Jesus the Only Begotten Son "in the flesh"

[Mike Reed]

[brigham Young] fully believed that Mary was a virgin.

I am not so sure he did. Certainly he called her a virgin, but what did he mean by that? Could it be (as it seems to me) that he believed that virginity only applied to those who did not have sexual intercourse with other mortals? Had Brigham Young not been living in the Victorian era, would he have been more explicit about his beliefs, by saying "Sex"? I think so.

[Vance]

I don't have any problem with that as long as LDS accept the second part of your sentence. But is that what LDS really believe?

Well, take a look at the phrase "the foundation of the world".

John 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Heb. 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

1 Pet. 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Rev. 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

So, when was Jesus chosen to be "the Only Begotten Son in the flesh"?

[thesometimesaint]

Mike Reed:

It is kinda hard to go off of what BY may have believed but never stated. Let alone gone through the process of having it accepted as doctrine by the Church. Given the Victorian times in which he was President of the Church I find it remarkable that he even broached the subject. But he was a Bible believer long before he ever became a member of the Church and I see nothing that would change he beliefs in its claim that Mary was a virgin. That she "knew" no man before the birth of Jesus.

[Bart Burk]

Well, take a look at the phrase "the foundation of the world".

John 17:24 Father, I will that they also, whom thou hast given me, be with me where I am; that they may behold my glory, which thou hast given me: for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world.

Heb. 9:26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

1 Pet. 1:20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,

Rev. 13:8 And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.

So, when was Jesus chosen to be "the Only Begotten Son in the flesh"?

But was He already the Only Begotten Son before the foundation of the world or just chosen to become the Only Begotten Son? That is a major difference.

S

[Mike Reed]

Mike Reed:

It is kinda hard to go off of what BY may have believed but never stated.

It is difficult indeed, but one can give it their best try.

Let alone gone through the process of having it accepted as doctrine by the Church.

So you believe there was a consistent, rigid, and formal process for establishing Church doctrine in Brigham Young's day?

Given the Victorian times in which he was President of the Church I find it remarkable that he even broached the subject. But he was a Bible believer long before he ever became a member of the Church and I see nothing that would change he beliefs in its claim that Mary was a virgin.

The practice of polygamy, doctrine of eternal increase, and the natural disposition to enjoy sex would have given him good reason to believe it.

That she "knew" no man before the birth of Jesus.

As you know (no pun intended), the bible can be, and has been, interpreted in many different ways. Did you read my blog entry yet?

[LeSellers]

Well, your obvious grammatical superiority is sufficient to refute any argument I give... touche [sic, try "touch

[Bart Burk]

One of my nervous tics is correcting poor usage of words when the person making the error tries using words he does not understand. I was not attempting any refutation of your argument on this basis.

Yes, you used it right this time. One wonders though, why you framed your position like this, because it implies that you do not come "from a religious background that involves male leadership marrying several women and teenage girls and siring ...", but I'd be willing to wager as much as 85

[Vance]

But was He already the Only Begotten Son before the foundation of the world or just chosen to become the Only Begotten Son? That is a major difference.

S

In the common language of the Hebrews there was no difference. Reread the verses in my post.

[Ahab]

But was He already the Only Begotten Son before the foundation of the world or just chosen to become the Only Begotten Son? That is a major difference.

S

The language may be a little confusing, as words alone often are, but once you have the concept in mind as we do you should at least be able to understand what we believe on this issue.

All of us are children of God in the spirit... meaning our individual spirits were created by God and we are literally his children.

Jesus, however, is not only a child of God in the spirit, but he is also the firstborn child (a son) of God in the spirit, and also a child of God in the flesh, while all the rest of us got our body of flesh as descendents of Adam (and Eve), with Adam also being a child of God in the flesh.

It should be noted that Adam's body of flesh wasn't the same as the body of flesh of Jesus, however, at least not at first, because the body of flesh of Adam was pure and undefiled until Adam and Eve fell, at which time their body of flesh became as the body of flesh of Jesus when he was born through Mary, without becoming glorified until after his resurrection, at which time the body of flesh of Jesus became the same as the body of flesh of Adam and Eve was before they fell, and as ours can be too through the power of the Atonement.

[bluebell]

What does this discussion have to do with my original question?

Just ask them to stick to the original post question and if they don't, you can report it to the mods and they will make sure that your thread doesn't get hi-jacked.

Sometimes it's hard to stay on topic but it's your thread and you have the right to request that people do.

[Obiwan]

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.

The main reason we make the distinction of "in the flesh" is because that is what "Only Begotten of the Father" used to and actually does mean. Man-made religious traditions however changed that meaning and understanding. In other words, it meant that Christ was the ONLY Son of the Father to be directly born OF and FROM Him. The rest of us are fully mortal and only become "begotten" by adoption through faith.

Further, there is no reason for the phrase "only begotten" to even be used UNLESS it was trying to say Christ was literally the Son of God and thus different that way from us. The word "begotton" means sirship.... God could have simply said Christ is God's "only son", if that was really what was being meant as other Christians believe. But instead God worded it to show that WE ALL are His Sons, and can be His Sons, but THE Son is the only one to be born directly from Him. After all, that is exactly what happened. Mary was Christ's Mother who was mortal, and Christ's Father was God Himself. It wasn't Joseph you know (save technically maybe a reverse adoption). Think about that.

[Obiwan]

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.

Well.... That's because Christ and a few others clearly were/are his direct sons.

LDS believe they are a "family" just as we have our own family's.

Thus, Christ being known as His "only begotten" even in the pre-earth life is simply semantics. Further, it's a title, a part of his mission, thus I see no problem here, save your trying to "limit" definitions to a narrow usage of the word.

[Obiwan]

"sired"?

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

Thanks and peace,

Ceeboo

Through the Holy Ghost just as the scriptures state. What else did you expect?

The "modern" scientific version of that process might be, God placing his dna with Mary's seed by the administration of the Holy Ghost, and Christ was conceived. Sorry, no "sex" as anti-mormons try to say by perverting the words of early LDS leaders. The scripture is clear, the "process" occurred with Mary still being a virgin, AND it occurred by the Holy Ghost. There is no indication of "mystical sex" there in either the scriptures nor LDS leaders words. LDS leaders words focus on the literalness of Christ's Father, and being birthed as any man is thus mortal, as well as at the time condemning a Christian false doctrine which stated that Christ was actually the son of the Holy Ghost, rather than the Father.

[Ceeboo]

Sorry, no "sex" as anti-mormons try to say by perverting the words of early LDS leaders.

Hi Obiwan,

"anti-mormons"?

You have read this very thread, yes?

Peace,

Ceeboo

[Ahab]

The main reason we make the distinction of "in the flesh" is because that is what "Only Begotten of the Father" used to and actually does mean. Man-made religious traditions however changed that meaning and understanding. In other words, it meant that Christ was the ONLY Son of the Father to be directly born OF and FROM Him.

Except that all of us were born OF and FROM Him, in the spirit, before we came here, with Jesus as the firstborn son of our Father.

In other words, all of us are just as much children of God as Jesus is in the spirit, even though Jesus is the firstborn son of our Father in the spirit and the only begotton Son in the flesh, not counting Adam and Eve, who were also children of God in the flesh even though their bodies of flesh were not the same as the body of flesh of Jesus when he was born through Mary.

The rest of us are fully mortal and only become "begotten" by adoption through faith.

Jesus was fully mortal, just like we are, when he was born through Mary, too.

His body then was like ours are now, and he would have died naturally unless he transfigured or translated himself... or in other words, without a miracle, he would have died just like we all die, because bodies like ours are naturally subject to corruption.

The key to understanding our nature is not in seeing him as a different kind of person than we are, but in seeing how much we are alike, as well as what is needed to help us become even more like our Father in heaven.

Further, there is no reason for the phrase "only begotten" to even be used UNLESS it was trying to say Christ was literally the Son of God and thus different that way from us. The word "begotton" means sirship.... God could have simply said Christ is God's "only son", if that was really what was being meant as other Christians believe. Think about that.

I think part of the confusion comes from not understanding how much and in what way Adam and Eve were begotten children of God, too... both in the spirit, and in the flesh.

Way, way back a long long time ago, somewhere, all of us were begotten (1st birth) as children of God, in the spirit, and then God "created" Adam and Eve on this Earth, who both later fell, resulting in the fall of all of us as we were born in the flesh through Adam and Eve, including Jesus when he was born through Mary (2nd birth). Jesus never "fell" away from God in the spirit, though, although his body of flesh was fallen being then like ours and Adam's and Eve's after they fell, and because Jesus didn't fall in the spirit, like we did, all of us can be born again through Him (3rd birth) both in the spirit and in the flesh.

[LeSellers]

What does this discussion have to do with my original question?

Possibly nothing, so what?

Threads within a topic ofttimes go astray, 'tis the nature of this sort of discussion.

Luvr made a comment and I called him on it. If, every time the thread wandered away from the OP, we created a new Topic, there's be so many topics, no one could follow them, and much useful discussion would be lost.

Lehi

[ElfLord]

Through the Holy Ghost just as the scriptures state. What else did you expect?

The "modern" scientific version of that process might be, God placing his dna with Mary's seed by the administration of the Holy Ghost, and Christ was conceived. Sorry, no "sex" as anti-mormons try to say by perverting the words of early LDS leaders. The scripture is clear, the "process" occurred with Mary still being a virgin, AND it occurred by the Holy Ghost. There is no indication of "mystical sex" there in either the scriptures nor LDS leaders words. LDS leaders words focus on the literalness of Christ's Father, and being birthed as any man is thus mortal, as well as at the time condemning a Christian false doctrine which stated that Christ was actually the son of the Holy Ghost, rather than the Father.

Lets face it. Following their logic Christ was an Alien baby placed in Mary's womb.

According to the scriptures he was half human...

Rom 1

3 Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh;

2 Tim. 2: 8

8 Remember that Jesus Christ of the seed of David was raised from the dead according to my gospel:

half divine.

Gal. 4: 4

4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law,

[ChristKnight]

One question that I've always had (and which I asked on a Catholic forum but I did not really understand the answer) is what does it mean for the Son to be "eternally begotten", and what is the difference (if there is one) between that and the Holy Spirit "eternally proceeding"? What does it mean to be "begotten from all eternity"? Of course, this relates to the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all eternal and have no beginning, so what does it mean to be eternally begotten in this context (the pre-mortal existence of the Son), and what is the difference between that and eternal procession?

[Ahab]

One question that I've always had (and which I asked on a Catholic forum but I did not really understand the answer) is what does it mean for the Son to be "eternally begotten",

Forever the one who was begotten, is how I understand it. I don't think it means he is forever being born, as if he hasn't already been born yet.

and what is the difference (if there is one) between that and the Holy Spirit "eternally proceeding"?

Forever coming from our Father in heaven and/or Jesus Christ who send him. The Holy Spirit is one of the persons in the Godhead, and he acts as a messenger for our Father in heaven and Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, forever in the process of giving us messages from them so we can know what they are thinking.

And btw, the term "Holy Spirit" is also sometimes used as a term to refer to the essence that emanates from our Father and/or Jesus, themselves, which is both "holy" and also a "spirit" which emanates from each one of them, personally.

For some reason, there is more than one meaning to many words which are associated with God, perhaps because we just can't think of enough words to describe everything involved with all of them.

What does it mean to be "begotten from all eternity"?

Deja vu. Didn't I already answer this question from you?

Of course, this relates to the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are all eternal and have no beginning, so what does it mean to be eternally begotten in this context (the pre-mortal existence of the Son), and what is the difference between that and eternal procession?

Uh. See above. I think I've already answered this question from you, too.

[ChristKnight]

Forever the one who was begotten, is how I understand it. I don't think it means he is forever being born, as if he hasn't already been born yet.

Forever coming from our Father in heaven and/or Jesus Christ who send him. The Holy Spirit is one of the persons in the Godhead, and he acts as a messenger for our Father in heaven and Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, forever in the process of giving us messages from them so we can know what they are thinking.

And btw, the term "Holy Spirit" is also sometimes used as a term to refer to the essence that emanates from our Father and/or Jesus, themselves, which is both "holy" and also a "spirit" which emanates from each one of them, personally.

For some reason, there is more than one meaning to many words which are associated with God, perhaps because we just can't think of enough words to describe everything involved with all of them.

Deja vu. Didn't I already answer this question from you?

Uh. See above. I think I've already answered this question from you, too.

Thank you for your response.

Sorry I didn't state it, but my question was more about the traditional/Trinitarian use of the phrases "eternally begotten" and "eternal procession". Your explanation does make sense, however I'm wondering if BartBurk (and anyone else) could also comment from that perspective, since this is something that I haven't really understood from the Trinitarian perspective (and I think relates to what he believes is a difference between the Trinitarian use of "Only Begotten Son" and the LDS use). I don't think that Trinitarians use it to mean "forever the one who was begotten", but instead are referring to "generation" ("The Father eternally generates the Son" is the way it was explained to me elsewhere).

This page seems to describe the idea that I am referring to, and to which BartBurk seems to be trying to find out whether LDS would agree with when they say "Only Begotten Son", in reference to Jesus' pre-mortal existence.

[Obiwan]

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

6,000 years of Gods dealings with man or / 6 million years of human history and you're actually telling God "when" He should reveal certain things, especially non-important things meant to provide "Faith" for the believer???

[Obiwan]

Really? "Many" members accept that the conception of Christ was through sexual means (As in God and Mary having intercourse? )

Peace,

Ceeboo

Mike Reed is an anti-mormon (or cultural mormon as he likes to say) who only sees things through such eyes, thus not realizing that the actual truth is otherwise on certain "controversial" subjects. Almost NO MORMON believes this idea, including most of the ones such people try to claim such was believed, i.e. Brigham Young.

In other words, don't believe what he says. Yes, he's good on a lot of things, but skewed on most. Of course, not that there isn't mormons who might believe this (you can find nearly all on the web of those who do), but maybe only like .0001% of the Church might believe such, including the educated. I certainly don't, and I've seen it all.

[ELF1024]

Lets face it. Following their logic Christ was an Alien baby placed in Mary's womb.

I find that assertion to be rather.... distasteful.

[Mike Reed]

Mike Reed is an anti-mormon (or cultural mormon as he likes to say) who only sees things through such eyes, thus not realizing that the actual truth is otherwise on certain "controversial" subjects.

Reported to moderators.

[Ahab]

This page seems to describe the idea that I am referring to, and to which BartBurk seems to be trying to find out whether LDS would agree with when they say "Only Begotten Son", in reference to Jesus' pre-mortal existence.

FYI, that page contains what LDS would refer to as abominable creeds and false philophies of men, which the Lord was referring to when he told Joseph Smith not to join any of the world's churches during what we (LDS) refer to as the 'First Vision'.

So, No, we LDS don't buy into all of that stuff, but if you do, or if you would like to, I recommend that you seek out the Catholic Church and learn from them, as they are one of the primary groups who came up with all of that stuff.