Latest Threads
newest posts



Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Non-Catholic Religions
 

Welcome to Catholic Answers Forums, the largest Catholic Community on the Web.

Here you can join over 400,000 members from around the world discussing all things Catholic. Membership is open to all, Catholic and non-Catholic alike, who seek the Truth with Charity.

To gain full access, you must register for a FREE account. Registered members are able to:
  • Submit questions about the faith to experts from Catholic Answers
  • Participate in all forum discussions
  • Communicate privately with Catholics from around the world
  • Plus join a prayer group, read with the Book Club, and much more.
Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free. So join our community today!

Have a question about registration or your account log-in? Just contact our Support Hotline.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search Thread Display
  #31  
Old Aug 18, '17, 7:01 am
RebeccaJ RebeccaJ is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2007
Posts: 11,090
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Mormonism and Angels

If the Mormon argument is, St. Paul is referencing Mormon "progression", then other problems of doctrinal (Mormon) continuity are raised.

Progression is, a non-corporal uncreated entity progresses by becoming corporeal and then progresses again by becoming a God. All humans are incarnated, in Mormon teaching. If being incarnated is a lowering of oneself, taking on flesh being a lower form of existence, then the concept of taking on flesh as a higher form of existence, progressing towards becoming a God, is contradicted.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old Yesterday, 10:51 pm
TOmNossor TOmNossor is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: June 2, 2004
Posts: 2,401
Religion: CoJCoLDS
Default Re: Mormonism and Angels

Hello RebeccaJ,
I am not sure if you read what I wrote so let me offer you a little more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RebeccaJ View Post
Psalm 8 is about the author of the Psalm, reflecting on creation. The Psalmist sings first about creation. The heavens, the stars, of man being created less than the angels.
I said earlier …
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOmNossor View Post
And just so you can further know where I am coming from, “angels” in Hebrews 2:7 as denoted by LDS and non-LDS scholars could and perhaps should be translated as “God” or “gods.” Hebrews 2:7 mirrors St. Irenaes’ words:
“For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods;”
That being said, Hebrews 2:7 is not even about “making” or “creating” but rather about lowering below. This we know because a good study Bible (or a fair one like the LDS Bible) links us to Psalms 8:4-6 (which is being quoted by Paul). And the Hebrew there is not about creation at all.
So, Psalm 8: in the NABRE (the one on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website) translates “Elohim” as “god.” The footnote explains that Elohim in Hebrew means “God” or “the gods.” It explains that the Greek usually substituted a word meaning “angels.” This of course is why I pointed to Psalm 8 as it is what Paul is quoting. To “square the circle” the NABRE in its footnote says, “The meaning seems to be that God created human beings almost at the level of the beings in the heavenly world.”
The NABRE again moves along to make my other point that this is a setting below or a “below for a little while.” In the New Testament, the NABRE adds text to the Bible that is not present in the Greek in order to explain this is “below for a little while” because that is surely what Paul meant. They are right to do this; now if they could move forward and create a consistent read of Elohim in the scripture then they would be even more right. Biblical scholars unmoored from Catholic Tradition (be they LDS, Catholic, Protestant, or nones) have been pushing the word “Elohim” towards it much more clear meaning “gods” for a long time. Scholarship aligning with LDS thought!!!
So Rebecca, why are you saying “angels?” Were you trying to contradict what I had said or had you not read it?

I liked fine much of the rest you wrote, but I was not saying “stages of human” in my post at all. You were responding to a point I didn’t make. I was saying “lower than God or gods” and like Irenaeus “for a time.” Again what Irenaeus said:
“For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods;”

Your linking to Christ’s kenosis (from Phil 2:7) :
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil 2:6-7
Who, though he was in the form of God, did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.
Rather, he emptied himself, taking the form of a slave, coming in human likeness; and found human in appearance,
I think is well placed.

LDS must recognize Christ is divine pre-incarnation and thus there is an inconsistency in Christ’s kenotic emptying if it is absolutely compared with our moving to our second estate (this is why I think the Jesus marrying thread arrives at false conclusions about the “need” for Jesus to be married). But to the extent that being away from the presence of our Heavenly Father during our second estate is an emptying, we too are “almost at the level of the beings in the heavenly world” “for a little while.” because we are made less so that we might experience mortality and become as Christ is. Christ in LDS thought was fully divine before the incarnation and we are/were not. But, we did come from “the heavenly world” to experience our mortal live and I am certain there was sorrow and loss for us when we left the presence of our Father in Heaven (with hope and purpose, but still “sorrow and loss”).

So, I am not sure what to make of much of the rest of your post, but I thought I would point to what I think was a huge mistake in your post when you used “angels” and rejected “god” or “gods.” The Catholic Bible follows the same line of reasoning I offered (and I of course was reading from a Protestant and a LDS scholar, not inventing things).

My points in addressing Hebrews 2:7 are:
  1. It is better to use “lower than gods” or at least “lower than the heavenly world” rather than “lower than angels.”
  2. Because of this and other reasons, it is not separating humans and angels into different species thus does not militate against LDS thoughts on angels as was suggested.
  3. It is also not about creation persay because the Hebrew in Psalms is associated with being placed below (and perhaps temporarily) not associated with creation or being created as a lesser being.
Do you disagree? What sort of authoritative sources would you point me to that agree with you and contradict what I have said? I can link you to the Protestant or the LDS I offered, but I hope quoting the Catholic NABRE is sufficient.
Charity, TOm
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old Yesterday, 11:00 pm
RebeccaJ RebeccaJ is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: July 20, 2007
Posts: 11,090
Religion: Catholic
Default Re: Mormonism and Angels

Quote:
Originally Posted by TOmNossor View Post
Hello RebeccaJ,
I am not sure if you read what I wrote so let me offer you a little more.

I said earlier …

So, Psalm 8: in the NABRE (the one on the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops website) translates “Elohim” as “god.” The footnote explains that Elohim in Hebrew means “God” or “the gods.” It explains that the Greek usually substituted a word meaning “angels.” This of course is why I pointed to Psalm 8 as it is what Paul is quoting. To “square the circle” the NABRE in its footnote says, “The meaning seems to be that God created human beings almost at the level of the beings in the heavenly world.”
The NABRE again moves along to make my other point that this is a setting below or a “below for a little while.” In the New Testament, the NABRE adds text to the Bible that is not present in the Greek in order to explain this is “below for a little while” because that is surely what Paul meant. They are right to do this; now if they could move forward and create a consistent read of Elohim in the scripture then they would be even more right. Biblical scholars unmoored from Catholic Tradition (be they LDS, Catholic, Protestant, or nones) have been pushing the word “Elohim” towards it much more clear meaning “gods” for a long time. Scholarship aligning with LDS thought!!!
So Rebecca, why are you saying “angels?” Were you trying to contradict what I had said or had you not read it?

I liked fine much of the rest you wrote, but I was not saying “stages of human” in my post at all. You were responding to a point I didn’t make. I was saying “lower than God or gods” and like Irenaeus “for a time.” Again what Irenaeus said:
“For we cast blame upon Him, because we have not been made gods from the beginning, but at first merely men, then at length gods;”

Your linking to Christ’s kenosis (from Phil 2:7) :

I think is well placed.

LDS must recognize Christ is divine pre-incarnation and thus there is an inconsistency in Christ’s kenotic emptying if it is absolutely compared with our moving to our second estate (this is why I think the Jesus marrying thread arrives at false conclusions about the “need” for Jesus to be married). But to the extent that being away from the presence of our Heavenly Father during our second estate is an emptying, we too are “almost at the level of the beings in the heavenly world” “for a little while.” because we are made less so that we might experience mortality and become as Christ is. Christ in LDS thought was fully divine before the incarnation and we are/were not. But, we did come from “the heavenly world” to experience our mortal live and I am certain there was sorrow and loss for us when we left the presence of our Father in Heaven (with hope and purpose, but still “sorrow and loss”).

So, I am not sure what to make of much of the rest of your post, but I thought I would point to what I think was a huge mistake in your post when you used “angels” and rejected “god” or “gods.” The Catholic Bible follows the same line of reasoning I offered (and I of course was reading from a Protestant and a LDS scholar, not inventing things).

My points in addressing Hebrews 2:7 are:
  1. It is better to use “lower than gods” or at least “lower than the heavenly world” rather than “lower than angels.”
  2. Because of this and other reasons, it is not separating humans and angels into different species thus does not militate against LDS thoughts on angels as was suggested.
  3. It is also not about creation persay because the Hebrew in Psalms is associated with being placed below (and perhaps temporarily) not associated with creation or being created as a lesser being.
Do you disagree? What sort of authoritative sources would you point me to that agree with you and contradict what I have said? I can link you to the Protestant or the LDS I offered, but I hope quoting the Catholic NABRE is sufficient.
Charity, TOm
Well we'll have to disagree. LDS "interpretation" read a whole belief system into the text that isn't there and dismisses entirely what is there (obvious references to creation).
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old Today, 12:04 am
TOmNossor TOmNossor is offline
Regular Member
 
Join Date: June 2, 2004
Posts: 2,401
Religion: CoJCoLDS
Default Re: Mormonism and Angels

Quote:
Originally Posted by RebeccaJ View Post
Well we'll have to disagree. LDS "interpretation" read a whole belief system into the text that isn't there and dismisses entirely what is there (obvious references to creation).
RebeccaJ,
I am saying that I have the NABRE Bible from the Catholic Bishops site to back up my points.
I am asking if you have ANYTHING other than what you WISH the Bible said to back up your points.
I asked very clearly.
We may disagree, but I will take data and references over your opinion and so should everyone who reads this.
Charity, TOm

P.S. References to creation were dismissed by me because they have nothing to do with different "species" for angels and men. The scriptures were not referring to creating a lower and creating a higher, but placing below "temporarily." If that was not clear, I am sorry. It was not about dismissing the initial verses of Psalms 8 at all only about demonstrating what I claimed I demonstrated.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Go Back   Catholic Answers Forums > Forums > Non-Catholic Religions

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search Thread
Search Thread:

Advanced Search
Display

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump




Prayer Intentions

Most Active Groups
6652CAF Prayer Warriors Support Group
Last by: tawny
6276Let's empty Purgatory
Last by: hazcompat
5220Petitions Before the Blessed Sacrament
Last by: grateful_child
4631Devotion to the Sorrowful Mother
Last by: DesertSister62
4332Poems and Reflections
Last by: Purgatory Pete
4055OCD/Scrupulosity Group
Last by: Fischli
3295For seniors and shut- ins
Last by: GLam8833
3261Catholic Vegetarians & Vegans
Last by: Herculees
2831Let's Empty Purgatory 2
Last by: Jeannie52
2449SOLITUDE
Last by: tuscany



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 4:42 am.

Home RSS Feeds - Home - Archive - Top

Copyright © 2004-2014, Catholic Answers.