Jesus the Only Begotten Son "in the flesh"

[Bart Burk]

I often hear Mormons call Jesus the Only Begotten Son "in the flesh". Most Christians believe that Jesus was Begotten from all Eternity as the Son. Even LDS scriptures call Jesus the Only Begotten Son before he was born of the Virgin Mary. I think D&C 76: 23-25 are pretty clear that Jesus was the Only Begotten Son "in the bosom of the Father" and is unique from the rest of us who are begotten sons and daughters of God through Jesus. Verse 24, speaking of Christ, says: "That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the ^cinhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God."

So why are Mormons making the distinction of saying "in the flesh." That seems to limit Jesus' status much more than LDS scriptures do. I think it would be hard to find any evidence in LDS scripture that we are begotten ourselves except through being born again in Jesus Christ.

[urroner]

Who is the physical father of Jesus? Who else was physically begotten by Him (Hint, Him was capitalized.)?

[Bart Burk]

Who is the physical father of Jesus? Who else was physically begotten by Him (Hint, Him was capitalized.)?

Obviously, God is the Father of the human Jesus. That is not in question. Mormon scriptures refer to Jesus as the Only Begotten Son even before Jesus was born. That is what traditional Christianity teaches -- Christ was the Only Begotten Son of Jesus from all eternity. So why do many Mormons add the phrase "in the flesh" when Mormon scriptures teach that he was the Only Begotten Son before he was born? Why don't Mormons just say "Only Begotten Son" and leave it at that?

A good explanation of the traditional Christian understanding of Jesus as the Only Begotten of the Father can be found in C.S. Lewis' book "Mere Christianity" in the chapter "Making and Begetting." A traditional Christian would never say Jesus was the Only Begotten Son "in the flesh" because they wouldn't limit Jesus to being the Only Begotten Son after his incarnation. In fact Lewis makes it clear that Christian understanding of "Only Begotten" refers exclusively to his relation to the Father from all eternity and has nothing to do with his birth through Mary.

[bluebell]

Obviously, God is the Father of the human Jesus. That is not in question. Mormon scriptures refer to Jesus as the Only Begotten Son even before Jesus was born.

It doesn't really matter when our scriptures refer to him that way, what the phrase means is that Jesus is the only one who's physical (flesh) body was sired by God, as well as His spiritual body.

For the record, the scriptures also call Eve the 'mother of all living' before she ever had a child, so there is presidence for scriptures using titles to describe the future of someone instead of merely the present.

[rongo]

A traditional Christian would never say Jesus was the Only Begotten Son "in the flesh" because they wouldn't limit Jesus to being the Only Begotten Son after his incarnation.

I think the clarification is because Mormons believe that the phrase "Only Begotten Son" denotes His status as the Only Begotten in the flesh. That's what it actually means, because according to Mormon conceptions (pun intended), *EVERYBODY* is a begotten spirit child of the Father; the "Only Begotten" Son is and only is Jesus Christ. As with other items in scripture, this title was applied prior to the Incarnation because the fact of the Incarnation was knownn millennia before it occurred. Just like the Atonement was efficacious before it actually occurred, Jesus was referred to as the Only Begotten before He was actually begotten on earth (according to the Mormon view).

In other words, I don't accept the notion that Mormons "limit Jesus to being the Only Begotten Son [only] after his incarnation." He has always been the Only Begotten, even before the Incarnation.

[Mike Reed]

From an apologetic tract that I wrote for FAIR several years ago:

Jesus, the Only Begotten?

Critics exclaim:

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It doesn't really matter when our scriptures refer to him that way, what the phrase means is that Jesus is the only one who's physical (flesh) body was sired by God, as well as His spiritual body.

For the record, the scriptures also call Eve the 'mother of all living' before she ever had a child, so there is presidence for scriptures using titles to describe the future of someone instead of merely the present.

Very well stated.

[Ceeboo]

It doesn't really matter when our scriptures refer to him that way, what the phrase means is that Jesus is the only one who's physical (flesh) body was sired by God, as well as His spiritual body.

"sired"?

Would someone be so kind to explain exactly how God and Mary sired Jesus? (PG version, please!)

Thanks and peace,

Ceeboo

[thesometimesaint]

Ceeboo:

Unrevealed at this time.

[Ceeboo]

Ceeboo:

Unrevealed at this time.

200 years of prophets, seers, and revelators and it is still unrevealed?

Perhaps someone can make a phone call and get old Ceeb's some answers .

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Vance]

"sired"?

Would someone be so kind to explain exactly how God and Mary sired Jesus? (PG version, please!)

Thanks and peace,

Ceeboo

From the "Gospel Principles" manual.

He Was the Only Begotten of the Father

*

[thesometimesaint]

Ceeboo:

As it has no relevance to my salvation I don't see at as particularly meaningful that Prophets, Seers, and Revelators have not been informed on the issue. The exact mechanics have not been revealed. But we do believe Jesus was born of a virgin. Not that I'm suggesting that this is exactly how it was done but the farm world has known about artificial insemination for awhile now.

Glad to see that the Catholic church finally got around to forgiving Galileo only took them 400 years.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

I often hear Mormons call Jesus the Only Begotten Son "in the flesh". Most Christians believe that Jesus was Begotten from all Eternity as the Son. Even LDS scriptures call Jesus the Only Begotten Son before he was born of the Virgin Mary. I think D&C 76: 23-25 are pretty clear that Jesus was the Only Begotten Son "in the bosom of the Father" and is unique from the rest of us who are begotten sons and daughters of God through Jesus. Verse 24, speaking of Christ, says: "That by him, and through him, and of him, the worlds are and were created, and the ^cinhabitants thereof are begotten sons and daughters unto God."

So why are Mormons making the distinction of saying "in the flesh." That seems to limit Jesus' status much more than LDS scriptures do. I think it would be hard to find any evidence in LDS scripture that we are begotten ourselves except through being born again in Jesus Christ.

They add the "in the flesh" because of the LDS doctrine that we are all literal spiritual offspring, sons and daughters, of God. So in their teachings Jesus in not the "Only Begotten of the Father" in spirit- thus the need to clarify.

I believe both the Book of Mormon and Bible are clear that we are created beings with the potential to become sons and daughters of God through obedience to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. So I personally do not accept their teaching on the matter.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

200 years of prophets, seers, and revelators and it is still unrevealed?

Perhaps someone can make a phone call and get old Ceeb's some answers .

Peace,

Ceeboo

Brigham and a few others were pretty clear on how they believed Jesus was sired- Exactly they way your Mommy and Daddy sired you.

[thesometimesaint]

BookofMormonLuvr:

Not exactly true. The LDS believe that all people are the literal spirit sons and daughters of God the Father. That by taking on the name of Christ and doing what the Scriptures require of us we become adopted sons and daughters of God the Son.

Ps. Brigham Young and a few other also believed that Jesus was born of a virgin.

[LeSellers]

"sired"?

Would someone be so kind to explain exactly how God and Mary sired Jesus? (PG version, please!)

As "sometimes" said, there is no revelation on the mechanism (which would possibly be, by its nature, below PG), we do know that the body of Jesus resulted from the union of Father's DNA and Mary's. This could have been by something similar to in vitro fertilization, or it could have been by methods unknown and unknowable to us.

This heritage of Christ's is of crucial import to us because without His mother's DNA (and its inherent mortality), He could not have died, making impossible the Atonement. Without His Father's DNA (and its immortality), He must have died, and that would have made His death no more valuable than any other death.

Whatever the process, the result is the focus: He could die, but did not need to, and that makes all the difference.

Lehi

[BookofMormonLuvr]

BookofMormonLuvr:

Not exactly true. The LDS believe that all people are the literal spirit sons and daughters of God the Father. That by taking on the name of Christ and doing what the Scriptures require of us we become adopted sons and daughters of God the Son.

I know what the LDS teaching on the subject is... please point out were I misrepresented your teachings.

[thesometimesaint]

BookofMormonLuvr:

"I believe both the Book of Mormon and Bible are clear that we are created beings with the potential to become sons and daughters of God through obedience to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. So I personally do not accept their teaching on the matter.".

Just a point of clarification.

[Ceeboo]

Ceeboo:

Glad to see that the Catholic church finally got around to forgiving Galileo only took them 400 years.

LOL!

And it seems that we are now encouraging the use and many styles/colors of condoms as well

Peace,

Ceeboo

[BookofMormonLuvr]

BookofMormonLuvr:

"I believe both the Book of Mormon and Bible are clear that we are created beings with the potential to become sons and daughters of God through obedience to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. So I personally do not accept their teaching on the matter.".

Just a point of clarification.

Those were MY beliefs on the matter of humanities relationship to God, not a description of LDS teachings.

I described, very briefly, LDS beliefs in the preceding sentence. Did I misrepresent your teachings in that sentence?

[LeSellers]

Brigham and a few others were pretty clear on how they believed Jesus was sired- Exactly they way your Mommy and Daddy sired you.

This is wrong on two separate fronts.

Technically, only a father can "sire". Mothers do not. So our Mommies and Daddies did not "sire" us.

The second error is that Brother Brigham and the others to whom you refer were not "pretty clear on how they believed Jesus was sired". They were purposefully ambiguous. This was partly because the subject is simply out of bounds, and partly because the mechanism(s) He employed were not revealed (because out-of -bounds).

They were not making a point about these unknown processes

[Ceeboo]

Brigham and a few others were pretty clear on how they believed Jesus was sired- Exactly they way your Mommy and Daddy sired you.

Huh!

You mean like Barry White, candles, and a bottle of wine?

Peace,

Ceeboo

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Ps. Brigham Young and a few other also believed that Jesus was born of a virgin.

Ummm hmmm....

[Mike Reed]

Brigham and a few others were pretty clear on how they believed Jesus was sired- Exactly they way your Mommy and Daddy sired you.

About as clear as they could have been in the Victorian era when commenting on sexual activity. Although not doctrine today, many members continue to accept the folk-doctrine that the conception was through sexual means. To those who insist that the teaching is flatly contradicted by scripture, this blog entry I posted last year may be of interest:

Hieros Gamos: The Problem of Virginal Conception

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Huh!

You mean like Barry White, candles, and a bottle of wine?

Peace,

Ceeboo

No Barry White.