Christ Was A Man And Became A God?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

LifeOnaPlate,

What do you mean by "being", if you can please provide some scriptures to help me understand what you mean?

They are not the same person, the Father is distinct from the Son.

That is interesting. Johnny some of your thoughts go right in hand with LDS beliefs.

[johnny]

Zakuska,

Not to mention the fact that if God was in Christ... where did Christ "Acsend" to after speaking with Mary at the tomb?

God transcends (Eph 4:6) ... God was in Christ.... Christ ascends to the Father ...

Eph.4

[6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

[johnny]

Mola Ram Suda Ram,

That is interesting. Johnny some of your thoughts go right in hand with LDS beliefs.

The thought that the Father is distinct from the Son is straight from the Christian Creeds.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola Ram Suda Ram,

The thought that the Father is distinct from the Son is straight from the Christian Creeds.

Im sorry I believe the creeds teach that the Godhead is all of one substance. All in one, all the same person. I have heard from numerous people that the Godhead is all the same God. That there is only One God from all eternity to all eternity.

[Zakuska]

Zakuska,

God transcends (Eph 4:6) ... God was in Christ.... Christ ascends to the Father ...

Eph.4

[6] One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all.

tran

[johnny]

Mola Ram Suda Ram,

Im sorry I believe the creeds teach that the Godhead is all of one substance. All in one, all the same person. I have heard from numerous people that the Godhead is all the same God. That there is only One God from all eternity to all eternity.

It appears you are not familiar with the creeds, clearly they don't teach "all the same person". Since this is getting off-topic, below is a link so that you can better understand some of the creeds.

Athanasian Creed (Trinitarian Creed)

http://www.aboutcatholics.com/faith_belief...hanasian_creed/

Nicene Creed

http://www.aboutcatholics.com/faith_beliefs/nicene_creed/

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola Ram Suda Ram,

It appears you are not familiar with the creeds, clearly they don't teach "all the same person". Since this is getting off-topic, below is a link so that you can better understand some of the creeds.

Athanasian Creed (Trinitarian Creed)

http://www.aboutcatholics.com/faith_belief...hanasian_creed/

Nicene Creed

http://www.aboutcatholics.com/faith_beliefs/nicene_creed/

On a side note its not me that doesnt get it. I dont believe the creeds anyway nor did I ever claim to believe them. But it really is the people that were telling me about the creed that dont understand them. I have often though the Catholics were the closest to Mormons that there is, in main stream Christianity.

[Zakuska]

Did the man part of Jesus become God? Certainly his spirit part was already God.

Intrestingly... that is exactly what several 1st Century Christian Apologists claimed. Now if I can find the quote.

[Matt Carlson]

johnny,

You responded:

Mormon belief is not consistent with the Bible ...

In your opinion that is.

Jesus did not become God ...

According to Kenotic Christology, which is accepted as orthodox, Jesus did indeed empty Himself of His divinity in the incarnation. This is clearly alluded to by Jesus Himself: â??Father, glorify thou me in thy own presence with the glory which I had with thee before the world was made.â? (RSV John 17:5) Obviously if Jesus â??emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of menâ? (RSV Philippians 2:7) up to and including a shedding of His â??gloryâ? which had had possessed â??before the world was madeâ? He cannot at that point have been considered God in the same sense He was previous to His incarnation. In fact, Paul indicates that Jesusâ?? condescension was quite complete. You are of course free to believe as you will but your continued insistence that the belief is inconsistent with the Bible is ridiculous.

Jesus is God from everlasting to everlasting.

I am unaware of a biblical passage applied specifically to Jesus in which He is declared to be â??from everlasting to everlasting.â? Perhaps you would be so kind as to supply a reference? And if you are thinking of Psalms 90:2, I am afraid this cannot support your assertion even if it could be applied to Jesus. You see, it only addresses a period previous to creation extending forward to an indeterminate end. If the statement were truly meant to be absolutely and completely unlimited, covering a period with no beginning and no end then it should not have a reference to commencement but merely state â??from everlasting to everlasting thou art Godâ? and yet the latter half of the sentence is qualified by the former: â??Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world.â? (RSV)

While Jesus was on earth, he was the servant of the Father, the Father was greater than the Son.

Well if that isnâ??t a gross oversimplification. If Jesusâ?? subordinate relationship was to be limited only to His mortal sojourn why then would He refer to the Father as His God post-mortally? (John 20:17) No, the New Testament is laced with references to subordinationism and it will not do to simply dismiss the matter as a linguistic device applicable only while Jesus was incarnated.

When Jesus was resurrected the Son's glory is equal to the Father's glory.

With this I have little argument however it does not reduce the fact that Jesus is dependant upon the Father for this glory. Again, subordinationism.

The creeds are completely consistent with scripture.

Now that is most certainly debatable however it is also a topic for another thread. I believe the creeds contradict the Bible and logic in general and I can demonstrate that this is the case. Now, if you would care to test your assertion we can begin a new thread.

My accusations are completely consistent with scripture.

And yet they are being soundly refuted by scripture. Odd donâ??t you think that both originate from the same source. Obviously there are other ways to interpret the Bible than that which you would have be the singular standard.

If you think otherwise then please back up your words with some scriptures.

Ah, and I have not been doing so to this point? I did not include two previous references supporting my contentions? I have provided at least two passages which supported a Kenotic view of Christ and have provided further references in this most recent post. As to the creeds, again, that is a separate (although undoubtedly related) issue which I am happy to discuss with you elsewhere. Just let me know.

The problem is that the Mormons post-biblical doctrinal innovations are not consistent with the Bible. Jesus did NOT become God.

Ah, yes, and of course as you have indicated yours are. It would appear that your theological underpinnings are becoming more and more relevant to the topic after all. Perhaps we should just begin a review of the creeds?

As to whether Jesus became God, again, I have demonstrated that at some point Jesus emptied Himself of His divinity and became man. He then was exalted and gloried by His Father, returning to his former station of glory. Obviously this meant that He ceased to possess that which He was possessed of and regained this again at a later time. He became God. Your insistence that this is not so changes nothing.

My accursatin is simple to support, Jesus is God from everlasting to everlasting (Psalm 90:2).

I thought this is where you might turn in support of your assertion. I have already provided reply above but owing to the fact that you are indeed claiming that this passage applied to Jesus let me address that contention specifically. You must realize that underlying assumptions cannot be simply accepted, they must be established. You have not established that the creeds are indeed the manner in which the Bible should be understood and as a result your interpretations, which are obviously reliant thereon, are called into question.

This passage could only be applied to Jesus if Jesus is to be considered the topic of the verse (i.e. â??Godâ?). However, the term itself is used is various ways to refer both collectively and individually to the Divine Persons and there is nothing to indicate that the verse should be applied collectively. Indeed, in Hebrew thought, Trinitarian Christianity (heedless of its semantically based attempts to argue to the contrary) is just as much a violation of the Shema as is the view of LDS Christianity. A Jew would have rejected your interpretation of this passage. There is but one God to the Jews and this one God was not Jesus. Even Jesus understood this in defining eternal life as knowing â??the only true God.â? Is this â??only true Godâ?--Jesusâ?? God--Jesus? Is Jesus his own God? Did Jesus exalt himself? Return Himself to the glory which He possessed previously? Jesus did not think so for He clearly separated Himself from the â??one true Godâ? as â??Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.â? (KJV John 17:3)

Interestingly, your claims appear to me to be reminiscent a heresy called Modalism in which there is but one God playing three different roles. I thought that conflating the three was as creedally unacceptable as dividing them?

_________________________

Matt Carlson

"Unfortunately, in an argument the one who talks longest, loudest, and last often comes out looking like 'the winner,' even though he or she may not have argued well at all. This is because if no one has answered the argumentâ??if no one has actually shown that the argument is weak or unlikely, we are left thinking: the arguer could be right and, moreover, no one can point to anything wrong, so.... This is why we bother to dispute a point at allâ??if it goes undisputed we and others may be subtly or even heavily influenced by it, may in fact be weakened in our original disagreement with it, and may find it hard to refuse other arguments or even calls to action that derive from it. All of which can lead us to feeling that we have no choice but to say and do things that we do not, at heart, chose or believe in."

S. Morris Engel, With Good Reason: An Introduction to Informal Fallacies, Sixth Edition (Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martinâ??s, 2000), pp. 5-6.

[johnny]

Matt Carlson,

According to Kenotic Christology, which is accepted as orthodox, Jesus did indeed empty Himself of His divinity in the incarnation.

Kenotic Christology does NOT infer that Jesus emptied Himself of His divinity. Kenosis infers that "the assumption of humanity and the simultaneous occultation of the Divinity." (see link below)

Kenosis

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08617a.htm

Well if that isnâ??t a gross oversimplification. If Jesusâ?? subordinate relationship was to be limited only to His mortal sojourn why then would He refer to the Father as His God post-mortally? (John 20:17)

Because he is the Son of God, a Father is greater than a Son.

With this I have little argument however it does not reduce the fact that Jesus is dependant upon the Father for this glory. Again, subordinationism.

What is your defination of subordinationism ... is it the historical view or is it simple the relationship aspect?

I would not include the fact that Jesus is dependant upon the Father for this glory as subordinationism.

Now that is most certainly debatable however it is also a topic for another thread. I believe the creeds contradict the Bible and logic in general and I can demonstrate that this is the case. Now, if you would care to test your assertion we can begin a new thread.

Please open another thread if you believe the creeds contradict the Bible and logic in general.

I will reply tomorrow since I will be away from the computer the rest of the day.

And yet they are being soundly refuted by scripture. Odd donâ??t you think that both originate from the same source. Obviously there are other ways to interpret the Bible than that which you would have be the singular standard.

John 17:5 does not refute the fact that Jesus DID NOT become God, John 17:5 only refers to glory.

John 20:17 does not refute the fact that Jesus DID NOT become God, John 20:17 only refers to their relationship.

I have provided at least two passages which supported a Kenotic view of Christ and have provided further references in this most recent post.

Your Kenotic view of Christ is distorted, Kenotic Christology does NOT infer that Jesus emptied Himself of His divinity. While on earth Jesus had the fulness of divinity (Col 2:9)

Col.2

[9] For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

As to whether Jesus became God, again, I have demonstrated that at some point Jesus emptied Himself of His divinity and became man. He then was exalted and gloried by His Father, returning to his former station of glory. Obviously this meant that He ceased to possess that which He was possessed of and regained this again at a later time. He became God. Your insistence that this is not so changes nothing.

When he was exalted he DID NOT BECOME GOD. He returned to his former glory. He was exalted as Prince and Saviour.

I will reply tomorrow since I will be away from the computer the rest of the day.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

He was God...but not like the Father. Now he is like the Father.

Hebrews 5: 7-9

7 Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared;

8 Though he were a Son, yet alearned he obedience by the things which he suffered;

9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

Pa Pa

[Obiwan]

Zakuska,

Like I said earlier Jesus is the Son of God, he has a God (John 20:17).

Again Mormonism is not consistent with scripture ... Jesus did not BECOME God ... 1Tim.3 says "God was manifest in the flesh".

Yes, but he was not the "Most High" God.

Christ was alway's subject to the Father, as we are. His having the "Title" and "Power" of God by proxy through the Father does not make him "God" in the sense that the Father is. They aren't the same, persons, people, substance (other than matter) or whatever etc. etc. Johnny, it is a title of authority and dominion.

[Hick Preacher]

Yes, but he was not the "Most High" God.

Genesis 14:22

And Abram said to the king of Sodom, I have lift up mine hand unto the LORD the most high God, the possessor of heaven and earth,

(LORD Gen 14:22 is Strongs #3068 â??Jehovahâ? meaning Jehovah is identified in the text as the â??Most High Godâ??

[LifeOnaPlate]

Genesis 14:22

(LORD Gen 14:22 is Strongs #3068 â??Jehovahâ? meaning Jehovah is identified in the text as the â??Most High Godâ??

But if there be only one God, why mention anything about "Most High," if there is only one High?

[Hick Preacher]

But if there be only one God, why mention anything about "Most High," if there is only one High?

There are many creatures who are called gods. But there is a unique being called God.

(Added in Edit)

Ps 86 Among the gods there is none like unto thee, O Lord;

Psalm 97 â??For thou Lordâ?¦ art exalted far above all godsâ?

[Zakuska]

Did Hick preacher really just say that?

[johnny]

Zakuska,

Did Hick preacher really just say that?

Sounds like "Hick preacher" is consist with scripture,

Mark.12

[29] And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

[32] And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:

1Cor.8

[4] As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

[5] For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

[6] But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Deut.10

[17] For he LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords, a great God, a mighty, and a terrible, which regardeth not persons, nor taketh reward:

[Bernard Gui]

Bernard Gui,

The heavenly city is in the heavens ...

I believe that the Son of God has a body of flesh and bones. God was in Christ (1Tim 3:16; 2Cor 5:19). God was manfiest in the flesh (1Tim 3:16).

I DO NOT believe that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones like the Mormon Church teaches. Christ said "God is a Spirit" and that "a spirit hath not flesh and bones" (John 4:24; Luke 24:34). The Father dwelt in the Son and did the works (John 14:10).

So, Jesus has a glorified body of flesh and bones and dwells in the heavenly city

in the heavens. Is that an actual physical location?

The Father dwells in Jesus, but does not have a body. How can that be?

Bernard

[Zakuska]

Zakuska,

Sounds like "Hick preacher" is consist with scripture,

Mark.12

[29] And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

[32] And the scribe said unto him, Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:

Care to explain why you are taking your doctrinal exposition from a scribe of the Jews? Especially since this scribe adds words to the Scripture?!

Deut 6

4 Hear, O Israel: The [YHWH] our God is one Lord:

5 And thou shalt love the [YHWH] thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.

It says nothing about there being only one God. There is only one Lord, we already Know that.

Especially since Christ admited there was a God above him...

John 20

16 Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.

17 Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet bascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.

...as well as many others below.

John 10

34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?

35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;

[Tanyan]

Zak, don't forget 1 Cor 11:3, 15:2-28, 1Cor 1:3,11:31,Rom,15:6, Eph 1::3,17, Heb 1:1-9, 1 Pet 1:3, [NIV]- Rev 1:6, 3: 2,12.

[johnny]

Bernard Gui ,

So, Jesus has a glorified body of flesh and bones and dwells in the heavenly city

in the heavens. Is that an actual physical location?

Sounds like this conversation is starting to get off-topic ...

The Father dwells in Jesus, but does not have a body. How can that be?

The Father can dwell in Jesus because the Father is spirit, the Father DOES NOT have a body of flesh and bones.

[johnny]

Zakuska,

Care to explain why you are taking your doctrinal exposition from a scribe of the Jews? Especially since this scribe adds words to the Scripture?!

Jesus did not correct the statement "the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he:"

Jesus did not clarify that Jew's statement by saying there are "three Gods" like Joseph Smith taught.

Later the Apostle Paul confirms the Jew's words, Paul says "there is none other God but one" (1Cor 8:4).

It says nothing about there being only one God. There is only one Lord, we already Know that.

The Apostle Paul says something about this he says,

1Cor.8

[4] As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one.

Especially since Christ admited there was a God above him...

There are NOT two Gods like the Mormon Church teaches. Like I said earlier Jesus is the Son of God. The Apostle Paul clarifies this for us, he says "one God, the Father ... one Lord Jesus Christ".

1Cor.8

[6] But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

...as well as many others below.

Again the Apostle Paul clarifies this for us, he says,

1Cor.8

[5] For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,)

Even Satan is "called gods" (2Cor 4:4) ...

2Cor.4

[4] In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Joseph Smith taught that the Father, His Son, and the Holy Ghost are one God.

See John 17 for more info.

[johnny]

LifeOnaPlate,

Joseph Smith taught that the Father, His Son, and the Holy Ghost are one God.

In History of the Church, 6:474 Joseph Smith clearly taught "three Gods", see link below:

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Cur...oly%20ghost.htm

[LifeOnaPlate]

LifeOnaPlate,

In History of the Church, 6:474 Joseph Smith clearly taught "three Gods", see link below:

http://library.lds.org/nxt/gateway.dll/Cur...oly%20ghost.htm

See, johnny, I thought we were talking about God, not about personages, or beings. If you're going to quote Pres. Smith on the subject let's do the thing proper, aye?

From your link:

I have always declared God to be a distinct personage, Jesus Christ a separate and distinct personage from God the Father, and that the Holy Ghost was a distinct personage and a Spirit: and these three constitute three distinct personages and three Gods (History of the Church, 6:474).

Hrmmm. I wonder what else he said in that discourse. Luckily we have the whole of it online at the BOAP. Mark it, Elder Rigdon!

Paul says there are Gods many and Lords many. I want to set it forth

in a plain and simple manner; but to us there is but one God that is

pertaining to us; and he is in all and through all, but if Joseph Smith

says there are Gods many and Lords many, they cry, "Away with him! Crucify

him! crucify him!"

And again:

Paul, if Joseph Smith is a blasphemer, you are. I say

there are Gods many and Lords many, but to us only one, and we are to be

in subjection to that one, and no man can limit the bounds or the eternal

existence of eternal time.

And again:

Many men say there is one God; the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost

are only one God! I say that is a strange God anyhow--three in one, and

one in three! It is a curious organization. "Father, I pray not for the

world, but I pray for them which thou hast given me " "Holy Father, keep

through Thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one

as we are." All are to be crammed into one God, according to sectarianism.

It would make the biggest God in all the world. He would be a wonderfully

big God--he would be a giant or a monster. I want to read the text to you

myself--"I am agreed with the Father and the Father is agreed with me, and

we are agreed as one." The Greek shows that it should be agreed. "Father,

I pray for them which Thou hast given me out of the world, and not for

those alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their

word, that they all may be agreed, as Thou, Father, art with me, and I

with Thee, that they also may be agreed with us," and all come to dwell in

unity, and in all the glory and everlasting burnings of the Gods; and then

we shall see as we are seen, and be as our God and He as His Father.

From that same discourse, History of the Church, Vol. 6.

In short, three distinct beings can be one God.