In what sense is Jesus the Son of God?

[Vance]

I'm unclear as to what puzzles you about this.

What puzzles me is why you brought it up in the first place. After all, it is irrelevant to the discussion.

[Storm Rider]

Why are you so caught up in the process of Jesus' pregnancy? Does it matter and why?

To me the logic goes like this: Jesus is the Son of God, yes? Okay, that is the end of the story. As Son of God he was not only able to pay the price for all sin, but was able to take up his body and break the bonds of death for all mankind. The only doctrine we have in the LDS Church is that found in scripture. How Mary got prenant is a fool's chase and obviously of little value in the eternal realms because God has yet to reveal the exact process. It offers nothing to the salvation Jesus offers us. Sometimes a good discussion is stimulating; this has long since passed that mark.

[Vance]

Vance,

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

Oh GOODIE!!! I appreciate the extra mile.

Query: In this passage, who is "He that cometh from above" (Christ, because He was and is the "monogen?s"/"OF-ONLY-generated" of the Father, who is "above all", clearly a reference to His divine Sonship, as the verses that follow clearly show), and "is above all"? (that would be the Father, Who sent the Son with His authority through divine parentage) Who "cometh from heaven"? (Christ comes from heaven, but notice it still hasn't said anything about us) Who, on the other hand, "is of the earth"? (The sentence structure doesn't allow that determination with certainty, BUT in context, John the Baptist is talking about Jesus, so most likely, John is referring to Jesus with that phrase. Also notice that it uses the verb "is of" and not "cometh from", so even if you want to twist/wrest this to mean us, 1} it still doesn't say that we "cometh from the earth" only that we are "of the earth" and 2} it still doesn't say that we are not from heaven. AND let's not neglect "and speaketh of the earth", did Jesus speak of the earth?)

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. (Technically not accurate, "eternally" isn't express nor implied, again you are see things that aren't really there.) 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. (And, why not? Jesus was/is "the firstborn of every creature" and "the firstborn among many brethren". The fact that He proceeded Abraham {in heaven} doesn't mean that Abraham wasn't in heaven prior to earth life.)

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.(Again Rob, you are seeing things that aren't there, NOTHING in the context expresses or implies that Jesus is unique in this respect. It is simply stating certain facts about Jesus, and does NOT exclude us from those facts. UNLESS it is referring to His being the Only Begotten Son. What it is expressing as unique is the TIMING and His knowledge of it, "when Jesus knew" is a key phrase here. Do you know when you are going to depart?)

Again, these statements are clearly meant to tell us something about Jesus that is different from other people. (Agreed, and THAT difference is Jesus the literal Son of God in the flesh and therefore has control over things that we don't. The uniqueness is not in the origination or destination of our spirits, but His divine authority and power over things. The key phrase here is "I leave" "and go". The rest of us don't have the power to dictate when we leave nor where we go when leaving this life.) Yet according to LDS doctrine, Vance also came forth from the Father and came into the world. See the problem? (Yes, I see the problem, you just don't get it. Jesus is the ONLY Begotten Son in the flesh and as such He is unique, He has powers and abilities that we don't have. That still doesn't require that our spirits could not have come from God as the scriptures clearly say.)

So, still your argument is without foundation. You did a lot of work. It takes a lot of work to twist and wrest the scriptures to find things that aren't there.

[Vance]

Rob,

I am still waiting for your answer to this. Just in case you missed it.

Rob,

Since "monogen?s" literally means "only generated", how can it be applied to the pre-mortal Christ in any other way than to mean the generation of the physical body (flesh) of Christ.

In other words, if Christ (the Word) was in the beginning with God (John 1:1), in what way was He the "only generated" One? In what way was He "generated" at all?

[Vance]

bump

[Rob Bowman]

cjwright,

Now you're changing your claim without admitting it. Your earlier claim was that Luke 1:35 stated that the Holy Spirit was not the agent of Christ's conception. Now you claim that Luke 1:35 shows that the Holy Spirit is not the only agent present in the conception. Which argument should I bother addressing?

By the way, you still haven't gotten my argument correct. I did not claim that the Holy Ghost was Jesus' parent. Nor did I say that he was the only divine person present in Jesus' conception. Go back and read what I said again, but this time focusing first only on understanding what I said before you even think about trying to refute it (Prov. 18:13).

Oh, and parroting the wording of my post wasn't particularly clever.

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.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

"Bumping" less than a day after your post is a bit rude. Some of us are very busy. There is a reason why the forum won't allow members to "bump" a thread after only a short time.

bump

[Rob Bowman]

Storm Rider,

To whom was your post directed?

Why are you so caught up in the process of Jesus' pregnancy? Does it matter and why?

To me the logic goes like this: Jesus is the Son of God, yes? Okay, that is the end of the story. As Son of God he was not only able to pay the price for all sin, but was able to take up his body and break the bonds of death for all mankind. The only doctrine we have in the LDS Church is that found in scripture. How Mary got prenant is a fool's chase and obviously of little value in the eternal realms because God has yet to reveal the exact process. It offers nothing to the salvation Jesus offers us. Sometimes a good discussion is stimulating; this has long since passed that mark.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Let's start with John 3:31. In response to my queries, you stated that "he that cometh from above" is Christ but that the one who "is above all" is the Father who sent Christ. Did you actually read the verse? I'm serious. Here is how John 3:31 begins:

"He that cometh from above is above all...."

Now, let's take your answers and see what we find:

"He that cometh from above (Christ) is above all (the Father who sent Christ)."

Therefore, Christ is the Father who sent Christ.

One of us is confused, and it isn't me.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wanted me to respond to the following:

Since "monogen?s" literally means "only generated", how can it be applied to the pre-mortal Christ in any other way than to mean the generation of the physical body (flesh) of Christ. In other words, if Christ (the Word) was in the beginning with God (John 1:1), in what way was He the "only generated" One? In what way was He "generated" at all?

I didn't bother answering this argument because it simply ignored the fact, which I documented, that monogen?s does not mean "only generated."

[Vance]

I didn't bother answering this argument because it simply ignored the fact, which I documented, that monogen?s does not mean "only generated."

No, you didn't. You provided an argument of why you thought it didn't mean "only begotten". I can find nothing of yours addressing "only generated".

In fact, I don't find where you say anything about what it "is" only that it "isn't" only begotten.

I provided the definition (which I got from a non-Mormon Christian source) "only generated".

Lehi, provide this,

The Greek word "??????????" (monogene?s) means, literally, "only begotten". It derives from the two roots "??????" (monos) which means "alone, only" (among a few others that do not apply here: forsaken, destitute of help, merely) and "????????" (ginomai) meaning "to come into existence, to become, to arise, come upon the stage, to be made, finished".

Which basically agrees with "only generated".

To neither did you object, nor refute.

It is apparent that you have no answer to this question and so you are ducking it.

[Vance]

Vance,

Let's start with John 3:31. In response to my queries, you stated that "he that cometh from above" is Christ but that the one who "is above all" is the Father who sent Christ. Did you actually read the verse? I'm serious. Here is how John 3:31 begins:

"He that cometh from above is above all...."

Now, let's take your answers and see what we find:

"He that cometh from above (Christ) is above all (the Father who sent Christ)."

Therefore, Christ is the Father who sent Christ.

One of us is confused, and it isn't me.

If this is the best response you can provide, then you have lost the argument, because you haven't (or can't) respond to the more important point, that NOWHERE in those verses does it say ANYTHING about us not having a pre-mortal existence in "heaven".

Thanks for bowing out so gracefully.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So it appears that there is a disagreement on how a certain greek word is translated. What are the sources everyone is using? Why is one better then the other? Which one has more authority.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Vance,

Let's start with John 3:31. In response to my queries, you stated that "he that cometh from above" is Christ but that the one who "is above all" is the Father who sent Christ. Did you actually read the verse? I'm serious. Here is how John 3:31 begins:

"He that cometh from above is above all...."

Now, let's take your answers and see what we find:

"He that cometh from above (Christ) is above all (the Father who sent Christ)."

Therefore, Christ is the Father who sent Christ.

One of us is confused, and it isn't me.

THis is not the context of the verse Rob. Finish the verse.

Christ is above all that is earthly.

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.

Since John goes on to talk about earthly things reason stands that he is talking about Christ being above all things earthly. Nothing is mentioned that Christ is above the Father. But maybe that is your point to Vance. Forgive me if it is.

[LeSellers]

So it appears that there is a disagreement on how a certain greek word is translated. What are the sources everyone is using? Why is one better then the other? Which one has more authority.

I used Thayer. I don't know who Rob used, but, as best I can tell, since it corresponds to his interpretation, it is much better than the traditional ("only begotten") translation.

One wonders why it was good enough for seventeen centuries, but suddenly, in the XX, it's no longer accurate. It's like baptism being mandatory among Christians until the XVI, but, with Zwingli (and, a bit later, Calvin), without any biblical support, the saving ordinance of baptism was rejected. Why?, because Zwingli knew he had no legitimate priesthood, and, by necessity, felt that none was necessary. He had other reasons, too, but this was, in my view, the most telling. Without priesthood, but with baptism a requirement, it would be all too easy to understand that the Reformation was an empty (albeit important) movement.

Aquinas and Augustine taught that baptism was essential to salvation. Even Luther agreed with the biblical LDS (and Catholic) position that "baptism is salvation".

We see in the Zwingli invention of sola fede (a rejection of priesthood because those who held this apostate view had no priesthood) that necessity is the mother of invention and Zwingli was an inventor.

In the same manner, the invention of a new "definition" of "??????????" (monogene?s) was a necessity because the traditional translation, as we see here, completely undermines the position that Christ was not the Son of the Father. The obvious and logical meaning of ?????????? must be destroyed because, if it stands, a major portion of Evangelical theology is disproven.

Anticipating a call for reference, I give this: "The History of Baptism" by Jack Cotrell, professor of theological studies at Cincinnati (Ohio) Bible College and Seminary in CHRISTIAN STANDARD

[volgadon]

Thayer has been out of date for at least a century.

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You wrote:

If this is the best response you can provide, then you have lost the argument, because you haven't (or can't) respond to the more important point, that NOWHERE in those verses does it say ANYTHING about us not having a pre-mortal existence in "heaven".

Thanks for bowing out so gracefully.

I haven't finished discussing the verse with you, so we haven't even gotten to the basis for my interpretation. I asked you some simple questions. Your answers are nonsense, since, as I explained, your answers to my first two questions (Who is "he that cometh from above" and who is the one who is "over all"?) result in the conclusion that Christ is the Father who sent Christ, which neither you nor I believe and which is literally nonsense. There's no point in going further if we can't even get past such obvious nonsense answers to simple questions.

I will help you out a little more. Here is the whole verse again, with numbers to mark different portions of the verse: "(1) He that cometh from above (2) is above all: (3) he that is of the earth (4) is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: (5) he that cometh from heaven (6) is above all" (John 3:31). Please complete the following statements, numbered to correspond to the above numbers:

(1) "He that cometh from above" = (a) God the Father, (b) Jesus the Son, © John the Baptist, (d) someone else (please specify)

(2) The one who "is above all" = (a) God the Father, (b) Jesus the Son, © John the Baptist, (d) someone else (please specify)

(3) "He that is of the earth" = (a) God the Father, (b) Jesus the Son, © John the Baptist, (d) someone else (please specify)

(4) The one who "is earthly, and speaketh of the earth" = (a) God the Father, (b) Jesus the Son, © John the Baptist, (d) someone else (please specify)

(5) "He that cometh from heaven" = (a) God the Father, (b) Jesus the Son, © John the Baptist, (d) someone else (please specify)

(6) The one who "is above all" = (a) God the Father, (b) Jesus the Son, © John the Baptist, (d) someone else (please specify)

Anyone else who wishes is certainly free to answer.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I used Thayer. I don't know who Rob used, but, as best I can tell, since it corresponds to his interpretation, it is much better than the traditional ("only begotten") translation.

One wonders why it was good enough for seventeen centuries, but suddenly, in the XX, it's no longer accurate. It's like baptism being mandatory among Christians until the XVI, but, with Zwingli (and, a bit later, Calvin), without any biblical support, the saving ordinance of baptism was rejected. Why?, because Zwingli knew he had no legitimate priesthood, and, by necessity, felt that none was necessary. He had other reasons, too, but this was, in my view, the most telling. Without priesthood, but with baptism a requirement, it would be all too easy to understand that the Reformation was an empty (albeit important) movement.

Aquinas and Augustine taught that baptism was essential to salvation. Even Luther agreed with the biblical LDS (and Catholic) position that "baptism is salvation".

We see in the Zwingli invention of sola fede (a rejection of priesthood because those who held this apostate view had no priesthood) that necessity is the mother of invention and Zwingli was an inventor.

In the same manner, the invention of a new "definition" of "??????????" (monogene?s) was a necessity because the traditional translation, as we see here, completely undermines the position that Christ was not the Son of the Father. The obvious and logical meaning of ?????????? must be destroyed because, if it stands, a major portion of Evangelical theology is disproven.

Anticipating a call for reference, I give this: "The History of Baptism" by Jack Cotrell, professor of theological studies at Cincinnati (Ohio) Bible College and Seminary in CHRISTIAN STANDARD

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

Refuting "only begotten" as the proper translation also refutes "only generated."

I answered Lehi's etymology of monogen?s in post #20 in this thread. Your accusation that I ducked his argument because I couldn't answer it is false.

No, you didn't. You provided an argument of why you thought it didn't mean "only begotten". I can find nothing of yours addressing "only generated".

In fact, I don't find where you say anything about what it "is" only that it "isn't" only begotten.

I provided the definition (which I got from a non-Mormon Christian source) "only generated".

Lehi, provide this,

The Greek word "??????????" (monogene?s) means, literally, "only begotten". It derives from the two roots "??????" (monos) which means "alone, only" (among a few others that do not apply here: forsaken, destitute of help, merely) and "????????" (ginomai) meaning "to come into existence, to become, to arise, come upon the stage, to be made, finished".

Which basically agrees with "only generated".

To neither did you object, nor refute.

It is apparent that you have no answer to this question and so you are ducking it.

[Vance]

I haven't finished discussing the verse with you, so we haven't even gotten to the basis for my interpretation. I asked you some simple questions. Your answers are nonsense, since, as I explained, your answers to my first two questions (Who is "he that cometh from above" and who is the one who is "over all"?) result in the conclusion that Christ is the Father who sent Christ, which neither you nor I believe and which is literally nonsense.

As I said earlier, this is not the issue before us. What is before us, and what you are ducking it the pre-mortal existence of man. So we will play your game for awhile.

There's no point in going further if we can't even get past such obvious nonsense answers to simple questions.

There is, we could discuss the real issue of difference, or as you are wont, we can take a diversion away from the real issue.

This diversion on your part is apparently because you have no real basis for your position with regard to the pre-mortal existence of man.

I will help you out a little more. Here is the whole verse again, with numbers to mark different portions of the verse: "(1) He that cometh from above (2) is above all: (3) he that is of the earth (4) is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: (5) he that cometh from heaven (6) is above all" (John 3:31). Please complete the following statements, numbered to correspond to the above numbers:

(1) "He that cometh from above" = (a) God the Father, (b) Jesus the Son, © John the Baptist, (d) someone else (please specify)

(2) The one who "is above all" = (a) God the Father, (b) Jesus the Son, © John the Baptist, (d) someone else (please specify)

(3) "He that is of the earth" = (a) God the Father, (b) Jesus the Son, © John the Baptist, (d) someone else (please specify)

(4) The one who "is earthly, and speaketh of the earth" = (a) God the Father, (b) Jesus the Son, © John the Baptist, (d) someone else (please specify)

(5) "He that cometh from heaven" = (a) God the Father, (b) Jesus the Son, © John the Baptist, (d) someone else (please specify)

(6) The one who "is above all" = (a) God the Father, (b) Jesus the Son, © John the Baptist, (d) someone else (please specify)

So I made a small error in my haste, of course now you have an excuse to divert the discussion.

If one takes the "all" as literally "all, with no specification" then it must be the Father.

BUT, if one takes the "all" to mean "all, with some specification" then it can very well be Christ.

In My haste, I took the first approach, when I should have taken the second.

Now, whereas the Son is the fully authorized representitive for the Father (because He is the literal ONLY Begotten Son in the flesh), and as such He speaks for, in behalf of, and at times as the Father, this issue is moot.

So with that explanation the answer to the 6 questions above are all (b).

Now off course you are going disagree that (b) is the answer to question (3) & (4), but in light of the "if" "and" statement (a classic Hebrew logic statment equivalent to our "if, "then" logic statement), it is obvious that the answer is (b).

So, now we are back to the real issue of dispute. Nowhere in those verses is it expressed or implied that the spirits of all mankind did not exist pre-mortally in heaven.

[Vance]

Vance,

Refuting "only begotten" as the proper translation also refutes "only generated."

I answered Lehi's etymology of monogen?s in post #20 in this thread. Your accusation that I ducked his argument because I couldn't answer it is false.

Gee, Rob, did you miss the part where I said 'I can find nothing of yours addressing "only generated"'?

Thanks for pointing it out.

Although, I will say that the "ad populum" approach isn't really a valid "answer". And of course, we are just supposed to take your word for it without any citations or documentation?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

It took some doing, but I got a straight answer out of you regarding John 3:31. You are correct in saying that in my view "(3) he that is of the earth (4) is earthly, and speaketh of the earth" does not refer to Jesus the Son. You claim that it must refer to Jesus "in light of the 'if' 'and' statement (a classic Hebrew logic statment equivalent to our 'if, 'then' logic statement)." Once again, let's quote the whole verse:

"(1) He that cometh from above (2) is above all: (3) he that is of the earth (4) is earthly, and speaketh of the earth: (5) he that cometh from heaven (6) is above all" (John 3:31).

There is no "if--and" statement in this verse. I have no idea what Bible you're reading, Vance, but I don't see any such "Hebrew logic" expression in this verse.

The actual logic of this verse is not hard to see or understand. The verse has three clauses, each of which functions a separate line:

"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."

Since God the Father did not "come from above" or "come from heaven," but Jesus did, the first and third lines in context must refer to Jesus the Son. It is Jesus the Son, then, who "is above all" in both the first and third lines.

The middle line expresses direct contrasts between Jesus and someone else. Jesus comes from above, from heaven; this someone else is of the earth. The contrast between coming from heaven and being of the earth is obvious. Jesus is from heaven; this other is "earthly." Jesus "is above all"; this other is not. Who is this other? The context makes this clear:

"28 Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said, I am not the Christ, but that I am sent before him.

29 He that hath the bride is the bridegroom: but the friend of the bridegroom, which standeth and heareth him, rejoiceth greatly because of the bridegroom's voice: this my joy therefore is fulfilled.

30 He must increase, but I must decrease.

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." (John 3:28-31)

John the Baptist is speaking (verse 27). He expresses several contrasts between himself and Jesus:

• Jesus is the Christ; John is merely the one sent before him. (v. 28)
• Jesus is the bridegroom; John is merely the friend of the bridegroom. (v. 29)
• Jesus must increase; John must decrease. (v. 30)
• Jesus is from above, from heaven, and is above all; John is of the earth, is earthly, and speaks in an earthly way. (v. 31)

Therefore, the one who is of the earth in John 3:31 is specifically John the Baptist. More broadly, what John here says about himself is true of all of us: we are all of the earth and are earthly, in contrast to Jesus, who is from heaven and is above all of us.

The implications of this statement for the notion that all human beings preexisted in heaven should be obvious. In fact, they are obvious, which is probably why you have had such a difficult time with this verse.

[wenglund]

May I just repeat that I think it reasonable for Rob to interpret figuratively the phrase "only begotten".

Does this mean that the phrase cannot reasonably be interpreted literally in Christ's case?

No. Both are valid interpretations.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Vance,

• Jesus is the Christ; John is merely the one sent before him. (v. 28)
• Jesus is the bridegroom; John is merely the friend of the bridegroom. (v. 29)
• Jesus must increase; John must decrease. (v. 30)
• Jesus is from above, from heaven, and is above all; John is of the earth, is earthly, and speaks in an earthly way. (v. 31)

Therefore, the one who is of the earth in John 3:31 is specifically John the Baptist. More broadly, what John here says about himself is true of all of us: we are all of the earth and are earthly, in contrast to Jesus, who is from heaven and is above all of us.

The implications of this statement for the notion that all human beings preexisted in heaven should be obvious. In fact, they are obvious, which is probably why you have had such a difficult time with this verse.

ACtually I disagree with part of your interpretion, you see this as evidence against a pre-exsistance. I see this verse as evidence that Christ is a physical offspring from God the Father and Mary his mother. As He would be the only one that had a physical body given to him by an Immortal Father, that none of us have had.

It all boils down to interpration. Interesting thanks for you insights Rob.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

The problem is that you are reading something into John 3:31 that is not there. John does not say "he who is the physical offspring of God is above all." John describes Jesus as "coming from above," "coming from heaven." I take this to mean very simply that Jesus came from heaven, whereas John, who by contrast is "of the earth" and "earthly," did not. The issue here is not simply that each of us has his own interpretation. In fact, my "interpretation" arises from the words of the text in their context, without reading something into it that is not there. That is something that cannot be said for your suggested explanation.

ACtually I disagree with part of your interpretion, you see this as evidence against a pre-exsistance. I see this verse as evidence that Christ is a physical offspring from God the Father and Mary his mother. As He would be the only one that had a physical body given to him by an Immortal Father, that none of us have had.

It all boils down to interpration. Interesting thanks for you insights Rob.