121 replies to this topic

[Storm Rider]

This is not a discussion on how Jesus was the literal Son of God!!!  Suffice it to say that LDS doctrine is that the child Mary carried was conceived of the Holy Ghost.  I don't care what Brigham Young may have speculated; his thoughts are not doctrine.  Now the meat of the topic....

I get a daily verse and the one I just received was very interesting.  Recently on another thread there was a very short interaction on what is required to be called a Christian.  Today's verses address this topic and can be found here with the topic "Who is Jesus".

The last paragraph reads as follows:

The God-revealed answer is that Jesus is the promised Messiah, the literal Son of the Supreme Being of all the universe. Of course, He is a great deal more than this, but these two facts are the most foundational to our spiritual understanding of this wonderful Being. They give us the basis of His relationship to us and our future, as well as His relationship to Deity, fixing Him as the bridge between man and God. From this foundation, we can begin a deeper consideration of the biblical Jesus.

I italicized the interesting point above.  Whenever I see a group use these terms I immediately respond, "YES!"  However, I also understand that when some Christians use the term literal, they do not mean literal Son of God.  They more often mean God Incarnate rather than Son of God.

This has always confused me.  Of course, the doctrine of the Trinity has always confused me.  The scriptures can be quite simple and yet full of wonder.  One of the simplest statements of the New Testament is that Jesus was the "Son of God", an appellation used no less than forty-six times in the NT.  How does God become his own son?  I know, I know, the Triune God of one substance in three pesons, which is more of a mind-blower than any teaching of Joseph Smith ever dreamed up, can answer the question. I digress.

It appears that the Bereans do believe that Jesus was the Son of God, as in the literal Son of God; though I can be corrected.  I really could not find a clear statement other than the one above.

Does any other Christian church teach that Jesus was the literal Son of God besides the LDS Church?  I assume that one cannot believe in literal Sonship of Jesus and still maintain a belief in the Trinity...but maybe they can.  This Substance thing has never really held much water for me and I have a difficult time believing that it does for others unless they just choose not to try and understand what they are really saying.  My head hurts when I try to contemplate this teaching; I begin reading about the Trinity and my brain is put on high-speed spin and I become so dizzy that I have to put the book down.  

Edited by Storm Rider, 03 June 2012 - 07:17 AM.

[zerinus]

Storm Rider, on 03 June 2012 - 07:16 AM, said:

This is not a discussion on how Jesus was the literal Son of God!!!  Suffice it to say that LDS doctrine is that the child Mary carried was conceived of the Holy Ghost.  I don't care what Brigham Young may have speculated; his thoughts are not doctrine.  Now the meat of the topic....

I get a daily verse and the one I just received was very interesting.  Recently on another thread there was a very short interaction on what is required to be called a Christian.  Today's verses address this topic and can be found here with the topic "Who is Jesus".

The last paragraph reads as follows:

The God-revealed answer is that Jesus is the promised Messiah, the literal Son of the Supreme Being of all the universe. Of course, He is a great deal more than this, but these two facts are the most foundational to our spiritual understanding of this wonderful Being. They give us the basis of His relationship to us and our future, as well as His relationship to Deity, fixing Him as the bridge between man and God. From this foundation, we can begin a deeper consideration of the biblical Jesus.

I italicized the interesting point above.  Whenever I see a group use these terms I immediately respond, "YES!"  However, I also understand that when some Christians use the term literal, they do not mean literal Son of God.  They more often mean God Incarnate rather than Son of God.

This has always confused me.  Of course, the doctrine of the Trinity has always confused me.  The scriptures can be quite simple and yet full of wonder.  One of the simplest statements of the New Testament is that Jesus was the "Son of God", an appellation used no less than forty-six times in the NT.  How does God become his own son?  I know, I know, the Triune God of one substance in three pesons, which is more of a mind-blower than any teaching of Joseph Smith ever dreamed up, can answer the question. I digress.

It appears that the Bereans do believe that Jesus was the Son of God, as in the literal Son of God; though I can be corrected.  I really could not find a clear statement other than the one above.

Does any other Christian church teach that Jesus was the literal Son of God besides the LDS Church?  I assume that one cannot believe in literal Sonship of Jesus and still maintain a belief in the Trinity...but maybe they can.  This Substance thing has never really held much water for me and I have a difficult time believing that it does for others unless they just choose not to try and understand what they are really saying.  My head hurts when I try to contemplate this teaching; I begin reading about the Trinity and my brain is put on high-speed spin and I become so dizzy that I have to put the book down.  

I have a more fundamental question: what is the difference between "Son of God," and the "literal Son of God"?

[Maureen]

Storm Rider, on 03 June 2012 - 07:16 AM, said:

...How does God become his own son?

Storm, non-LDS Christians who accept the Trinity, believe that God has always existed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The three persons of the Trinity have always existed together, they have relationships with each other. Jesus, is the Son of God, something that is described of him in is incarnate (human) state. But Jesus is also God because he is also divine, he is not a created being, he is not a literal first-born of the Father, because he has always existed with the Father before the beginning. For Trinitarians, God is the one and only divine being, and since God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, collectively and individually, Jesus is God. But also the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God. But there is still only one God.

Your question is oddly worded, so all I can say is that, the Father is the Father, Jesus is the Son and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit, and they are God.

M.

Edited by Maureen, 03 June 2012 - 10:31 AM.

[mfbukowski]

Maureen, on 03 June 2012 - 10:30 AM, said:

Your question is oddly worded, so all I can say is that, the Father is the Father, Jesus is the Son and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit, and they are God.

M.

Well of course for we who are LDS it is your answer which is oddly worded.  I agree with Storm- substance and being makes no sense and three things being one thing makes less.

The entire thing was made up, in my opinion, because people wanted to be "monotheistic" but yet they also wanted Jesus to be God.  Sorry- that approach doesn't work.   There are either three independent persons unified by another feature- love or purpose or whatever- or one person.  But try as anyone may, three is not one and one is not three.

Edited by mfbukowski, 03 June 2012 - 10:46 AM.

[mfbukowski]

zerinus, on 03 June 2012 - 07:33 AM, said:

I have a more fundamental question: what is the difference between "Son of God," and the "literal Son of God"?

Good point.   A distinction without a difference.

[Ron Beron]

Storm Rider, on 03 June 2012 - 07:16 AM, said:

This is not a discussion on how Jesus was the literal Son of God!!!  Suffice it to say that LDS doctrine is that the child Mary carried was conceived of the Holy Ghost.  I don't care what Brigham Young may have speculated; his thoughts are not doctrine.  Now the meat of the topic....

I get a daily verse and the one I just received was very interesting.  Recently on another thread there was a very short interaction on what is required to be called a Christian.  Today's verses address this topic and can be found here with the topic "Who is Jesus".

The last paragraph reads as follows:

The God-revealed answer is that Jesus is the promised Messiah, the literal Son of the Supreme Being of all the universe. Of course, He is a great deal more than this, but these two facts are the most foundational to our spiritual understanding of this wonderful Being. They give us the basis of His relationship to us and our future, as well as His relationship to Deity, fixing Him as the bridge between man and God. From this foundation, we can begin a deeper consideration of the biblical Jesus.

I italicized the interesting point above.  Whenever I see a group use these terms I immediately respond, "YES!"  However, I also understand that when some Christians use the term literal, they do not mean literal Son of God.  They more often mean God Incarnate rather than Son of God.

This has always confused me.  Of course, the doctrine of the Trinity has always confused me.  The scriptures can be quite simple and yet full of wonder.  One of the simplest statements of the New Testament is that Jesus was the "Son of God", an appellation used no less than forty-six times in the NT.  How does God become his own son?  I know, I know, the Triune God of one substance in three pesons, which is more of a mind-blower than any teaching of Joseph Smith ever dreamed up, can answer the question. I digress.

It appears that the Bereans do believe that Jesus was the Son of God, as in the literal Son of God; though I can be corrected.  I really could not find a clear statement other than the one above.

Does any other Christian church teach that Jesus was the literal Son of God besides the LDS Church?  I assume that one cannot believe in literal Sonship of Jesus and still maintain a belief in the Trinity...but maybe they can.  This Substance thing has never really held much water for me and I have a difficult time believing that it does for others unless they just choose not to try and understand what they are really saying.  My head hurts when I try to contemplate this teaching; I begin reading about the Trinity and my brain is put on high-speed spin and I become so dizzy that I have to put the book down.  

"Sons of God" could be anyone who follows God.  Israel at times was called "Sons of God" (bene elohim).  As to a literal Son of God there is some discussion since it is in referenced to a carnal relationship which the Bible doesn't speak.  It does speak of Jesus being called begotten at two points in the New Testament.  One, at his baptism and two, at his death.  Later, during the Patristic period Jesus was considered the "literal" Son of God.

[Maureen]

mfbukowski, on 03 June 2012 - 10:43 AM, said:

....The entire thing was made up, in my opinion....

The same could be said for Joseph Smith's story, but you still believe it. What we choose to believe, is all about faith; we all have our reasons of what we believe and why.

M.

[altersteve]

Maureen, on 03 June 2012 - 10:30 AM, said:

Storm, non-LDS Christians who accept the Trinity, believe that God has always existed as Father, Son and Holy Spirit. The three persons of the Trinity have always existed together, they have relationships with each other. Jesus, is the Son of God, something that is described of him in is incarnate (human) state. But Jesus is also God because he is also divine, he is not a created being, he is not a literal first-born of the Father, because he has always existed with the Father before the beginning. For Trinitarians, God is the one and only divine being, and since God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit, collectively and individually, Jesus is God. But also the Father is God and the Holy Spirit is God. But there is still only one God.

Your question is oddly worded, so all I can say is that, the Father is the Father, Jesus is the Son and the Holy Spirit is the Holy Spirit, and they are God.

M.

Latter-day Saints also believe that Jesus Christ is God, but not because He shares the same "substance" or "essence" with the Father. This is what we believe is not scriptural. John 17, in our opinion, completely refutes it.

[3DOP]

Storm Rider, on 03 June 2012 - 07:16 AM, said:

This is not a discussion on how Jesus was the literal Son of God!!!  Suffice it to say that LDS doctrine is that the child Mary carried was conceived of the Holy Ghost.  I don't care what Brigham Young may have speculated; his thoughts are not doctrine.  Now the meat of the topic....

I get a daily verse and the one I just received was very interesting.  Recently on another thread there was a very short interaction on what is required to be called a Christian.  Today's verses address this topic and can be found here with the topic "Who is Jesus".

The last paragraph reads as follows:

The God-revealed answer is that Jesus is the promised Messiah, the literal Son of the Supreme Being of all the universe. Of course, He is a great deal more than this, but these two facts are the most foundational to our spiritual understanding of this wonderful Being. They give us the basis of His relationship to us and our future, as well as His relationship to Deity, fixing Him as the bridge between man and God. From this foundation, we can begin a deeper consideration of the biblical Jesus.

I italicized the interesting point above.  Whenever I see a group use these terms I immediately respond, "YES!"  However, I also understand that when some Christians use the term literal, they do not mean literal Son of God.  They more often mean God Incarnate rather than Son of God.

This has always confused me.  Of course, the doctrine of the Trinity has always confused me.  The scriptures can be quite simple and yet full of wonder.  One of the simplest statements of the New Testament is that Jesus was the "Son of God", an appellation used no less than forty-six times in the NT.  How does God become his own son?  I know, I know, the Triune God of one substance in three pesons, which is more of a mind-blower than any teaching of Joseph Smith ever dreamed up, can answer the question. I digress.

It appears that the Bereans do believe that Jesus was the Son of God, as in the literal Son of God; though I can be corrected.  I really could not find a clear statement other than the one above.

Does any other Christian church teach that Jesus was the literal Son of God besides the LDS Church?  I assume that one cannot believe in literal Sonship of Jesus and still maintain a belief in the Trinity...but maybe they can.  This Substance thing has never really held much water for me and I have a difficult time believing that it does for others unless they just choose not to try and understand what they are really saying.  My head hurts when I try to contemplate this teaching; I begin reading about the Trinity and my brain is put on high-speed spin and I become so dizzy that I have to put the book down.  

Hi Storm Rider,

Ordinarily, that which is not to be understood literally in the Scriptures, is understood symbolically or figuratively. When Jesus says He is the door in John 10, few confuse His saying to mean that He is made out of wood and has hinges. Other sayings of Scripture are more controversial.

With regard to whether as a Catholic I believe Jesus is literally God's Son, I answer most emphatically in the affirmative. We deny that He is speaking in symbols or figures when He claims to be the Son of the Father. When it comes to fatherhood and sonhood, Christ and the Father are the model and biological creation is a shadow of that literal reality. I could sooner say my boy is a symbol of me than that Jesus is symbolic of the Father.

[changed]

Storm Rider, on 03 June 2012 - 07:16 AM, said:

Does any other Christian church teach that Jesus was the literal Son of God besides the LDS Church?

JW's don't believe in the trinity...

[altersteve]

changed, on 03 June 2012 - 01:42 PM, said:

JW's don't believe in the trinity...

JW's believe Jesus is Michael.

[The Nehor]

zerinus, on 03 June 2012 - 07:33 AM, said:

I have a more fundamental question: what is the difference between "Son of God," and the "literal Son of God"?

Difference between me and Jesus as long as literal means physical.

[mfbukowski]

Maureen, on 03 June 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

The same could be said for Joseph Smith's story, but you still believe it. What we choose to believe, is all about faith; we all have our reasons of what we believe and why.

M.

Do I remember you from CAF?

[3DOP]

altersteve, on 03 June 2012 - 12:25 PM, said:

Latter-day Saints also believe that Jesus Christ is God, but not because He shares the same "substance" or "essence" with the Father. This is what we believe is not scriptural. John 17, in our opinion, completely refutes it.

You hold that the Scriptures teach that Jesus is essentially different from His Father? I don't think so. Many Mormons confess to believing that we are the same species. How can you say we have essentially different substance? When it comes to WHAT we are, we have to be the same thing as our parents, and that is what meant by essence. It answers the question, "What is it?" The same thing. The same what, if you will. We have to separate the who from the what. In my opinion, the problem between you and us does not stem from disagreement about whether the persons of the Trinity are consubstantial, the same what. I know you believe that as we understand the word, the LDS Church teaches that the Son and Father are consubstantial.

These words, substance, essence, and being would be better used substantially and essentially as they are used in daily language. Instead they seem to have somehow become invested by Mormons with an almost ethereal quality that does not represent the relative simplicity of the 4th Century understanding of the words. We will never communicate until we reach agreement on what these words mean. I propose that we have to define the words in question to the satisfaction of those who accept the concepts they are supposed to represent. Let's not muddy everything up with how this is technical jargon that somebody made up. Of course it is! If we are unfamiliar with hockey but want to understand the Stanley Cup Finals, are we going to complain because it has its own language with strange expressions like blue lines, and power plays, and icing and face-offs? These expressions define dynamics of hockey that must be understood and agreed upon by those who would discuss and understand hockey as it has been played in the last two centuries. Do you think it would be easier to discuss 20th and 21st Century hockey without the jargon unique to it? Should we argue with hockey fans about what puck means? Of course the answers are no. Likewise we can't discuss the theology that comes from the 4th Century without understanding the jargon unique to it and accepting the definitions attached.

If we could get past that obstacle, which unfortunately I am not very optimistic about, the real problem is that we disagree on whether God is infinite being or not. Catholics hold that when God replied to Moses asking His name, the answer, "I am Who am", describes who God is. Pure existence as we understand it. This has ramifications that make the dynamic unity between God the Father and God the Son greater, infinitely greater, than that essential unity which exists between all biological creatures of the same species. I don't think I have ever even raised this real problem here at this board. This is in my opinion, the point of true disagreement between us. But we never get that far along.

If we can agree to agree (on consubstantiality) when we should, only then can we possibly hope to agree to disagree (about the quality of God's substance)?

3DOP

[TAO]

Yes, I'd agree with 3DOP.  Essence, is essentially a case where people just use different language.  Technically, if you assigned essence as 'purpose or goal', LDS would agree, whereas if you assigned essence to mean spirit, we'd disagree.  On the other hand, the properties of God, yes... that's a much bigger contrast being our religion and others.

Edited by TAO, 03 June 2012 - 03:34 PM.

[BCSpace]

Quote

This Substance thing has never really held much water for me and I have a difficult time believing that it does for others unless they just choose not to try and understand what they are really saying.  My head hurts when I try to contemplate this teaching; I begin reading about the Trinity and my brain is put on high-speed spin and I become so dizzy that I have to put the book down.

It's really quite easy to understand the trinity.  It's much harder (in fact, absolutely impossible) to square it with scripture.  The trinity is composed of three distinct and separate Persons who are God.  In the same way one might point to a couple and say he and she are separate and distinct persons who are married.  Thus, "God" in the trinity is an abstract concept; not a Person.

So the real question for Trinitarians:  Is Jesus the Son of the Father?

You might get some answer having more to do with the Hypostatic or Mystical Union as Incarnation makes more sense to a trinitarian than Sonship.

Edited by BCSpace, 03 June 2012 - 04:22 PM.

[mfbukowski]

3DOP, on 03 June 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

You hold that the Scriptures teach that Jesus is essentially different from His Father? I don't think so. Many Mormons confess to believing that we are the same species. How can you say we have essentially different substance? When it comes to WHAT we are, we have to be the same thing as our parents, and that is what meant by essence. It answers the question, "What is it?" The same thing. The same what, if you will. We have to separate the who from the what. In my opinion, the problem between you and us does not stem from disagreement about whether the persons of the Trinity are consubstantial, the same what. I know you believe that as we understand the word, the LDS Church teaches that the Son and Father are consubstantial.

Guess again.  Go ahead and search lds.org- the entire site- and you will find the word "consubstantial" in only one place and this is the quote:

Quote

In the year A.D. 325 the Roman emperor Constantine convened the Council of Nicaea to address—among other things—the growing issue of God’s alleged “trinity in unity.” What emerged from the heated contentions of churchmen, philosophers, and ecclesiastical dignitaries came to be known (after another 125 years and three more major councils) ⁴ as the Nicene Creed, with later reformulations such as the Athanasian Creed. These various evolutions and iterations of creeds—and others to come over the centuries—declared the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost to be abstract, absolute, transcendent, immanent, consubstantial, coeternal, and unknowable, without body, parts, or passions and dwelling outside space and time. In such creeds all three members are separate persons, but they are a single being, the oft-noted “mystery of the trinity.” They are three distinct persons, yet not three Gods but one. All three persons are incomprehensible, yet it is one God who is incomprehensible.
We agree with our critics on at least that point—that such a formulation for divinity is truly incomprehensible. With such a confusing definition of God being imposed upon the church, little wonder that a fourth-century monk cried out, “Woe is me! They have taken my God away from me, … and I know not whom to adore or to address.” ⁵ How are we to trust, love, worship, to say nothing of strive to be like, One who is incomprehensible and unknowable? What of Jesus’s prayer to His Father in Heaven that “this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent”? ⁶

http://www.lds.org/g...=consubstantial

[mfbukowski]

3DOP, on 03 June 2012 - 03:14 PM, said:

You hold that the Scriptures teach that Jesus is essentially different from His Father? I don't think so. Many Mormons confess to believing that we are the same species. How can you say we have essentially different substance? When it comes to WHAT we are, we have to be the same thing as our parents, and that is what meant by essence. It answers the question, "What is it?" The same thing. The same what, if you will. We have to separate the who from the what. In my opinion, the problem between you and us does not stem from disagreement about whether the persons of the Trinity are consubstantial, the same what. I know you believe that as we understand the word, the LDS Church teaches that the Son and Father are consubstantial.

These words, substance, essence, and being would be better used substantially and essentially as they are used in daily language. Instead they seem to have somehow become invested by Mormons with an almost ethereal quality that does not represent the relative simplicity of the 4th Century understanding of the words. We will never communicate until we reach agreement on what these words mean. I propose that we have to define the words in question to the satisfaction of those who accept the concepts they are supposed to represent. Let's not muddy everything up with how this is technical jargon that somebody made up. Of course it is! If we are unfamiliar with hockey but want to understand the Stanley Cup Finals, are we going to complain because it has its own language with strange expressions like blue lines, and power plays, and icing and face-offs? These expressions define dynamics of hockey that must be understood and agreed upon by those who would discuss and understand hockey as it has been played in the last two centuries. Do you think it would be easier to discuss 20th and 21st Century hockey without the jargon unique to it? Should we argue with hockey fans about what puck means? Of course the answers are no. Likewise we can't discuss the theology that comes from the 4th Century without understanding the jargon unique to it and accepting the definitions attached.

If we could get past that obstacle, which unfortunately I am not very optimistic about, the real problem is that we disagree on whether God is infinite being or not. Catholics hold that when God replied to Moses asking His name, the answer, "I am Who am", describes who God is. Pure existence as we understand it. This has ramifications that make the dynamic unity between God the Father and God the Son greater, infinitely greater, than that essential unity which exists between all biological creatures of the same species. I don't think I have ever even raised this real problem here at this board. This is in my opinion, the point of true disagreement between us. But we never get that far along.

If we can agree to agree (on consubstantiality) when we should, only then can we possibly hope to agree to disagree (about the quality of God's substance)?

3DOP

That's nice but unfortunately that is not what Aquinas taught about substance or transubstantiation.  I wish you spoke for the Catholic church.

[Log]

I believe 3DOP may not have an altogether orthodox view of consubstantiality - a feature he may share with David Waltz - if he believes it means merely "made out of the same stuff."

"Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance..."

[mfbukowski]

Log, on 03 June 2012 - 04:42 PM, said:

I believe 3DOP may not have an altogether orthodox view of consubstantiality - a feature he may share with David Waltz - if he believes it means merely "made out of the same stuff."

"Neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance..."

Well that's fine then he is a dry Mormon but not a Catholic.  At least that is not the traditional Catholic understanding
http://www.newadvent...then/14322c.htm

Edited by mfbukowski, 03 June 2012 - 05:03 PM.