Seeing Christ with Physical Eyes

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Just as an example, I have no idea how you get this conclusion. 

And what does "beyond the metaphysical limitations of the human mind" mean?

The human mind has come up with a LOT of metaphysical theories, I am not sure why any would be limited.

These are the questions I would ask anyone who wrote this.  But in asking you, I know I will not get clarification.

THIS is why I get so frustrated !

I just spent 45 minutes answering questions from Bernard. I certainly have no problem answering your questions. I must add however, that my answers (as I think I provide them) seem never quite adequate for you. They neither satisfy or satisfice you. So I get frustrated and discouraged as well. Please understand that.

I am not exactly sure which conclusion it is that you are questioning? I do believe Christ is today fully human and fully God. I believe the impact of the incarnation was and is permanent. Perhaps my reply to Bernard will help explain my belief in that regard. Are you asking me about my conclusion that the presence of a completely human person must be in some way verifiable? That just seems logical to me, especially in this day and age. I do not believe that today Christ is only spirit. He is spirit, body, and soul, as well as retaining his divinity (however that impacts his corporeal self). Since Christ is "the man Christ Jesus" his physical presence in someone's home, temple, office, field, car, wherever could be verified by physical evidence. In the crudest form there might be tracks, then photos, then videotapes, then testimony of as many others who were there. Christ is no longer and never will be (since the incarnation) solely a spirit to be observed only with the eyes of faith.

If a vision is seen only with the eyes of faith, then I think it is something different from the real presence of Christ in someone's presence. St. Thomas of Aquinas indicated that the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not something observable with the human eyes, but with the eyes of faith. So in the same way must a vision of Christ that does not include his full humanity be an experience through the eyes of faith. I do not believe He would leave His humanity in heaven, if He decided to come and "speak" with someone here on earth. If He came (which as fully God, I believe He could do - not sure He would do) He would talk with them with His human voice. That would be verifiable by someone in the next room who knew not what was going on. If I remember right I believe that was the case with the Wilford Woodruff experience. I do not believe that a vision speaking of seeing Christ by one person in a crowd (the others could not see the same Christ) is logical, since I do not believe that Christ would lay aside, cover up, or hide his humanity (corporeality) to appear to anyone. I think He accepted the role and nomenclature of the Son of Man as well as the Son of God. He will forever more be the Man Christ Jesus. Therefore I do not believe he would put an invisibility cloak on to disguise his humanity. He did not do so on the cross; nor in His post resurrection time period, nor in His ascension. I don't believe He would (although I grant He could) do so now. I don't know what Paul saw. The accounts are inconsistent. Spirits are not corporeal - a whole different concept of visioning. In that sense I do not believe angels are corporeal.

I think the metaphysical realities created by the human mind are indeed limited as there will be many more created and constructed in the future. Metaphysics is not a completed "science." It deals with things outside of physical observation and reality. I am sure we have not exhausted that realm of possibilities, therefore the concept of metaphysics is limited from what it will be 100 years from now. Current metaphysical discussions are limited in that they are incomplete.  Years ago we didn't even know the amygdala existed as the physical repository of memory tapes. What more will we discover in the future about our senses, our abilities to perceive, our blind spots, brain, etc.

Ok, I have tried to answer your questions. If my answers are not satisfactory (not in the sense that they are complete or that you agree with them), but simply not satisfactory or clarifying, ask again. I will try again. I don't want either of us to be frustrated in our discussions on this forum. I also don't want folks frustrated because I write too much.

[mfbukowski]

21 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I just spent 45 minutes answering questions from Bernard. I certainly have no problem answering your questions. I must add however, that my answers (as I think I provide them) seem never quite adequate for you. They neither satisfy or satisfice you. So I get frustrated and discouraged as well. Please understand that.

I am not exactly sure which conclusion it is that you are questioning? I do believe Christ is today fully human and fully God. I believe the impact of the incarnation was and is permanent. Perhaps my reply to Bernard will help explain my belief in that regard. Are you asking me about my conclusion that the presence of a completely human person must be in some way verifiable? That just seems logical to me, especially in this day and age. I do not believe that today Christ is only spirit. He is spirit, body, and soul, as well as retaining his divinity (however that impacts his corporeal self). Since Christ is "the man Christ Jesus" his physical presence in someone's home, temple, office, field, car, wherever could be verified by physical evidence. In the crudest form there might be tracks, then photos, then videotapes, then testimony of as many others who were there. Christ is no longer and never will be (since the incarnation) solely a spirit to be observed only with the eyes of faith.

If a vision is seen only with the eyes of faith, then I think it is something different from the real presence of Christ in someone's presence. St. Thomas of Aquinas indicated that the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist is not something observable with the human eyes, but with the eyes of faith. So in the same way must a vision of Christ that does not include his full humanity be an experience through the eyes of faith. I do not believe He would leave His humanity in heaven, if He decided to come and "speak" with someone here on earth. If He came (which as fully God, I believe He could do - not sure He would do) He would talk with them with His human voice. That would be verifiable by someone in the next room who knew not what was going on. If I remember right I believe that was the case with the Wilford Woodruff experience. I do not believe that a vision speaking of seeing Christ by one person in a crowd (the others could not see the same Christ) is logical, since I do not believe that Christ would lay aside, cover up, or hide his humanity (corporeality) to appear to anyone. I think He accepted the role and nomenclature of the Son of Man as well as the Son of God. He will forever more be the Man Christ Jesus. Therefore I do not believe he would put an invisibility cloak on to disguise his humanity. He did not do so on the cross; nor in His post resurrection time period, nor in His ascension. I don't believe He would (although I grant He could) do so now. I don't know what Paul saw. The accounts are inconsistent. Spirits are not corporeal - a whole different concept of visioning. In that sense I do not believe angels are corporeal.

I think the metaphysical realities created by the human mind are indeed limited as there will be many more created and constructed in the future. Metaphysics is not a completed "science." It deals with things outside of physical observation and reality. I am sure we have not exhausted that realm of possibilities, therefore the concept of metaphysics is limited from what it will be 100 years from now. Current metaphysical discussions are limited in that they are incomplete.  Years ago we didn't even know the amygdala existed as the physical repository of memory tapes. What more will we discover in the future about our senses, our abilities to perceive, our blind spots, brain, etc.

Ok, I have tried to answer your questions. If my answers are not satisfactory (not in the sense that they are complete or that you agree with them), but simply not satisfactory or clarifying, ask again. I will try again. I don't want either of us to be frustrated in our discussions on this forum. I also don't want folks frustrated because I write too much.

Thanks, this helps very very much.

These views seem to be far from LDS beliefs, and classically Protestant, which I think you would protest.

They are even farther from my "Radical Orthopraxy" version of LDS views, which necessitates a postmodern view of truth.

Every sentence here I think would require at least an hour long reply to even lay out the differences between us.

Just as an example, you said:

"Are you asking me about my conclusion that the presence of a completely human person must be in some way verifiable? That just seems logical to me,...."

I have no clue what that means in an age of information, the internet etc. or even this thread, where I have never seen YOUR body, but just communicated, presumably with an intelligence out there named "Navidad".  I need not see you to know exist.

All humans to me are both divine AND human as one caterpillar is fully a Caterpillar AND a butterfly.  Saying so, is so obvious it need not be mentioned.

I don't know why brain parts supposedly have anything to do with metaphysics.  Metaphysics itself to me is simply semantic confusion about what is linguistically called "real".  Read Wittgenstein and it simply disappears.

You said:

"I do not believe that today Christ is only spirit. He is spirit, body, and soul, as well as retaining his divinity (however that impacts his corporeal self)."

So are you, I believe, spirit, body, and divine in nature, how does that impact YOUR corporeal self?

So we are so far apart, I cannot understand how you attend church where this is presumably taught, and it still is an issue here 

And these are only the beginning of the dimensional differences between us.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I do not believe that a vision speaking of seeing Christ by one person in a crowd (the others could not see the same Christ) is logical, since I do not believe that Christ would lay aside, cover up, or hide his humanity (corporeality) to appear to anyone.

For us, Christ cannot lay aside His flesh and bone.  One someone is resurrected, their spirit and flesh are permanently together and never separated again.  But, I do believe Christ could show Himself to a single person in a crowd if He wanted to.  Not because He is laying aside His flesh and bone but because He is warping/modifying the light so that only that one person can see Him.  For instance, I do believe Paul saw Christ on the road to Damascus.  I also believe the others with Paul didn't see Him.

In addition, we also believe that God (Heavenly Father) is also a resurrected being.  Meaning He also has a body of flesh and bone (D&C 130:22).  He also doesn't lay aside His body when He appears.  But He can still limit who sees Him.

[Navidad]

19 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Thanks, this helps very very much.

These views seem to be far from LDS beliefs, and classically Protestant, which I think you would protest.

They are even farther from my "Radical Orthopraxy" version of LDS views, which necessitates a postmodern view of truth.

Every sentence here I think would require at least an hour long reply to even lay out the differences between us.

Just as an example, you said:

"Are you asking me about my conclusion that the presence of a completely human person must be in some way verifiable? That just seems logical to me,...."

I have no clue what that means in an age of information, the internet etc. or even this thread, where I have never seen YOUR body, but just communicated, presumably with an intelligence out there named "Navidad".  I need not see you to know exist.

All humans to me are both divine AND human as one caterpillar is fully a Caterpillar AND a butterfly.  Saying so, is so obvious it need not be mentioned.

I don't know why brain parts supposedly have anything to do with metaphysics.  Metaphysics itself to me is simply semantic confusion about what is linguistically called "real".  Read Wittgenstein and it simply disappears.

You said:

"I do not believe that today Christ is only spirit. He is spirit, body, and soul, as well as retaining his divinity (however that impacts his corporeal self)."

So are you, I believe, spirit, body, and divine in nature, how does that impact YOUR corporeal self?

So we are so far apart, I cannot understand how you attend church where this is presumably taught, and it still is an issue here 

And these are only the beginning of the dimensional differences between us.

I understand that my beliefs are "far from LDS beliefs." I also understand that many of my beliefs are Protestant. I have no problem with either. We attend the LDS ward for the fellowship and worship opportunities in English. It is very important for my wife and therefore, for me as well. I am not trying to be LDS. I am trying very hard to be able to minister and fellowship as possible. That is most often (the ministry part) informal, yet satisfying and I hope helpful. I value learning. What better place to learn about the LDS than in an LDS ward? I contribute with my knowledge of LDS history, especially of the LDS in Mexico.

I am much more a student of, and interested in LDS history than LDS doctrine. How its doctrine often has derived from its history is of great interest to me, just as is the same among the Anabaptists, Pentecostals, and here in Mexico, the Catholics. There are many non-LDS historians who speak about LDS history. I am one of them . . . especially about the LDS history here in Mexico. I get really interested when someone does something like try and create a similarity between the Virgin of Guadalupe and Heavenly Mother. I find that doubtful but fascinating.

I don't learn much of anything on this forum about LDS history. I am very interested in what I learn here about LDS attitudes, biases, etc. toward the non-LDS Christian world. That is what interests me most here.

I would not agree that I have divinity within me as does Christ, nor is my spirit anything like His. I do however believe I have the divine spark in me in having been created in the image (not likeness) of God. I believe I am entirely of a different species than God. I do believe He has created a way to communicate and redeem we humans by merging the two spirits in His Son. I am certainty grateful for that.

I am sure there are many things about me that you don't understand about me. That is ok with me and I say "Ditto!" I just hope it is ok with you! I am interested in, but don't understand what you mean by "dimensional differences" between us. That leads me to ask you a question. . . What is a dimensional difference? Sounds like the twilight zone!

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

For us, Christ cannot lay aside His flesh and bone.  One someone is resurrected, their spirit and flesh are permanently together and never separated again.  But, I do believe Christ could show Himself to a single person in a crowd if He wanted to.  Not because He is laying aside His flesh and bone but because He is warping/modifying the light so that only that one person can see Him.  For instance, I do believe Paul saw Christ on the road to Damascus.  I also believe the others with Paul didn't see Him.

In addition, we also believe that God (Heavenly Father) is also a resurrected being.  Meaning He also has a body of flesh and bone (D&C 130:22).  He also doesn't lay aside His body when He appears.  But He can still limit who sees Him.

I would agree with all you said with the exception that I am still not sure what Paul actually saw and will remain unsure until I can talk with him about it. I sort of think what was revealed to him was the shekinah glory (something I have never heard mentioned in five years in the ward). I believe he later extrapolated that Christ may have been hidden within that glory so he claimed to have seen Christ. I believe the shekinah glory to be something literal. It was evident in the Egyptian wanderings and in the temple on the ark. It disappeared from the temple during the time of Ezekiel. Now that was some apostasy! Paul may have seen Christ, the Holy Spirit, or a manifestation of God. I simply am not certain.

I am familiar with LDS beliefs about the Father. I simply don't agree, but have no desire to debate it. It is a core LDS belief and I receive it from them (you). I can receive something with respect without having to agree with it. Since you use the word "can" and "could" I also agree complete with you. He is fully divine so He can bend whatever laws He desires. I just don't believe that is what happens in visions, primarily because of what the New Testament reveals to us about his post-resurrection and pre-ascension life.  Take care.

Edited August 22, 2022 by Navidad

[mfbukowski]

37 minutes ago, Navidad said:

That leads me to ask you a question. . . What is a dimensional difference? Sounds like the twilight zone!

Yep, that's what I mean

"Image but not likeness".

Uh, ok.

Language cannot represent experience.  How do you generate a point of view which can compare the experience of God with the language?

Would one say that it was "nice" to see God?

What words would suffice?

None.  We can prattle on and NONE of it would be " evidence".

Language is confounded

THAT'S the meaning of Babel. Try to climb the tower to "true words about God?"  What happened to that tower?

You better than anyone knows that history is HIS STORY.

Edited August 22, 2022 by mfbukowski

[pogi]

55 minutes ago, Navidad said:

I sort of think what was revealed to him was the shekinah glory (something I have never heard mentioned in five years in the ward). 

It is not part of our doctrine/vocabulary.  I have never hear of it.  How would you explain "shekinah glory" to someone who has never heard of it?  

[Navidad]

24 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

"Image but not likeness".

Maybe "image but not essence" would be more accurate to what I am thinking. I guess that wouldn't matter. The reality is we are forced to use words to communicate. Indeed no language is sufficient in describing the heavenly or eternities. I agree. That is why Paul in some cases made up Greek words to try and express his sentiments. We do the best we can since we are in the image, but not essence of God! 😀 I just couldn't resist!

[Navidad]

30 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Yep, that's what I mean

"Image but not likeness".

Uh, ok.

Language cannot represent experience.  How do you generate a point of view which can compare the experience of God with the language?

Would one say that it was "nice" to see God?

What words would suffice?

None.  We can prattle on and NONE of it would be " evidence".

Language is confounded

THAT'S the meaning of Babel. Try to climb the tower to "true words about God?"  What happened to that tower?

You better than anyone knows that history is HIS STORY.

Oh and by the way . . . you didn't answer my question! What is a dimensional difference?

[Calm]

32 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is not part of our doctrine/vocabulary.  I have never hear of it.  How would you explain "shekinah glory" to someone who has never heard of it?  

So if I understand correctly, shekinah glory is a visible, material manifestation of the invisible, immaterial God the Father’s presence.  The burning bush, the cloud and pillar of fire etc are not just symbols of God’s presence, but perhaps the effects of God’s presence?

Is this an accurate description, Navidad?

[Calm]

There are a number of references to either a pillar of fire or a pillar of light in both the Bible and Latter-day scriptures, including and Joseph Smith’s visions (the burning bush could be interpreted as a rather short pillar of fire).  I don’t remember ever talking about them as more than a vehicle for a vision or an indication of sacred space.  My personal impression has been it is how mortal eyes perceive divine glory, whether of God or his messengers’ as frequently the mortal’s eyes first perceive the pillar and then with greater insight perceive a being within the light.  Essentially it is a halo, but of the whole body, not just a crown of light. 
 

Would be curious to hear others’ thoughts on them. 

Edited August 22, 2022 by Calm

[webbles]

5 minutes ago, Calm said:

There are a number of references to either a pillar of fire or a pillar of light in both the Bible and Latter-day scriptures, including and Joseph Smith’s visions (the burning bush could be interpreted as a rather short pillar of fire).  I don’t remember ever talking about them as more than a vehicle for a vision or an indication of sacred space.  My personal impression has been it is how mortal eyes perceive divine glory, whether of God or his messenger’s as frequently their eyes first perceive the pillar and then with greater insight perceive a being within the light.  Essentially it is a halo, but of the whole body, not just a crown of light. 
 

Would be curious to hear others’ thoughts on them. 

With the Brother of Jared's story, it would seem like the pillar of fire/light, burning bush, etc was the veil that protected the mortal from viewing God.  He was physically present but had not granted them the privilege of seeing Him.  Some were faithful enough to pierce the veil.  Others were granted the privilege to pierce the veil.

[webbles]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

I would agree with all you said with the exception that I am still not sure what Paul actually saw and will remain unsure until I can talk with him about it. I sort of think what was revealed to him was the shekinah glory (something I have never heard mentioned in five years in the ward). I believe he later extrapolated that Christ may have been hidden within that glory so he claimed to have seen Christ. I believe the shekinah glory to be something literal. It was evident in the Egyptian wanderings and in the temple on the ark. It disappeared from the temple during the time of Ezekiel. Now that was some apostasy! Paul may have seen Christ, the Holy Spirit, or a manifestation of God. I simply am not certain.

I am familiar with LDS beliefs about the Father. I simply don't agree, but have no desire to debate it. It is a core LDS belief and I receive it from them (you). I can receive something with respect without having to agree with it. Since you use the word "can" and "could" I also agree complete with you. He is fully divine so He can bend whatever laws He desires. I just don't believe that is what happens in visions, primarily because of what the New Testament reveals to us about his post-resurrection and pre-ascension life.  Take care.

One story during His post-resurrection that, for me, demonstrates He can "hide" Himself is the story of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus: Luke 24:13-35.  These two disciples, who knew Him, walked, talked, and ate with Him but didn't recognize Him.  Then, as vs 30-31 say:

Quote

30 And it came to pass, as he sat at meat with them, he took bread, and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them.

31 And their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their sight.

Something was preventing them from recognizing Him and after they finally recognized Him, He vanished.

Then you have the two stories of Mary at the tomb (she originally thinks He was the gardner) and the apostles at the lake (they don't recognize Him on the shore).  Both of those could be explained with Mary not looking at Him (just hearing Him) and the apostles not being close to the shore.  But I think all three stories point to the ability of Him to "hide" Himself from people unless He wants to be shown.

[Navidad]

49 minutes ago, pogi said:

It is not part of our doctrine/vocabulary.  I have never hear of it.  How would you explain "shekinah glory" to someone who has never heard of it?  

Hi my friend: The shekinah glory is a term used by Christians that comes from Jewish tradition that refers to The Glory of God. The word "shakan" (a rough Anglicization)  means to dwell or live permanently, kind of like when we moved to Mexico we became permanent residents, not tourists or visitors. The term was used by Jewish rabbis to refer to the physical and visible presence of God among the Hebrew people. It was used to refer to the pillar of fire and cloud of smoke, the burning bush, and the powerful flame that later dwelled or lived in the Holy of Holies on the ark of the covenant. It represented the presence of God with His people and was provided to provide assurance and direction. In Ezekiel's vision as described in Ezekiel 9 and 10, it was a momentous decision by God to withdraw his shekinah glory or presence from the temple. Ezekiel describes it literally as leaving, flying over the city, and ascending into heaven. Never again in the second temple period was the Shekinah glory present in the temple or anywhere on earth. The next manifestation of it was that night in the shepherd's field when the Glory of the Lord shone roundabout the shepherds and they were terrified.

The term was adapted by Christians to have the same meaning. It has been used of Christ's time on earth, the transfiguration, and the ascension. Some but not all Christians now use the term to refer to the Holy Spirit's coming in Pentecost and subsequent indwelling the Christian, in whom is now the shekinah glory - or at least should be. We should be the physical visible presence and light of God to the lost and dying world. It is indeed a metaphor at this point. Today it speaks of the ministry of the Holy Spirit indwelling the believer. I know the Saints teach something else, but this is used by many Christians to refer to the point where the Holy Spirit becomes a permanent resident in the believer. Others believe it is temporarily permanent dependent on the faithfulness of the believer. This is a broad divide in Christendom.
 

That is a quick review. I hope it is helpful. The shekinah glory of God is a very important concept in my tradition. It is used extensively to refer to the apostasy between 600 or so BCE and the coming of Christ, when God withdrew his glory from the earth. That is why the account of the glory of God in Luke 2 is such a big deal. The actual Hebrew term is not used in either the NT or OT, but has a rich history in some Talmudic teaching and is widely applied to the glory of God. Take care.

[Pyreaux]

In Talmudic and Rabbinical writings, the Shekinah is the feminine and divine presence  (-ah suffix is female) depicted as a person, the "Bride of God", opposed to the harlot spirit, Lilith. These women are depicted in the Book of Proverbs as Lady Wisdom and the Dame Folly, and in Revelations as the Bride of the Lamb and the Whore of Babylon. When the woman went into exile when Babylon razed her home, the temple, and Ezra returned from Babylon, with his Persian money, and Deuteronomic laws, rebuilt a new temple with a foreign apostate spirit sitting on the many waters under the throne of Herod's temple.

Shekinah is the Holy Spirit, the creative power of God manifesting itself to human senses as a light and sound.

Edited August 22, 2022 by Pyreaux

[Navidad]

48 minutes ago, Calm said:

So if I understand correctly, shekinah glory is a visible, material manifestation of the invisible, immaterial God the Father’s presence.  The burning bush, the cloud and pillar of fire etc are not just symbols of God’s presence, but perhaps the effects of God’s presence?

Is this an accurate description, Navidad?

Sounds good. I just wrote something a bit longer in reply to a question by Pogi. Take care.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Maybe "image but not essence" would be more accurate to what I am thinking. I guess that wouldn't matter. The reality is we are forced to use words to communicate. Indeed no language is sufficient in describing the heavenly or eternities. I agree. That is why Paul in some cases made up Greek words to try and express his sentiments. We do the best we can since we are in the image, but not essence of God! 😀 I just couldn't resist!

Worse

It matters a lot. Now you are doing pure Aquinas and transubstantiation where the substance changes from human to divine but the image-accidents- remains.  It's Catholic Eucharist theory!

And no, the reality is NOT that we are forced to use THESE words to communicate God's ineffability.

We are the same species so of course Man is in the image of God and vice versa. And the generations of Gods are infinite.

[Navidad]

17 minutes ago, webbles said:

One story during His post-resurrection that, for me, demonstrates He can "hide" Himself is the story of the two disciples on the road to Emmaus: Luke 24:13-35.  These two disciples, who knew Him, walked, talked, and ate with Him but didn't recognize Him.  Then, as vs 30-31 say:

Something was preventing them from recognizing Him and after they finally recognized Him, He vanished.

Then you have the two stories of Mary at the tomb (she originally thinks He was the gardner) and the apostles at the lake (they don't recognize Him on the shore).  Both of those could be explained with Mary not looking at Him (just hearing Him) and the apostles not being close to the shore.  But I think all three stories point to the ability of Him to "hide" Himself from people unless He wants to be shown.

Hi Webbles: Good examples but both refer to the post-resurrection but pre-ascension Christ. Paul's is the only experience (that I can think of) where the ascended Christ may have appeared on earth to someone (years after the ascension) as recorded in the New Testament. Paul was present when Stephen was stoned, also after the ascension. It is recorded that Stephen had a vision of Christ sitting on the right hand of the Father in heaven, not here on earth. So even in that one other instance the vision of Christ showed him in heaven in His rightful place next to the Father. 

Christ's post-ascension place and role changed dramatically from the preincarnation, incarnated (on earth) and resurrected Christ. The New Testament describes a role today for him to intercede on our behalf with the Father, to prepare places for us, and uh oh I am blanking on the third. Sorry. Old age hits again. Oh yeh, to build up His church on earth in these days. I interpret that to mean the world-wide called-out (ekklesia=church) individuals who one by one have become Christians (including the Saints) and who now form his world-wide church. It has nothing to do with denominations, sects, or the like. I know that isn't the LDS definition of the church. That is ok . . . again I won't debate the difference although I think it to be important. I receive the LDS perspective on the church as one worthy of my respect and thought. I simply disagree. Take care.

[Navidad]

10 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

We are the same species so of course Man is in the image of God and vice versa. And the generations of Gods are infinite.

For someone who is philosophically bent, you certainly speak with great certainty! You speak out of your confidence borne out of your life experiences - that seems to be your testimony. They aren't mine - so please receive my faith (without making it being "worse") based on my provisional certainty as I receive yours seemingly based on your absolute certainty. OK?

[webbles]

14 minutes ago, Navidad said:

Hi Webbles: Good examples but both refer to the post-resurrection but pre-ascension Christ. Paul's is the only experience (that I can think of) where the ascended Christ may have appeared on earth to someone (years after the ascension) as recorded in the New Testament. Paul was present when Stephen was stoned, also after the ascension. It is recorded that Stephen had a vision of Christ sitting on the right hand of the Father in heaven, not here on earth. So even in that one other instance the vision of Christ showed him in heaven in His rightful place next to the Father. 

Christ's post-ascension place and role changed dramatically from the preincarnation, incarnated (on earth) and resurrected Christ. The New Testament describes a role today for him to intercede on our behalf with the Father, to prepare places for us, and uh oh I am blanking on the third. Sorry. Old age hits again. Oh yeh, to build up His church on earth in these days. I interpret that to mean the world-wide called-out (ekklesia=church) individuals who one by one have become Christians (including the Saints) and who now form his world-wide church. It has nothing to do with denominations, sects, or the like. I know that isn't the LDS definition of the church. That is ok . . . again I won't debate the difference although I think it to be important. I receive the LDS perspective on the church as one worthy of my respect and thought. I simply disagree. Take care.

I don't think we (Latter-day Saints) see any difference between post-resurrection and post-ascension.  After Christ resurrected, He never changed again.  For us, I would say there a 4 different stages of Christ: pre-mortal, mortal, post-death but pre-resurrection, and post-resurrection.  Of course, we also believe that we all have those same stages (since Christ is the same as "species" as us).  For me, it is odd to think that post-ascension somehow changed Him.  He had already ascended before He showed Himself to the apostles.  He also ascended (or at least disappeared) before the final ascension.  Thanks for the details.

[mfbukowski]

7 minutes ago, Navidad said:

For someone who is philosophically bent, you certainly speak with great certainty! You speak out of your confidence borne out of your life experiences - that seems to be your testimony. They aren't mine - so please receive my faith (without making it being "worse") based on my provisional certainty as I receive yours seemingly based on your absolute certainty. OK?

Again misunderstanding.

We all have our individual paradigms, all God given

My entire way of seeing the world is based on relativism, and all I have ever disagreed with you about is how I see your PARADIGM as not answering MY questions, and contrasting how my PARADIGM answers answers them for me.

After 50 years of trying my paradigm daily I have NO more questions, and my daily prayers confirm to me that I am absolutely on the path the Lord wants for me

But I still try my paradigm daily, often here, and I am still seeking any doubts I can generate.

I have had none for 20 years or more. And more details fall into place daily- things I have never before thought about that suddenly relate perfectly to filling in details.

Yesterday I was reading something about a new aspect of the atonement I was considering and I read an article that showed that the same esoteric argument I was considering was central to a chapter in the Book of Mormon that I had glossed over a million times!!  There it was in front of my nose, unseen, for at least 40 years!!

I wish you and everyone else the certainty I have, no matter what path God guides you toward.  If I never had a Buddhist period, I would not know meditation as I do now! 

All paths lead to God if you are in the spirit 

If for some reason you find that offensive, I am sorry. 

I cannot help my certainty nor do I want to.  God knows that I know that He knows....

The goal of philosophy is to heal error, and like a good doctor, I believe I have healed myself out of the disease of doubt and found incredible peace and joy in my God.

I wish the same for all

 

 

[Navidad]

1 hour ago, webbles said:

He had already ascended before He showed Himself to the apostles. 

Some further information on this please. . .

[Navidad]

57 minutes ago, mfbukowski said:

Again misunderstanding.

We all have our individual paradigms, all God given

My entire way of seeing the world is based on relativism, and all I have ever disagreed with you about is how I see your PARADIGM as not answering MY questions, and contrasting how my PARADIGM answers answers them for me.

After 50 years of trying my paradigm daily I have NO more questions, and my daily prayers confirm to me that I am absolutely on the path the Lord wants for me

But I still try my paradigm daily, often here, and I am still seeking any doubts I can generate.

I have had none for 20 years or more. And more details fall into place daily- things I have never before thought about that suddenly relate perfectly to filling in details.

Yesterday I was reading something about a new aspect of the atonement I was considering and I read an article that showed that the same esoteric argument I was considering was central to a chapter in the Book of Mormon that I had glossed over a million times!!  There it was in front of my nose, unseen, for at least 40 years!!

I wish you and everyone else the certainty I have, no matter what path God guides you toward.  If I never had a Buddhist period, I would not know meditation as I do now! 

All paths lead to God if you are in the spirit 

If for some reason you find that offensive, I am sorry. 

I cannot help my certainty nor do I want to.  God knows that I know that He knows....

The goal of philosophy is to heal error, and like a good doctor, I believe I have healed myself out of the disease of doubt and found incredible peace and joy in my God.

I wish the same for all

 

 

Thanks and well said. Please simply don't wish me the certainty you have. I don't see certainty in any way as a virtue. You apparently do. I find nothing you said offensive. I simply disagree that certainty is a virtue. I can go as far as provisional certitude, but no further (farther?). "God knows that I know that He knows" is a bridge much too far for me. Congratulations on "the incredible peace and joy in my God" that we share together.

[webbles]

Just now, Navidad said:

Some further information on this please. . .

From chapter 37 of Jesus The Christ (written by James E Talmage, an apostle at the time):

Quote

One may wonder why Jesus had forbidden Mary Magdalene to touch Him, and then, so soon after, had permitted other women to hold Him by the feet as they bowed in reverence. We may assume that Mary’s emotional approach had been prompted more by a feeling of personal yet holy affection than by an impulse of devotional worship such as the other women evinced. Though the resurrected Christ manifested the same friendly and intimate regard as He had shown in the mortal state toward those with whom He had been closely associated, He was no longer one of them in the literal sense. There was about Him a divine dignity that forbade close personal familiarity. To Mary Magdalene Christ had said: “Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father.” If the second clause was spoken in explanation of the first, we have to infer that no human hand was to be permitted to touch the Lord’s resurrected and immortalized body until after He had presented Himself to the Father. It appears reasonable and probable that between Mary’s impulsive attempt to touch the Lord, and the action of the other women who held Him by the feet as they bowed in worshipful reverence, Christ did ascend to the Father, and that later He returned to earth to continue His ministry in the resurrected state.

When Mary saw the resurrected Christ, He had not yet ascended and Christ told her not to touch Him (John 20:11-17).

Quote

Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father

But then He showed Himself to other woman who held His feet (Matt 28:9-10).  So, He had ascended by that time.  Plus, when He showed Himself to the apostles, He let them touch Him as well.

Now, other English editions of the Bible use phrases like "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father." (NIV)  But it still doesn't explain why Mary couldn't hold on to Him while the later women and apostles all could.  So it appears that something special occurred between His appearance to Mary and His later appearances.

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Navidad said:

Thanks and well said. Please simply don't wish me the certainty you have. I don't see certainty in any way as a virtue. You apparently do. I find nothing you said offensive. I simply disagree that certainty is a virtue. I can go as far as provisional certitude, but no further (farther?). "God knows that I know that He knows" is a bridge much too far for me. Congratulations on "the incredible peace and joy in my God" that we share together.

Nice.  Neener neener.  Glad I didn't tell "Mr. CHRISTIAN love everyone" that I do not find his paradigm as in any way virtuous, while attending an LDS ward. 

And of course uncertainty is built into relativism itself.

I am certain that relativism is only relatively "true"

Life is change, Heraclius saw existence as an ever changing river

I am certain he was right

That is life itself, in constant evolution, seeing truth as the ineffable.  We create our own worlds, I am glad you relish yours

 

Edited August 23, 2022 by mfbukowski