Seriously, I have seen the term avatar used to describe Jesus Christ, and in a way, it makes much sense: In Hindu theology, an avatar is an incarnation of a deity, precisely the traditional belief about Jesus.
What I’d like is for someone more knowledgeable about comparative religion than I to do a compare-and-contrast between the Christian concept and the Hindu one. Other, I mean, than the fact that Jesus was a one-shot deal, the sole incarnation of one Person of a tripartite single Godhead, the other two of which have never incarnated.
For purposes of this discussion, I think using the traditional orthodox Christology: pre-existent Son of God who entered into the embryo that would be Jesus at conception, dual united nature as truly God and truly human, etc. My guess is that Vaishnivite Hinduism is the right parallel to ask for, but clarification as to whether Saivitism, etc., might have different understandings would be welcome.
I am specifically looking for a GQ answer here: Presume for the sake of argument the tenets of the two faiths, and identify similarities and differences in the belief structures regarding divine incarnation(s) in them. I am specifically asking that we avoid any theological argument or comments that “It’s all BS” – open a GD or Pit thread as appropriate if you feel it needs to be said. This is for combatting my own ignorance, and I hope that of others who may be interested, in how the two faiths view the idea of God becoming man.
If it is not out of place, I’d also ask a learned LDS member (Monty?) to comment on the Mormon grasp and approach to the question. Having seen very little on the subject other than clear Mormon-bashing misrepresenations, I’d welcome the chance to get a clearer understanding of their theology about the subject of incarnation.
I’m not quite sure what you’re asking here, but LDS belief is that God the Father (Elohim) and his Son (Jehovah) together with the Holy Ghost comprise the Godhead. They worked together to create all things. Jehovah volunteered to come to Earth and atone for the sins of mankind by offering himself as a sacrifice. Jehovah is the God of the Old Testament, who spoke to Moses and other prophets, and who was born of Mary to become Jesus.
Hm… And your response in that other thread was spot-on.
The traditional belief, at least in the Roman Catholic church is that while the Son is identified with the Father, he is also separate, so Jesus was not an incarnation of God the Father.
Also, as I understand the Hindu view an avatar is divine – period – although temporarily in physical form. Jesus was at the same time fully human and fully divine, not half-and-half, and not only divine like an avatar. He ate, slept, and farted. He had wants and needs. He lost his temper and He (famously) wept.
While it’s true that Visnu in his avatars remains fully divine, in his human avatars such as the hero Rama he also partakes of human characteristics such as anger and sadness.
A major difference between Mormons and most other Christians is that Mormons believe that God the Father and Jesus Christ are two literally distinct physical beings, both with separate bodies of flesh and bone. They are “one” only in purpose and goals. This was made clear at Joseph Smith’s first vision, where he saw the two of them as the individual beings that Mormons believe them to be.
As far as incarnation goes, LDS do not believe that Jesus was a literal incarnation of the Father (as you’ve seen already, they’re two completely separate beings to Mormons). In fact, numerous early LDS apostles (Orson Pratt in his book “The Seer” comes to mind as one of them) speculated that God the Father had come down from the heavens and physically impregnated Mary in order to conceive Jesus. I know that sounds like the rankest blasphemy to your average Christian, and it’s never been adopted as official Mormon doctrine, but there you have it.
This is a very strange way of putting it and I’d like to know why you are putting it this way. Doesn’t conception precede a embryo ? Or are you suggesting a rather unorthadox Christology, namely that Mary was not a virgin, that perhaps an embryo was conceived via Joseph and that the personage of Jesus was introduced by some divine cloning procedure ? ( I don’t know whether to introduce a smiley here or not).
Before we compare a Hindu concept to a Christian one, I believe this requires clarification.
It’s spelled out quite precisely in the Doctrine and Covenants, the book recording Joseph Smith’s revelations. D&C 130:22: “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.”
Since, in Mormon theology, it is necessary for everybody to get a physical body in order to progress to godhood (even Jesus), it’s often wondered when the Holy Ghost will get HIS body.
Thanks for the early morning seminary flashback, man.
My point in mentioning the First Vision is that the physical distinctness of the Father and Son was almost the first thing Joseph Smith learned, years before the Book of Mormon or D&C ever came to light. That’s how fundamental it is to Mormon theology.
For the record, my intent was to briefly encapsulate orthodox Chalcedonian Christology as a to-be-assumed premise, and obviously the vocabulary and phrasing was not anything like clear enough, as several people have noted.
The clarification regarding Mormon belief has been extremely intriguing, and appreciated. I’m still hoping for someone with a good understanding of how Hindus view Krishna, Rama, etc., relative to Vishnu, and anything else related to the “God enters into manhood” scenario incumbent on avatar-dom. Essentially I’m trying to answer the question, “How, other than number of times it happened, is incarnation in Hinduism different from that in Christianity, and what elements do the two concepts have in common, besides the obvious?”
Actually, I think you’re wrong there. Joseph Smith’s early recountings of the First Vision didn’t include the Father and Son as separate beings – they involved an angel or just “the Lord.” The current two-personage version was written in … 1838, I think. And the first version of the Book of Mormon referred to Jesus / God / the Eternal Father interchangeably.
