RevTestament Posted May 2, 2017 Posted May 2, 2017 14 minutes ago, snowflake said: The Bible and "scientism" agree that the universe had a beginning. Before Einstein, astronomers and physicists thought that the universe was eternal. Now that is not the case. Time is a physical property linked to length, width, and height and it is subject to gravity too (according to the theory of relativity). The God of the Bible exists outside this dimension, he created the universe. He did not exist all alone he was in perfect relationship with his son and the holy spirit. I don't think you can really conclude from the Bible that the Universe had a beginning. I believe the most you can say about Genesis 1 is it teaches the creation of the earth and probably the Milky Way galaxy - the visible stars in the sky. The Hebrew word for heaven and sky is the same. Scientists continue to debate whether the Universe as we know it was created in a big bang or not, but even if it was, that is long, long before the Bible teaches the earth was created at least if you accept the traditional time line. The light getting here from most other galaxies was generally created long before this solar system - per generally accepted science anyway.
clarkgoble Posted May 2, 2017 Posted May 2, 2017 28 minutes ago, snowflake said: The Bible and "scientism" agree that the universe had a beginning. Before Einstein, astronomers and physicists thought that the universe was eternal. Now that is not the case. Time is a physical property linked to length, width, and height and it is subject to gravity too (according to the theory of relativity). The God of the Bible exists outside this dimension, he created the universe. He did not exist all alone he was in perfect relationship with his son and the holy spirit. Brane theory doesn't postulate a beginning. There's a beginning to this universe but not to existence. Ditto with most inflationary models. I think it safe to say that while string theory and related inflationary models have been under criticism of late, they've been the mainstream view among physicists the past two decades. To say the God of the Bible exists outside the universe is problematic. That's more the view of later neoplatonic readers of the Bible like Augustine. They wanted a transcendent God due to their neoplatonic biases. However most scholars see the early Biblical view of God as a God within the universe creating by organizing the pre-existing waters of chaos. See for instance Levinson's Creation and the Persistence of Evil. Typically the Genesis creation account isn't even seen as the oldest one. The ones in Psalms usually are taken to pre-date Genesis 1. But even with Genesis 1 few would say the pre-Hellenistic Hebrews took it as an ontological creation. So how people read the Bible is very evolutionary. The big innovation around the time of Augustine was keeping the transcendent One of neoplatonism but make creation ontological rather than organizational. Thus he splits with the emanation theory of the platonists and helps the development of creation ex nihilo. 3
RevTestament Posted May 2, 2017 Posted May 2, 2017 14 minutes ago, snowflake said: God ordains the marriage relationship, one enters into the relationship to become one with their spouse spiritually. Physically of course you don't merge into a single corporeal being. I often consider my spouse and I as a team, but two individual persons as well. The Hebrew has two words for "one." Echad means one but can incorporate a plurality. Thus, man and woman become one/echad. Echad is also used by the Lord in reference to Himself/ves. The Lord your God is one/echad. Heavenly Father and Jesus are two different beings but they are echad YHWH - one LORD - and they both hold that title, see Deut 18:18-21. Apparently one day we will call them both Father - I suppose when Yeshua sits on His throne of glory and hands the government to twelve to judge Israel, as He said He would do in the regeneration. So how would you expect JS to talk about them other than say the only English word available - "Gods?" After all they are two separate beings - unless you believe Moses couldn't see Yeshua lest he die. They are two beings in one/echad Elohim/house as our Father and Eldest inheriting Son(begotten Son) of the house. 2
JLHPROF Posted May 2, 2017 Posted May 2, 2017 8 minutes ago, RevTestament said: Apparently one day we will call them both Father - I suppose when Yeshua sits on His throne of glory and hands the government to twelve to judge Israel, as He said He would do in the regeneration. Which takes us full circle back to the BoM scriptures Snowflake is referencing. As in: Ether 3:14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 17 hours ago, snowflake said: God ordains the marriage relationship, one enters into the relationship to become one with their spouse spiritually. Physically of course you don't merge into a single corporeal being. I often consider my spouse and I as a team, but two individual persons as well. So you are inconsistent in your scriptural interpretation, then. You make a literal interpretation in one instance and a figurative interpretation in the other. Latter-day Saints consider the Father and the Son to be individual persons who are figuratively one in purpose, glory and divinity. In John 17, Jesus prayed that his disciples would be "one" as the Father and the Son are "one." In fact, He prayed that they would be "one in us," meaning one in the Father and the Son. I take it you don't believe he meant that they were to merge themselves into one corporeal being -- or maybe you do. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 19 hours ago, Johnnie Cake said: I'm going with ignored... How convenient for him -- except that I won't let it drop.
clarkgoble Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said: Latter-day Saints consider the Father and the Son to be individual persons who are figuratively one in purpose, glory and divinity. Why do you say being one in purpose, glory and divinity is figurative? Not quite sure what you mean by that. Quote So you are inconsistent in your scriptural interpretation, then. You make a literal interpretation in one instance and a figurative interpretation in the other. Almost everyone does that. It's unavoidable. I'd also raise my typical objection towards "literal" as well. Typically what we mean is that we assume the sentences mean what they'd mean during regular everyday use were someone to say them to us. I'm not sure calling that literal is appropriate. Although in most discussions that doesn't matter too much. I definitely get what you're saying. However this isn't just being pedantic but has important implications in how we read scripture. Edited May 3, 2017 by clarkgoble 1
Scott Lloyd Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 (edited) 1 hour ago, clarkgoble said: Why do you say being one in purpose, glory and divinity is figurative? Not quite sure what you mean by that. I mean figurative as opposed to them literally being one entity. In fact, the idea of husband and wife being one is a very good analog that helps us understand the one-ness or unity of the Father and the Son correctly. I thought that was quite clear. I'm not quite sure why you are puzzled by it. Quote Almost everyone does that. It's unavoidable. Be that as it may, it does call for an explanation when it happens. "Almost everyone does it" is a rather weak defense. Quote I'd also raise my typical objection towards "literal" as well. Typically what we mean is that we assume the sentences mean what they'd mean during regular everyday use were someone to say them to us. I'm not sure calling that literal is appropriate. Although in most discussions that doesn't matter too much. I definitely get what you're saying. However this isn't just being pedantic but has important implications in how we read scripture. In the "everyday use" to which I am accustomed there is no question that "the Father and the Son are One God" is to be taken in a figurative sense when one considers scriptural and doctrinal context. It is no less reasonable to take the scriptural phrasing as meaning the Father and the Son are two separate beings who have one purpose than it is to take the scriptural phrasing to mean husband and wife are to be two separate beings with one purpose. Or for that matter, to mean that the disciples are to be separate beings who are to be one in purpose with the Father and the Son. Edited May 3, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
Scott Lloyd Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 19 hours ago, JLHPROF said: Which takes us full circle back to the BoM scriptures Snowflake is referencing. As in: Ether 3:14 Behold, I am he who was prepared from the foundation of the world to redeem my people. Behold, I am Jesus Christ. I am the Father and the Son. In me shall all mankind have life, and that eternally, even they who shall believe on my name; and they shall become my sons and my daughters. There is also the doctrinal exposition from the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve Apostles given in 1916 about the Father and the Son and the sense in which both titles apply to Christ. Link: https://www.lds.org/ensign/2002/04/the-father-and-the-son?lang=eng
clarkgoble Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 (edited) 50 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said: I mean figurative as opposed to them literally being one entity. In fact, the idea of husband and wife being one is a very good analog that helps us understand the one-ness or unity of the Father and the Son correctly. I thought that was quite clear. I'm not quite sure why you are puzzled by it. The problem is that one can think them three separate entities while simultaneously think they have one single divinity and not two divinities. It's not figurative. Likewise we can say they have the same desires and not different desires. Further within the history of Mormon theology there's a strong tradition of a single substantial unity of divine beings. That's the view of Orson Pratt and Parley P. Pratt and was very influential. So saying they are multiple entities is one thing, but this avoids the question of what we mean the unity of purpose, glory and divinity. So if you just mean they are three separate persons that's fine. I agree with that. And the marriage analogy works great for that. But that doesn't necessarily apply to these other properties where the marriage analogy doesn't apply. Note I'm not saying that the unity of God within Mormonism must be taken as only figurative. Just that there is a very strong tradition where it's not only figurative. Both positions are well within the mainstream of LDS thought. Edited May 3, 2017 by clarkgoble
Scott Lloyd Posted May 3, 2017 Posted May 3, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, clarkgoble said: The problem is that one can think them three separate entities while simultaneously think they have one single divinity and not two divinities. It's not figurative. Likewise we can say they have the same desires and not different desires. Further within the history of Mormon theology there's a strong tradition of a single substantial unity of divine beings. That's the view of Orson Pratt and Parley P. Pratt and was very influential. So saying they are multiple entities is one thing, but this avoids the question of what we mean the unity of purpose, glory and divinity. So if you just mean they are three separate persons that's fine. I agree with that. And the marriage analogy works great for that. But that doesn't necessarily apply to these other properties where the marriage analogy doesn't apply. Note I'm not saying that the unity of God within Mormonism must be taken as only figurative. Just that there is a very strong tradition where it's not only figurative. Both positions are well within the mainstream of LDS thought. I don't know that we are too far apart on this. I agree that the Father and Son are unified in purpose and divinity in a way that is incomprehensible to the mortal mind. But none of the above justifies the silly notion that Joseph Smith started out with sectarian style notions of the trinity and then changed his mind over time. Afterthought: I do believe that a husband and wife, after they have been fully exalted, will be unified in the same perfect sense that the Father and Son are unified. Edited May 3, 2017 by Scott Lloyd
clarkgoble Posted May 4, 2017 Posted May 4, 2017 18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: I don't know that we are too far apart on this. I agree that the Father and Son are unified in purpose and divinity in a way that is incomprehensible to the mortal mind. But none of the above justifies the silly notion that Joseph Smith started out with sectarian style notions of the trinity and then changed his mind over time. Afterthought: I do believe that a husband and wife, after they have been fully exalted, will be unified in the same perfect sense that the Father and Son are unified. I'm not sure it's incomprehensible. But it certainly hasn't been clearly revealed. I definitely agree that how critics discuss the evolution of Joseph's ideas of God as it relates to the controversies over the Trinity tend to miss the point. The arguments are typically shockingly weak. To your last point I definitely agree.
Recommended Posts