Has Jesus always been a God?

[Benjamin McGuire]

Rob writes:

I'm having difficulty taking you seriously here.

Let's consider the feeling mutual, shall we? I think that most of your response to me has been rather facetious - and to use your term - and act of "sophistry"

Chalcedon ... denies that they are separated into two beings (which would mean two persons).

Right, so the person of Jesus must be wholly man - like us in every way except for sin. This means that He must be created. And if Jesus is created, then he cannot always have been God. In fact, there must be some point (in your theology) in which Jesus did not exist (or he could not have been created). This is the basis for the theological discussion. You are trying to avoid this. We can simply agree to disagree - and I have no problems with that. But my point is that your notion that "Jesus has always been God" is not universally excepted within modern Christian orthodoxy.

How annoying and obnoxious. It's apparently okay for Mormon prophets to deny that Jesus has always been God -- and even to deny that the Father has always been God -- but it's not okay for me to ask Mormons if this is their view.

No, actually, its not for you to say that Jesus has always been God, and then narrowly define what you mean by this - while claiming that Mormon prophets have denied that Jesus has always been God while broadly interpreting their comments. Under you own definitions, we might actually suggest that Jesus has always been God.

I'm having difficulty taking you seriously here. If one "defines" God as "that being who created the world," this definition does not imply that his being God somehow depends on his act of creation. If one holds, as I do, that God created time, there was no "before" creation in a literal temporal sense. I've discussed this point in this thread already.

That's not the point. Can we say that God began to create at some moment - that before that moment, God was not a creator (except perhaps by intention/potential). That therefore God has at some point changed from being a non-creator (except by intention or potential) to being a creator? You suggest that God created time - well great, when did He do that? And are we left then with a finite beginning of time? And if we choose to say anything about God before that point, what kind of useful statement can we actually make?

Let's say that God (in the LDS perspective) has existed from all eternity. Let's also suggest (much in the same way as I discussed above) that God was once less than He is now. In fact, let's suggest that He was less than He is now for half of His existence (using the present as a finite end point of the period of His existence - until now). That would mean that God not only was once less than He is now, but also that He has been what He is now for eternity. In fact, we cannot provide a point of time in reference to our own perspective in which God has not been God. You see what happens when we start speculating?

What you mean is that there are a lot of ways of changing the question. If Jesus developed attributes of Godhood, then he went from that which lacked Godhood to that which possessed Godhood. That is just another way of saying that he became God. Why not just say so? Why not be forthright and candid about what the LDS position is, instead of playing equivocation games?

Because in a sense, this is exactly what I see you doing with your "person of Jesus" who was always God (but who was created, and who is wholly man, and so cannot pre-exist).

Sadly, my criticism was quite correct.

No, saying that it's so won't make it so. Aren't semantic games fun?

Ben M.

[Rob Bowman]

Ben,

I find your argument tiresome and see no purpose in continuing to repeat ourselves.

[Bill “Papa” Lee]

Ben,

I find your argument tiresome and see no purpose in continuing to repeat ourselves.

Wait it is not just me you see no need in debating...and I thought I was special.

[Bernard Gui]

Has Jesus always been God?

Among the spirit children of Elohim the first-born was and is Jehovah or Jesus Christ

to whom all others are junior...

There is no impropriety...in speaking of Jesus Christ as the Elder Brother of the rest

of humankind...Let it not be forgotten, however, that He is essentially greater than

any or all others by reason 910 of His seniority as the oldest or firstborn; (2) of His unique

status in the flesh as the offspring of a mortal mother and an immortal, or resurrected and glorified

Father, (3) of His selections and foreordination as the one and only Redeemer and Savior

of the race; and (4) of His transcendent sinlessness.

Jesus Christ is not the Father of the spirits who have taken or yet shall take bodies upon this earth, for

He is one of them. He is The Son, as they are sons or daughters of Elohim.

The First Presidency and the Council of Twelve Apostles, 1916

"The Father and the Son"

Full text here:

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

Adam, our first progenitor,

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Because in a sense, this is exactly what I see you doing with your "person of Jesus" who was always God (but who was created, and who is wholly man, and so cannot pre-exist).

Ben M.

I just wish I was the one that came up with this issue. It is a great point.

Who is Jesus?

He is fully man and fully God. That means that Jesus is a created person and did not pre-exsist because Jesus only exsisted as being who "fully God and fully man". That happened over 2000 years ago.

I hope I have understood the argument.

[Vance]

Ben,

I find your argument tiresome and see no purpose in continuing to repeat ourselves.

In other words,

You logic is sound, and Rob has no answers.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

I do not understand why you think Ben's argument makes "a great point." In orthodox theology, "Jesus" is the name of a person. That person was God before he became a man and took that human name. Once he became incarnate, he possessed two natures, full deity and full humanity, but the person of Jesus existed as God (one nature, that of deity) before that happened. Thus, the person of Jesus preexisted the creation of his human nature; "Jesus," in orthodox theology, was not created, but only his human nature.

I just wish I was the one that came up with this issue. It is a great point.

Who is Jesus?

He is fully man and fully God. That means that Jesus is a created person and did not pre-exsist because Jesus only exsisted as being who "fully God and fully man". That happened over 2000 years ago.

I hope I have understood the argument.

[hooberus]

As Rob clearly pointed out earlier, orthodox doctrine is that:

"Jesus is fully human and fully divine (deity), both man and God, and distinguishes these as "two natures." . . ."Jesus is not created; his human nature is created."

Or, to make it even simpler:

Jesus is fully God (from everalasting), and fully human (from the incarnation). Since it now after the incarnation, he is now said to be both God and man. Furthermore his person (which is from everlasting) is not created, just his human nature (which he acquired in the incarnation).

Therefore comments like: "Right, so the person of Jesus must be wholly man - like us in every way except for sin. This means that He must be created. And if Jesus is created, then he cannot always have been God." are a gross misrepresentation, in that they falsely imply that orthodox doctrine is that the person of Jesus has existed only as a human with only a human nature.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Mola,

I do not understand why you think Ben's argument makes "a great point." In orthodox theology, "Jesus" is the name of a person. That person was God before he became a man and took that human name. Once he became incarnate, he possessed two natures, full deity and full humanity, but the person of Jesus existed as God (one nature, that of deity) before that happened. Thus, the person of Jesus preexisted the creation of his human nature; "Jesus," in orthodox theology, was not created, but only his human nature.

It is ok if you don't understand. I highly doubt that I will be able to convince you of any sense of the argument if Ben cannot do it.

Jesus did not exsist prior to 2000 years or so ago in orthodox Christianity. Since Jesus only exsisted as "fully God and fully man". The definition that I hear is that Jesus is the 2nd member of the Godhead and is fully God and fully man, among other things.

Oh well, perhaps Ben will come back in and try one more time.

[Vance]

As Rob clearly pointed out earlier, orthodox doctrine is that:

"Jesus is fully human and fully divine (deity), both man and God, and distinguishes these as "two natures." . . ."Jesus is not created; his human nature is created."

Or, to make it even simpler:

Jesus is fully God (from everalasting [sic]), and fully human (from the incarnation). Since it now after the incarnation, he is now said to be both God and man. Furthermore his person (which is from everlasting) is not created, just his human nature (which he acquired in the incarnation).

Therefore comments like: "Right, so the person of Jesus must be wholly man - like us in every way except for sin. This means that He must be created. And if Jesus is created, then he cannot always have been God." are a gross misrepresentation, in that they falsely imply that orthodox doctrine is that the person of Jesus has existed only as a human with only a human nature.

No gross misrepresentation, but simple logic.

If Jesus is "fully human" and humans were created, then Jesus was created.

And if Jesus was created, then by orthodox theology, he wasn't God, at least, not always.

Simple logic.

PS

"everlasting" as in "the everlasting hills"?

[mfbukowski]

My question was not about the preexistence of Jesus and his Father. I know you believe Jesus and the Father preexisted. My question was this: has Jesus always been God? Whatever your view of the nature of time, whether you think time had a beginning or not, I simply want to know if in your opinion Jesus has been God at all times or if you think Jesus became God.

It is blatantly obvious that the discussion of the pre-existence of Jesus speaks directly to whether or not he was God. He was Jehovah of the old testament during his pre-existence so it is fairly obvious that he has always been God, from that point of view.

That is our doctrine. If you want to keep the question that simple, that is the answer. Obviously your pharisaical intent was to intentionally distort our doctrine, which is what you and your website is all about. You are all about semantics and not substance.

Has Rob Bowman always been Rob Bowman, or did you become Rob Bowman? Clearly the answer is "both", depending on how you look at it.

I was hoping there was some genuine substance about which we could communicate, but if you represent Evangelical thought on this issue it is clear that the Evangelical position is non-existent.

You are not able to answer the question of how God existed "before time" in order to create time. You refuse to acknowledge that this is a blatant contradiction. Time could not be "created", because it would have to come into existence IN time for that to happen. All you can say is that such a thought is "nonsense". In a sense you are right- the idea that God created time IS "nonsense". More precisely, it is self-contradictory.

You may not think much of my answer, but you ought at least to admit that I did not ignore you.

Not much consolation, I am afraid.

A truly amazing answer, perhaps the understatement of the century. You are very correct- I did not think much of your answer.

Rob, I don't care anymore. For the record, I just want to state that you are clearly dodging the issues because you don't even have the answers to your own questions. If you do have answers, please answer the one in italics above.

[mfbukowski]

Sadly, my criticism was quite correct.

Pulling the "sophistry" card is simply a blatant acknowledgment that one cannot answer the argument. If you could, you would be able to take the argument apart and show what was wrong with it, if indeed there was something wrong with it- which of course there is not.

It is simple name calling.

Talk about "sad"...

[hooberus]

No gross misrepresentation, but simple logic.

If Jesus is "fully human" and humans were created, then Jesus was created.

And if Jesus was created, then by orthodox theology, he wasn't God, at least, not always.

Simple logic.

If orthodox theology taught that the person of Jesus was always and only fully human, with no other pre-existing nature,

then you might have a point.

Unfortunately for your argument orthodox theology has never taught that,- but instead that the person of Jesus (who is fully God from everlasting), also (at the incarnation) became fully human (while remaining fully God), and is thus now (since the incarnation) fully God and fully man.

I now see no need to argue this any further. I suggest that if you still think that your argument is a valid one, that you run it by Daniel Peterson for his public endorsement.

[Vance]

Obviously your pharisaical intent was to intentionally distort our doctrine, which is what you and your website is all about. You are all about semantics and not substance.

Exactly TRUE!!!

[Vance]

If orthodox theology taught that the person of Jesus was always and only fully human, with no other pre-existing nature,

then you might have a point.

According to the orthodox theology, Jesus is the incarnation of the second person of God, and therefore did NOT exist prior to the incarnation, THEREFORE he was created!!!

So either a) he was NOT fully human or

b) he was NOT fully God.

Take your pick.

Unfortunately for your argument orthodox theology has never taught that,- but instead that the person of Jesus (who is fully God from everlasting), also (at the incarnation) became fully human (while remaining fully God), and is thus now (since the incarnation) fully God and fully man.

You haven't been paying attention throughout this thread have you?

"Became fully human" expresses creation, PERIOD!!!!

If he was created then He hasn't always been God. So we are back to,

either a) he was NOT fully human or

b) he was NOT fully God.

Take your pick.

I now see no need to argue this any further. I suggest that if you still think that your argument is a valid one, that you run it by Daniel Peterson for his public endorsement.

OR, you could simply admit that your theology is NOT logical, and then we could both go away happy.

[hooberus]

mfbukowski said:

It is blatantly obvious that the discussion of the pre-existence of Jesus speaks directly to whether or not he was God. He was Jehovah of the old testament during his pre-existence so it is fairly obvious that he has always been God, from that point of view.

That is our doctrine. If you want to keep the question that simple, that is the answer. Obviously your pharisaical intent was to intentionally distort our doctrine, which is what you and your website is all about. You are all about semantics and not substance.

Is the Neal A. Maxwell Institute (along with Rob) also distorting LDS doctrine? For in regards even to the LDS God the Father they state:

http://text.farmsresearch.com/publications/books/?bookid=45&chapid=535

"How, then, do Latter-day Saints reconcile the scriptural description of God as being "from everlasting to everlasting" with the idea that he has not always been God? For one thing, . . ."

[Brade]

How about putting the question this way:

Has Jesus always at least had the authority and power that he had before being embodied on this earth?

[mfbukowski]

mfbukowski said:

He was Jehovah of the old testament during his pre-existence so it is fairly obvious that he has always been God, from that point of view.

Is the Neal A. Maxwell Institute (along with Rob) also distorting LDS doctrine? For in regards even to the LDS God the Father they state:

Notice the qualifier "... from that point of view".

I will ask you the same sort of question I asked Rob.

Have you always been hooberus or did you become hooberus? Let's argue about that one for a whole thread and you will see how tiresome, irrelevant, and meaningless it becomes.

This is the problem of fundamentalism. It seems not to understand that we speak word in language(s) and the way we speak can both confuse and clarify.

Do you also take the words "For this IS my BODY" literally? If you are Catholic you do, if Protestant you don't. So which "Christian" point of view is right?

[Brade]

Have you always been hooberus or did you become hooberus?

I see a difference between a question like "Has hooberus always been hooberus?" and a question like "Has Jesus always been a god?". The first question seems to ask whether a certain person has always been that person. The second question seems to ask whether a certain person has always had a certain property (in this case a title and authority). There's probably some overlap of the questions when one takes into considerations some of the puzzles investigated within the philosophy of mind and identity, but I think, at least in this context, there's enough of a difference in what's being asked that the questions can and ought to be treated independently.

So, consider these two statements:

(1) Jesus has always been Jesus.

(2) Jesus has always been a god.

I don't think it's the case that if (1) is true, then so is (2). I think (1) can be true and (2) false. And as I suggested above, (1) seems to me to be philosophical question having to do with mind and identity, whereas (2) seems to me to be a theological question. FWIW, I inclined to believe (2) is false, and the truth of falsity of (1) is still an open question for me.

[mfbukowski]

I see a difference between a question like "Has hooberus always been hooberus?" and a question like "Has Jesus always been a god?". The first question seems to ask whether a certain person has always been that person. The second question seems to ask whether a certain person has always had a certain property (in this case a title and authority). There's probably some overlap of the questions when one takes into considerations some of the puzzles investigated within the philosophy of mind and identity, but I think, at least in this context, there's enough of a difference in what's being asked that the questions can and ought to be treated independently.

So, consider these two statements:

(1) Jesus has always been Jesus.

(2) Jesus has always been a god.

I don't think it's the case that if (1) is true, then so is (2). I think (1) can be true and (2) false. And as I suggested above, (1) seems to me to be philosophical question having to do with mind and identity, whereas (2) seems to me to be a theological question. FWIW, I inclined to believe (2) is false, and the truth of falsity of (1) is still an open question for me.

My point was specifically that "hoobrus" is most like NOT the individual's real name, but is a persona he has taken on and "created". In a sense, it is him, and in a sense it is not him.

(The unnamed person) has not always been "hoobrus", but he has always been (the unnamed person)

(But according to LDS beliefs, the same problem also exists for (the unnamed person) since he too was in the "pre-existence")

But I agree that the analogy is not perfect.

[Rob Bowman]

Mola,

You wrote:

It is ok if you don't understand. I highly doubt that I will be able to convince you of any sense of the argument if Ben cannot do it.

I understand the argument just fine. I don't understand why you think it is a good one.

You wrote:

Jesus did not exsist prior to 2000 years or so ago in orthodox Christianity. Since Jesus only exsisted as "fully God and fully man". The definition that I hear is that Jesus is the 2nd member of the Godhead and is fully God and fully man, among other things.

No, this is not a definition of "Jesus." It is a definition of the Incarnation. Jesus is a person. Before the Incarnation, he existed as God only. He was not (according to what we can see in the Bible) called "Jesus" before the Incarnation, but it was the same person as the one we call Jesus. Beginning with the Incarnation, he exists in two natures, that of God and that of man.

[Rob Bowman]

mfbukowski,

To answer your question and remove the equivocation, as long as Rob Bowman has existed, Rob Bowman has been Rob Bowman. I did not exist and then become Rob Bowman. (I don't believe in preexistence of human souls.) You could say that I have "always" been Rob Bowman within the context of my finite existence. Of course, when I asked the LDS here whether Jesus has "always" been God, I meant whether the person we know as Jesus of Nazareth has "always" been God throughout all time. The context of the question and statement is crucial. Most LDS teachers since the 1840s seem to have taught that both the Father and Jesus existed for long periods of time before they became Gods. I simply want to know if you agree or disagree with this idea.

To say that God existed "before time" would be a contradiction if the statement were understood to use "before" in a literal, linearly temporal sense. Classic Christian theism does not understand such language that way. It understands it analogically or metaphorically to mean that God's existence transcends time. I've explained this to you already, but from what I can see you are stuck on finding fault with the orthodox view by carping on the word "before" in a context where we wouldn't even insist on using it.

[Rob Bowman]

Brade,

Your logical analysis seems sound to me. Theologically, your view seems consistent with what Joseph Smith taught in his later years and what the LDS Church historically has taught ever since.

I see a difference between a question like "Has hooberus always been hooberus?" and a question like "Has Jesus always been a god?". The first question seems to ask whether a certain person has always been that person. The second question seems to ask whether a certain person has always had a certain property (in this case a title and authority). There's probably some overlap of the questions when one takes into considerations some of the puzzles investigated within the philosophy of mind and identity, but I think, at least in this context, there's enough of a difference in what's being asked that the questions can and ought to be treated independently.

So, consider these two statements:

(1) Jesus has always been Jesus.

(2) Jesus has always been a god.

I don't think it's the case that if (1) is true, then so is (2). I think (1) can be true and (2) false. And as I suggested above, (1) seems to me to be philosophical question having to do with mind and identity, whereas (2) seems to me to be a theological question. FWIW, I inclined to believe (2) is false, and the truth of falsity of (1) is still an open question for me.

[Vance]

Obviously your pharisaical intent was to intentionally distort our doctrine, which is what you and your website is all about. You are all about semantics and not substance.

As I said before, this is EXACTLY correct.

Here is an example.

Rob said this about the Melchizedek priesthood.

There are at least two fatal problems with this explanation for the term

[thesometimesaint]

The Soul that rises with us, our life's Star,

Hath had elsewhere its setting,

And cometh from afar:

Not in entire forgetfulness,

And not in utter nakedness,

But trailing clouds of glory do we come

From God, who is our home:

From Imitations of Immortality

by William Wordsworth.