Creedal Christian god= Para Brahman?

[Benjamin McGuire]

1 hour ago, mfbukowski said:

Terms like "substance" or "essence" for example, can be very ambiguous, as well as a term like "nature".   What is the "nature" of men?  What men do.   What is the "nature" of dogs?  What dogs do.  Divine nature?  I suppose that means what Divine Beings do! Unfortunately that doesn't really express what "divine" MEANS.

Then there's vegetable oil, palm oil, peanut oil, coconut oil ... and baby oil ...

Vegetarians eat vegetables. Pescatarians eat fish. Do we really want to hang around with humanitarians?

[Saint Bonaventure]

19 hours ago, Calm said:

So the wood burns with the fire (is consumed, but is not consumed), but is not the fire…but God is the fire that exists independently of all else, will burn eternally without wood or anything to consume, but he chooses to share the experience of his being ( the fire) with humans (the wood)?

I realize analogies are not perfect parallels, so if I took it too far, just say, ‘nah, doesn’t work’.

Would it make a difference if love as a noun was a different word than love as a verb?  Or is the issue thinking of love as needing an object to love?

How can love exist outside a relationship?

Thanks for your thoughtful insights and questions. I always enjoy them.

It's not a perfect analogy, but it's been explored and some have found it helpful.

A philosophical problem, one that Jung, Wittgenstein, Deleuze, and Whitehead (the theologian) have explored is that ultimately the distinction between noun and verb, between being and becoming, might be one of perspective. Jung even took this as far as collapsing the subject-object distinction.

Some theologians are aware of a tendency to describe God's "Being" in terms of noun and God's "Persons" in terms of verb. Theology in this area approaches the limits of language, and this is one of the common invocations of mystery. 

Theology around the Incarnation sometimes has this flavor, wherein the Son's Divine Nature is unchanging, but His human nature is changing. This is, btw, one of the main philosophical entrances into Mariology. 

Edited April 28, 2024 by Saint Bonaventure

[Saint Bonaventure]

On 4/27/2024 at 3:06 PM, ZealouslyStriving said:

I'm sorry you feel as though I was disrespecting you. I was posting in a spirit of ecumenism, while also being clear on differences- or so I thought. After receiving a comeuppance at the hands of several posters, I too am trying to be more kind in how I write and approach things.

The question in the original post was meant to elicit discussion. Which it has done. Mission accomplished?

...

Responding to your post would be easier if I wasn't doing everything on my phone, so please be patient:

While I agree we are not in total agreement, I thought your ideas of Peter expressed thus:

"In LDS terminology, Catholics believe that Peter still has the keys, so to speak, and hence all of the popular depictions of Peter at the gate of heaven, etc. "

were similar enough I thought them worth mentioning- as we also believe priesthood power remains with the priesthood holder after death enabling them to preach the gospel (and whatever else it is they do) in the world of spirits. I would *personally* say that power also likely involves some work here with us mortals, as we see angels as beings having been attached to this earth.

I believe Peter holding the Presiding keys later bestowed upon the Prophet Joseph Smith does not negate the reality of an earthly apostasy- as Revelation points out the woman (representing the Church) would be hid in the wilderness from 1260 days/years.

Now, give me a hug. 🫂

Not so much feeling disrespected as feeling like I'm standing in one of those old-fashioned showers with the hot water and cold water blasting at the same time. No worries, though, and I appreciate what you are saying here.

I'll add that, from my perspective, the language of "apostasy" is very strong language. Justin Martyr, Origen, and Tertullian use the language of apostasy to describe the demons being cast from heaven. I don't expect you to change your theology or anything, just know that on the receiving end it can be received as an assertion of the demonic.   

There is plenty of scholarship around early Christianity and paganism--Clement, Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Tertullian, and Augustine all had plenty to say at the time. The work by Pelikan that I mentioned early discusses the subject at length. Early Christians, like any faith that has been around a while, articulated the prevalence of paganism going back into the mists of time. Natural law is a main vehicle of explanation. 

If you want a discussion on Revelation 12, I'm very much up for it.  

Edited April 29, 2024 by Saint Bonaventure

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Benjamin McGuire said:

Then there's vegetable oil, palm oil, peanut oil, coconut oil ... and baby oil ...

Vegetarians eat vegetables. Pescatarians eat fish. Do we really want to hang around with humanitarians?

Now THAT is a post with SUBSTANCE! 

But I don't think we have an option TO BE or NOT TO BE humanitarians.

   We is what we is!. 

 And, notice that THAT statement is ABSOLUTE TRUTH.!   

A=A !

Edited April 29, 2024 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

On 4/27/2024 at 8:17 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

Thanks for clarifying. I think we have a difference in worldview here, as I see prayer as integral to John 17's admonition to be as one even as the Son and the Father are one. You may be familiar with what I'm about to share, but I'll nonetheless share it for the benefit of everyone who is reading our interaction.

Catholics believe that the apostles continue to be sent forth by the Lord, they continue to bind and loose, the Church is built on the foundation of apostles and prophets, and that the gates of hades (death/hell) have not prevailed against the church. In LDS terminology, Catholics believe that Peter still has the keys, so to speak, and hence all of the popular depictions of Peter at the gate of heaven, etc. 

There is a fundamental disjunction between Catholics and LDS that I'm going to emphasize because it's vital. Catholics consider the Church in three senses, and yes, Catholic theologians have done what I find to be incredibly illuminating work regarding the three senses of the Church and the Trinity (Augustine, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, von Balthasar. This is one of the best, most faith-affirming subjects I've studied in my life). The three senses of the Church are 1) The Church Militant (on earth), The Church Suffering (in Purgatory), The Church Triumphant (in Heaven). All three senses are the Body of Christ, and when the Passion of the Church is concluded and the Church is atoned with the Trinity, all the Church will be the Church Triumphant (we're deep into Catholic eschatology and divinization/theosis here).

Put differently, Catholics believe that Christ's admonition in John 17 that we should be one even as the Father and the Son are one is taken to mean--and this is crucial--that oneness in the Church (and among mankind, in another sense) is to correspond to the oneness amongst the Persons of the Trinity (which, for Catholics is a oneness in love, and not merely in purpose). It is that idea that is at the core of Catholic understandings of the Communion of the Saints, and it's why we think that intercessory prayer happens on both sides of the veil, and continually. This is also where an abundance of puzzlement occurs between Catholics and Latter-day Saints, as Latter-day Saints talk about Peter giving his keys to Joseph Smith, the Church not having authority during the great apostasy, etc., and Catholics talk about the Church having apostles even though they all died (and most all of them were martyred). Catholics and LDS often talk past one another on these things.   

The Bible has an abundance of intercessory prayer, of persons praying for someone else (Moses for the Israelites, Job for his friends, Daniel for the Israelites, Paul for the various churches, etc.). And crucial to Catholics is the passage in Revelation 5 wherein the elders hold the bowls that are filled with the prayers of God's people. At a basic level, the elders holding the bowls are interceding. The very act of holding is interceding. Moreover, Sacred Tradition affirms intercessory prayer and repeatedly explores it in these and other passages.

I would not say that the prayers of the Saints are somehow better, that they are qualitatively superior in some sense. Scripture does teach that prayers are not equal in their efficacy, though. James 5:16 teaches that, "...the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects."

If I have helped anyone reading this understand the vital points even a little, then this absurdly long post has been worthwhile.

 

Quote

Catholics believe that the apostles continue to be sent forth by the Lord, they continue to bind and loose, the Church is built on the foundation of apostles and prophets, and that the gates of hades (death/hell) have not prevailed against the church. In LDS terminology, Catholics believe that Peter still has the keys, so to speak, and hence all of the popular depictions of Peter at the gate of heaven, etc. 

Yes and I see more parallels here as well- in our temple ceremonies, for us, "binding and losing" in our Sealings is alive and well
 

Quote

 

There is a fundamental disjunction between Catholics and LDS that I'm going to emphasize because it's vital. Catholics consider the Church in three senses, and yes, Catholic theologians have done what I find to be incredibly illuminating work regarding the three senses of the Church and the Trinity (Augustine, Bonaventure, Thomas Aquinas, von Balthasar. This is one of the best, most faith-affirming subjects I've studied in my life). The three senses of the Church are 1) The Church Militant (on earth), The Church Suffering (in Purgatory), The Church Triumphant (in Heaven). All three senses are the Body of Christ, and when the Passion of the Church is concluded and the Church is atoned with the Trinity, all the Church will be the Church Triumphant (we're deep into Catholic eschatology and divinization/theosis here).

 

Honestly I don't see a disjunction, but more similarities.    We have similar missions as well imo

We are constantly opposing what we call "the blood and sins of this generation".  We get flak for our position on abortion, LGBGT issues and are widely misunderstood as to what we DO believe.  And, many of us play the role of being apologists on this board- and we have thousands of missionaries out in the world explaining our beliefs and our standards.   We have had a Broadway musical directly attacking our various doctrines and lifestyles, and as seen right here on this board, we are seem to be constantly battling law suits against every possible strange reason that can be imagined.  And of course, we have a long history of persecution. Perhaps you might describe your view of the "Church Militant" if I have misunderstood you.

Quote

 

...The Church Suffering (in Purgatory) 

 

Of course we devote hours and hours to find our ancestors, take their names to the temple, and doctrinally help those in "Spirit Prison".   We have entire libraries devoted to finding and praying for individuals who have passed who may have never heard the name of Jesus, in the hope of teaching them on the "other side", to get them out of what perhaps you would call "Purgatory".  Our mission is to make sure that every human who ever lived will hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

So again there are definite parallels, imo.  https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/scriptures/triple-index/church-of-the-firstborn?lang=eng

Quote

...The Church Triumphant (in Heaven) All three senses are the Body of Christ, and when the Passion of the Church is concluded and the Church is atoned with the Trinity, all the Church will be the Church Triumphant (we're deep into Catholic eschatology and divinization/theosis here).

We have what I think is a parallel here as well; I think the "Church Triumphant" is quite similar to the "Church of the Firstborn" in concept.  Again, possibly I am totally wrong, but I see parallels there.  Of course these parallels are not "deep eschatology" so I am sure I am missing a lot of the concept.

On the other hand, regarding divinization, ultimately we believe, as everyone knows, that the most faithful will achieve "eternal life" which is being like God.  Likewise,  as I  mentioned earlier we are part of the Divine Family, with whom we share our "nature", and of course there are scriptures describing the faithful as sitting with God on his throne.   We, like the Godhead, can all be in the Family of God, and are now part of "The Body of Christ".

So I am not seeing a major difference between us on these areas.

More tomorrow or Tuesday, if anyone cares! 

 

 

[mfbukowski]

On 4/27/2024 at 8:17 AM, Saint Bonaventure said:

This is also where an abundance of puzzlement occurs between Catholics and Latter-day Saints, as Latter-day Saints talk about Peter giving his keys to Joseph Smith, the Church not having authority during the great apostasy, etc., and Catholics talk about the Church having apostles even though they all died (and most all of them were martyred). Catholics and LDS often talk past one another on these things.   

The Bible has an abundance of intercessory prayer, of persons praying for someone else (Moses for the Israelites, Job for his friends, Daniel for the Israelites, Paul for the various churches, etc.). And crucial to Catholics is the passage in Revelation 5 wherein the elders hold the bowls that are filled with the prayers of God's people. At a basic level, the elders holding the bowls are interceding. The very act of holding is interceding. Moreover, Sacred Tradition affirms intercessory prayer and repeatedly explores it in these and other passages.

I would not say that the prayers of the Saints are somehow better, that they are qualitatively superior in some sense. Scripture does teach that prayers are not equal in their efficacy, though. James 5:16 teaches that, "...the prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects."

If I have helped anyone reading this understand the vital points even a little, then this absurdly long post has been worthwhile.

So to continue the way I see your comment, perhaps no one has suggested to you the way we actually see things, as opposed to the way our critics see our doctrine.

https://www.josephsmithpapers.org/site/priesthood-restoration

Quote

 

Revelation, ca. Aug. 1835 [D&C 27:8–14] (Doctrine and Covenants, 50:2–3, published 1835) (includes a revised and expanded version of a revelation originally dating to circa August 1830; text published in 1835 mentions John the Baptist bestowing the first priesthood and Peter, James, and John ordaining Joseph Smith and Oliver Cowdery to be apostles.)

 

Before these events the prophet Elijah appeared to Joseph and Oliver and gave them the "sealing power" 

1 Kings 17–2 Kings 2: Elijah and the Sealing Power of the Holy Priesthoodhttps://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/manual/old-testament-student-manual-kings-malachi/chapter-5?lang=eng

And yes, we certainly do talk "past" each other!  But I do not understand it the way you mentioned it- that the power of the priesthood was lost as the original apostles died off- if that was the cause of the apostasy, then we would be in the same pickle when Joseph and other priesthood holders "died off"!   Our belief is that it is not death that removes the priesthood, but the false doctrines adopted from the pagan Greeks through the philosophy of Plato and then Plotinus and others, who then caused Christianity to adopt the dualism between transcendence and immanence that still plagues us today.  These philosophies encouraged Catholicism to adopt Platonic dualism which separates totally the unworldly "Forms" of Plato from the world of real humanity.  Plato concluded that God is the Form of Goodness- who could not possibly be a human being, tainted by a body of matter, and who could magically snap his fingers, as it were, to create the world Ex Nihilo, instead of, as our more immanent God, who, I believe, gave up his transcendence, as did his Son, Christ Jesus, so he could TRULY become "Our Father who art in heaven"- a Father who is tangible as much as an earthly father who is in a real place called "heaven", (Kolob?) as was his divine Son. [ My personal view that Philippians 2:17 applies to Father as much as Son- Christ poured out his sacred blood, after seeing his Father pouring out his transcendence to become immanent.  But that is my personal opinion.]

So then by adopting Platonic philosophy I THINK, this "pouring out" for Father was reversed to again make Him transcendent.

And then we have "substance theology" in which Father and Son are of the same "substance", the meaning of which is very unclear. Then THAT affects the view that the Eucharist IS not a symbol, but that, thorough a mystery, flesh and bread can be of the same "substance".

But I don't want to get into that- I don't want to argue it, I just want to present my view of these issues- that Platonic philosophy, plus "substance theology" through Aristotle was the cause of the "apostasy".

And I am fascinated as well with your mention of Revelation 5 and the angels presenting the bowls, because we poetically have something in the temple that could be interpreted as related to this. These kind of things fascinate me, as I see elements in Catholicism that parallel our practices while Joseph could not have dreamed this stuff on his own.

And finally, we get to intercession, which of course in a sense, by doing proxy work for "those in Purgatory" we do, and in the temple, we do.   BUT our present righteousness or lack thereof has absolutely nothing to do with our efficacy in doing that work.   Perhaps that is what you meant also- in that case we definitely agree!

So NOW this has actually become 3 long posts on your one tiny but allegedly "long post"

I win!  I burned up more pixels than you did!