Theologicamol Questions

[Pastor Josh]

ok, you go back in time and take a swab out of historical jesus' inner cheek. you travel back to our time and perform a paternity test on the dna. the dad is totally Joseph, right?

Well, short answer=yes.  An angel didn't diddle Mary.  However, that question totally misses the point.  I mean, it's entirely possible that Jesus didn't actually exist, but, as far as I'm concerned, that wouldn't change anything.  Calling someone "son of God" is a confessional claim, not a factual, and it wasn't until Greek thinking got all mixed up in this that we started worrying about all this crap.  "Jesus is the (or, according to Mark, a) Son of God" means that Jesus is like God, and God is like Jesus.  Basically, they're in the same business.  Of course, a lot of well-meaning Christians would consider me terribly heretical for saying that, or, for that matter, half the stuff I've already posted.  I generally assume I'm wrong about these things unless proved otherwise.

I am referring to this bit. Now without going into the angel / Mary bit, Mormons believe Jesus was/is a "supernatural" being (God) and being able to raise people from the dead and raise himself from the dead was/is a big part of that.

Obviously, orthodoxy is relative, and of course, orthodoxy doesn't mean "better."

Interesting.  Is Jesus both fully human and fully divine in Mormon metaphysics, or is he only divine? 

[JP]

Interesting.  Is Jesus both fully human and fully divine in Mormon metaphysics, or is he only divine? 

The former. 

[Pastor Josh]

Interesting.  Is Jesus both fully human and fully divine in Mormon metaphysics, or is he only divine? 

The former. 

Historically speaking, then, what we've got here is a classical heresy.  In fact, if I remember my history correctly, this is the one that really got the whole concept of orthodoxy going.  While I believe that Jesus was both fully human and fully divine (although I acknowledge that I don't understand what "fully divine" might mean), I tend to reject the classical argument that God had to become human in order to save humans.  How does Mormon soteriology work, then, if Jesus is only divine?

[JP]

Not the latter, the former - mormons believe that Jesus was human and a god. 

How do you believe Christ became "divine?"

[Gilly]

From what I understand, Mormons believe that the trinity are three separate gods which differs from the evangelical view of the trinity being one and the same. So, both the Mormon Jesus and the Christian Jesus are divine but Jesus in Christianity is another form of God. I don't know too much about the Mormon faith but I think they believe that everyone can become gods, so my question is, does that mean everybody who attains that status is on equal footing with Jesus?

[Pastor Josh]

Not the latter, the former - mormons believe that Jesus was human and a god.  

How do you believe Christ became "divine?"


[/quote]

Sorry.  Got a little mixed up on my referees.  I knew I was going to do that, so I checked myself a couple times.  Guess it didn't work.  And, sorry to pull this out, but I think that's the wrong question.  As far as I'm concerned, the actual mechanics of all that are irrelevant.  What matters is, what difference does it make in how you interact with creation that Jesus was divine.  I can whip out all the orthodxy terms, like co-eternal with the father, and mean them when I say them.  I just don't find them important.  I'm pretty Methodist in my approach to theology.

[JP]

From what I understand, Mormons believe that the trinity are three separate gods which differs from the evangelical view of the trinity being one and the same. So, both the Mormon Jesus and the Christian Jesus are divine but Jesus in Christianity is another form of God. I don't know too much about the Mormon faith but I think they believe that everyone can become gods, so my question is, does that mean everybody who attains that status is on equal footing with Jesus?

That is pretty much correct regarding the subtle distinction on the trinity, however, the more i've studied the protestant view the more similar to me it is to the mormon view in practical worship terms and also as far as doctrinal implication. 

As far as "becoming gods" mormons believe in the eternal preeminence of Jesus and reliance on him for salvation and no mormon would believe they would ever attain anything near His glory.  However, mormons believe there is no limit to man's potential.  As to reconciling those two concepts, we will always be in debt to jesus and eternally behind (ie we don't believe we are going to "catch up" to Jesus!)

[Steve of Bloomington]

This sounds like a joke but I'm actually serious: was there ever really a debate on how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, and if so, why was it important to figure that out?

[JP]

Sorry.  Got a little mixed up on my referees.  I knew I was going to do that, so I checked myself a couple times.  Guess it didn't work.  And, sorry to pull this out, but I think that's the wrong question.  As far as I'm concerned, the actual mechanics of all that are irrelevant.  What matters is, what difference does it make in how you interact with creation that Jesus was divine.  I can whip out all the orthodxy terms, like co-eternal with the father, and mean them when I say them.  I just don't find them important.  I'm pretty Methodist in my approach to theology.

That's fair enough, mormon theology doesn't specify just how much jesus was just born with versus how much he may have attained through sheer brilliance, faith and love.  Mormons believe that a person is comprised literally of body and spirit.  Jesus spirit was already that of God as his spirit entered his body.

Mormons are very tables and chairs about religion stuff and like to answer what admittedly are not always important questions.  Part of the reason for this has to do with the fact that we have additional scripture that we believe has as much weight as the bible, and so we believe we have answers to some questions that we believe are straight from God - but rather than being content with that, we like to try and fill in other pieces.  

[Pastor Josh]

This sounds like a joke but I'm actually serious: was there ever really a debate on how many angels could dance on the head of a pin, and if so, why was it important to figure that out?

Yep, that was an actual medieval theological debate.  And, believe it or not, an important one.  You see, what we (and everyone since the third century) calls Christianity is something odd.  It's Jesus filtered through Paul's Phariseeism (which I don't mean as an insult--the Pharisees were actually pretty cool, despite a tendency towards literalism) used to shape Greek philosophy.  The Western church is and has been far more Greek than Hebrew, which is really a shame.  Greek philosophy had a lot to do with substance.  That's where we get the idea of atoms and molecules.  One of the ideas important to the early church had to do with the substance of things.  One of the first big splits was over whether the Son was of the same subtance or a similar substance as the Father.  (I don't generally use sexist language, but here the distinctions are important.)  Google "homoustasis" (the "u" is important) for more info.  This is why it's important for Roman Catholics to maintain that the elements of the Eucharist are literally transformed into the body and blood of Christ, for instance.  It's also why it's important that Jesus is both full human and fully divine, so that he participates in the substance of both.  It's not a concept that continues into modernity,  but if you have some familiarity with the history of science, you'll have an idea what I'm talking about.  The question of how many angels can dance on the head of a pin had to do with the nature of their substance.  I wish there were a RC scholar here to help me out, but as I recall the correct answer was that an infinite number of angels coud dance on the head of a pin, because there substance was immaterial.  That way, the angels could be everywhere, performing as God's hands and eyes.  I'm not entirely sure my understanding is correct, so please correct me if you know better.

[Pastor Josh]

Sorry.  Got a little mixed up on my referees.  I knew I was going to do that, so I checked myself a couple times.  Guess it didn't work.  And, sorry to pull this out, but I think that's the wrong question.  As far as I'm concerned, the actual mechanics of all that are irrelevant.  What matters is, what difference does it make in how you interact with creation that Jesus was divine.  I can whip out all the orthodxy terms, like co-eternal with the father, and mean them when I say them.  I just don't find them important.  I'm pretty Methodist in my approach to theology.

That's fair enough, mormon theology doesn't specify just how much jesus was just born with versus how much he may have attained through sheer brilliance, faith and love.  Mormons believe that a person is comprised literally of body and spirit.  Jesus spirit was already that of God as his spirit entered his body.

Mormons are very tables and chairs about religion stuff and like to answer what admittedly are not always important questions.  Part of the reason for this has to do with the fact that we have additional scripture that we believe has as much weight as the bible, and so we believe we have answers to some questions that we believe are straight from God - but rather than being content with that, we like to try and fill in other pieces.  

Hrm.  That sounds suspiciously like Apollonarianism.  What about the mind?  Classical orthodoxy held that Jesus had a mind, body, and soul (the Greek concept of a person) that were each both fully human and fully divine.  I actually lreally ike the idea that Jesus' divinity is because of his brilliance, faith, and love.  I wouldn't argue that he attained divinity through these aspects, but as a Methodist I believe that we can join into Jesus' perfection by following him in his love and compassion.  I like th phaseology of brilliance, faith, and love.  Is this something that is recognizably Mormon, or is this your coinage?  (I just want to make sure I give credit where credit is due.)  Are you LDS or one of the reformed Mormon branches, just out of curiosity?

[JP]

brilliance, faith, and love is just my description.  I'm regular LDS. 

[Pastor Josh]

From what I understand, Mormons believe that the trinity are three separate gods which differs from the evangelical view of the trinity being one and the same. So, both the Mormon Jesus and the Christian Jesus are divine but Jesus in Christianity is another form of God. I don't know too much about the Mormon faith but I think they believe that everyone can become gods, so my question is, does that mean everybody who attains that status is on equal footing with Jesus?

That is pretty much correct regarding the subtle distinction on the trinity, however, the more i've studied the protestant view the more similar to me it is to the mormon view in practical worship terms and also as far as doctrinal implication. 

As far as "becoming gods" mormons believe in the eternal preeminence of Jesus and reliance on him for salvation and no mormon would believe they would ever attain anything near His glory.  However, mormons believe there is no limit to man's potential.  As to reconciling those two concepts, we will always be in debt to jesus and eternally behind (ie we don't believe we are going to "catch up" to Jesus!)

One of the real distinctive aspects of Methodism, so odd that even most Methodists don't know about it, is that we are going on to perfection in this life.  As I understand it, we can so align our actions, minds, and spirits with Christ's that we are able to cease to sin.  It won't happen for everyone, and Wesley only knew of one or two people that he felt had achieved this.  The "no limit to [humanity's] potential" soind similar to me.  And you're right that in non-Mormon Christianity, the concept of the trinity is not well understood or celebrated.  Practically speaking, there probably isn't much difference.  It's something I try to change in my congregations to varying degrees of success.

[Pastor Josh]

brilliance, faith, and love is just my description.  I'm regular LDS. 

Mind if I use the phrase?

[JP]

of course I don't mind! And if you have any other questions about mormons that come up, feel free to check in!