The Nature of God in Mormonism.

[1holycatholic]

I don’t think so… Throughout this thread I’ve been trying to provide evidence that the earliest Christians and Jews had radically different assumptions about God than modern Catholics. So if you start with different assumptions, any reasoning based on the natural world will bring you to different conclusions.

Where was that? Can you give me a page number?

Thanks!

Natural Theology isn’t based on the natural world. :doh2:

The relevant of Boethius’ Consolation is in the previously link to chapter 5.

 

[BDawg]

Natural Theology isn’t based on the natural world. :doh2:

I’m sorry, I was using this definition:
In natural theology, it is claimed that the existence of God can be inferred from (or is supported by) the evidence of design in nature, of which science has made us more aware." (Ian Barbour, When Science Meets Religion, HarperSanFrancisco, 2000, 27)
That seems to me the sort of thing Paul was talking about.

The relevant of Boethius’ Consolation is in the previously link to chapter 5.

I already looked through it, and didn’t see it. Can you post a quotation to support your interpretation?

 

[1holycatholic]

I’m sorry, I was using this definition:
In natural theology, it is claimed that the existence of God can be inferred from (or is supported by) the evidence of design in nature, of which science has made us more aware." (Ian Barbour, When Science Meets Religion, HarperSanFrancisco, 2000, 27)
That seems to me the sort of thing Paul was talking about.

That is a definition for the teleological argument for the existence of God.

I already looked through it, and didn’t see it. Can you post a quotation to support your interpretation?

Read page 163-7 from the link.

Boethius:

Since then all judgment apprehends the subjects of its thought according to its own nature, and God has a condition of ever-present eternity, His knowledge, which passes over every change of time, embracing infinite lengths of past and future, views in its own direct comprehension everything as though it were taking place in the present. If you would weigh the foreknowledge by which God distinguishes all things, you will more rightly hold it to be a knowledge of a never-failing constancy in the present, than a foreknowledge of the future.

This translation is different than the one I have. The phrasing is a bit different.

 

[BDawg]

That is a definition for the teleological argument for the existence of God.

In any case, it seems to me that this kind of thing was what Paul was talking about–not deriving some proof from “pure reason.”

Read page 163-7 from the link.

Thanks. I think I understand what he was saying, now.

Anyway, all of this seems like so much mental gymnastics to determine what God must be like. I have too much experience with science to pay too much attention to that, because it seems like new data keeps forcing us to revise our ideas about what must be.

So when Bible scholars and historians are in broad agreement that the earliest Jews and Christians did not believe in the “god of the philosophers,” I figure the data (that is, how God revealed himself to these people) is not in line with your philosophical speculations.

For instance, Anselm started his reasoning about God with a particular definition of God that, as I pointed out earlier, cannot be demonstrated, a priori.

 

[1holycatholic]

In any case, it seems to me that this kind of thing was what Paul was talking about–not deriving some proof from “pure reason.”

Thanks. I think I understand what he was saying, now.

Anyway, all of this seems like so much mental gymnastics to determine what God must be like. I have too much experience with science to pay too much attention to that, because it seems like new data keeps forcing us to revise our ideas about what must be.

Don’t bail just because the argument gets tough.

So when Bible scholars and historians are in broad agreement that the earliest Jews and Christians did not believe in the “god of the philosophers,” I figure the data (that is, how God revealed himself to these people) is not in line with your philosophical speculations.

What a shock - Christianity differs from Platonism. Are you under the impression that early Christians abandoned Philosophy? The writings of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers and the Bible indicate otherwise.

For instance, Anselm started his reasoning about God with a particular definition of God that, as I pointed out earlier, cannot be demonstrated, a priori.

Anselm’s ontological argument is entirely a priori.

 

[BDawg]

Don’t bail just because the argument gets tough.

Honestly, it doesn’t seem to me that you have outlined a clear argument. I’ve really been struggling to figure out what you have been trying to say.

What a shock - Christianity differs from Platonism. Are you under the impression that early Christians abandoned Philosophy? The writings of the Ante-Nicene Church Fathers and the Bible indicate otherwise.

No, I’m under the impression that the first Christians didn’t have much to do with philosophy until the second century Apologists (Aristides, Justin, Athenagoras, etc.) came on the scene. These guys were mainly converted philosophers, and tried to harmonize Christian teaching with (mainly) Middle Platonism. All part of the Apostasy, from our point of view.

Anselm’s ontological argument is entirely a priori.

Then his argument is misguided. Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason and Descartes’ “method of doubt” are good cures for this kind of scholastic reasoning.

For instance, I just pointed out that I can see no reason why God is necessarily “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” What do you say to that?

 

[1holycatholic]

For instance, I just pointed out that I can see no reason why God is necessarily “that than which nothing greater can be conceived.” What do you say to that?

With regard to Natural Theology, I’d say that when LDS use the word God they aren’t speaking of the same concept of God as is generally understood by pretty much everyone else.

 

[BDawg]

With regard to Natural Theology, I’d say that when LDS use the word God they aren’t speaking of the same concept of God as is generally understood by pretty much everyone else.

I already pointed that out any number of times on this thread. I also provided evidence that our concept is quite similar to that of the earliest Christians and Jews.

 

[AMDGtoo]

I also provided evidence that our concept is quite similar to that of the earliest Christians and Jews.

I just can’t let this one pass. The Jews were known to believe in One God–not many gods. It’s all over the Bible from the Shema (“Hear O Israel our God is one God”) to Isaiah 45:5(“I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me…”) That’s what got Jesus in trouble. He said that He was the great “I Am”. The Jews considered it blasphemy to even suggest… No the Jews did not believe in a plurality of gods–you seem to have mistaken that for the Greeks, Romans, or pagans. And we spiritual Jews, we Catholics, continued the belief as Ephesians boldly shouts “One faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all…” And no early Church Father taught a plurality of gods. Look in Jurgens–Look at Ignatius of Antioch, 110 A.D.-- Look at Irenaeus, 180-199 A.D.-- Look at Tertullian, 197 A.D.

 

[RebeccaJ]

I just can’t let this one pass. The Jews were known to believe in One God–not many gods. It’s all over the Bible from the Shema (“Hear O Israel our God is one God”) to Isaiah 45:5(“I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me…”) That’s what got Jesus in trouble. He said that He was the great “I Am”. The Jews considered it blasphemy to even suggest… No the Jews did not believe in a plurality of gods–you seem to have mistaken that for the Greeks, Romans, or pagans. And we spiritual Jews, we Catholics, continued the belief as Ephesians boldly shouts “One faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all…” And no early Church Father taught a plurality of gods. Look in Jurgens–Look at Ignatius of Antioch, 110 A.D.-- Look at Irenaeus, 180-199 A.D.-- Look at Tertullian, 197 A.D.

Mormons tend to view the paganism of the OT, which the Hebrew, Canaanites, Israelites and Jews all fell into, as an indication that it is something that should be believed. And practiced.

 

[BDawg]

I just can’t let this one pass. The Jews were known to believe in One God–not many gods. It’s all over the Bible from the Shema (“Hear O Israel our God is one God”) to Isaiah 45:5(“I am the Lord, and there is none else, there is no God beside me…”) That’s what got Jesus in trouble. He said that He was the great “I Am”. The Jews considered it blasphemy to even suggest… No the Jews did not believe in a plurality of gods–you seem to have mistaken that for the Greeks, Romans, or pagans. And we spiritual Jews, we Catholics, continued the belief as Ephesians boldly shouts “One faith, one baptism, One God and Father of all…” And no early Church Father taught a plurality of gods. Look in Jurgens–Look at Ignatius of Antioch, 110 A.D.-- Look at Irenaeus, 180-199 A.D.-- Look at Tertullian, 197 A.D.

Yes, and the question is, “What did they mean by saying there is one God?” You might check out the following references:

Larry W. Hurtado, “What do we mean by ‘first-century Jewish monotheism’?” Society of Biblical Literature Seminar Papers, (1993), 348–368. Here is an online version.

Peter Hayman, “Monotheism—A Misused Word in Jewish Studies?”, Journal of Jewish Studies 42 (1991), 1–15.

And I already quoted St. Justin saying that Jesus was a “second God,” for Pete’s sake. Origen said the same thing.

 

[Exodus15]

After reading the Mormon explanation of the nature of God and the Nicene Creed presented at the General Conference last year,
lds.org/conference/talk/d…775-15,00.html
it seems incredible yet remarkably easy for someone to replace the truth with an explanation that sounds plausible and in alignment with one’s beliefs. Pray for those who have turned away from the fullness of God’s love that they develop a meaningful and loving relationship with the Trinity,

Blessings

 

[Exodus15]

YIKES! The link used in my prior post should be this one

lds.org/conference/talk/display/0,5232,23-1-775-15,00.html

more caffiene for me…

 

[1holycatholic]

I already pointed that out any number of times on this thread. I also provided evidence that our concept is quite similar to that of the earliest Christians and Jews.

You couldn’t be more wrong. Christians and Jews are monotheists and have never been anything else. LDS are polytheists. Repeatedly posting misinformation isn’t going to make it come true.

 

[comebacktome]

I’m thoroughly impressed with the civility of this thread. Of course, I’m also impressed by the content and wish I had a fraction of the depth and breadth of knowledge and thoughtfulness of BDawg and 1holy!
Well done!
:clapping:

 

[ibkc]

You couldn’t be more wrong. Christians and Jews are monotheists and have never been anything else.

Actually, the earliest Hebrews were polytheists, just like every other Bronze Age barbarian people. God revealed Himself to them as the One and over time, they abandoned monotheism for henotheism, which is the belief that while many gods do exist, only one is worshiped. Eventually, over a period of ages, de facto monotheism developed out of henotheism as the idea of many gods became less and less relevant. The Christians were the first radical monotheists, and this is the biggest reason that they stayed in trouble with the Roman authorities. Absolute monotheism was unthinkably alien to the superstitious Romans.

 

[1holycatholic]

Actually, the earliest Hebrews were polytheists, just like every other Bronze Age barbarian people. God revealed Himself to them as the One and over time, they abandoned monotheism for henotheism, which is the belief that while many gods do exist, only one is worshiped. Eventually, over a period of ages, de facto monotheism developed out of henotheism as the idea of many gods became less and less relevant. The Christians were the first radical monotheists, and this is the biggest reason that they stayed in trouble with the Roman authorities. Absolute monotheism was unthinkably alien to the superstitious Romans.

Hebrews are the ancestors of the Jews.

 

[RebeccaJ]

Actually, the earliest Hebrews were polytheists, just like every other Bronze Age barbarian people. God revealed Himself to them as the One and over time, they abandoned monotheism for henotheism, which is the belief that while many gods do exist, only one is worshiped. Eventually, over a period of ages, de facto monotheism developed out of henotheism as the idea of many gods became less and less relevant. The Christians were the first radical monotheists, and this is the biggest reason that they stayed in trouble with the Roman authorities. Absolute monotheism was unthinkably alien to the superstitious Romans.

I didn’t keep all the references on this, so here’s something for you to do.

The Hebrews, as a tribe, or in the region they lived, were as paganized as the other tribes and regions around them. Thus, the many commandments to them to dump idolatry and worship the One God.

As they traveled between tribes and regions, they would take on the religious practices of those tribes and regions. They believed the pagan gods of these tribes/regions, were in fact, gods. Their view of the One True God was that this God, was greater than all the pagan gods.

All of this is going on with warfare, and the same thing going on, as Hebrews were captured, they would worship the pagan gods of their captors. They feared that if they did not, these pagan gods would somehow punish them.

You see this type of belief with the account of Moses. The One True God gave Moses power in Egypt, but even the pagan gods of Egypt could fight against the One True God. The staffs turning into snakes, you know, the fight with the Egyptian priest.

Also is present in the language of the ten commandments. “Thou shalt have no other god before me.”

As time went on, and the Hebrews mixed with the Canaanites and others, and they themselves were conquering, they started to figure out that the pagan gods of other tribes/regions had no powers over them, or their One God. This realization spread through all of the believers of One God, and eventually, they held no belief in the power of other pagan gods, at all. And became strictly monotheist.

So no, I have no problem with the scholarship you believe is some gold mine that proves an anthropomorphic view was held by the Hebrews. It is there to see in the Bible.

Where Mormonism goes wrong is believing that the pagan gods spoken of in the Bible are True gods, and also exalted humans, and worse, that God HIMSELF, is one of these. Beyond gone wrong. You are lost, and wandering in the wilderness.

The Jews of the OT figured it out, why can’t you?

ps: I’ll see if I can find the references. There was actually a discussion about this in the Apologetics forum a while back.

 

[ibkc]

Where Mormonism goes wrong is believing that the pagan gods spoken of in the Bible are True gods, and also exalted humans, and worse, that God HIMSELF, is one of these. Beyond gone wrong. You are lost, and wandering in the wilderness.

The Jews of the OT figured it out, why can’t you?

Rebecca - I am not Mormon, never have been, never will be, and I do not believe the Mormon position is supported by the Old Testament (or by history). I was simply correcting the assertion that the Jews were always monotheistic. As I said, God revealed Himself to the Jews, and they came to understand that other gods were false. God reveals Himself in appropriate ways when He knows we can understand.

Other than that - your post built nicely on what I posted - good information.

 

[1holycatholic]

Rebecca - I am not Mormon, never have been, never will be, and I do not believe the Mormon position is supported by the Old Testament (or by history). I was simply correcting the assertion that the Jews were always monotheistic. As I said, God revealed Himself to the Jews, and they came to understand that other gods were false. God reveals Himself in appropriate ways when He knows we can understand.

Other than that - your post built nicely on what I posted - good information.

It appears that the confusion is that my wayback machine only goes back to around 730 BC when the term “Jew” came into use. At that time I’m pretty sure they were solidly monotheistic. Is my timeline off?