Has Jesus always been a God?

[Rob Bowman]

Vance,

You may think my answer is illogical, but I disagree. You don't seem to understand my position. I've tried to explain it to you. You just keep claiming that I won't answer. Since this is getting us nowhere, I will have to drop the matter. No doubt you will feel the need to assert once again that I am dodging your question. Have fun with that.

Well, no you haven't.

It is based on your statement. Perhaps it is your statement that makes no sense.

If there is no "before" time, then time has always existed. It is simple logic.

Only if "non-time" never existed.

And it is illogical as well.

So the question remains.

If God existed in "non-time" doing nothing. What made him change, to "deign" to "condescend" to leave "non-time" and create?

PS. I won't even push the issue of "non-time" being outside of scripture and therefore violates "sola scriptura".

[Vance]

Vance,

You may think my answer is illogical, but I disagree.

Which doesn't change the facts of the matter.

You don't seem to understand my position.

I certainly understand how illogical and weak it is. Apparently you don't.

I've tried to explain it to you.

And I have tried to explain to you how it is illogical and weak.

You just keep claiming that I won't answer.

You won't. I have repeated the question several times. What made God change from not doing anything in "non-time" to doing stuff within time. A change occurred. What caused it?

Since this is getting us nowhere, I will have to drop the matter.

A nice way of saying you want to run from it. I understand.

No doubt you will feel the need to assert once again that I am dodging your question.

Just stating the facts. You refuse to address this issue and want to flee from it. I get it.

Have fun with that.

Party Time!!!!!!!!

[Bernard Gui]

With all due respect, your quotations do not address my question at all. That is, they do not say whether Jesus became a God or has always been a God.

Since you are not LDS, I understand your inability to see what is obvious to us. Maybe this will help:

Jesus Christ is the Son of Elohim both as spiritual and bodily offspring; that is to say, Elohim is literally the Father of the spirit of Jesus Christ and also of the body in which Jesus Christ performed His mission in the flesh, and which body died on the cross and was afterward taken up by the process of resurrection, and is now the immortalized tabernacle of the eternal spirit of our Lord and Savior.

http://www.schoolofabraham.com/fatherandson.htm

Bernard

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

You wrote:

Since you are not LDS, I understand your inability to see the obvious.

Don't patronize me.

The statement you quoted would certainly seem to imply that Jesus has not always been a God, since it is difficult to understand how the Father could be the literal Father of Jesus' spirit if Jesus has always existed as a God. This is what I have been saying all along: the historic LDS position is that Jesus has not always been a God, but became a God. You agree with that, right?

[Ceeboo]

Page 13 of the thread so I thought I would clear things up.

Jesus has indeed always been God!

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Bernard Gui]

Don't patronize me.

You will notice that I immediately edited my post because I realized it could

be read that way, and it was not intended. You are not LDS so I do not expect

you to understand our doctrine the way we do.

The statement you quoted would certainly seem to imply that Jesus has not always been a God, since it is difficult to understand how the Father could be the literal Father of Jesus' spirit if Jesus has always existed as a God. This is what I have been saying all along: the historic LDS position is that Jesus has not always been a God, but became a God. You agree with that, right?

I don't know if you have read the official declarations that I have suggested.

Here is an abbreviated version of what I understand.

Our earth is one of innumerable worlds organized by Gods in the eternal cycles of exaltation.

Elements and life force (intelligence) are not created, but exist coeternally with God. There is

no revealed explanation of how this is, but it will be revealed in the future.

Being God includes the ability (not explained in detail by revelation) to create spirit beings from the life force or intelligence.

All spirit beings inherit divine potential as a birthright from their spiritual parents.

To achieve divinity, spirits must go through various stages of existence including a mortal experience

where spirit is united with matter, a death, and a resurrection.

A Savior, or the Firstborn of the Heavenly Parents, is foreordained for that role by the Father. By right of his

position as Firstborn He is part of the Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The Savior, or Firstborn Son, acting in the name of His Father, provides the necessary mechanisms for

all His children to continue in their progression to godhood. As a spirit child of the Father, He also had to

pass through the experience of mortality and resurrection to achieve full godhood as an exalted man.

God the Father himself has passed through these experiences, and now is an exalted man, enthroned

in heaven. All of His children have the ability and opportunity to do the same.

In this sense, God, Jesus, and all mankind have always been God.

Bernard

[Rob Bowman]

Bernard,

You wrote:

You will notice that I immediately edited my post because I realized it could be read that way, and it was not intended. You are not LDS so I do not expect you to understand our doctrine the way we do.

I understand your doctrines better than you think.

You wrote:

I don't know if you have read the official declarations that I have suggested.

Yes, several times.

You wrote:

Here is an abbreviated version of what I understand.

Our earth is one of innumerable worlds organized by Gods in the eternal cycles of exaltation.

Elements and life force (intelligence) are not created, but exist coeternally with God. There is

no revealed explanation of how this is, but it will be revealed in the future.

Being God includes the ability (not explained in detail by revelation) to create spirit beings from the life force or intelligence.

All spirit beings inherit divine potential as a birthright from their spiritual parents.

To achieve divinity, spirits must go through various stages of existence including a mortal experience

where spirit is united with matter, a death, and a resurrection.

A Savior, or the Firstborn of the Heavenly Parents, is foreordained for that role by the Father. By right of his

position as Firstborn He is part of the Godhead of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

The Savior, or Firstborn Son, acting in the name of His Father, provides the necessary mechanisms for

all other children to continue in their progression. As a spirit child of the Father, He also must

pass through the experience of mortality and resurrection to achieve full godhood as an exalted man.

God the Father himself has passed through these experiences, and now is an exalted man, enthroned

in heaven. All of His children have the ability and opportunity to do the same.

In this sense, Jesus (and all mankind) have always been God.

Bernard

That's equivocation. I understand that in LDS theology Jesus and all mankind have always had the potential to become God, but that does not make you or me God. When I asked if Jesus has always been a God or if he became a God, I meant a God, not someone with the potential to become a God. If Jesus, like the Father, had to pass through a process of exaltation "to achieve full godhood," then he has not always been a God.

[Bernard Gui]

I understand your doctrines better than you think.

We'll have to disagree on that. I do commend you for making a prodigious

effort to examine what we believe, but I'm not sure you can truly understand

what you vehemently oppose and do not practice. I'm reminded of the many times you

say we LDS do not understand or misrepresent your positions. This works

both ways.

Yes, several times.

Then you have the answers to your questions.

That's equivocation. I understand that in LDS theology Jesus and all mankind have always had the potential to become God, but that does not make you or me God. When I asked if Jesus has always been a God or if he became a God, I meant a God, not someone with the potential to become a God. If Jesus, like the Father, had to pass through a process of exaltation "to achieve full godhood," then he has not always been a God.

Do you mean by equivocation an intent to deceive? Or an inability to commit to a position?

Either way, it goes to prove my point that you do not understand what you are studying.

You continue to filter your understanding of LDS doctrine through the sieve of Evangelical

Protestantism, and of course you will find it incomprehensible or wanting in some way.

You will never be satisfied with an answer, because it will never conform with what you

think is correct.

By your filter, you have come to the conclusion that LDS believe no, Jesus has not always been a God, hence you have scored your polemical goal.

By my filter, Jesus has always been a God.

If I may make a poor analogy: when a baby is born, one could ask if the baby has always been human.

It could be said, no, it was nothing before it was born, or it was a fetus or a collection of

biological tissue, but it only became a human when it was born. This seems to be your critique of the LDS position.

Or, when a baby is born, one could ask if the baby has always been a child of God. It could be said,

no, it was intelligence and spirit before it was born, but it was not a child of God until it was

born to Heavenly Parents. This could be a viable LDS position that still scores your goal.

Or, when a Child of God becomes like his Father (a God), one could ask if the Child of God

has always been a God. It could be said, no, in the beginning it was intelligence, then it

was spirit, then it was human, and then it became a God. So in this sense, Jesus has not

always been a God. I understand how LDS could hold to this position and it still scores your goal.

On the other hand, one can argue that intelligence, which is coeternal with God, is the essence

of life and Godhood, and having gone through the necessary process, realizes its full potential. In this

sense, a God has always been God. Jesus holds the special position as Firstborn in the spirit.

In the economy of eternal life, this makes him a member of the Godhead from his spiritual birth, but he was not

like his Father in all ways until he passed through mortality and was resurrected. For the rest

of God's children, our godhood comes about by the Atonement of the Son. This is how it has

always been done, and how it will always be done. This is my position.

Man is the child of God, formed in the divine image and endowed with divine attributes, and even as the infant son of an earthly father and mother is capable in due time of becoming a man, so the undeveloped offspring of celestial parentage is capable, by experience through ages and aeons, of evolving into a God.

Bernard

[mfbukowski]

Rob

Note that Bernard and most others including myself keep telling you the same thing.

What they are saying is that your problem is semantics, and that you continually see things in a fundamentalist light: "Is it this or is it this: it can't be both", while we say it is all a PROCESS of becoming a god and to divide it as you have done confuses the issue.

Your issues are strictly linguistic.

You metaphorically take a snapshot of a runner's final race and ask if he "has always been the winner of the gold medal"?

It depends on how you look at it.

The point is: he IS the winner of the gold medal. Jesus IS God. God DID create the universe, and we can BECOME like him through the sacrifice of his son.

That is all that matters, and all that is true.

You got your answer- we are all consistent on this point. Now distort it as we know you will.

John 13:

27 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.

[hooberus]

You got your answer- we are all consistent on this point. Now distort it as we know you will.

John 13:

27 And after the sop Satan entered into him. Then said Jesus unto him, That thou doest, do quickly.

I think that its time for a moderator to be assigned to this thread.

There are too many pages to quickly figure out the problem. Be specific about rule violations, if scripture is being used to insult or name call say so.

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

You wrote:

Note that Bernard and most others including myself keep telling you the same thing.

Actually, the responses have been somewhat diverse, as I pointed out.

You wrote:

What they are saying is that your problem is semantics, and that you continually see things in a fundamentalist light: "Is it this or is it this: it can't be both", while we say it is all a PROCESS of becoming a god and to divide it as you have done confuses the issue.

Then I am in good company, from a Mormon point of view. After all, Joseph Smith did the same thing:

"In order to understand the subject of the dead, for consolation of those who mourn for the loss of their friends, it is necessary we should understand the character and being of God and how he came to be so; for I am going to tell you how God came to be God. We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, and take away the veil, so that you may see."--Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 345.

As you can see, Joseph made a clear, sharp distinction between God being "God from all eternity" (which Joseph denied) and the idea that God "came to be God" (which he affirmed).

You wrote:

Your issues are strictly linguistic.

Tell that to Joseph.

You wrote:

It depends on how you look at it.

Tell that to Joseph.

You got your answer- we are all consistent on this point. Now distort it as we know you will.

I won't distort what you say at all. However, what you say does not agree with Joseph Smith.

You then quoted John 13:27, without comment, but with the implicit message that Satan inspires me. I can't think of anything helpful to say in response.

[mfbukowski]

Actually, the responses have been somewhat diverse, as I pointed out.

It's too bad you understand neither Joseph nor us.

I suppose I could go back through the thread and find each instance of a person leaving it finally with the words, in one form or another, of "this is a semantic issue" or "quibbling over language" etc.

It really isn't worth my time to do so, however.

In the off chance that anyone is actually still following this "thread" which is more like a cable at this point, I would request one more post from each of you who agrees that this is basically a "semantic issue" before we let this thing bury itself. Certainly off the top of my head, I think that both Vance and Ben and Bernard would agree. That's four at least, including me.

If nothing else, I think we owe it to Rob as a human being to let him know that he is just not seeing the forest for the trees.

Of course even that last post might not be worth your time either.

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

You wrote:

It's too bad you understand neither Joseph nor us.

You have not done anything to show that I have misunderstood Joseph Smith. As for misunderstanding you, that is simply not the case. You claim the issue is merely semantic. I disagree with you, but I understand what you say.

[LifeOnaPlate]

Add me to the list, mfbukow.

[mfbukowski]

Add me to the list, mfbukow.

Thanks! How could I forget the LOAPster?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Add me too, I went to some lenghts to say I thought it a semantics issue. I can think of another reason other then what I outlined.

[Vance]

It is semantics.

Rob taught me that "all" doesn't really mean "all" with this post.

So now I know that when the scriptures say God created "all" things, it doesn't really mean "all" things.

[mfbukowski]

Thanks guys.

It's starting to add up Robb.

[mfbukowski]

It is semantics.

That quote you put in brought me to this one:

Vance,

I owe no one any explanation. Do your own homework and you will see that I am not misrepresenting my professional career. Start by looking up my dozen books on Amazon, for example.

I guess we have given him another book. Of equal substance with the others. Hey, it's a living.

But you know what?

I couldn't find any books. Did I do something wrong?

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_c_1_10?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=rob+bowman&sprefix=rob+bowman&ih=28_4_0_0_1_0_0_0_1_1.30_340&fsc=30#%2Fqid%3D1282236100%2Fref%3Dsr_pg_2%3Fie%3DUTF8%26keywords%3Drob%2520bowman%26rh%3Dn%253A283155%252Cn%253A%25211000%252Ck%253Arob%2520bowman%26page%3D2

[Bernard Gui]

I think the whole thing hinges on our disagreement

on the doctrine of pre-mortal existence. Simple as that.

Since so little has been revealed on the subject we

end up merely speculating. Until more

knowledge is given us by God or Rob changes his

mind, we will find little on which to agree.

Bernard

[Brade]

I just don't get it. It seems obvious to me, under LDS teaching (and as a LDS), that Jesus has not always been a god.

[Rob Bowman]

I'm really interested in achieving clarity on this issue. If you are too, please try to follow what I say here and give me your honest opinion.

If you want to maintain that a simple answer cannot be given to the question of whether Jesus has always been a God or rather became a God, that's your business. Some of you claim that the question poses a false either/or because Godhood is something one is more or less rather than something one either is or is not. Again, if that's your view, fine. It's not the view that Joseph Smith taught in the King Follett Discourse, but if it's your view, it's your view. But now let's see if we can clarify the issue.

There are two--and as far as I can see only two--possibilities if Godhood is something that gradually develops, so that beings are more or less God, not either God or not God.

(1) The first is that this is what I will call a continuum, an unending process of development, in which case no being ever fully arrives at Godhood in a definitive, complete, or final way. On this view, we may all be moving toward more Godhood, but no one ever finishes the journey and arrives at complete or full Godhood, or reaches a point where they could not be any more God than they already are. That is, on the continuum view, one can always become even more God than one already is. This would then apply to Jesus, the Father, the Holy Ghost, the heavenly mother, any of us that ever attain exaltation -- everyone and anyone.

(2) The second view is one that I will call the spectrum view. On this view, beings approach Godhood in a process of development, but at some point they become fully or completely God, such that they can never be more God than they are at that point. In this view, there is an ultimate goal or destination at which one can arrive in the process of development, a "finish line" at which one has become as much God as it is possible for anyone to become.

Now, the question I asked in the opening post can be clarified for the sake of those who see Godhood on a sliding scale of development. If that is your position, do you understand this according to the continuum view or the spectrum view? If you think there is a third possibility, please share it with me, though logically I don't see any possibility of such a third view, except perhaps for the odd position that Godhood is a spectrum for some beings and a continuum for others. If you think this is a possibility, then please tell me if you think Godhood is a spectrum or a continuum for the Father and for Jesus.

Finally, if you hold to the spectrum view of Godhood, please tell me if you think that Jesus has arrived at full, complete Godhood; and if so, please tell me when you think Jesus became fully God, that is, as much God as it is possible for anyone to be.

[mfbukowski]

There IS a third view which is the LDS view. And that is eternal progression. It never stops. There is no finish line, no END. Becoming a god is like becoming a professor. There is a particular time at which that honor is conferred- again- the Olympic racer gets his medal at a time, but in a sense "that person" who IS the olympic racer always was the same person.

Imagine a story- a biography called "Fred Jones: The Greatest Athelete of All Time"!

Was Fred Jones always Fred Jones? Of course. Was he always the Greatest Athlete? No.

We believe that God's glory increases, even beyond where it is now, through the glorification of his children.

We participate in his glorification- he will always be infinitely "above" us- we can never catch up any more than you can be your own great grandfather. (assuming of course that you and he both were exalted)

"This is my work AND MY GLORY: to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man".

His glory is to bring to pass our glory! He is not a selfish God who simply created us to be his servants- we are his CHILDREN

We are on stepladders in an elevator together. The elevator goes up for eternity, but some of us are higher than others permanently. After we pass the 900th "floor" we are called "Gods".

[mfbukowski]

It is instructive to me that your two "possibilities" which supposedly exhausted all the real possibilities, did not even include what we in fact believe.

You are so tied into your own fundamentalist limited lens that you cannot even see outside it.

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

Congratulations on a hopelessly muddled response.

If "it never stops," that is the continuum view, if "it" is progress toward Godhood.

You are quite correct when you say that when a person becomes a professor, he is still the same person. If this is analogous to Jesus' status as a God, then the answer is simple: Jesus became a God while remaining the same person. If it is not analogous to Jesus' status as God, then it is irrelevant to the issue I raised.

Furthermore, when a person becomes a professor, he is a professor. He has arrived. He goes from being not-a-professor to being a-professor. That is neither a continuum nor a spectrum, but an either/or.

If Fred Jones has always been Fred Jones (i.e., as long as he has existed), but has not always been the Greatest Athlete of All Time, then he went from being NOT the Greatest Athlete of All Time to BEING that Greatest Athlete of All Time. Again, this is not a good analogy for either the continuum or the spectrum view.

Your expanded edit of your post did nothing to clarify the issue. If we are called "Gods" after we pass the 900th floor, then until that point we are not Gods, though we are on our way there.