Divine DNA


Traveler
 Share

Recommended Posts

From another thread @mikbone suggested to @Vort that another thread be started concerning divine or Celestial nature.  In starting this thread – I have no knowledge, only speculation and some logic.  I do not understand the concept of Jesus being 100% G-d and also 100% mortal human.

@Vortgave an interesting definition approach using vectors – but a vector includes at least 3 important principles.  1. Magnitude 2. Direction and 3. Field (or dimensional space) definition.

As for Jesus I have considered the possibility that he was is essence neither mortal man like any other nor eternal G-d like his (our spiritual) Father.  For me, the role or manifestation of Christ as a physical being among mortals, for his ministry, is something more than a mere mortal and something less than an immortal eternal G-d.  I have tried to put my mind around the 100% G-d or 100% man concept but for me the logic is not there.  To me, it makes the entire atonement a charade and a pretense.  For example, a 100% G-d cannot be tormented by pain and what would seem pain to non-G-d could not in any way affect a divine G-d.  Physical agony, if seemingly present, would of necessity not be real but a pretense.

I assume this to be the case why the Father did not himself redeem our sins by suffering unto death – because such a thing is impossible (logically impossible) of him as a 100% G-d being.  By the same token I do not see how any 100% mortal could suffer such infinite agony – I do not think a 100% man could even suffer for themselves let alone for the billions of others.

I do not intend to belittle anyone of their thinking – I am just presenting my own personal difficulty.

 

The Traveler

Edited by Traveler
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The suffering was primarily spiritual.  Which is no doubt worst than physical pain.  Yet Jesus had to be strengthened just to endure the physical pain that rolled over from the spiritual suffering.

He took it like a man.

Luke 22:43 And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him.
44 And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly: and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

Also, humans cannot remember physical pain. Spiritual pain and despair you cannot forget. They leave real marks.

 

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

D&C 19

15 Therefore I command you to repent—repent, lest I smite you by the rod of my mouth, and by my wrath, and by my anger, and your sufferings be sore—how sore you know not, how exquisite you know not, yea, how hard to bear you know not.
16 For behold, I, God, have suffered these things for all, that they might not suffer if they would repent;
17 But if they would not repent they must suffer even as I;
18 Which suffering caused myself, even God, the greatest of all, to tremble because of pain, and to bleed at every pore, and to suffer both body and spirit—and would that I might not drink the bitter cup, and shrink—
19 Nevertheless, glory be to the Father, and I partook and finished my preparations unto the children of men.
20 Wherefore, I command you again to repent, lest I humble you with my almighty power; and that you confess your sins, lest you suffer these punishments of which I have spoken, of which in the smallest, yea, even in the least degree you have tasted at the time I withdrew my Spirit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

@Vortgave an interesting definition approach using vectors – but a vector includes at least 3 important principles.

Replace my use of "vector" with "tensor". I did not mean to limit the idea to three spatial dimensions, or indeed to spatial dimensions at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Traveler said:

I do not understand the concept of Jesus being 100% G-d and also 100% mortal human.

In all of my delving into Christian apologetics, the strongest counter I encountered against the trinitarian view is summarized like this: 

All of this "one + one + one = one" nonsense is why no thinking person can take your theology seriously. Unless you can present your theology in a way that doesn't violate basic principles of mathematics, I'm just gonna pass on you and everything you have to say about God

I also don't want to belittle anyone or any way of thinking, but the whole notion of 100% this and 100% not-this just, well, I simply cannot take it seriously.  It just seems like an audacious claim that sounds powerful, but relies only on rhetorical power to force truth into something that is the opposite of true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

but the whole notion of 100% this and 100% not-this just, well, I simply cannot take it seriously.

How about simple common sense.

I am 43% Italian, 12% bohemian, and 100% male.

Race and gender are independent variables.

If the Holy Ghost is a God, then a tangible body is not required for deification.

Edited by mikbone
Link to comment
Share on other sites

When we talk about God, we know not whereof we speak. I'm not too concerned about the Trinitarian God being mathematically inconsistent. My problem with it is that it's not a good model of reality. As for the mortal Christ being 100% God and 100% man, I think the use of a fraction like "100%" is rather silly; but as the two things measure different quantities (if you can really call "Godliness" or "man-ness" a "quantity", which BTW you cannot), they need not sum to 100%. So if saying Jesus was 100% God and 100% man is false, it is false not because of mathematical inconsistency, but because the percent measure is absurd, like saying you love your daughter two cups and a tablespoon. (Or a bushel and a peck.)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

57 minutes ago, laronius said:

This discussion does pose an interesting question. Jesus was considered Diety premortally, spiritually speaking. He didn't stop being Diety spiritually when he was born. So what exactly did He inherit from the Father at His conception? Was it something spiritual or physical? 

The way I see it is that, as spirit children, we all inherited the capacity to become like the Father. I think we bring these spiritual characteristics into mortality and we can call this a divine inheritance. Note there are many kinds of inheritance (genetic, birthright, heritage, estate, endowment, etc.) and I suspect each of these is somehow involved by physical laws we do not understand and by covenant. Jesus had attained a fullness of the Father’s spiritual capacity as far as it can be expressed in the premortal estate – He became God then and, in this way, continued to be fully God in His fully mortal estate. Continuing to perform the Father’s will in mortality, He overcame sin and death to become God, or express Himself as God, in the exalted estate. We could not do the same because, while inherited the same capacity, we did not attain such a level of godliness anywhere along the chain from one estate to another. So, we are given a Redeemer in Christ so we can progress by virtue of His atonement.

I would say Jesus inherited, upon conception, the Father's actual power over sin and death, something we were not prepared as premortal spirits to yet receive. This is why we came into mortality through mortal fathers, who passed along the "anti-power" to sin and die. In both cases, the mothers also introduce the "anti-power" of sin and death into the equation. 

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, mikbone said:

I actually recommended that another thread be started concerning math logic and tensors.

Perhaps the most referenced tensors models are maps – more expressly a world map (usually a Mercator projection).   A Mercator projection projects points from a sphere to a two-dimensional layout.  The problem is obvious to any observer that the accuracy of the tensor projection at the equator is much better than the accuracy at the polls.  

@Vort highlights much of the problem I would address in his post.  Perhaps a better concept that addresses your thinking is set theory.  In set theory 1+1+1 can = 1 but this assumes there are absolutely no common elements in any of the individual 1’s that can be additionally added to the whole.   I have attempted to explain this to our Trinity Christian friends, but they do not seem to grasp the rigors of set theory.

There are other problems with using similar references that do not apply.  For example, we could say that the average person statistically has one testicle and one ovary.  The problem here is a gross misuse of mathematics – there is no such person that exists as this average person.

I do believe that the scripture gives us a more accurate reference for understanding.  One of the titles or terms given Christ is: The Mediator.   I personally like this term because I believe of all theories or references of mortal man to directly address the idea; we have through revelation something that makes sense – at least especially for me.  A mediator is something in between.  I like this because it explains in part the condescension of Christ – giving up and sacrificing something divine, perhaps beyond what mankind can understand or comprehend and also allows Christ to be something more than mortal man.  A mediator or something in between.  To me the whole idea of 100% G-d and 100% man is counter to scripture.  But I especially like the input from @mikbone  because of his medical background and what he can bring to the table that most of us would not know to consider.  His insights into the atonement as being a spiritual atonement as well as physical (spiritual and physical death and resurrection) can have insights quite different that many of us that lack his medical background.

There is one other concept in scripture that is overlooked and often misused from the revelation of scripture.  The ancient Hebrew term in scripture to designate the oneness of G-d is “ehad”.  Though this is a term translated into the modern concept of “one” it is not really one as we understand in modern terms.  “Ehad” is a plural term that describes the unity of a plurality of many.  It is also used to describe the oneness of a man and woman in the divine covenant of marriage.  The term for a single individual is “yhead”.  Only “ehad” is used in scripture to designate the one G-d – never “yhead”.  Note that in ancient Hebrew many is more than 2.  This designates that marriage by such designation includes a man, a woman and G-d in such a covenant.

 

The Traveler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Traveler said:

3. Field (or dimensional space) definition.

Dimensions need not be a problem for a mathematical model.  We plot time and distance on an XY cartesian plane.  We certainly don't think of time as a spatial dimension.  Yet it can be considered a vector from an analytical perspective.

So, consider a the state of "God" and state of "Mortal" as variables which can be analyzed as a dimension.

Edited by Carborendum
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share