The Priesthood and sin stains

[3DOP]

On 12/22/2017 at 4:26 PM, kiwi57 said:

Happily guilty? Blessed guilt? Sorry, I'm not following you.

kiwi,

Apparently Miserere missed your question.

His reply of "felix culpa", is in answer to your suggestion that what happened after Adam's sin would need to be from our perspective, a "less than perfect Plan B". On the contrary, at the Easter Liturgy, the Church uses this expression, felix culpa, to describe the happy fault of Adam, without which there could have never been such a great benefit to man. Man redeemed in Christ is, according to the Catholic faith, richer than the innocent Man in the Garden.

Edited December 31, 2017 by 3DOP

[theplains]

On 30/12/2017 at 11:24 AM, RevTestament said:

I chose scripture over the beliefs of man. It opened up a new scriptural world over time. It really is not scary. You should try it. It is very eye opening, and opens up the scriptures to a whole new and wonderful understanding.

God bless, Jim.

Thanks RevTestament.

I also choose scripture over the teachings of some men - that a man from another world became a God and the
Heavenly Father of our world.

Jim

[RevTestament]

49 minutes ago, theplains said:

Thanks RevTestament.

I also choose scripture over the teachings of some men - that a man from another world became a God and the
Heavenly Father of our world.

Jim

It was actually probably our world, but different planet. Let me ask you Jim, since you obviously believe that you believe in a different Jesus than LDS believe - I would say you do, but I won't jump to conclusions just yet -

Do you believe that Jesus was begotten when the Father told Him, "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee?"

Do you believe that Jesus Christ did all that He saw the Father do, and did likewise?

Do you believe that when one looked upon Jesus, they were seeing the Father in action?

Do you believe that Jesus plainly showed us of the Father up on the cross?

Do you believe that the Father is called YHWH, Behold the nail, behold the hand?

Will your Jesus be called the Eternal Father per Isaiah 9:6 and inherit the government of the Father per Isaiah 65?

If not, I humbly represent to you that you do believe in a different Jesus than us. One who did not plainly show us of the Father up on the cross. One who failed in His mission to show us plainly what the Father taught Him by example, and that He had seen, and did likewise. My Jesus did not fail. He did exactly as He had seen the Father do, and did likewise, and therefore was in every way YHWH with the Father - Behold the nail, behold the hand.  My Jesus will not languish forever as the Son, immutable and unable to inherit - never to be called the Father. I humbly represent to you that your Jesus is trapped forever in man-made trinitarianism - but you can prove me wrong. You can believe Him.

Edited December 31, 2017 by RevTestament

[MiserereNobis]

3 hours ago, RevTestament said:

Do you believe that the Father is called YHWH, Behold the nail, behold the hand?

Don't Mormons believe that YHWH, the God of the Old Testament, is actually Jesus and not God the Father?

[kiwi57]

4 hours ago, 3DOP said:

kiwi,

Apparently Miserere missed your question.

His reply of "felix culpa", is in answer to your suggestion that what happened after Adam's sin would need to be from our perspective, a "less than perfect Plan B". On the contrary, at the Easter Liturgy, the Church uses this expression, felix culpa, to describe the happy fault of Adam, without which there could have never been such a great benefit to man. Man redeemed in Christ is, according to the Catholic faith, richer than the innocent Man in the Garden.

Thank you, 3DOP. Now it happens that so far, we are in agreement: the Fall of Adam was a beneficial step. However, we believe that it is what God intended all along, and not merely an "oops" moment. Because if God's original plan was the "innocent Man in the Garden" model, then that original plan has been wrecked, and large numbers of humans get to spend eternity as the guests of honour at an everlasting barbecue because of that. How does Catholic doctrine deal with that problem?

[RevTestament]

35 minutes ago, MiserereNobis said:

Don't Mormons believe that YHWH, the God of the Old Testament, is actually Jesus and not God the Father?

There are talks that leave that impression, but I am unsure whether there are any that specifically say that the Father is not YHWH. They say things like Jesus is the YHWH of the OT and the Father is Elohim. Well, technically those are both true. They are both YHWH Elohim. I guess they don't have to believe it if some GA doesn't tell them so, but it is clearly true from the OT. Unfortunately, I think the Church engendered a certain mistrust of the OT and the Bible in general. I concede while they are not perfect, the Tanakh and the Greek NT are accurate enough to reveal things like this and get the job done. If anything, it is the translations which are the main issue. Jesus said His words would not pass away. I believe the NT Greek manuscripts are a safe representation of what Jesus said. I also like the early Peshitta, and believe it to be accurate enough for reliable use.

[Calm]

5 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Man redeemed in Christ is, according to the Catholic faith, richer than the innocent Man in the Garden.

Sincere question, not a challenge...

If the Fall led to a richer result than no Fall, why wouldn't this be the original plan of the Father? 

I am also unclear how something would not be the original intent since God is omniscient.

[3DOP]

4 hours ago, RevTestament said:

It was actually probably our world, but different planet. Let me ask you Jim, since you obviously believe that you believe in a different Jesus than LDS believe - I would say you do, but I won't jump to conclusions just yet -

Do you believe that Jesus was begotten when the Father told Him, "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee?"

Do you believe that Jesus Christ did all that He saw the Father do, and did likewise?

Do you believe that when one looked upon Jesus, they were seeing the Father in action?

Do you believe that Jesus plainly showed us of the Father up on the cross?

Do you believe that the Father is called YHWH, Behold the nail, behold the hand?

Will your Jesus be called the Eternal Father per Isaiah 9:6 and inherit the government of the Father per Isaiah 65?

If not, I humbly represent to you that you do believe in a different Jesus than us. One who did not plainly show us of the Father up on the cross. One who failed in His mission to show us plainly what the Father taught Him by example, and that He had seen, and did likewise. My Jesus did not fail. He did exactly as He had seen the Father do, and did likewise, and therefore was in every way YHWH with the Father - Behold the nail, behold the hand.  My Jesus will not languish forever as the Son, immutable and unable to inherit - never to be called the Father. I humbly represent to you that your Jesus is trapped forever in man-made trinitarianism - but you can prove me wrong. You can believe Him.

Rev and Jim

I wouldn't presume again to make myself possibly unwelcome in to your conversation, except that this very day Dec. 31, in a most exquisite way, speaks to the question of Christ as Father. I am not making this up. The timeliness of this thread is only exceeded by the timeliness of the Church calendar. I know neither of you are interested in Catholic claims. Although you are very welcome, you two may feel unobliged to reply. It is probably for some lurker that I present the thoughts that the Catholic Church would offer to her children on every Dec. 31. 

Dear Lurker,

The first thirty bishops of Rome were martyred. Until Pope Sylvester died a natural death after the Council of Nicea, every pope died as a witness to belief in the Lord Jesus Christ. I think that's noteworthy. Non-Catholics just think we make it all up. Today is the Feast of St. Sylvester, the first bishop of Rome to enjoy the benefits of the earthly peace which is promised whenever and wherever Christ Jesus is acknowledged as King.

The Church begins the pageant of Christ's reign over men with His birth in Bethlehem, Dec. 25th. This is followed quickly by three kinds of martyr. The Feast of St. Stephen on the 26th has us reflect seriously upon the desire and act of martyrdom fulfilled by St. Stephen, the proto-martyr, as recorded in the book of Acts. On the 27th, we celebrate the life of St. John the Apostle, who alone among the Apostles desired to emulate his Master in martyrdom, but shows us how that the desire is more important than the act, which was denied to him. The Feast of the Holy Innocents is Dec. 28th. Most will not believe that there could be any benefit for those many babes who were slain because of Christ, when Herod only wished to slaughter the One, who had fled to Egypt with His parents. The Catholic Church acknowledges that these little ones lacked the desire, but through the act of martyrdom, they gained eternal life. The Church reasons that God's mercy is more than equal to Herod's cruelty.

Passing over St. Thomas of Canterbury, we arrive at the Feast of St. Sylvester on this day, the last day of every year. Peace has finally come at the end of times. The Church is finally tolerated by the State. We have arrived at the beginning of the reign of the Eternal Father, the Prince of Peace: 

Quote

"So that Sylvester is messenger of the Peace which Christ came to give to the world, of which the Angels sang on Christmas Night. He is the friend of Constantine; he confirms the Council of Nicea; he organizes the discipline of the Church for the new era on which she is now entering: the era of Peace. His predecessors in the See of Peter imaged Jesus in his sufferings; Sylvester imaged Jesus in his triumph. His appearance during this Octave (the eight days following Christmas) reminds us that the Divine Child who lies wrapped in swaddling-clothes, and is the object of Herod's persecution, is, notwithstanding all these humiliations, the Prince of Peace, the Father of the world to come." 

---The Liturgical Year, Dom Prosper Gueranger, OSB, St. Bonaventure Publications, 2000, Vol. 2, p. 355 (bold is mine, italics are not mine)

Dear Lurker,

Disregarding sophisticated reasonings, the Catholic faith accepts mysteries that are compatible with revelation, but allegedly difficult to reconcile with human reason. We are sorry that modern philosophy insists that if our belief in God is too great, that He is limited. No. Some think to liberate "God" by placing limits on His abilities. The Omnipotent and Almighty does not need that kind of assistance. He only wants our faith in His greatness and goodness. The Divine Child, eternally the Son of God, becomes the Father of the world to come. As God, the Child is the same, but in time, the government is laid upon His shoulder. Soon we may hope and pray. Very soon, relative to Him as Eternal Father!

God bless,

3DOP

[RevTestament]

58 minutes ago, 3DOP said:

Passing over St. Thomas of Canterbury, we arrive at the Feast of St. Sylvester on this day, the last day of every year. Peace has finally come at the end of times. The Church is finally tolerated by the State. We have arrived at the beginning of the reign of the Eternal Father, the Prince of Peace: 

---The Liturgical Year, Dom Prosper Gueranger, OSB, St. Bonaventure Publications, 2000, Vol. 2, p. 355 (bold is mine, italics are not mine)

Dear Lurker,

Disregarding sophisticated reasonings, the Catholic faith accepts mysteries that are compatible with revelation, but allegedly difficult to reconcile with human reason. We are sorry that modern philosophy insists that if our belief in God is too great, that He is limited. No. Some think to liberate "God" by placing limits on His abilities. The Omnipotent and Almighty does not need that kind of assistance. He only wants our faith in His greatness and goodness. The Divine Child, eternally the Son of God, becomes the Father of the world to come. As God, the Child is the same, but in time, the government is laid upon His shoulder. Soon we may hope and pray. Very soon, relative to Him as Eternal Father!

God bless,

3DOP

That is not something I have been taught before in Catholicism. It seems to conflict with the doctrine of the trinity that the Son is NOT the Father, and that God is immutable.

Despite my years in Catholic School and some theology classes, I admit to not being an expert in Catholic theology, and was not trained in Catholic theology like a priest would be. I do not want to misrepresent Catholics in something they believe. Do they believe that Christ will inherit all the Father hath, and be our Eternal Father? What do they believe about the world to come? What does that mean to Catholic theologians? Does Catholic belief vary amongst different orders within the Catholic Church? Do Catholics ignore conflicts within their theology if scripture seems to support an interpretation such as the Son shall be called the Father?

That quotation from The Liturgical Year seems to be a little outside the classical mainstream theology of the Catholic Church, but like I said, I admit to not being a Catholic. Are there other sources for this principle? 

[CV75]

On 12/26/2017 at 10:47 AM, theplains said:

Please clarify.

Thanks,
Jim

There’s an important line from the talk: "In mortality, we invariably make mistakes and violate God’s laws. We become stained by sin and cannot be allowed back to live in God’s presence."

We make mistakes; we violate God’s laws; we become stained by sin.

Mistakes are due to accident, ignorance, limited information and inexperience; we can violate God’s laws willingly and not. In either case we become stained by sin. The remedy of course is humility (to be willing), knowledge, obedience (to regard and keep God’s laws), and cleansing through the Atonement of Jesus Christ. Sinners are cleansed one way, and the unaccountable are cleansed in another way.

You are asking what sin stained Adam and Eve so they could not be allowed back into God's presence. Whether by any of these attitudes (accident, ignorance, limited information, inexperience; or willingness), by partaking of the forbidden fruit, they changed the laws they were willing to obey, thus transitioning from a paradisaical state to a telestial state, the Fall.

Can you provide a scripture that explicitly says that Adam sinned? Do you believe partaking of the forbidden fruit was by accident, in ignorance, with limited information, due to inexperience, or out of willful disobedience? That is another way of asking my previous question.

Edited January 1, 2018 by CV75

[CV75]

dup -- an example of a mistake by accident or inexperience.

Edited January 1, 2018 by CV75

[3DOP]

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Thank you, 3DOP. Now it happens that so far, we are in agreement: the Fall of Adam was a beneficial step. However, we believe that it is what God intended all along, and not merely an "oops" moment. Because if God's original plan was the "innocent Man in the Garden" model, then that original plan has been wrecked, and large numbers of humans get to spend eternity as the guests of honour at an everlasting barbecue because of that. How does Catholic doctrine deal with that problem?

I suppose we deal with it the same way that Mormons do in regard to the "sons of Perdition". You think it is okay for a few to experience an "everlasting barbecue"? We don't think it is about a few or about many. It is about hating God or loving God. According to the Catholic faith, only those who hate God can get to Hell. Who knows about the numbers. The Catholic Church teaches that we do not know the numbers. It was Jesus who said that the way is broad which leads to destruction. Maybe most people void the broad way? Catholics don't know.  We may hope for anyone and everyone. But the damned must have their choice. God is good, and the universe will acknowledge it on the Great Day. If I am ultimately among the damned, it is because I CHOSE Hell. The only way to get to Hell is to want to go to Hell and be away from God. The only way to not live with God forever is to hate God forever.

[3DOP]

13 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

That is not something I have been taught before in Catholicism. It seems to conflict with the doctrine of the trinity that the Son is NOT the Father, and that God is immutable.

Despite my years in Catholic School and some theology classes, I admit to not being an expert in Catholic theology, and was not trained in Catholic theology like a priest would be. I do not want to misrepresent Catholics in something they believe. Do they believe that Christ will inherit all the Father hath, and be our Eternal Father? What do they believe about the world to come? What does that mean to Catholic theologians? Does Catholic belief vary amongst different orders within the Catholic Church? Do Catholics ignore conflicts within their theology if scripture seems to support an interpretation such as the Son shall be called the Father?

That quotation from The Liturgical Year seems to be a little outside the classical mainstream theology of the Catholic Church, but like I said, I admit to not being a Catholic. Are there other sources for this principle? 

Catholicism teaches that the Son is not the Father, the one God, the fount of divinity. But the Son is obviously to be called Father, in a different context according to Is. 9:6. What I have quoted to you is classical Catholic teaching. There is nothing controversial. There is no conflict about the Son being called Father. He IS to be the Father of the world to come, the everlasting Father, the Prince of Peace. I am a son and a father. There is no incompatibility. It is not even mysterious. Give me a few days for more sources, although it seems to me like Dom Gueranger should be enough. The Liturgical Year is very highly regarded. I could wish I didn't have to work tomorrow, but God's will be done.

[Calm]

4 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I suppose we deal with it the same way that Mormons do in regard to the "sons of Perdition". You think it is okay for a few to experience an "everlasting barbecue"? We don't think it is about a few or about many. It is about hating God or loving God. According to the Catholic faith, only those who hate God can get to Hell. Who knows about the numbers. The Catholic Church teaches that we do not know the numbers. It was Jesus who said that the way is broad which leads to destruction. Maybe most people void the broad way? Catholics don't know.  We may hope for anyone and everyone. But the damned must have their choice. God is good, and the universe will acknowledge it on the Great Day. If I am ultimately among the damned, it is because I CHOSE Hell. The only way to get to Hell is to want to go to Hell and be away from God. The only way to not live with God forever is to hate God forever.

No one but God knows the fate of sons of perdition.

I think it is either everlasting boredom ove more likely everlasting mediocrity or they get to start over in some fashion.

[kiwi57]

4 hours ago, 3DOP said:

I suppose we deal with it the same way that Mormons do in regard to the "sons of Perdition". You think it is okay for a few to experience an "everlasting barbecue"? We don't think it is about a few or about many. It is about hating God or loving God. According to the Catholic faith, only those who hate God can get to Hell. Who knows about the numbers. The Catholic Church teaches that we do not know the numbers. It was Jesus who said that the way is broad which leads to destruction. Maybe most people void the broad way? Catholics don't know.  We may hope for anyone and everyone. But the damned must have their choice. God is good, and the universe will acknowledge it on the Great Day. If I am ultimately among the damned, it is because I CHOSE Hell. The only way to get to Hell is to want to go to Hell and be away from God. The only way to not live with God forever is to hate God forever.

Well the point is that those condemned to H-E-double-hockey-sticks wouldn't be in play if the "innocent man in the garden" had been the outcome; that's a negative factor in comparing the two possibilities, and supports the argument that the "Felix culpa" wasn't the best possible result. For Latter-day Saints, the Fall was an essential part of the plan all along - the "innocent man in the garden" was only a temporary intermediate state anyway, and what happened was what God had always intended to happen.

I take your point about hating God vs. loving God; however, might I humbly suggest that if someone has decided that they don't like the Lord, telling them that they're going to spend all of eternity being tortured is not exactly an endearing gesture. If one of my children decides to get rebellious, I'm not going to start heating up the fire tongs - and I certainly don't think of myself as either more loving or more patient than God.

[theplains]

18 hours ago, CV75 said:

Can you provide a scripture that explicitly says that Adam sinned? Do you believe partaking of the forbidden fruit was by accident, in ignorance, with limited information, due to inexperience, or out of willful disobedience? 

Romans 5:12 - "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world...".  Adam and Eve's actions were willful
disobedience.

Jim

[theplains]

On 31/12/2017 at 12:20 PM, RevTestament said:

a] Do you believe that Jesus was begotten when the Father told Him, "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee?"
b] Do you believe that Jesus Christ did all that He saw the Father do, and did likewise?
c] Do you believe that when one looked upon Jesus, they were seeing the Father in action?
d] Do you believe that Jesus plainly showed us of the Father up on the cross?
e] Do you believe that the Father is called YHWH, Behold the nail, behold the hand?
f] Will your Jesus be called the Eternal Father per Isaiah 9:6 and inherit the government of the Father per Isaiah 65?

a] I believe Jesus is begotten, not made. I do not believe Jesus became a God like the Religion 430-431 Doctrines of
the Gospel Student Manual teaches.

b] Yes.  Also, Jesus never married.

c] They were seeing God's love in action.  Not to be confused with someone teaching Heavenly Father also being
crucified on some other planet.

d] Don't understand. Please clarify.

e] The Father is Yahweh.  There is only one God, not three Gods.

f] Yes.

I believe in a Jesus who has never been anything less than Eternal God.  He created Lucifer, not that Lucifer was born
of heavenly parents.

Thanks,
Jim

[CV75]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

Romans 5:12 - "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world...".  Adam and Eve's actions were willful
disobedience.

Jim

I was thinking of this scripture when I asked the question, since I do not take this to be an explicit statement that Adam and Eve actually committed sin. The way it reads to me, the verse is a way of saying that by partaking of the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve brought the Fall into the world, whereby all of Adam's posterity is subject to the devil's temptations, which when acted upon, results in sin. But the Fall also created an environment that brought mistakes, accidents, ignorance, inexperience, etc. into the world as well and these effects upon those who are without law or accountability.

The rest of he chapter after verse 12 sheds some light on these points. Adam's offence, transgression or disobedience brought sin into the world, not his sin, which could not be imputed since he had no law as we know it (Christ had not yet taught it; Adam was not commanded to love God with all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his mind, and to love his neighbor as himself).

It may be a fine point, but it is still true: sin is not necessarily the same as an offence, transgression or disobedience which are often done without the law and by mistake, accident, ignorance, inexperience, etc. And it may be a fine point but it is still true: Romans 5:12 does not say that Adam sinned.

[RevTestament]

1 hour ago, theplains said:

a] I believe Jesus is begotten, not made. I do not believe Jesus became a God like the Religion 430-431 Doctrines of
the Gospel Student Manual teaches.

You didn't really answer my question. DId Heavenly Father tell Jesus "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee" like Hebrews says? If so, was Jesus the only begotten Son of the Father before being told this?

Quote

b] Yes.  Also, Jesus never married.

Ok. We are getting somewhere. So if Jesus did all He saw the Father do, then it is obvious that He saw the Father lay down His life even as He did? I agree Yeshua apparently did not marry on this earth.

Quote

c] They were seeing God's love in action.  Not to be confused with someone teaching Heavenly Father also being
crucified on some other planet.

Well, I guess that is one possible interpretation, but that is not what Jesus said. Let us go to the next one to illustrate:

Quote

d] Don't understand. Please clarify.

John 16: 25 These things have I spoken unto you in proverbs: but the time cometh, when I shall no more speak unto you in proverbs, but I shall shew you plainly of the Father.

26 At that day ye shall ask in my name: and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you:

***

32 Behold, the hour cometh, yea, is now come, that ye shall be scattered, every man to his own, and shall leave me alone: and yet I am not alone, because the Father is with me.

Here He is plainly speaking of His crucifixion - that He would plainly show them of the Father. While this was the will of the Father, it can also be seen that He is saying plainly you will see the Father in my actions. As He said, I have given you an example.

Quote

e] The Father is Yahweh.  There is only one God, not three Gods.

 

Is not the Son also Yahowah? Scriptures indicate Yahowah is one/echad. However, the problem for you is that scripture does not say Christ is El Elyon, the Most High Power. Luke says He is the son of the Most High. So there is scripturally one El Elyon, and it is not Christ, who recognized the Father is greater than He. Scripturally, they are one YHWH Elohim, but the Son is not yet El Elyon. I know it seems to convenient to gloss over these Hebrew names with "God" but that doesn't eliminate your difficulty.

Quote

f] Yes.

I believe in a Jesus who has never been anything less than Eternal God.  He created Lucifer, not that Lucifer was born
of heavenly parents.

Thanks,
Jim

Ok, my point is that according to the trinitarian doctrine Yeshua the Son is not the Father, and "God" is immutable or absolutely unchanging. That leaves no room for Him to have inheritance as the Father to inherit all the Father has including His title and government. I was just in a discussion where the claim was made otherwise, but how does an immutable God go from being the Son to being the Father and inheriting all the Father has? That just does not compute. I guess you can go on believing in illogical "mysteries" but it just doesn't follow. It is just forced illogic to go on insisting in some undefined oneness despite what the scriptures say. I said I believe the scriptures. You aren't following the scriptures - the Son is Not the Father and will be the same forever, yet I believe scripture that He will be the Eternal Father, and inherit the government of the Father - I pose these are irreconcilable. Either He will be the Son forever, or He will be the Father, and no more be the Son. Trinitarians want it both ways. They seem to believe their mental gymnastics, but it is just not scriptural. That is my point.

You believe in a God who created the devil knowing he would try to lead us astray - a spirit who never had an ounce of goodness in him - who never fell, and yet God punishes all of us for the sin of a man influenced by this created devil despite scripture saying men shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers. That is a very strange God. A God who wanted man to fall so badly that He created an evil anti-type to ensure man's sin so he could punish all men forevermore. Not only is that unscriptural, it is just not a God I can believe in. I'm not sure if you noticed, but the Bible never says God created Adam's spirit. He created Adam, and then blew his spirit of life into him. Ecclesiastes says man will return to dust, but his spirit will return to God who gave it - not created it. His spirit was not created with his body - it was blown into it after it was created.

I pose to you that you believe in a Jesus who was never begotten as the Son. Therefore, you disregard scripture. You say you believe it, but then claim Jesus was always God. You aren't going to find that in scripture either, but that is how trinitarianism operates.

[3DOP]

On 12/31/2017 at 1:38 PM, kiwi57 said:

Thank you, 3DOP. Now it happens that so far, we are in agreement: the Fall of Adam was a beneficial step. However, we believe that it is what God intended all along, and not merely an "oops" moment. Because if God's original plan was the "innocent Man in the Garden" model, then that original plan has been wrecked, and large numbers of humans get to spend eternity as the guests of honour at an everlasting barbecue because of that. How does Catholic doctrine deal with that problem?

 

 

19 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Well the point is that those condemned to H-E-double-hockey-sticks wouldn't be in play if the "innocent man in the garden" had been the outcome; that's a negative factor in comparing the two possibilities, and supports the argument that the "Felix culpa" wasn't the best possible result. For Latter-day Saints, the Fall was an essential part of the plan all along - the "innocent man in the garden" was only a temporary intermediate state anyway, and what happened was what God had always intended to happen.

I take your point about hating God vs. loving God; however, might I humbly suggest that if someone has decided that they don't like the Lord, telling them that they're going to spend all of eternity being tortured is not exactly an endearing gesture. If one of my children decides to get rebellious, I'm not going to start heating up the fire tongs - and I certainly don't think of myself as either more loving or more patient than God.

Kiwi, Hi.

We do not picture poor souls who have changed their minds begging God for mercy in Hell. I hold that nobody can get to Hell unless they hate God so much that they will never, ever acknowledge His goodness, acknowledging their own faults, while asking for forgiveness. The Church says that after death, the will is fixed, and if one hates God, Hell is the best place to manifest such a will. As miserable as they might be in Hell...Heaven would be worse. Catholics are taught that Heaven is loving God and contemplating Him forever. A lot of so-called Christians don't find such a "heaven" inviting. We shouldn't be too surprised if some might prefer Hell to Heaven.

As cal said, boredom and repetition might be key features of Hell. I tend to agree. I am afraid of ending up bored, and hating God. I know myself. I could easily end up hating God in Hell. Pray for me. I have hope, good hope, but not assurance that I will always love God.

It isn't like the inhabitants of Hell are God's children either. The Gospel says of some who proclaim that they wrought miracles, and spoke in His name, that I (Jesus) never knew you. God's children can not go to Hell. Someone who is once a child of God, has to make some act that separates himself from His Father to be able to make it to Hell.

I know this is not exactly what you are looking for. I need to ponder a bit more myself about the mystery of iniquity. Thanks for your patience.

3DOP

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, 3DOP said:

 

 

Kiwi, Hi.

We do not picture poor souls who have changed their minds begging God for mercy in Hell. I hold that nobody can get to Hell unless they hate God so much that they will never, ever acknowledge His goodness, acknowledging their own faults, while asking for forgiveness. The Church says that after death, the will is fixed, and if one hates God, Hell is the best place to manifest such a will. As miserable as they might be in Hell...Heaven would be worse. Catholics are taught that Heaven is loving God and contemplating Him forever. A lot of so-called Christians don't find such a "heaven" inviting. We shouldn't be too surprised if some might prefer Hell to Heaven.

As cal said, boredom and repetition might be key features of Hell. I tend to agree. I am afraid of ending up bored, and hating God. I know myself. I could easily end up hating God in Hell. Pray for me. I have hope, good hope, but not assurance that I will always love God.

It isn't like the inhabitants of Hell are God's children either. The Gospel says of some who proclaim that they wrought miracles, and spoke in His name, that I (Jesus) never knew you. God's children can not go to Hell. Someone who is once a child of God, has to make some act that separates himself from His Father to be able to make it to Hell.

I know this is not exactly what you are looking for. I need to ponder a bit more myself about the mystery of iniquity. Thanks for your patience.

3DOP

I am convinced that one of the purposes of rituals is to understand how "boring" it is to be God, knowing the end of the movie before it starts and having to sit through eternity watching it anyway. 

I know from experience that both Catholics and Mormons might nod off a bit during an hour or two of a ritual they have seen hundreds of times. 

Yet for Nietzsche, the highest affirmation of life is to look back upon one's life with all it's good and bad, it's mistakes and triumphs and yet desire to live it again just as it was, from the beginning again and again forever.

I see this as a kind of parallel to an affirmation of the "Fall" of Adam in seeing even errors and regrets in producing the "person we are today", presumably a better person than we were as a "natural man".   Without the errors and repentance, we would never have the ability to overcome the natural man nor the opportunity to do so.  We would not be able to receive grace if it were not for sin

I don't expect you to see this of course as I do, it just seemed to be a good place to bring up the idea. 

http://nietzsche.holtof.com/reader/friedrich-nietzsche/beyond-good-and-evil/aphorism-56-quote_90f9a8685.html

Friedrich Nietzsche - Beyond Good and Evil 
Part III - Aphorism # 56

Quote

Anyone who, like me, has, with some enigmatic desire or other, made an effort for a long time to think profoundly about pessimism and to rescue it from the half-Christian, half-German restrictions and simple-mindedness with which it has most recently appeared in this century, that is, in the form of Schopenhauer's philosophy; anyone who really has, with an Asian and super-Asiatic eye, looked into and down on the most world-denying of all possible ways of thinking - beyond good and evil and no longer as Buddha and Schopenhauer do, under the spell and delusion of morality - such a man has perhaps in the process, without really wanting to do so, opened his eyes for the reverse morality: for the ideal of the most high-spirited, most lively, and most world-affirming human being, who has not only learned to come to terms with and accept what was and is but wants to have what was and is come back for all eternity, calling out insatiably da capo [from the beginning] , not only to himself but to the entire play and spectacle, and not only to a spectacle but basically to the man who needs this particular spectacle and who makes the spectacle necessary, because over and over again he needs himself - and makes himself necessary. How's that? Wouldn't this be circulus vitiosus deus [god as a vicious circle]?

Also, here for those who are actually interested 

https://books.google.com/books?id=iHDHGY7lgRMC&pg=PA118&lpg=PA118&dq=Nietzsche+insatiably+da+capo&source=bl&ots=vPpB0qAfGX&sig=dxDm9LW09DZrlAUo8frj78OWVBw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiK9OHqorjYAhXBsVQKHQ-wBvgQ6AEILjAB#v=onepage&q=Nietzsche insatiably da capo&f=false

Edited January 2, 2018 by mfbukowski

[theplains]

On 01/01/2018 at 4:50 PM, RevTestament said:

a] You didn't really answer my question. DId Heavenly Father tell Jesus "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee" like Hebrews says? If so, was Jesus the only begotten Son of the Father before being told this?

b] Ok. We are getting somewhere. So if Jesus did all He saw the Father do, then it is obvious that He saw the Father lay down His life even as He did? I agree Yeshua apparently did not marry on this earth.

You believe in a God who created the devil knowing he would try to lead us astray - a spirit who never had an ounce of goodness in him - who never fell, and yet God punishes all of us for the sin of a man influenced by this created devil despite scripture saying men shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers.
 

a] I believe Jesus is begotten, but not made.  The term 'begotten' can also be used to signify a future event (when God became
flesh.  I don't believe he is a procreated spirit child who progressed into a God when he reached some pinnacle of intelligence
(like the LDS manual teaches).

b] Did the Mormon Jesus see Heavenly Father getting married to multiple women on some other planet before he was procreated?

c] From what I know of LDS theology, Mormons also believe God created Lucifer knowing he would lead people astray. And there
was joy in heaven when Adam and Eve disobeyed God if you adhere to LDS teachings.  That is why Eve is honoured for her action.

Jim

[RevTestament]

3 hours ago, theplains said:

a] I believe Jesus is begotten, but not made.  The term 'begotten' can also be used to signify a future event (when God became
flesh.  I don't believe he is a procreated spirit child who progressed into a God when he reached some pinnacle of intelligence
(like the LDS manual teaches).

You continue to avoid a very simple question. I think the reason is obvious - it exposes the illogical and unscriptural nature of trinitarian doctrine which claims to believe a verb but that the verb does not involve any change. "DId Heavenly Father tell Jesus "thou art my Son, this day I have begotten thee" like Hebrews says? If so, was Jesus the only begotten Son of the Father before being told this?" Those are simple questions which trinitarianism is scared of. Verbs like "begotten" and "became" involve change. Immutability doesn't allow for change. You claim you believe Jesus is begotten but will not answer to the scriptures on point. Hence my claim that I believe the scriptures and you do not.

Quote

b] Did the Mormon Jesus see Heavenly Father getting married to multiple women on some other planet before he was procreated?

Apparently not, because He didn't do that here. I believe that to basically be Mormon folklore - that may upset some, but that is my belief. I do believe Yeshua got physically married on His prior world. 

Quote

c] From what I know of LDS theology, Mormons also believe God created Lucifer knowing he would lead people astray. And there
was joy in heaven when Adam and Eve disobeyed God if you adhere to LDS teachings.  That is why Eve is honoured for her action.

Jim

You are incorrect. Mormons do not believe God created Lucifer knowing he would lead people astray. Mormons believe Satan was a pre-existent spirit. I believe He actually once was like us, and followed God to the point of becoming a morning star - hence the name Lucifer. However, somewhere along his path, he rejected it and did fall as Isaiah intonates, becoming Satan. I personally don't believe the heavens rejoiced when Adam and Eve fell. God knew man was choosing to go down a more difficult but rewarding path. Without the fall, there is no reason to be on this earth. Eve represents the Church, and Adam was basically forced into the flesh to save Eve, much like Christ had to come here and suffer the hardships of the flesh in order to save us. 

[3DOP]

On 12/31/2017 at 4:04 PM, RevTestament said:

That is not something I have been taught before in Catholicism. It seems to conflict with the doctrine of the trinity that the Son is NOT the Father, and that God is immutable.

Despite my years in Catholic School and some theology classes, I admit to not being an expert in Catholic theology, and was not trained in Catholic theology like a priest would be. I do not want to misrepresent Catholics in something they believe. Do they believe that Christ will inherit all the Father hath, and be our Eternal Father? What do they believe about the world to come? What does that mean to Catholic theologians? Does Catholic belief vary amongst different orders within the Catholic Church? Do Catholics ignore conflicts within their theology if scripture seems to support an interpretation such as the Son shall be called the Father?

That quotation from The Liturgical Year seems to be a little outside the classical mainstream theology of the Catholic Church, but like I said, I admit to not being a Catholic. Are there other sources for this principle? 

Dear Rev Testament,

I have not been able to locate any on-line commentaries that deal with the the Eternal Father, Everlasting Father, or Father of the world to come, in the various Catholic translations of Is. 9:6. There is a commentary written by St. Thos Aquinas on the the Book of Isaias which I do not have. However, it seems significant that this text is selected for the Introit for the Second Mass of Christmas as obviously applicable to the Son. It is unlikely that Mormons and Catholics agree how the Son is Father in the sense of Is. 9:6. But we absolutely agree that all of Is. 9:6. There is no getting away from it. The Son  as "Father of the world to come", seems to indicate that the "second Adam", like the first Adam, is indeed a father.  Unfortunately for this conversation, I have been working as well as preparing for a long trip that begins tomorrow. But I will not forget if I should come across some further references which concur with the Liturgical Year.

Jesus taught us that His Father is Our Father. We inherit what Christ inherits. I think it is probable that "the world to come" prophesied in Is. 9,  is here now in seed form, and fulfilled in eternity, everlastingly.  Different orders within the Church are not permitted to depart from the defined doctrine of the Church. If they do, they are to that extent, heretics instead of Catholics. (I am not suggesting that there cannot be different schools of thought about Is. 9:6 specifically). 

I liked your next to last question very much. Yes, Catholics ignore, or should ignore, apparent "conflicts within their theology if scripture seems to support and interpretation such as the Son shall be called the Father". We would call that a paradox, or mystery. Reason must bow before faith. We wouldn't believe there is an actual conflict. I do not see Is. 9:6 as much of a mystery as for instance, how God creates out of nothing and yet man has free will. I figure it is my problem to believe, not to always understand how. This is what frustrates a little about my interactions with LDS. Many of you have the idea that all we care about, or that the Church cares about is reason (Plato) ahead of faith (revelation). Apparently Plato and neo-Platonists also believed what Catholics taught at Nicea. Many of you guys say so anyway. I don't know. All I could say to that is that Plato wasn't necessarily wrong about everything. I have to disbelieve something because Plato believed it?

Sorry for such an incomplete answer. Maybe we can revisit things in a couple of weeks if you or anyone else is so-minded.

Regards,

3DOP

[RevTestament]

2 hours ago, 3DOP said:

Dear Rev Testament,

I have not been able to locate any on-line commentaries that deal with the the Eternal Father, Everlasting Father, or Father of the world to come, in the various Catholic translations of Is. 9:6. There is a commentary written by St. Thos Aquinas on the the Book of Isaias which I do not have. However, it seems significant that this text is selected for the Introit for the Second Mass of Christmas as obviously applicable to the Son. It is unlikely that Mormons and Catholics agree how the Son is Father in the sense of Is. 9:6. But we absolutely agree that all of Is. 9:6. There is no getting away from it. The Son  as "Father of the world to come", seems to indicate that the "second Adam", like the first Adam, is indeed a father.  Unfortunately for this conversation, I have been working as well as preparing for a long trip that begins tomorrow. But I will not forget if I should come across some further references which concur with the Liturgical Year.

Jesus taught us that His Father is Our Father. We inherit what Christ inherits. I think it is probable that "the world to come" prophesied in Is. 9,  is here now in seed form, and fulfilled in eternity, everlastingly.  Different orders within the Church are not permitted to depart from the defined doctrine of the Church. If they do, they are to that extent, heretics instead of Catholics. (I am not suggesting that there cannot be different schools of thought about Is. 9:6 specifically). 

I liked your next to last question very much. Yes, Catholics ignore, or should ignore, apparent "conflicts within their theology if scripture seems to support and interpretation such as the Son shall be called the Father". We would call that a paradox, or mystery. Reason must bow before faith. We wouldn't believe there is an actual conflict. I do not see Is. 9:6 as much of a mystery as for instance, how God creates out of nothing and yet man has free will. I figure it is my problem to believe, not to always understand how. This is what frustrates a little about my interactions with LDS. Many of you have the idea that all we care about, or that the Church cares about is reason (Plato) ahead of faith (revelation). Apparently Plato and neo-Platonists also believed what Catholics taught at Nicea. Many of you guys say so anyway. I don't know. All I could say to that is that Plato wasn't necessarily wrong about everything. I have to disbelieve something because Plato believed it?

Sorry for such an incomplete answer. Maybe we can revisit things in a couple of weeks if you or anyone else is so-minded.

Regards,

3DOP

Rory, thank you so much for your considerate post.

I really like the fact that you took this matter to heart and really researched it. It doesn't surprise me that you didn't find anything else much on point in Catholic theology though. I attended a Catholic High School for 4 years, and I guarantee I would have remembered this subject if it was broached in any of my theology classes. I have also posted on-line with Catholics and none have broached this subject when I brought it up. So it seems an uncommon area. I think that true for LDS as well, so I am not trying to be critical. I have researched LDS materials for something like 20 years, and don't remember coming across this subject as pointedly as I am discussing it. I still have trouble understanding what the BoM is trying to say about the Son being the Father. I get it after His resurrection, but not as readily as before ie the OT (Which is the period it appears in the BoM text). 
I have my understanding about the Son, and I try to understand everything else within my current understanding. Mind you I am not saying I will not change. I have before, and will change my thinking again if I find additional truth. I am just saying the way the BoM talks about it is too incomplete for me to digest it. I currently think of the Son as being in a covenantal relationship with the Father. The Father sent Him to teach us, basically as His legal agent. So Yeshua was completely and totally empowered to act on behalf of the Father. In His flesh as someone who was mortal and could die, the Son was not the Father, but like us - I get this much from the BoM. 

This is how I understand your thoughts - that the Son can be our Father and yet still be the Son of the Father - and I agree with that. However, I now see the Son as inheriting the holy mountains of the Father, and receiving His government and all the Father has. This means He actually becomes the Father, and will no more be called the Son. He no more will return to the world. That begs the question will there ever be another world or is this the one and only God will ever make. He seems to indicate there will be a new world. When I talk about things this way, most will try to interpret that as some future time in this world when Satan is gone. Yet, they picture themselves as living up in heaven with God - not down on some future earth. How about the "new heaven?" What does that mean? I think it means a new order in heaven. Yeshua will be the Father, so the order of the new Heaven will be different. As Jesus said, those who follow me, in the regeneration shall judge the 12 tribes of Israel....

Last scriptural issue to deal with.... Does this mean God will create a new God? I say no. There is no new God. The Father just gained a member. It would be like saying when a person joins the Rotary Club that it becomes a new Rotary Club. Obviously not. Same rules for all the members. There is just a new member of the whole carrying on the same name and mission. 

As for conflicts with theology - I'm not really sure if I conflict with "LDS theology" on this subject. I consider myself a scripturian. I follow scripture over the teachings of men - even the teachings of GAs in my own Church. That doesn't mean I am free to teach my POV, so keep that in mind. There have been statements by some LDS GAs which I think conflict with what I am saying. Personally, I am OK with that. I am trying to follow my Savior to the best of my ability. I understand that the Catholic Church still thinks there are things about the nature of God which are a mystery. I totally get that. I have been trying to unravel that mystery of God for many years. I think there are more mysteries to go unlocked until that day when the angels can say the mystery of God is finished per Revelation. So this much LDS do have in common with Catholics - that we believe God can reveal more things.

As for your presentation that God creates out of nothing, I will challenge you to show that from scripture. Man was created from dust. The earth was created from "water" or "waters." I think that is far as you will get.....

Again, thank you for your consideration.