Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

In what sense is Jesus the Son of God?


Rob Bowman

Recommended Posts

I'm all for context. But Vance, you are now reinterpreting monogen?s to mean "only son that received the promise,"

Because that is what the usage in context says.

not "only son that was begotten literally in the flesh."

In context it means "only son that was begotten in the flesh and promise"

So you're now inadvertently agreeing with me that it doesn't mean "only begotten"--a thought that will probably send you screaming to the showers. :P

But in context, it DOES mean "only begotten". ;)

Specifically "only begotten in the flesh and promise"

Or can you show that one of the other sons also received the promise?

Link to comment

Your premise is incorrect. Christ is not a deified man.

Are you saying Christ isn't deified or that He isn't flesh?

Even in LDS theology, Christ was a God before he became a man.

And He was of the same species as mankind before He was born. You obviously don't understand LDS theology as well as you think.

Link to comment
Luke 1:34: Then said Mary unto the angel, How shall this be, seeing I know not a man?

35: And the angel answered and said unto her, The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Not only is the Holy Ghost mentioned, but also 'the power of the Highest', and it was this power of the Highest, of God the Father, which caused Mary to conceive, so that Jesus can be called the Son of God.

:P;)

The Father is indeed "the Highest".

John 10:29 My Father, which gave them me, is greater than all; and no man is able to pluck them out of my Father

Link to comment
Actually, people from a Semitic background were more than likely to use it figuratively, especially in the context of one intended for sacrifice.

However, Jesus was no ordinary sacrifice. He was the Son of God, the Only Begotten Son of God.

Lehi

Link to comment

Mola,

You wrote:

Although a reasonable interpration for God being the literal Father of Jesus can be made from the bible, I think when it comes to the LDS faith other scritpure is used and it is much more plain.

Really? Please cite such other scripture. I am not aware of any LDS scripture that teaches this idea (and I've looked carefully and thoroughly).

You wrote:

I see nothing here that Rob has shown that offers a contradiction to the idea that Jesus is a literal physical son of God teh Father. What I mean by a contradiction is something stated with in the text of the bible that says that he is not the physical offspring from God the Father.

There isn't anything in the Bible that states that Jesus is not the physical offspring of Hercules, either, but that doesn't mean it fits in a biblically-based doctrine. You are setting up a standard that is unworkable in practice.

Link to comment

Mola,

You wrote:

Really? Please cite such other scripture. I am not aware of any LDS scripture that teaches this idea (and I've looked carefully and thoroughly).

Let me check, it is possible I mis-spoke and was thinking more along the lines of GC talks.

However there are scriptures in teh BoM that talk about a virgin conceiving. It is kind of hard to conceive if you have not a father? Or do you disagree, there are also verses that talk about Christ being the firstborn of the Father. Such as Church of the First born.

One is in the D&C so there is no confusion of a translation. Your agruments don't work on these verses.

Though this verse talks about Christ's mom I think it has serious implications.

18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.

So who would be Christ's father after the manner of the flesh?

There isn't anything in the Bible that states that Jesus is not the physical offspring of Hercules, either, but that doesn't mean it fits in a biblically-based doctrine. You are setting up a standard that is unworkable in practice.

Don't be silly, there isn't anything in the bible that even mentions Hercules. I just said that you could make a reasonable interpretation for it. I take it that you have nothing in the text of the bible that offers a contradiction to our interpretation?

Link to comment

cjwright,

You wrote:

Only one biblical text, Rob? I think you're forgetting Luke 1:34+35, which kind of underminds your stance above that it was the Holy Spirit that caused Mary to become pregnant:... Not only is the Holy Ghost mentioned, but also 'the power of the Highest', and it was this power of the Highest, of God the Father, which caused Mary to conceive, so that Jesus can be called the Son of God.

I was very specific: Matthew 1:18 is the only text referring to the conception of Jesus that uses language that in normal biblical discourse would identify his other parent (i.e., other than Mary), and it uses it with reference to the Holy Spirit. Saying that the power of the Most High overshadowed Mary does not use the language of parentage. The wording that the power of the Most High would "overshadow" Mary alludes to the cloud of God's glory that "overshadowed" (epeskiazen, the same verb as in Luke 1:35) the tabernacle when God's glory filled it (Ex. 40:35 LXX; note also Luke 9:34). The language does not describe a procreative act.

Link to comment

Vance,

Regarding Hebrews 11:17, you wrote:

In context it means "only son that was begotten in the flesh and promise"

I agree that Isaac was the son to whom the promise applied and through whom it was fulfilled. I do not agree that Hebrews 11:17 means that Isaac was the "only son that was begotten in the flesh and promise." That isn't even true. He was not the only son that was begotten in the flesh.

Link to comment

Vance,

You wrote:

Are you saying Christ isn't deified or that He isn't flesh?

He wasn't a man who was deified. You can't be "deified" if you're already God.

You wrote:

And He was of the same species as mankind before He was born. You obviously don't understand LDS theology as well as you think.

I didn't say that Christ was of a different species. I said he was already (in LDS doctrine) a God before he became a man. The fact that LDS doctrine views God and man as different stages of development of the same species in no way conflicts with my statement.

Link to comment

Mola,

You wrote:

Let me check, it is possible I mis-spoke and was thinking more along the lines of GC talks.

Indeed.

You wrote:

However there are scriptures in teh BoM that talk about a virgin conceiving. It is kind of hard to conceive if you have not a father?

Yep, and it's kind of hard to conceive if you haven't had sex. So what is your point?

You wrote:

Or do you disagree, there are also verses that talk about Christ being the firstborn of the Father. Such as Church of the First born.

One is in the D&C so there is no confusion of a translation. Your agruments don't work on these verses.

I have already addressed what the Bible says about Jesus as the "firstborn." In any case, that term is irrelevant, because LDS theology understands it to refer to Christ as a preexistent spirit, not as literally begotten in the flesh.

You wrote:

Though this verse talks about Christ's mom I think it has serious implications.

18 And he said unto me: Behold, the virgin whom thou seest is the mother of the Son of God, after the manner of the flesh.

So who would be Christ's father after the manner of the flesh?

He didn't, according to this passage, have a father "after the manner of the flesh." That's what Christians historically thought was a major aspect of the whole idea of the virgin birth. And that was Joseph Smith's understanding as well.

You wrote:

Don't be silly, there isn't anything in the bible that even mentions Hercules.

And there isn't anything in the Bible that even mentions God literally siring or procreating Jesus in the flesh.

You wrote:

I just said that you could make a reasonable interpretation for it. I take it that you have nothing in the text of the bible that offers a contradiction to our interpretation?

I do, but not according to your unworkable standard of what constitutes a contradiction.

Link to comment

cjwright,

You wrote:

I was very specific: Matthew 1:18 is the only text referring to the conception of Jesus that uses language that in normal biblical discourse would identify his other parent (i.e., other than Mary), and it uses it with reference to the Holy Spirit. Saying that the power of the Most High overshadowed Mary does not use the language of parentage. The wording that the power of the Most High would "overshadow" Mary alludes to the cloud of God's glory that "overshadowed" (epeskiazen, the same verb as in Luke 1:35) the tabernacle when God's glory filled it (Ex. 40:35 LXX; note also Luke 9:34). The language does not describe a procreative act.

In other words, you ignore the more detailed description of the process that actually hurts your arguement, in favour of a passing comment that gives no real account of what happened. It clearly states in Luke 1:35 that it is the power of the Highest, not the Holy Ghost that is responsible for the conception. Unless you are saying that the Holy Ghost had sex with Mary, and I don't think you really want to go down that road, do you?

EDIT: Also Luke 1:32 calls Jesus 'Son of the Highest', the same 'Highest' whose power overshadows Mary in verse 35 and leaves her with child. Sorry Rob, all your pontificating can't change the fact that it was the power of God which caused Mary to conceive Jesus, not the Holy Ghost.

Link to comment

Vance,

I will go the extra mile here and try to help you see what is plainly there in the Gospel of John.

John 3:31 He that cometh from above is above all: he that is of the earth is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: he that cometh from heaven is above all.

Query: In this passage, who is "from above" and "is above all"? Who "cometh from heaven"? Who, on the other hand, "is of the earth"?

John 8:58 Jesus said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Before Abraham was, I am.

In response to the question of how Jesus, who was less than fifty years old, could have been seen by Abraham, Jesus here states that he eternally exists before Abraham. This is, to put it mildly, not the answer one would expect if Jesus and Abraham were spirit brothers in heaven before the earth was organized.

John 13:1 Now before the feast of the passover, when Jesus knew that his hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father, having loved his own which were in the world, he loved them unto the end....

3 Jesus knowing that the Father had given all things into his hands, and that he was come from God, and went to God;

John tells us here that Jesus knew something about himself that the context clearly presupposes was different about Jesus: namely, that he had come from God.

John 16:28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.

Again, these statements are clearly meant to tell us something about Jesus that is different from other people. Yet according to LDS doctrine, Vance also came forth from the Father and came into the world. See the problem?

Link to comment

He wasn't a man who was deified. You can't be "deified" if you're already God.

Good point.

To correct my statement,

"Christ is an exalted, immortal, divine man"

So why did you say in your OP,

9. In biblical theology, God is not an exalted, immortal, deified man.

??????

Link to comment

cjwright,

You wrote:

In other words, you ignore the more detailed description of the process that actually hurts your arguement, in favour of a passing comment that gives no real account of what happened. It clearly states in Luke 1:35 that it is the power of the Highest, not the Holy Ghost that is responsible for the conception. Unless you are saying that the Holy Ghost had sex with Mary, and I don't think you really want to go down that road, do you?

No, and I'm sorry, but your line of argument here is just awful:

  • I am not ignoring Luke 1:35; I gave you a very reasoned explanation that is grounded in the biblical context (in a way that yours clearly is not).
  • Luke 1:35 does not say that the power of the Highest and "not the Holy Ghost" is responsible for the conception. It clearly speaks of both the Holy Spirit and the Most High, and does so in parallel fashion.
  • I have already explicitly stated that the language of Matthew 1:18 is figurative, not literal.
  • How is your response not implicitly endorsing the idea that the Father had sex with Mary?

Link to comment

Vance,

Hey, even I make a good point once in a while!

You wrote:

So why did you say in your OP,
9. In biblical theology, God is not an exalted, immortal, deified man.

??????

I'm unclear as to what puzzles you about this. In biblical theology, God is not a man who became a God; rather, he has always been God. I thought you understood the point that you can't be deified if you're already God. Well, in biblical theology, God has ALWAYS been God. Therefore, he is not a deified man.

Link to comment

cjwright,

You wrote:

No, and I'm sorry, but your line of argument here is just awful:

  • I am not ignoring Luke 1:35; I gave you a very reasoned explanation that is grounded in the biblical context (in a way that yours clearly is not).
  • Luke 1:35 does not say that the power of the Highest and "not the Holy Ghost" is responsible for the conception. It clearly speaks of both the Holy Spirit and the Most High, and does so in parallel fashion.
  • I have already explicitly stated that the language of Matthew 1:18 is figurative, not literal.
  • How is your response not implicitly endorsing the idea that the Father had sex with Mary?

Your entire arguement rests on the claim (arguement point #4) that Matt 1:18 says that Mary conceived 'from the Holy Ghost', meaning the Holy Ghost was the child's parent, when in fact Luke 1:35 says that it wasn't the Holy Ghost, but the 'power of the Highest' that caused Mary to conceive. You are now backtracking by saying that the Holy Spirit and the Most High are used in parallel fashion. The problem you have is that your arguement is literal but you claim your proof-text is figurative. You probably missed my EDIT, which also give biblical context -

Also Luke 1:32 calls Jesus 'Son of the Highest', the same 'Highest' whose power overshadows Mary in verse 35 and leaves her with child. Sorry Rob, all your pontificating can't change the fact that it was the power of God which caused Mary to conceive Jesus, not the Holy Ghost.

My response is in no way endorsing the idea that the Father had sex with Mary, my arguement is that it was by the power of God, and not the Holy Ghost which caused Mary to concieve, that's all. It may have been through the Holy Ghost, but it certainly wasn't His power, but that of the Father, which caused Mary to conceive.

My line of arguement is just fine, yours however, if it had any more holes in it I could strain my vegtables through it.

Link to comment

cjwright,

You keep saying that "Luke 1:35 says that it wasn't the Holy Ghost." It says no such thing. There's no point in hashing this through any more when you keep asserting that a text negates something it does not.

Link to comment

cjwright,

You keep saying that "Luke 1:35 says that it wasn't the Holy Ghost." It says no such thing. There's no point in hashing this through any more when you keep asserting that a text negates something it does not.

You just keep saying that Matt 1:18 says that it was the Holy Ghost alone that is Jesus's parent, where Luke 1:35 has the inclusion of the power of the Highest, and Luke 1:32 identifies the Highest as God, as an active agent in the conception. Your entire arguement point #4 rests on the Holy Ghost being the only agent present in the conception, Luke proves that is not the case. You also use Matt 1:18 to make a literal statement ("from the Holy Ghost" means the Holy Ghost is the parent of Jesus) but then say that the verse is really figurative, you want it both ways.

There's no point hashing any of this argument out, Rob, because you are just so wrong, and don't want to admit it because it would hurt your ego way too much.

Link to comment

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...