Has Jesus always been a God?

[mfbukowski]

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.

Define always. He organized this earth as Jehovah. Who started time in the Big Bang?

Does that help with the ambiguity? Two senses of "always"

1- Who started the BB?

2- Was that event "in" time or "out" of it?

Pick one or the other- your definition of "always" will depend on it.

If there could be a "time" "before" the Big Bang, then "always" extends before the big bang- all of which is contradictory strictly speaking- we must use metaphors then. Yet the BB was an "event" IN time. And if Jehovah caused the BB, he must have somehow "pre-existed" the BB outside of time (as we know it)

This is the metaphoric language of the KFD, in my opinion

If it makes no sense to speak of a time before the BB, then it is all unknowable, and God and Jehovah (father and son) have "always" been God(s).

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Define always. He organized this earth as Jehovah. Who started time in the Big Bang?

I think it important to look at Jesus. Did Jesus always have a body? No. Will he always have a body? Yes.

So it can be stated that he has had a body for all of eternity.

If people wish that Jesus could at some future date shed is body we can substitute him for us.

Will we, after the ressurection ever not have a body?

[mfbukowski]

(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.

Distortions as usual. THIS is what you said.

God never becomes as much as it is possible to become. Therefore the "spectrum view" is incorrect.

I am about done with you as I should have been long ago. You are always always always shifting

Edit- later: And of course the "continuum view" contradicts itself-

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

One does in fact BOTH "arrive at full Godhood, AND still increases in power and glory.

Were that not so, either God is not a god, or we could not add to his glory

[mfbukowski]

double post- deleted

[Bernard Gui]

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.

Indeed. I have the same problem when I try to understand the place of good works

in Evangelical Protestantism. I think I do, but then am reprimanded for misunderstanding.

Bernard

[mfbukowski]

I think it important to look at Jesus. Did Jesus always have a body? No. Will he always have a body? Yes.

So it can be stated that he has had a body for all of eternity.

If people wish that Jesus could at some future date shed is body we can substitute him for us.

Will we, after the ressurection ever not have a body?

Well I would like to see Rob answer this one. If Jesus is God, and Jesus has a body, and since he did not "always" have a body, how can it be said that God does not change?

They postulate two "natures" which make no sense at all. Creedals cannot even define what "nature" means.

In fact Rob, please tell me what Nature means in this context without begging the question. Can't be done.

If "Fred Jones is the all time world's greatest athelete" is true, was it true before Fred Jones was born, or does the truth change?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well I would like to see Rob answer this one. If Jesus is God, and Jesus has a body, and since he did not "always" have a body, how can it be said that God does not change?

They postulate two "natures" which make no sense at all. Creedals cannot even define what "nature" means.

In fact Rob, please tell me what Nature means in this context without begging the question. Can't be done.

If "Fred Jones is the all time world's greatest athelete" is true, was it true before Fred Jones was born, or does the truth change?

I think we should start a new thread for this 2 natures dilemma. I see this as a serious issue that never seems to get much attention.

I thought I understood what "nature" meant, Thanks to Christknight. I went into another discussion and used what I thought nature meant and was struck down by several EV posters.

What does "nature" mean? What does "substance" mean?

[mfbukowski]

I think we should start a new thread for this 2 natures dilemma. I see this as a serious issue that never seems to get much attention.

I thought I understood what "nature" meant, Thanks to Christknight. I went into another discussion and used what I thought nature meant and was struck down by several EV posters.

What does "nature" mean? What does "substance" mean?

I have been into so many of those on the Catholic boards I will probably sit them out.

They mean nothing. Those arguments are very easily demolished. They are "proxy definitions" for something which doesn't exist.

Google "virtus dormitiva" and you will see how to handle that argument.

How do sleeping pills make you sleep? By virtue of their sleep producing properties.

Do you see how that avoids the question and answers nothing? Same with both nature and substance- they are postulates created out of nothing which are "place holders" in an argument which no one can define without begging the question.

So if you ever see either of those used, you will know how to counter the argument.

Man's nature is to be.... well,, manly. It differs from a dogs nature, which is to be,.... uh.... like a dog.

God's nature differs from human nature in that, uh.... he is like God and we are like men.

And if you can't understand that, ....!

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I have been into so many of those on the Catholic boards I will probably sit them out.

They mean nothing. Those arguments are very easily demolished. They are "proxy definitions" for something which doesn't exist.

Google "virtus dormitiva" and you will see how to handle that argument.

How do sleeping pills make you sleep? By virtue of their sleep producing properties.

Do you see how that avoids the question and answers nothing? Same with both nature and substance- they are postulates created out of nothing which are "place holders" in an argument which no one can define without begging the question.

So if you ever see either of those used, you will know how to counter the argument.

Man's nature is to be.... well,, manly. It differs from a dogs nature, which is to be,.... uh.... like a dog.

God's nature differs from human nature in that, uh.... he is like God and we are like men.

And if you can't understand that, ....!

Yes, I have been in similar converstation. The closet I came to understanding it was that nature is sued like a human nature. Or the way we act. However the part that got me confused was that just because there was only one nature how does that translate into one God?

I used this same argument for humans. There is one human nature but 6 billion humans that share that nature. Not one human. So there is one God nature but 3 persons share that and yet that makes one God?? The rebuttal was that humans are not God. That statement was so clarifing.

[Vance]

Well I would like to see Rob answer this one. If Jesus is God, and Jesus has a body, and since he did not "always" have a body, how can it be said that God does not change?

Rob will avoid/ignore that one like he avoids/ignores all of the contradictions/holes in his theology.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Rob will avoid/ignore that one like he avoids/ignores all of the contradictions/holes in his theology.

Easy, God's nature doesn't change.

Well the LDS answer that God's principles and love do not change.

Everything he does it to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. His main mission does not change. How God does things does not change.

I think the 2 natures is the bigger loomming issue. As we still have to account for how God does not change and is the same yesterday today and forever, and we don't have anything about 2 natures or substance in LDS theology.

[mfbukowski]

Easy, God's nature doesn't change.

Well the LDS answer that God's principles and love do not change.

Everything he does it to bring to pass the immortality and eternal life of man. His main mission does not change. How God does things does not change.

I think the 2 natures is the bigger loomming issue. As we still have to account for how God does not change and is the same yesterday today and forever, and we don't have anything about 2 natures or substance in LDS theology.

No, but we do have 2 points of view- one seeing him as our father and the other as a being with whom we can interact and who progresses.

Like the elphant and the blindmen, neither point of view captures his fullness- it's just about how we see him

Let's pretend that you personally, as a human, were the perfect father and you always treated your kids as a perfect father would. 100% always the right thing.

In your devotion to your kids, you would be "unchanging". But you would still get old some day and die. You will change through physical decline.

God is unchanging in his character as a father, but he still progresses and becomes greater. That is the way he changes.

No need for two natures- the word is meaningless.

All of language is a kind of metaphor anyway- its meaning varies according to what "you are trying to say".

What you MEAN is not always exactly what you say- or most of this thread would probably not exist.

[mfbukowski]

Indeed. I have the same problem when I try to understand the place of good works

in Evangelical Protestantism. I think I do, but then am reprimanded for misunderstanding.

Bernard

Well I think faith is something we do anyway. So in a sense, faith itself is a work.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Well I think faith is something we do anyway. So in a sense, faith itself is a work.

Faith is a work. It is not some idle sit by the side type of thing. To have faith in something is an action word. You know a verb.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

I think it important to look at Jesus. Did Jesus always have a body? No. Will he always have a body? Yes. So it can be stated that he has had a body for all of eternity.

I'm sorry, that does not follow. If Jesus has not always had a body, then he has not had a body for all of eternity. He will have a body for the rest of time, forever if you will.

In any case, we need to use language to promote clarity, not to make things more ambiguous. The point is that Jesus did not always possess a body but became a physical human being at a particular point in time. Likewise, in LDS doctrine traditionally, he has not always been God but became a God (as did the Father). Yes, LDS doctrine does affirm that both the Father and Christ will forever into the future always have bodies and always be Gods, but this should not be allowed to obscure the fact that in LDS doctrine the Father and Christ each became a God.

Note to others who have recently posted: I am not inclined to run after the several new rabbit trails of issues not germane to the topic of this thread. Nor will I waste my time trying to justify myself to those who try to taunt me every time I don't choose to kick the football for Lucy.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

You wrote:

I'm sorry, that does not follow. If Jesus has not always had a body, then he has not had a body for all of eternity. He will have a body for the rest of time, forever if you will.

So if he will never loose his body for the rest of eternity (which has no end) that means then that we cannot claim that he does not have a body for eternity? OK.

In any case, we need to use language to promote clarity, not to make things more ambiguous. The point is that Jesus did not always possess a body but became a physical human being at a particular point in time. Likewise, in LDS doctrine traditionally, he has not always been God but became a God (as did the Father). Yes, LDS doctrine does affirm that both the Father and Christ will forever into the future always have bodies and always be Gods, but this should not be allowed to obscure the fact that in LDS doctrine the Father and Christ each became a God.

But non the less they will be Gods for all of eternity. I am just failing to see why you think it a huge issue if they became our Gods at some time in the past but will always be Gods going forward for all of eternity.

As if having an eternity past of Godhood means anything when we are talking about infinity. It is like saying that Chuck Norris counted to infinity twice. It is meaningless to state that you counted to infinity twice because that is still infinity.

My God is better because he was God for all of eternity past, and yours was only God for eternity future.

It just makes no sense to me.

I will state that there is no phrase in the bible that states (explicitly) anything about eternity past. People read that into the bible.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

I will state that there is no phrase in the bible that states (explicitly) anything about eternity past. People read that into the bible.

People like Joseph Smith.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

You wrote:

People like Joseph Smith.

Hahaha, Rob you do have a sense of humor.

[mfbukowski]

In any case, we need to use language to promote clarity, not to make things more ambiguous.

Unfortunately, we have the language we have. We can ask questions which make category errors like "What color is virtue"? even if they are unanswerable. That is essentially what the OP is. It is inherently meaningless depending on the definiton of "always"

Note to others who have recently posted: I am not inclined to run after the several new rabbit trails of issues not germane to the topic of this thread. Nor will I waste my time trying to justify myself to those who try to taunt me every time I don't choose to kick the football for Lucy.

Aw shucks. Well I guess that's better than calling me a "sophist" because you can't answer.

Your friend,

Lucy.

[Vance]

More semantic games by Rob.

Rob claims that "The penalty for sinning against God is eternal separation from God."

When asked if Christ suffers this punishment in his stead, Rob responds with, "He suffers the punishment for my sins, but he suffers it in a different way because he is not merely one ordinary man, but the God-man, providing an infinite atonement. Thus, he does not need to suffer eternal separation from God in order to suffer on my behalf."

In other words, Christ suffers the penalty for Rob's sins by NOT suffering the penalty for Rob's sins.

Semantic games indeed.

[Rob Bowman]

Why is this posted here? This is approaching something like spamming. You've already responded in the other post; there's no valid reason to do so here.

More semantic games by Rob.

Rob claims that "The penalty for sinning against God is eternal separation from God."

When asked if Christ suffers this punishment in his stead, Rob responds with, "He suffers the punishment for my sins, but he suffers it in a different way because he is not merely one ordinary man, but the God-man, providing an infinite atonement. Thus, he does not need to suffer eternal separation from God in order to suffer on my behalf."

In other words, Christ suffers the penalty for Rob's sins by NOT suffering the penalty for Rob's sins.

Semantic games indeed.

[Vance]

That post is in support of this comment about your (Rob's) approach.

You are all about semantics and not substance.