Was Jesus The Son Of God Before The Earth Was Created?

[ChristKnight]

Thanks CK.  I'm still not clear how someone causes another person to 'be' but does not create them, but that's o.k.  It sounds like one of those doctrines that isn't really explainable.  

 

Is it Catholic doctrine then that no person in God could exist alone or separate from God?  Could Christ exist (for lack of a better term) without God the Father?

 

 

Yes, it is Catholic doctrine that no person in God could exist alone or separate from God.  Yes, it is also Catholic doctrine that Christ could not exist without the Father.  The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit exist in an eternal relationship, without beginning nor end.  The Son and the Holy Spirit have their Divinity, their existence, from the Father, eternally.    

[JLHPROF]

Tell me where the Book of Mormon disagrees with the Creeds or pre-1835 Joseph Smith JR )

 

Pre-1835 Joseph Smith had limited understanding and like yourself had some of his viewpoint colored by the credal traditions that it took time to remove.  Kind of like the Children of Israel had to wonder for 40 years to lose most of their false traditions and put into practice the new teachings before being allowed to enter the promised land.

 

As for the Book of Mormon, it contains far more post-1835 doctrine than you recognize.  Alma 13 refers directly to doctrines not revealed to or understood by Joseph Smith until the Nauvoo era.

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

Pre-1835 Joseph Smith had limited understanding and like yourself had some of his viewpoint colored by the credal traditions that it took time to remove.  Kind of like the Children of Israel had to wonder for 40 years to lose most of their false traditions and put into practice the new teachings before being allowed to enter the promised land.

 

As for the Book of Mormon, it contains far more post-1835 doctrine than you recognize.  Alma 13 refers directly to doctrines not revealed to or understood by Joseph Smith until the Nauvoo era.

If Joseph Smith got his information like the writers of the BIBLE , who got it from an omniscient God then a limited understanding would be no excuse

[JLHPROF]

If Joseph Smith got his information like the writers of the BIBLE , who got it from an omniscient God then a limited understanding would be no excuse

 

CFR that everything the writers of the Bible taught came direct from God.

[Nosca]

 Happy Sunday Bluebell!

You are wrong on how you believe LDS (or myself) understand the words Son of God and that's probably part of our communication problem.   When i asked the question in the OP (Opening Post), i was asking it from a non-LDS Christian perspective.  I believe that Jesus was the Son of God long before He was born into mortality and that His Sonship is not predicated upon His mortal birth.

Then we're in agreement on those points.

My question is more along the lines of, if Christ is literally the Son of God but not created by Him or 'related' to Him, or adopted by Him (which is how 'son' is defined) then what makes Him the Son of God from a non-lds Christian position?  Why does He have that designation if it's not literally true?It doesn't seem nonsensical to believe that God did not create Jesus.  It does seems nonsensical to believe that Jesus is the Son of God (based on the definition of the word 'son') when He's not actually His son (based, again, on the definition of the word 'son').

For a non-LDS Christian, you putting together 1) Jesus' designation as Son of God and 2) how or whether or not God created Jesus - which is a Trinitarian question - is somewhat interesting but not necessarily how we/I would think about it - so that may cause comfusion in our discussion as well.  I'd point you back to the CARM link talking about Son of  God.  We think about this much more in terms of a designation for Jesus - that gets at a lot of things but in large part His divinity - that because He is the Son of God He is God.  We don't typically think about, "and therefore because He is called "Son of God' in the Bible, that means He is literally, as you seem to define "literally," the Son of God.  So just understand that you are putting those two "things" together, we typically would not.

 

While I'm thinking about it, please give me a LDS perspective on what Son of God means so I better understand your theology.

 

So to answer one of your questions of "Why does He have that designation if it's not literally true" - I point you back to the CARM link - you have a lot of answers there.  I'm not trying to dodge your question, but these folks understand the Bible, history, our theology, etc better than I ever will so I'd rather give you those sources than you hear all those answers from me.  Jesus was Jewish and lived in a Jewish tradition - a lot of the meaning of the term Son of God is wrapped up in that tradition - as the link makes clear.  Then there's what Jesus Himself said about the term - can't really give you a lot more explanation than that.

 

Secondly, I don't understand why you seem intent on taking a, shall we call it "supernatural," event of the Trinity, and want to apply human-based, I assume English language-based definitions of certain words and say "the literal definition of "son" is this and your explanation doesn't fit that so what's going on?"  I don't get your logic. 

 

Jesus is God, the Trinity is way, way beyond our understandiing, as I've done my best to point out, and yet you seem intent on putting it in a "literal" box and being confused when it won't fit.  With all due respect, I think this is where we get into the "talking past each other" thing I mentioned before (more on that below).  I assume you're running all this through a LDS filter, for lack of a better word, where you don't believe in the Trinity, what I'm telling you doesn't fit, nor does it fit with your literal definition of "son," so you don't get it.  I really am trying to be helpful here Bluebell, but don't know what to tell you other than 1) study it more, 2) take the Church as her word and 3) suspend your definitions of these words by understanding that the links I've given you and I, myself, am giving you other ways to think about this.  You either try to work with that data by accepting what we've said, or you fight it - your call.

 

It was this quote which led me to believe that Catholics believe, in one sense at least, God created Jesus- "We have to be careful to understand this term. It is often used as synonymous with "to be born" but it really means "to cause to be." Even though the Son is eternally existent, the Father "causes him to be."  I don't understand how someone can 'cause someone to be' but not have created them (unless I completely suspend all common definitions of the english language).  It appears i'm misunderstanding what they are saying but I have no idea how else to interpret it. I've actually studied the Trinity quite a bit, but it's still as clear to me as mud.   

I can give you tons of references (Frank Sheed is probably the best) on the Trinity.  How to think about it, how we understand what we can of this mystery, etc.  If you're interested here are two links 1) http://www.ignatiusinsight.com/features2011/fsheed_trinityts_may2011.asp and 2) http://www.katapi.org.uk/TandS/Ch7.html as a start. 

 

Sheed gets into (as do many other places) how God causes Jesus to be but did not create Him.  I understand this, I speak English.  Sheed spoke the King's English.  You do NOT have to "suspend all common definitions of the english language" to understand this.  You simply are choosing to look at it that way Bluebell.  You seem to be saying, "this is the English definition of these words, my way to understand it is THE way to understand it, so if you don't look at it this way then you have to suspend the "common" understanding of what X means."  No, you don't. 

 

RCC/Prot/EV's happily go about our lives understanding this with no issues.  Again, potentially, I stress "potentially" talking past each other.  If you've studied the Trinity as intently as you say, you understand the concept, you understand the words the concept is conveyed by and yet it's only as clear as mud, when it's perfectly clear to millions of other people, then something else is going on.

It was this quote of your's that led me to believe you weren't interested in what I had to say but only wanted me to listen to you."This is a good place to point out how LDS talk past Christians and why I don't spend lots of time here..." I'm sorry if i have misunderstood you but that line was pretty condescending and also seemed to imply that you weren't interested in discussing things because they 'devolve into nothing'.My understanding of your tone and point of view may have been wrong, but i don't think it was an unreasonable interpretation, much less "freudian".

I've spoken above in part ot what I mean by "talking past each other."  Condescension  is usually understood to be based on ill-intent.  You took that phrase and read my ill-intent into it - that's the projection part of it.  You're projecting your feelings about what you think I'm doing onto my phrase.  Freudian simply because he invented the concept - good concept - one of the few things he got right! 

 

There is no ill-intent in the phrase Bluebell.  I have experienced what I'm calling "talking past each other" on many, many occasions when talking with LDS - both on boards like this and in person.  I'll quickly add I've experienced it with people of other faiths as well and I've certainly seen people who are RCC do it as well.  I'm not placing a value judgement on it other than for my time.  What I'm saying is from my experience, when two people from different faiths are discussing something where their theologies disagree, you can go one of two ways (perhaps more): 

 

1) you ask a question, listen to the answer, maybe ask some follow up questions, make sure you understand what they're saying, and then say "thank you very much" or

 

2) you do part of what I said in #1 but then move into arguing about whether or not the other person's theology/faith is right. 

 

From my experience when you do #2 ,you often quickly "devolve" into a contest of slinging theology or scripture at each other, stop listening, dig in your theological heels more firmly, and, accomplish nothing.  That's what I'm trying to say.  I see it happen ALL THE TIME on this forum and others.  If the good folks on this forum want to do that, fine, I don't.  That's all I'm saying - no ill-intent meant and I'm sorry if it came across that way.

 

I'm not trying to argue with you about what your church teaches, i'm trying to understand it.  When I asked questions just assume that is my motivation.

I have been.  But, as pointed out above, you eventually get to a point where you've presented evidence, logic, concepts that are really pretty clear and when you keep getting back, "but what about this, and this, and the literal definition of son is this, etc" it's hard not to begin to think that you don't want to get it.  That's not about whether or not you believe it - that's a different issue.  I get many of your theological doctrines - don't believe any of them - but I get them and I'm not going to try and parse the language around them, or try fit them in my RCC logic box and then say I don't get them because they won't fit.  

The way you are talking here leads me to believe that you think that i think it's a bad thing for something to be unknown (or partially unknown).  I don't.  

i was simply responding to your comment of "If something is a mystery, then it's not known."  Now you're saying different.  It's really important in the RCC faith to understand that 1) we have many revelations that God has given us that we don't fully understand - that's what we call a mystery and 2) just because we don't fully understand it doesn't mean it's not known.  It doesn't mean that. 

I'm completely fine with it.  If that's the only answer you have for my questions, then that's fine.  There's no reason to launch into everything that LDS have to take on faith to prove some kind of point.

My points was there are some things, not that many, but some things that are doctrine and you can discuss them all you want, dissect them, try and fit them in your logic box, but they won't change, probably won't fit in your box.  Same in reverse - I don't believe in much of any of your theology - althought I understand a lot of it.  From my viewpoint, if I want to gain a fuller knowledge of your theology, my role is to ask question, and follow up questions, and then take your answers as representative of the faith.  If I think you don't know what you're talking about, I'll seek a higher authority.  But I'm not going to start arguing with you about whether or not your theology is "correct."  I'm not saying you're doing that here Bluebell, I'm saying that in my opinion, that's the respectful way to approach these things.

 

Regarding your second to last statement of "If  that's the only answer you have..."  Seriously!?  You've been given many answers - and they've answered your questions. It seems that's not the issue  You don't seem to want to accept them because they apparently won't fit in the logic box you've created.  And this is, for me, the talking past part and getting away from the original post.  You wanted asnwers - you got them.  You don't want to accept those answers - that's something else entirely.  Not getting answers isn't the issue here Bluebell - I think we've moved beyond that now into - "your asnwers don't fit my pre-conceived notions so I still then don't have answers."

 

 

Edited April 19, 2015 by Nosca

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

CFR that everything the writers of the Bible taught came direct from God.

isn't that what the Bible teaches

Romans 4:23

The words "it was credited to him" were written not for him alone,

Romans 15:4

For everything that was written in the past was written to teach us, so that through the endurance taught in the Scriptures and the encouragement they provide we might have hope.

2 Peter 1:20

Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation of things.

2 Peter 1:21

For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit

All Scripture is God-Breathed

and that from childhood you have known the sacred writings which are able to give you the wisdom that leads to salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus. 16All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; 17so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.

Edited April 19, 2015 by HOLY CATHOLIC

[Darren10]

Tell me where the Book of Mormon disagrees with the Creeds or pre-1835 Joseph Smith JR )2 Nephi 31:21And now, behold, my beloved brethren, this is the way; and there is none other way nor name given under heaven whereby man can be saved in the kingdom of God. And now, behold, this is the doctrine of Christ, and the only and true doctrine of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, which is one God, without end. Amen.Alma 11:44 Now, this restoration shall come to all, both old and young, both bond and free, both male and female, both the wicked and the righteous; and even there shall not so much as a hair of their heads be lost; but everything shall be restored to its perfect frame, as it is now, or in the body, and shall be brought and be arraigned before the bar of Christ the Son, and God the Father, and the Holy Spirit, which is one Eternal God, to be judged according to their works, whether they be good or whether they be evil.Mormon 7:7 And he hath brought to pass the redemption of the world, whereby he that is found guiltless before him at the judgment day hath it given unto him to dwell in the presence of God in his kingdom, to sing ceaseless praises with the choirs above, unto the Father, and unto the Son, and unto the Holy Ghost, which are one God, in a state of happiness which hath no end.The Testimony of Three WitnessesAnd the honor be to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Ghost, which is one God. Amen.Oliver CowderyDavid WhitmerMartin HarrisDoctrine and Covenants 20 :28 Which Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are one God, infinite and eternal, without end. Amen.

*As with the Bible* it makes no mention of homoousia. Nor do either book mention "not three gods but one God". As I mentioned earlier, Mormons are very much trinitarians, they believe that three divine persons make God. What Mormons reject is the historic settlement on the Godhead.

[igonzals]

After have studied a lot about the topic, In my humble point of view nor mormons comprehend catholic doctrine and catholic nor comprehend mormon doctrine about Trinity, and in my humble opinion mormonism believe in the same Trinity as catholics do without the only exception that I previous noted: mormons believe Father is true God and true Man (the antropomorphism of the Son and the Father).

 

My best proof about what I said is what Vaticat believes what's the mormon Deity, highly wrong influenced and not distinguishing what is opinion and what is canonical in mormonism by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith members who judged the matter, when they rejected our baptism as valid. And by the other side mormon authority, like Hinckley's and other state to not to be more precise about why our God is not the Cristian traditional God then the christians think "weel, where is it the difference?" and the inevitable response about hipothetic differences arrives when they read discourses like "JS KIng Follet sermon and BY polemic sermons".

 

In my opinion exists a high necessity to expose more theologically by the Church our Trinity like I did above what natures have each Person and sustain allways our creed from Scriptures.

 

Catholics must remember his own church history to second and third centuries when they needed to clarify his theological belefs more precisely. Something similar is happening today with mormonism.

 

Today there is much misunderstood in both sides of the coin. But I strongly convinced that this ignorance in both sides one day will disappear.

[Calm]

Today there is much misunderstood in both sides of the coin. But I strongly convinced that this ignorance in both sides one day will disappear.

Let us hope.  

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

*As with the Bible* it makes no mention of homoousia. Nor do either book mention "not three gods but one God". As I mentioned earlier, Mormons are very much trinitarians, they believe that three divine persons make God. What Mormons reject is the historic settlement on the Godhead.

homoousia and Substantia have same meaning and claim with in the nature of the ONE TRUE GOD their three separate persons. Jesus prayed to a separate person, God the Father

There were two major Latin words involved. The first is substantia, Although the word was idiomatically to mean “goods” or “property” and in a legal sense to denote “ that to which two or more parties could share legal claim,” there never was never much doubt as to what the Church Fathers intended when using substantia was simply the being of God. Thus to say , with the Latin orthodox theologians, that Father,Son, and Spirit were consubstantialis was to say that they shared the same basic “thing” or “what” that they were: namely, they were God.

Godhead, God, substance Essence and Being all synonyms

first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168 A.D. - 183 A.D.), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220 A.D.), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: 1. That God is one, and that there is but one God (Deut 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa 44:6; Mark 12:29,32; John 10:30). 2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. 3. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. 4. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.

(from Easton's Bible Dictionary, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Edited April 19, 2015 by HOLY CATHOLIC

[danielwoods]

Men are called the sons of God (as well as the offspring of God as well).

 

And yes, LDS absolutely believe that Christ created all things.

My point was in the context of Job they are not.

And if LDS believed that then they wouldn't believe that our spirits or intelligences were eternal.

[Darren10]

homoousia and Substantia have same meaning and claim with in the nature of the ONE TRUE GOD their three separate persons. Jesus prayed to a separate person, God the Father

There were two major Latin words involved. The first is substantia, Although the word was idiomatically to mean “goods” or “property” and in a legal sense to denote “ that to which two or more parties could share legal claim,” there never was never much doubt as to what the Church Fathers intended when using substantia was simply the being of God. Thus to say , with the Latin orthodox theologians, that Father,Son, and Spirit were consubstantialis was to say that they shared the same basic “thing” or “what” that they were: namely, they were God.

Godhead, God, substance Essence and Being all synonyms

first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168 A.D. - 183 A.D.), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220 A.D.), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: 1. That God is one, and that there is but one God (Deut 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa 44:6; Mark 12:29,32; John 10:30). 2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. 3. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. 4. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.

(from Easton's Bible Dictionary, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

again, neither the bible, nor the Book of Mormon, nor any Christian ancient text dated at the same time of the Bible so far as I know use the term "substantia" or anything like it to refer to the Godhead. That the Godhead are three separate persons is fully accepted in Mormon and non-Mormon Christian circles. Mormons become distinct in claiming that the three divine persons of the Godhead and not only three separate, distinct persons but three separate and distinct beings. The Bible and the Book of Mormon make more sense reading them under this latter lens.

[bluebell]

My point was in the context of Job they are not.

 

 

I didn't realize that we were talking about Job, sorry.   I also didn't realize that other non-LDS Christians believed that angels are children of God.  That's pretty interesting.

 

And if LDS believed that then they wouldn't believe that our spirits or intelligences were eternal.

 

 

We do believe that. But we don't believe that every time the scriptures speak in such absolutes as 'eternal' or 'everlasting' or 'everything' that that's what the writers actually meant or how the original audience understood the terms.

[bluebell]

While I'm thinking about it, please give me a LDS perspective on what Son of God means so I better understand your theology.

It's pretty basic.  LDS believe that Christ is the Son of God in the literal sense.  In every way He is the Son of God, both in the flesh and in the spirit.

 

Secondly, I don't understand why you seem intent on taking a, shall we call it "supernatural," event of the Trinity, and want to apply human-based, I assume English language-based definitions of certain words and say "the literal definition of "son" is this and your explanation doesn't fit that so what's going on?"  I don't get your logic.

 

I mean, if you met two men on the street who were the exact same age and one of them pointed to the other one and said "this is my son, you would naturally assume something about that relationship based on the definition of what a 'son' is.

 

But if you then found out that the man was neither the first's adopted son, nor his biological son, and neither did the men have a father/son relationship (where one behaved in a fatherly way-giving advice, teaching, raising the other, being responsible for him, etc.) it would be very reasonable for you to wonder how exactly the one was son to the other.  

 

Under such circumstances you would likely ask, o.k, if none of that is true then how or why is he your son?  

 

The word 'son' has specific english definition, but none of those would apply to this kind of relationship listed above-none of the definitions work.  That is why i continue to question God the Father and God the Son's relationship in your belief system.  

 

It's not that your definition of what a son is doesn't fit my definition, it's that it doesn't fit any definition.  That's why i said that i don't know how to understand the trinitarian use of the term 'Son of God' without suspending my understanding of the english language completely.

 

Jesus is God, the Trinity is way, way beyond our understandiing, as I've done my best to point out, and yet you seem intent on putting it in a "literal" box and being confused when it won't fit.

 

I said before that i didn't have a problem with someone telling me 'it isn't known' for an answer.  To that you said 'I never said that'.  

 

If something can't be understood or is a mystery, then fine, but as long as you refuse to claim that the reason that Jesus is the Son of God, despite not actually being His Son (using the english language definition of the word), is a mystery, then i'm going to continue to ask you questions.

 

I really am trying to be helpful here Bluebell, but don't know what to tell you other than 1) study it more, 2) take the Church as her word and 3) suspend your definitions of these words by understanding that the links I've given you and I, myself, am giving you other ways to think about this.  You either try to work with that data by accepting what we've said, or you fight it - your call.

 

I'm not fighting anything, i'm trying to understand what you are saying.  Maybe you are just really bad at explaining things.  

 

It was this quote which led me to believe that Catholics believe, in one sense at least, God created Jesus- "We have to be careful to understand this term. It is often used as synonymous with "to be born" but it really means "to cause to be." Even though the Son is eternally existent, the Father "causes him to be."  I don't understand how someone can 'cause someone to be' but not have created them (unless I completely suspend all common definitions of the english language).  It appears i'm misunderstanding what they are saying but I have no idea how else to interpret it. I've actually studied the Trinity quite a bit, but it's still as clear to me as mud.  

I can give you tons of references (Frank Sheed is probably the best) on the Trinity.  How to think about it, how we understand what we can of this mystery, etc.  If you're interested here are two links 1) http://www.ignatiusi...yts_may2011.asp and 2) http://www.katapi.or.../TandS/Ch7.html as a start. 

 

Sheed gets into (as do many other places) how God causes Jesus to be but did not create Him.  I understand this, I speak English.  Sheed spoke the King's English.  You do NOT have to "suspend all common definitions of the english language" to understand this.  You simply are choosing to look at it that way Bluebell.  

 

This is the english definition for the word 'son'-

 

-boy or man in relation to either or both of his parents.

-a male offspring of an animal.

-a male descendant.

 

Which definition matches the reason that Jesus is considered the Son of God?  

 

If i don't have to suspend all common definitions of the english language for the word son, then it should be a very easy 

question for you to answer.Which definition matches the reason that Jesus is considered the Son of God?  

 

I've spoken above in part ot what I mean by "talking past each other."  Condescension  is usually understood to be based on ill-intent.  You took that phrase and read my ill-intent into it - that's the projection part of it.  

 

 

When I think someone is being condescending it's because of their 'tone'.  

 

I took what i perceived to be your tone (which apparently was misunderstood and i'm sorry about that) and read condescension into it.  That's not projection. Projection is when someone takes their own ideas, feelings, or attitude and projects it onto another person.  

 

1) you ask a question, listen to the answer, maybe ask some follow up questions, make sure you understand what they're saying, and then say "thank you very much" or

 

2) you do part of what I said in #1 but then move into arguing about whether or not the other person's theology/faith is right. 

 

 

I generally do #1 if understand what someone is saying (regardless of whether or not I agree with them) or if I don't have any questions to ask but appreciate their effort.

 

I do #2 if I don't understand what they are saying but want to (regardless of whether or not i agree with them).

 

Seriously!?  You've been given many answers - and they've answered your questions. 

 

 

Seriously.  Like i said before, you are probably not as good as explaining your beliefs as you think you are.  Nothing wrong with that. I'm not always very good at explaining my beliefs either.

[danielwoods]

 

You are wrong on how you believe LDS (or myself) understand the words Son of God and that's probably part of our communication problem.  

 

When i asked the question in the OP (Opening Post), i was asking it from a non-LDS Christian perspective.  I believe that Jesus was the Son of God long before He was born into mortality and that His Sonship is not predicated upon His mortal birth.

 

My question is more along the lines of, if Christ is literally the Son of God but not created by Him or 'related' to Him, or adopted by Him (which is how 'son' is defined) then what makes Him the Son of God from a non-lds Christian position?  

 

Why does He have that designation if it's not literally true?

 

 

It doesn't seem nonsensical to believe that God did not create Jesus.  It does seems nonsensical to believe that Jesus is the Son of God (based on the definition of the word 'son') when He's not actually His son (based, again, on the definition of the word 'son').

 

Think of this question in a different light. As in, what would you call them if you were in their shoes? 

 

Three persons who are all Eternally existing, in relationship. They decide to share their life/love/existence with others (obviously not eternal but created beings). What are the options for the name of God or designations? 

 

If they called themselves "PersonoftheGodHead1", 2, and 3, that would be accurate but not very helpful. Any other number of names or designations could be used. 

 

Calling themselves "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" gives their names traction in our thinking. It's anthropomorphic in that sense (A human designation of something not human). We have relationships in our lives, and our Father typically is close to us and typically is an authority. "Son" is again a relationship term that designates how close their relationship is to each other. Anyone who has had children would understand this closeness intuitively. 

 

If you were to ask me, that is why. The same reason he didn't just create us all in the blink of an eye out of the ground like he did Adam. Our progression of learning by having and being apart of a family contributes to our deeper understanding of God and his relationships.

[bluebell]

Think of this question in a different light. As in, what would you call them if you were in their shoes? 

 

Three persons who are all Eternally existing, in relationship. They decide to share their life/love/existence with others (obviously not eternal but created beings). What are the options for the name of God or designations? 

 

If they called themselves "PersonoftheGodHead1", 2, and 3, that would be accurate but not very helpful. Any other number of names or designations could be used. 

 

Calling themselves "Father, Son, and Holy Spirit" gives their names traction in our thinking. It's anthropomorphic in that sense (A human designation of something not human). We have relationships in our lives, and our Father typically is close to us and typically is an authority. "Son" is again a relationship term that designates how close their relationship is to each other. Anyone who has had children would understand this closeness intuitively. 

 

If you were to ask me, that is why. The same reason he didn't just create us all in the blink of an eye out of the ground like he did Adam. Our progression of learning by having and being apart of a family contributes to our deeper understanding of God and his relationships.

 

This is actually a very interesting way to put it and it makes sense in a way.

 

It seems confusing to think of God (persons 1, 2, and 3 as you put it) deciding to call themselves names that make it easier for us humans to relate to them, but which don't reflect at all their actual relationship with each other.

 

Especially when us humans use the terms as well, but mean them in totally different ways (a father's relationship to his son is one of biology, and insubordination, for example, yet in your belief system that does not at all match the eternal relationship between God the Father and the Son of God).

 

So, to answer your question, if i were in Their shoes, I don't know that this is the route that makes the most sense to me.  

 

However, i really do appreciate the answer.  You seem to be saying that there is nothing that actually makes the Son of God, God's son.  It is simply how God decided to label themselves, for our benefit.  I can respect that way of seeing it.

Edited April 20, 2015 by bluebell

[danielwoods]

This is actually a very interesting way to put it and it makes sense in a way.

 

It seems confusing to think of God (persons 1, 2, and 3 as you put it) deciding to call themselves names that make it easier for us humans to relate to them, but which don't reflect at all their actual relationship with each other.

 

Especially when us humans use the terms as well, but mean them in totally different ways (a father's relationship to his son is one of biology, and insubordination, for example, yet in your belief system that does not at all match the eternal relationship between God the Father and the Son of God).

 

So, to answer your question, if i were in Their shoes, I don't know that this is the route that makes the most sense to me.  

 

However, i really do appreciate the answer.  You seem to be saying that there is nothing that actually makes the Son of God, God's son.  It is simply how God decided to label themselves, for our benefit.  I can respect that way of seeing it.

 

Ultimately our theological differences lead us in different directions. In my view, God is not human, nor even close to being human, and never was human. So, the words we use to describe God will always fall short of accurately describing him 100%. It's similar to describing "love" without using the word love, to someone who hasn't ever felt it. 

 

The relationship they have is very close, and how would one communicate that? 

 

Further, they have different roles, or "jobs" or what have you, just as a husband and wife have different roles, though neither is greater than the other. 

 

What is interesting, is that people who have difficulty with relationships, often are completely comfortable with science and math. Relationships grow by spending time with that person, not by learning facts "about" that person. Knowing who a person is, is quite different from knowing facts about a person. I'm not saying you don't know this, but making a point about knowledge. 

 

We seek to understand who God is, and what he's made of, how he functions, etc, etc… yet, this is similar to attempting to understand how gravity works, or any of the deep mysteries of the universe. So, while I share your passion for knowledge, I also understand that understanding such things about an eternal/infinite creator of all, is always going to be "seeing through a glass darkly." 

[JLHPROF]

Ultimately our theological differences lead us in different directions.

 

Why can't all the "traditional" Christian posters on this board be as reasonable to debate as you Daniel? 

Some of our recent additions could learn a thing or two.

[teddyaware]

Ultimately our theological differences lead us in different directions. In my view, God is not human, nor even close to being human, and never was human. So, the words we use to describe God will always fall short of accurately describing him 100%. It's similar to describing "love" without using the word love, to someone who hasn't ever felt it. 

 

The relationship they have is very close, and how would one communicate that? 

 

Further, they have different roles, or "jobs" or what have you, just as a husband and wife have different roles, though neither is greater than the other. 

 

What is interesting, is that people who have difficulty with relationships, often are completely comfortable with science and math. Relationships grow by spending time with that person, not by learning facts "about" that person. Knowing who a person is, is quite different from knowing facts about a person. I'm not saying you don't know this, but making a point about knowledge. 

 

We seek to understand who God is, and what he's made of, how he functions, etc, etc… yet, this is similar to attempting to understand how gravity works, or any of the deep mysteries of the universe. So, while I share your passion for knowledge, I also understand that understanding such things about an eternal/infinite creator of all, is always going to be "seeing through a glass darkly." 

 

It seems that being in the form of a man does not detract even one iota from the perfect divinity of Jesus Christ, for we are told that "in Him dwells ALL THE FULNESS OF THE GODHEAD BODILY." So in light of the fact that Christ is fully God while also being tabernacled in a resurrected human body, do you believe God the Father's divinity would be diminished in some way if He too was in possession of a glorified human body? And if you do believe that, unlike Christ, the Father's divinity would be diminished if He too possessed a glorified human body, please explain why and how you believe His divinity would be diminished by being in possession a that holy human body?  

Edited April 20, 2015 by teddyaware

[danielwoods]

Why can't all the "traditional" Christian posters on this board be as reasonable to debate as you Daniel? 

Some of our recent additions could learn a thing or two.

 

You are too nice. 

[danielwoods]

It seems that being in the form of a man does not detract even one iota from the perfect divinity of Jesus Christ, for we are told that "in Him dwells ALL THE FULNESS OF THE GODHEAD BODILY." So in light of the fact that Christ is fully God while also being tabernacled in a resurrected human body, do you believe God the Father's divinity would be diminished in some way if He too was in possession of a glorified human body? And if you do believe that, unlike Christ, the Father's divinity would be diminished if He too possessed a glorified human body, please explain why and how you believe His divinity would be diminished by being in possession a that holy human body?  

 

It's not really a matter of what I think could or should be. Rather, what is. 

 

As was discussed previously in this thread, the biblical text describes God as Spirit. And a spirit is any size, shape it wants to be. So, to your question, would God the Father's divinity be diminished if he had a body? Of course not. That's not the reason we believe he doesn't have one. Rather, the reason is because of what is revealed in scripture. 

[teddyaware]

It's not really a matter of what I think could or should be. Rather, what is. 

 

As was discussed previously in this thread, the biblical text describes God as Spirit. And a spirit is any size, shape it wants to be. So, to your question, would God the Father's divinity be diminished if he had a body? Of course not. That's not the reason we believe he doesn't have one. Rather, the reason is because of what is revealed in scripture. 

 

But the Bible says the last Adam (Christ) was made a "quickening Spirit" in the resurrection, yet He has a body of flesh and bones? What's that all about?

 

Also, when Christ says "God is a Spirit," and since Christ Himself is God, then Christ must be a Spirit? Yes? If not, why not? But I would say Christ must be a Spirit because since God is a Spirit, and since Christ is God, Christ too must be a Spirit. Yes? 

Edited April 21, 2015 by teddyaware

[danielwoods]

But the Bible says the last Adam (Christ) was made a "quickening Spirit" in the resurrection, yet He has a body of flesh and bones? What's that all about?

 

Also, when Christ says "God is a Spirit," and since Christ Himself is God, then Christ must be a Spirit? Yes? If not, why not? But I would say Christ must be a Spirit because since God is a Spirit, and since Christ is God, Christ too must be a Spirit. Yes? 

 

Christ is both. He clothed himself with humanity, for the purpose of taking all of our punishment on himself. He remained fully Spirit throughout his time on Earth, and is now also human with his dual nature. 

[mfbukowski]

Christ is both. He clothed himself with humanity, for the purpose of taking all of our punishment on himself. He remained fully Spirit throughout his time on Earth, and is now also human with his dual nature.

Sigh.

How can an apple be an orange?

Why not just say that humans also have a divine spark, and there is no difference?

That's ok, it was a rhetorical question. I know you have no answers.

[teddyaware]

Christ is both. He clothed himself with humanity, for the purpose of taking all of our punishment on himself. He remained fully Spirit throughout his time on Earth, and is now also human with his dual nature. 

 

If Christ is "fully Spirit," even though His spirit is clothed in a human body, then on technical and theoretical grounds there should be no objections from non-LDS Christians when the Latter-day Saints say they believe God the Father is also "fully Spirit" while His spirit is also clothed in a body. If one member of the Godhead is a Spirit, even though He has a body, then that sets the precedent that God the Father could also have a body while still being fully considered to be a Spirit. So according to your own word, the Prophet Joseph Smith could rightly teach "God the Father has a body of flesh and bones" and not contradict Christ when he said "God is a Spirit."

 

Something else to consider: Because Christ said He did no other thing than what He'd seen the Father do before Him, it should not be surprising to any Christian that the Father could have taken upon Himself a human body before Christ took on His body, otherwise what did Christ mean when He said:

 

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

 20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. (John 5)

 

But LDS theology goes one step further by asserting that the reason why Paul declared Christ is a "quickening spirit" is because His earthly body was made "wholly spiritual" in nature by the resurrection. it's for this reason that at least one prominent LDS theologian (I forget his name) said one of the definitions of the word Spirit (with a capital "S,") is a glorified and exalted being with a resurrected "spiritual body" of flesh and bone. So not only was Christ's pre-earth nature a spiritual one, but now even hIs body is wholly spiritual in nature as well. Hence, as a resurrected being He is rightly called "a quickening spirit," or in other words a being with a wholly spiritual nature who has the power to to quicken (bodily resurrect) others and make them wholly spiritual beings as well.

Edited April 21, 2015 by teddyaware