggest Imago Dei (the topic of my OP) and Hypostatic Union are in conflict?" 

Well, are they mfbokowski?  If so, how?  It's pretty clear you're not a fan of the latter, the particulars of your reasoning notwithstanding. 

One more thing worth calling out:  The basis of Hypostatic Union wasn't Apollinaris drawing on some earlier philosophical notions & having a eureka moment.  Its basis is Scripture, the Bible (which Apollinaris appears to have taken seriously).  And the Bible teaches things that sometimes fly in the face of human reason.  Of course people don't resurrect.  Of course donkey's don't talk.  A fish that swallows a man?  Oh plu-ease!  Jesus fully God and fully man--the Incarnation--more of the same silliness from a collection of books believed by people blind to the evidence around them.  And elsewhere you've told us you personally consider the Bible on par with texts from other world religions.  I get it.  But if you do give credence to the Bible, then you have to come to terms with what it teaches, including concepts many Christians express as Imago Dei and Hypostatic Union. 

And no, you won't find support therein for your caterpillar/moth analogy--you need Joseph Smith for that.       

;0)

--Erik

PS.  For an overview of Hypostatic Union in the context of the Incarnation and why the concept, if not the term, should matter to Christian worship--David Mathis's article is worth considering: http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-the-hypostatic-union

Thanks for your opinions, I am not surprised. It helps us all to think these things through. Of course I do not find your arguments convincing, and I will be happy to read the article. 

I think the use of Greek in the New Testament brings with it inevitably Greek connotations, remember Plato predates the NT by 300 years, and remember Paul on Mars hill, debating Greek philosophy. Those ideas are embedded in the very language . 

If Christianity requires Greek philosophy, it is dead.

Thank God it never DID require Greek philosophy.

Edited July 16, 2016 by mfbukowski

[theplains]

On 15/07/2016 at 8:55 PM, mfbukowski said:

You have discovered that we all die!  You are a budding scientist for sure!

:-)

 

[theplains]

On 15/07/2016 at 8:59 PM, mfbukowski said:

Please describe what "fundamental nature" even means.

After Jesus became a God when he reached some level of intelligence, was there any noticeable 
difference between his nature (glory, physical attributes, etc) and that of Lucifer?

Thanks,
Jim

[mfbukowski]

18 hours ago, theplains said:

After Jesus became a God when he reached some level of intelligence, was there any noticeable 
difference between his nature (glory, physical attributes, etc) and that of Lucifer?

Thanks,
Jim

Oh gosh. You are not comprehending this at all.

Please describe what "nature" even means.

One is a spirit, one has a body, one is good and the other evil.

You have to drop the 800 year old logic that says because we have the word "nature" it must describe a thing of some kind which has attributes magically attached. 

It does not.

The word is confusing you.