Has Jesus always been a God?

[Vance]

bump!

[mfbukowski]

Rob, has come and gone, again, without answering. It makes one wonder if he has an answer.

Well we obviously have to cut him some slack on this thread- he is going through a hard time now, and we must give him the benefit of of the doubt.

But I think there is not an evangelical alive who can answer these questions.

[mfbukowski]

I see "reincarnation" as multiple incarnations on the same world.

In that sense, I do not believe in reincarnation.

But I think that God probably believes in reincarnation on successive worlds.

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

So the purpose of this would be so that one could play various "roles" on the separate worlds and thereby gain more experience toward one's exaltation?

It's an interesting idea I haven't come across, though I think now that you mention it, it accounts for comments I have seen here more than once which never made sense to me before you said it just this way. Interesting.

[Vance]

Well we obviously have to cut him some slack on this thread- he is going through a hard time now, and we must give him the benefit of of the doubt.

I just didn't want this thread to get lost in the mean time. We will patiently wait Rob's return. Unless some other evangelical is brave enough to step to the plate.

But I think there is not an evangelical alive who can answer these questions.

The thing I have noticed about evangelical-anti-Mormons is that they make such a big to do about preceived "holes" in Mormonism, while being oblivious to the giant gaping holes in their own theology. When pinned down they resort to "you just have to have faith". But when Mormons go there, we get ridiculed by them. "Oh, all you can say is 'I have a testimony'?"

Back to patiently waiting.

[mfbukowski]

The thing I have noticed about evangelical-anti-Mormons is that they make such a big to do about preceived "holes" in Mormonism, while being oblivious to the giant gaping holes in their own theology. When pinned down they resort to "you just have to have faith". But when Mormons go there, we get ridiculed by them. "Oh, all you can say is 'I have a testimony'?"

Back to patiently waiting.

Me too, but don't hold your breath.

[hooberus]

Back to the original thread subject (again):

I an not LDS, however I think that the following point (touched on previously) should be noted:

In the King Follett Discourse, [of which past LDS president Hinckley stated: "The text of that address has become an important doctrinal document in the theology of the Church." (Ensign, Sept. 1994)] Joseph Smith stated:

"We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, . . ."

What idea was it that Joseph Smith was refuting?, Was it not "that God was God from all eternity"?,

If the LDS God the Father was not "God from all eternity" then how could a spirit child of his have been?

[hooberus]

Also, I have a colour publication called "What the Mormons Think of Christ". On the inside cover it says "Published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

On page 36 this publication states "Christ, the Word, the Firstborn, had, of course, attained unto the status of Godhood while yet in pre-existence."

Wouldn't this be an official pronouncement that (the LDS) Christ has not always possessed the status of Godhood, and that early in his pre-existence, before he "attained unto the status of Godhood", he was not always God?

[Tarski]

If you are LDS, I would like your answer to this question. Has Jesus always been a God, or did he become a God? Feel free to offer any support for your view, if you like.

By "always" I mean everlastingly from all eternity, with no beginning to his status or nature as a God.

I am guessing you are as confused by the answers as me? LOL

[Zakuska]

Also, I have a colour publication called "What the Mormons Think of Christ". On the inside cover it says "Published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

On page 36 this publication states "Christ, the Word, the Firstborn, had, of course, attained unto the status of Godhood while yet in pre-existence."

Wouldn't this be an official pronouncement that (the LDS) Christ has not always possessed the status of Godhood, and that early in his pre-existence, before he "attained unto the status of Godhood", he was not always God?

Lets understand the reasoning. According to Paul in the Bible... Jesus Christ was the personified "wisdom" of the Jewish proverbs.

1 Cor 1

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

The problem with this is that "Wisdom" according to the OT was a created being.

Prov 8 (NIV)

22 "The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, [ b ] , [c]

before his deeds of old;

23 I was appointed [d] [HEB: or "fashioned] from eternity,

from the beginning, before the world began.

24 When there were no oceans, I was given birth,

when there were no springs abounding with water;

25 before the mountains were settled in place,

before the hills, I was given birth,

26 before he made the earth or its fields

or any of the dust of the world.

27 I was there when he set the heavens in place,

when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,

28 when he established the clouds above

and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,

29 when he gave the sea its boundary

so the waters would not overstep his command,

and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.

30 Then I was the craftsman at his side.

I was filled with delight day after day,

rejoicing always in his presence,

31 rejoicing in his whole world

and delighting in mankind.

Secondly, according to the Bible Jesus Christ was not always perfect. So there must have been a time when he wasn't fully God.

Heb 5

9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

[Tarski]

There are successive "eternities" on this view- as some scientists are now postulating there are successive Big Bangs.

So one could "become" a God in one "eternity" and then rule over the next "eternity" as an eternal God for that particular eternity.

It's so simple really.

You habitually resort the worst sort of sophistry and meaningless word games. Someone really needs to call you on this.

So simple is it?

A few simple questions: If one speaks of a "next eternity" then the word next implies a linear temporal order. This places events of one eternity before those of the next eternity and so one obtains a linear order on the set of events ( a so called total ordering) which together form all the "eternities" [sic]. But then there is no reason to apply the word eternity to anything but the linearly ordered whole.

You have a similar problem when using a phrase like "before time". What could this possibly mean? If it means nothing then what do you mean by "next eternity"?

Of course it is not at all clear what you might mean by an eternity when going on about successive big bangs. Judging from the fact that you use big bangs to signal the beginning of an eternity (begining of an eternity??) it seems that you think an eternity is a connected spacetime manifold. How are events from one such connected manifold temporally related to those of another in such a way as to allow using language like the following?

"So one could "become" a God in one "eternity" and then rule over the next "eternity" as an eternal God for that particular eternity"

If the connected manifolds are open like ours seems to be then one would have to wait an eternity inside the manifold most of which would be cold heat death. How does one jump ship to get to the "next" one and how does one decide which of the other connected spacetimes is the next one??

(Note that in taking on the view one is commited to a block universe veiwpoint so that each spacetime just contains whole histories including the whole history of every sentient being--all the persons sins past and future are just there (actually not potentially) putting quite a strain on notions of freewill.)

If the successive big bangs are of the sort that separate a single topoligically connected 4-manifold into regular smooth regions separated by singularities where the smoothness breaks down and spacetime coordinates must degenerate, then perhaps these can be temporally ordered in a principled way (the old oscillating universe scenario). But then the whole string would be the only eternity -- one grand eternity during part of which Jesus was not a God.

On the other hand, if Rob's view is true then the only time that exists is the time after the big bang and even if God created this time itself then we can say that there never was a time that God was not God (those aspect or parts of God existence that stand outside this temporally ordered creation have no times associated to them and so are not even in the temporal running so to speak). God would be an essentially atemporal being and his creation of the universe could not be conceived of as a action in time but must have some other mysterious sense. One possibility is that God is logically prior to the universe rather than temporally prior. Such things need not bother an agnostic of course and might also be exposed as nonsense.

In anycase, the fact is that traditional Mormon theology since the KF discourses has tended to place God (and Jesus) in a linear ordered sequence of God's and each God's own career (or worldline) would have a proper time and is thereby ordered. God would have experienced his own eternal existence as a sequence of events and there would have been a time in the sequence when he was not yet a God. To try to establish some way in which it is simultaneously true that he has always been God looks to be a fools errand and we can see how it quickly leads to the kind of hyperspeculative word salad that you come up with (and which ironically is the exact kind of thing that Wittgenstein was a great pains to expose as nonsense).

[Vance]

Also, I have a colour publication called "What the Mormons Think of Christ". On the inside cover it says "Published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

On page 36 this publication states "Christ, the Word, the Firstborn, had, of course, attained unto the status of Godhood while yet in pre-existence."

Wouldn't this be an official pronouncement that (the LDS) Christ has not always possessed the status of Godhood, and that early in his pre-existence, before he "attained unto the status of Godhood", he was not always God?

Can a person be a God without having all power?

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I think part of the problem in this thread is what sense are we talking about Jesus Godhood?

Has he always had the same glory, power, and knowledge? It appears that answer to that is no. For even the bible tells us so and various scriptures have been posted for that. So in this sense Jesus has not always been a God. In Rev, we learn that he was the beginning of the creations of God. That God's creations started with Jesus. Now, some what of a paradox exsists as we exsisted as inteligences before we were spirits.

Has Jesus always been my God? (this is the question I thought of when answering this question, I should have clarified) Yes, to me he always has been. Just as my father has always been my father. Has my dad always been a father though? No.

So that answer can legitimately be both yes and no.

[hooberus]

Also, I have a colour publication called "What the Mormons Think of Christ". On the inside cover it says "Published by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"

On page 36 this publication states "Christ, the Word, the Firstborn, had, of course, attained unto the status of Godhood while yet in pre-existence."

Wouldn't this be an official pronouncement that (the LDS) Christ has not always possessed the status of Godhood, and that early in his pre-existence, before he "attained unto the status of Godhood", he was not always God?

Lets understand the reasoning. According to Paul in the Bible... Jesus Christ was the personified "wisdom" of the Jewish proverbs.

1 Cor 1

21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.

22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:

23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;

24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.

The problem with this is that "Wisdom" according to the OT was a created being.

Prov 8 (NIV)

22 "The LORD brought me forth as the first of his works, [ b ] , [c]

before his deeds of old;

23 I was appointed [d] [HEB: or "fashioned] from eternity,

from the beginning, before the world began.

. . .

From your words "Lets understand the reasoning . . ." I take it that you agree that the above quote (from "what the Mormons think of Christ") accurately reflects the LDS Church's position on the subject of this thread.

As far as your argument that "According to Paul in the Bible... Jesus Christ was the personified "wisdom" of the Jewish proverbs. . . "Wisdom" according to the OT was a created being." I must disagree for the following reasons:

1. It is disputed by many that Proverbs 8:22 is referring to Christ rather than merely to a personified attribute (wisdom) possessed by God. For reasons see for example the publication The Trinity Evidence and Issues by Dr. Robery Morey

2. There is the matter of the translation of proverbs 8:22 and 23. You used the NIV and not the KJV for your argument. The KJV states "The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was." Hence, according to the KJV the wisdom in proverbs 8 is an eternal attribute possessed by the LORD.

3. Most devastating though is the fact that in all translations it is the LORD (Jehovah) who "brought forth"; "possessed" etc. the wisdom in proverbs 8. And according to LDS theology the "LORD" is "the premortal Jesus Christ" http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/j/25 !

(note also: "The personage known as Jehovah in Old Testament times, and who is usually identified in the Old Testament as LORD (in capital letters), is the Son, known as Jesus Christ,..." http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/g/43 )

Secondly, according to the Bible Jesus Christ was not always perfect. So there must have been a time when he wasn't fully God.

Heb 5

9 And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;

This argument is even more problematic then the previous one. This is because the context of Hebrews that you quoted from is referring to the time after Jesus was born to as a man to Mary (after the incarnation).

(7Who in the days of his flesh, when he had offered up prayers and supplications with strong crying and tears unto him that was able to save him from death, and was heard in that he feared; 8Though he were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered; 9And being made perfect, he became the author of eternal salvation unto all them that obey him;)

And according to LDS theology, wasn't the LDS Jesus definitly God both during and even prior to his incarnation?

[Zakuska]

From your words "Lets understand the reasoning . . ." I take it that you agree that the above quote (from "what the Mormons think of Christ") accurately reflects the LDS Church's position on the subject of this thread.

As far as your argument that "According to Paul in the Bible... Jesus Christ was the personified "wisdom" of the Jewish proverbs. . . "Wisdom" according to the OT was a created being." I must disagree for the following reasons:

1. It is disputed by many that Proverbs 8:22 is referring to Christ rather than merely to a personified attribute (wisdom) possessed by God. For reasons see for example the publication The Trinity Evidence and Issues by Dr. Robery Morey

2. There is the matter of the translation of proverbs 8:22 and 23. You used the NIV and not the KJV for your argument. The KJV states "The LORD possessed me in the beginning of his way, before his works of old. I was set up from everlasting, from the beginning, or ever the earth was." Hence, according to the KJV the wisdom in proverbs 8 is an eternal attribute possessed by the LORD.

3. Most devastating though is the fact that in all translations it is the LORD (Jehovah) who "brought forth"; "possessed" etc. the wisdom in proverbs 8. And according to LDS theology the "LORD" is "the premortal Jesus Christ" http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/j/25 !

(note also: "The personage known as Jehovah in Old Testament times, and who is usually identified in the Old Testament as LORD (in capital letters), is the Son, known as Jesus Christ,..." http://scriptures.lds.org/en/bd/g/43 )

So I take from your answer that you are a KJV ONLY type of guy.

The problems with your assesement are manifold:

1) This argument has been going on since before Nicea. So who is right?

2) I know of no compelling reason why LDS should be restricted to the KJV. Beings how Joseph Smith on several occasion expressed an affinity to "an old German Bible", as well as him using the "Phinney Bible" for his translation work.

3) Gen 19:24 says there are TWO beings in heaven who go by the designation YHWH.

This argument is even more problematic then the previous one. This is because the context of Hebrews that you quoted from (http://www.biblegate...+5&version=KJV) is referring to the time after Jesus was born to as a man to Mary. And according to LDS theology Jesus was definitly God prior to his incarnation.

The Bible Dictionary as well as the Chapter headings are not cannonized scripture, ergo can and often do contain errors.

But yes Jesus was God prior to his incarnation. But as the scriptures say... he emptied himself of Godliness so he was able to become 100% human and die.

[Theseus]

Back to the original thread subject (again):

I an not LDS, however I think that the following point (touched on previously) should be noted:

In the King Follett Discourse, [of which past LDS president Hinckley stated: "The text of that address has become an important doctrinal document in the theology of the Church." (Ensign, Sept. 1994)] Joseph Smith stated:

"We have imagined and supposed that God was God from all eternity. I will refute that idea, . . ."

What idea was it that Joseph Smith was refuting?, Was it not "that God was God from all eternity"?,

If the LDS God the Father was not "God from all eternity" then how could a spirit child of his have been?

Good point. And if God was not always God, how can we expect Jesus to have always been God?

Theseus

[Zakuska]

Good point. And if God was not always God, how can we expect Jesus to have always been God?

Theseus

Which is the exact question the Nicean debates addressed...

460 The Word became flesh to make us "partakers of the divine nature":⁷⁸ "For this is why the Word became man, and the Son of God became the Son of man: so that man, by entering into communion with the Word and thus receiving divine sonship, might become a son of God."⁷⁹ "For the Son of God became man so that we might become God."⁸⁰ "The only-begotten Son of God, wanting to make us sharers in his divinity, assumed our nature, so that he, made man, might make men gods."⁸¹

http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p122a3p1.htm

[erichard]

...

Hi Hooberus, [Or do we spell it Hubris? ]

I hope you have a sense of humor!

At any rate:

Jesus is the Savior of the World. But this is not the first world created by God. Creation has ALWAYS been going on, and worlds without number have been created and redeemed.

Each world has its own Savior, or Jesus. Thus, when the Jesus of our earth speaks, he speaks as ONE with all earlier Saviors.

The answer to the OP is this: there has always been a being like Jesus who is God.

To accept such an answer, one must accept that the term God does not apply to one finite being (such as Jesus himself, for instance). The Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost are three separate finite beings, and yet collectively they are the ONE God of our earth.

The Father, like any "real father", was once a Son himself, subject to his Father. Ultimately God is a beginingless, infinite family union of exalted finite beings-- united in perfect harmony as ONE God.

The creedal idea of an "immaterial" God of "three persons" outside of time and space that creates all things out of absolutely nothing, having blank check "all power"-- simply cannot be proved by the Bible.

The doctrine of God I elaborated above is not completely found in the Bible either, but it is found in Word of the Lord revelation of the same type as the Bible. In other words, it was not "figured out" by wise philosophers as the creeds were.

The creeds eliminate the possibility and need for men to become like God, because God in the creeds is immaterial and incomprehensible-- something totally different than mankind. The Bible simply does not support such a thesis. Rather, the Bible truly teaches that man can become like God.

And if that is true, the there is every reason to believe that God was once a man, and did the very thing the Bible teaches is possible. Or more properly, God is an infinite Union of beings who were once men, and became like God by becoming joint-heirs with their Savior.

And now we have the same opportunity, to become joint-heirs with our Savior, and to then sit down on a throne of power.

Richard

[Theseus]

The answer to the OP is this: there has always been a being like Jesus who is God.

So, is it also correct to say the answer to the OP is this: Our "Jesus being" has not always been God?

Theseus

[erichard]

So, is it also correct to say the answer to the OP is this: Our "Jesus being" has not always been God?

Theseus

In my faith, yes, Jesus of Nazareth has not always been God. It may be that he "always" had his calling and election made sure, however.

No finite being has ever, or could be, "always been God". The Infinite Union of Saviors of Worlds, however, has always existed, and has always been God.

This D&C quote seems to show when Jesus of Nazareth gained the fulness of the Father:

11 And I, John, bear record that I beheld his glory, as the glory of the Only Begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, even the Spirit of truth, which came and dwelt in the flesh, and dwelt among us.

12 And I, John, saw that he received not of the fulness at the first, but received grace for grace;

13 And he received not of the fulness at first, but continued from grace to grace, until he received a fulness;

14 And thus he was called the Son of God, because he received not of the fulness at the first.

15 And I, John, bear record, and lo, the heavens were opened, and the Holy Ghost descended upon him in the form of a dove, and sat upon him, and there came a voice out of heaven saying: This is my beloved Son.

16 And I, John, bear record that he received a fulness of the glory of the Father;

17 And he received all power, both in heaven and on earth, and the glory of the Father was with him, for he dwelt in him.

--D&C 93

[Vance]

Can a person be a God without having all power?

Still waiting for an answer. Is this question that difficult?

[hooberus]

Vance, on 10 August 2010 - 11:48 AM, said:

Can a person be a God without having all power?

Still waiting for an answer. Is this question that difficult?

If you can answer the following question, then I'll tell you.

"Can person who is "Omnipotent" (Mosiah 3:5) not have all power?"

[mfbukowski]

You habitually resort the worst sort of sophistry and meaningless word games. Someone really needs to call you on this.

In fact it is not "sophistry", and the word games are not "meaningless". But yes, I do think that Wittgenstein was completely on point when he speaks of "language games" to refer to a specific context in which words have meaning, and the fact that the confusion of these lead to confused thinking.

The fact that we use the word "eternity" ambiguously is not my fault- it is the "fault" of the nature of language itself.

In my opinion these apparent paradoxes are linguistic problems which I think in fact your namesake - the "real" Tarski - solved with his solution to the "Liar's Paradox". He noted that if one establishes a "hierarchy of languages"- ie a hierarchy of contexts wherein one comments ABOUT another linguistic context- such paradoxes can be solved.

I totally agree that it is contradictory to speak of a time "before time", but notice when I do so, I always put quotes around it to hopefully convey my awareness that I am not speaking literally of a time before time, but indicating a type of second-order meta linguistic context in which I am speaking ABOUT THE PHRASE "before time".

In speaking about time, we must imaginarily place ourselves as it were "outside" time. The idea I was discussing was like the Hindu notion of many cyclical universes- and since our language cannot actually be itself outside of time such discourse cannot avoid contradiction.

That's metaphysics for you. It was pure speculation of course. Call it poetry if you like. Or better yet, call it cosmology- that's just as speculative. If you can't prove it, you can't prove it.

[mfbukowski]

"Can person who is "Omnipotent" not have all power?"

If a tree falls in the forest does it make a sound?

This is not as trivial a question as it seems. It is a question about language itself- if no one hears the vibrations caused by a falling tree, can those vibrations properly be called a "sound"?

Similarly, what does "all power" mean? Does God have to have powers we do not know about in order to be "omnipotent"?

Another way of saying this is: If God "only" has all the powers we can know about, can he still be called "omnipotent"?

If you answer "no"- tell me, what power is it precisely which he is lacking? None, by definition! We cannot know what he is lacking!

So in a sense, as long as he has every power we can imagine, he IS omnipotent.

And in my opinion, he does have every power we can know about, and is omipotent.

I know I stated that in very few words, I hope you were able to follow it.

[SlackTime]

Personally I believe that there has been too much discussion without any attempt at definition. What do you mean when you say god? What did Christ mean when He said "Ye are gods". Making a small comparison, I would point to the definition of what is a man? Is an 8 year old boy a man? A newborn male baby? Is a male fetus a man? How about the fertilized egg? I don't want to sidetrack this thread into this discussion, but to me all of these can indeed be called man. True there is another definition of man which requires adulthood, but that is a distinction rather than a difference in kind.

I believe that all of us are of the same species as God, and that we therefore have the potential to become like Him. We are therefore all gods, and Christ also was a god from everlasting to everlasting, just as we are. But Christ also was more advanced than us in the Pre-existence and was chosen, before the foundation of the world, to be our Savior, Redeemer, and God of this world. By that I mean that He was given power by His Father to accomplish the work of this world. He was given that power before this world was created and will preside over this world until He presents it, the work completed, to His Father.

Thus Christ is a god, and has been for all Eternity and He is God by Divine investiture of Authority, from the beginning, and will remain He who Saved and Redeemed me and all mankind for all Eternity, continuing as my God, even after He returns me to my Father and God, who is also His Father and God.

Just my feelings on the subject... I now return you to your arguing.

- SlackTime

[Vance]

If you can answer the following question, then I'll tell you.

"Can person who is "Omnipotent" (Mosiah 3:5) not have all power?"

It is interesting that you DON'T answer the question but respond with an irrelevant question. But to play your game, a person who is "Omnipotent" does have all power at least at the time at which the title "Omnipotent" is applied to him.

So with that, can a person be a God without having all power?