Jesus the Only Begotten Son "in the flesh"

[ElfLord]

It's in terms of his being God. That's the whole point. God doesn't change.

We need to ask ourself the question of what the phrase "God doesn't change" really means.

Lets face it... an incarnated God who can die on a cross is a HUGE change.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It's in terms of his being God. That's the whole point. God doesn't change.

This does not address what I said even remotely close.

Clearly Jesus experianced many thangs that changed. IOW there are many difference between Jesus and Jehovah. So I ask again in what ways is Jesus that same yesterday, today, and forever.

Keep in mind that the bible tells us that we are all gods children of the Most High.

[Bart Burk]

This does not address what I said even remotely close.

Clearly Jesus experianced many thangs that changed. IOW there are many difference between Jesus and Jehovah. So I ask again in what ways is Jesus that same yesterday, today, and forever.

Keep in mind that the bible tells us that we are all gods children of the Most High.

Orthodox Christianity has always held that as God Jesus never changed. That's what Hebrews is saying. I don't have any other answers than that. He didn't change in His incarnation as God, but became one of us so that he could atone for our sins and lead the way back to God. Hebrews 13:8 only makes sense if we understand that Jesus was always God before his incarnation. I don't see any other way to interpret it and that has been how the Christian Church has always interpreted it. I guess we don't have anything else to discuss.

[thesometimesaint]

Bart Burk:

As the LDS also believe Jesus has always been God. I don't see the distinction from other Christians

[Ahab]

Orthodox Christianity has always held that as God Jesus never changed.

In what way did he never change? Be more specific.

Do you mean that even when he was like us, and like fallen Adam and Eve, he was still the same kind of being (in nature) as our Father in heaven?

If that's what you mean, then I agree with you, because in the same sense we are also still the same kind of being as our Father in heaven, even though we have all "fallen" as did Adam and Eve.

The key is in knowing what we were before the fall of Adam and Eve, as well as what we can be again through the power of the Atonement of Jesus Christ.

[Bart Burk]

Bart Burk:

As the LDS also believe Jesus has always been God. I don't see the distinction from other Christians

I haven't seen any evidence from an authority of the LDS Church that would make me believe that LDS believe that Jesus was always God. I instead see quotes from Bruce R. McConkie saying that he progressed and at some point in the pre-existence became a God. Jesus as God is completely different from us -- only in his humanity did Jesus become like us.

[ElfLord]

I haven't seen any evidence from an authority of the LDS Church that would make me believe that LDS believe that Jesus was always God. I instead see quotes from Bruce R. McConkie saying that he progressed and at some point in the pre-existence became a God. Jesus as God is completely different from us -- only in his humanity did Jesus become like us.

Well Jesus as God is completely different than his Father too... because Jesus as the "Wisdom" of God was a created being.

Talk about another BIG change!

[Ahab]

I haven't seen any evidence from an authority of the LDS Church that would make me believe that LDS believe that Jesus was always God.

Then you haven't looked very much, because it's not that difficult to find comments like that from our Lord's Church leaders.

Try doing a key word search on lds.org using these key words: Jesus always the same kind of being as our Father in heaven

I instead see quotes from Bruce R. McConkie saying that he progressed and at some point in the pre-existence became a God.

Jesus was the same kind of being as our Father in heaven from the very first moment of his birth as a person in heaven, and even before that, when he was a part of our Father in heaven when our Father wasn't even a Father because he hadn't had any children, yet.

We don't grow up to become a "god" or "God", as if we become a different kind of being. We are already the same kind of being as our Father in heaven, right now, even though we are not as "perfect" as our Father in heaven, yet. That's the goal for us saints... to become as perfect as our Father in heaven, and as Jesus Christ is now.

Jesus as God is completely different from us -- only in his humanity did Jesus become like us.

That's false doctrine, bro, and sooner or later I hope you will wake up from that delusion.

[Pahoran]

Orthodox Christianity has always held that as God Jesus never changed.

Setting aside the pervasiveness of this "orthodoxy," what exactly does this mean? What does it assert? Jesus was born; is that a change? I think you will agree that it is. However, "Orthodox Christianity has always held that as God Jesus never changed." Thus, any changes Jesus demonstrably experienced are somehow sequestered from his godhood; is that right?

Because if it is, then the quoted statement doesn't seem to assert anything at all. It's a bit like the old joke:

Rule 1: The boss is always right.

Rule 2: If the boss should happen to be wrong, refer to rule 1.

IOW, it's a tautology.

Is that what we are looking at?

You realise, don't you, that tautologies don't actually explain anything?

That's what Hebrews is saying. I don't have any other answers than that. He didn't change in His incarnation as God, but became one of us so that he could atone for our sins and lead the way back to God. Hebrews 13:8 only makes sense if we understand that Jesus was always God before his incarnation. I don't see any other way to interpret it and that has been how the Christian Church has always interpreted it. I guess we don't have anything else to discuss.

There is no such thing as "the Christian Church." Your Christian perspective on this is different from our Christian perspective.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Bart Burk]

Setting aside the pervasiveness of this "orthodoxy," what exactly does this mean? What does it assert? Jesus was born; is that a change? I think you will agree that it is. However, "Orthodox Christianity has always held that as God Jesus never changed." Thus, any changes Jesus demonstrably experienced are somehow sequestered from his godhood; is that right?

Because if it is, then the quoted statement doesn't seem to assert anything at all. It's a bit like the old joke:

Rule 1: The boss is always right.

Rule 2: If the boss should happen to be wrong, refer to rule 1.

IOW, it's a tautology.

Is that what we are looking at?

You realise, don't you, that tautologies don't actually explain anything?

There is no such thing as "the Christian Church." Your Christian perspective on this is different from our Christian perspective.

Regards,

Pahoran

I am afraid you are right that your perspective is different from the Christian perspective.

[Ahab]

There is no such thing as "the Christian Church." Your Christian perspective on this is different from our Christian perspective.

I think we can reasonably deduce the idea that he was talking about the true Church of Jesus Christ when he was referring to "the Christian Church".

There is one, after all, despite all the hubbub we get from some people about which one it actually is.

[bluebell]

I am afraid you are right that your perspective is different from the Christian perspective.

You know that's not what he said, so why try to cause contention where none has to exist?

Your interpretation of scripture is not the only Christian interpretation. If you can't except that, then state so honestly, rather than using words to create bad feelings.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I haven't seen any evidence from an authority of the LDS Church that would make me believe that LDS believe that Jesus was always God.

Epic fail.

I just quoted a scripture to you.

In Psalms 82:6 That ye are gods, children of the Most High.

Jesus uses that scripture to justify his divinity to the Pharisees.

The reality is that we are all already divine. What this life allows us to do is reach our full potential through Christ and become just like Him. In essance we have always been gods just that we have not always lived at our full potential.

Was Jesus allways the same in every aspect? No. At one point he did not have a body. It also appears that he was not even designated as the Savior in the past.

Jesus as God is completely different from us -- only in his humanity did Jesus become like us

This is taught no where in the bible. The main difference from Jesus and us is that he was perfect and had an immoratal Father in terms of this physical earth life.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am afraid you are right that your perspective is different from the Christian perspective.

Your argument is about as good as this one.

"Dogs have more in common with mammals than they have in common with wolves. "

[ElfLord]

I started a new thread so we can talk about the "enternality" of Jesus.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/52357-jesus-wisdom-personified/

The first Christians didn't beleive in his Enternailty and that he was indeed a Created God.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I started a new thread so we can talk about the "enternality" of Jesus.

http://www.mormonapologetics.org/topic/52357-jesus-wisdom-personified/

The first Christians didn't beleive in his Enternailty and that he was indeed a Created God.

Good thread.

I will just add that created does not mean ceased to exsist at some prior time.

[BookofMormonLuvr]

BookofMormonLuvr:

Am I understanding you correctly; that the LDS should not believe what the Church itself formally adopts as doctrine, and truth statements, but should instead instead believe some one off odd statement by some leader or even general member makes?

Anyone in any church should take with a grain of salt the faith promoting history their church offers up and look at multiple sources when seeking after the full story. Those who are unwilling to fully examine their faith, warts, skeletons and all, is not as full of faith as he may suspect.

[Pahoran]

I am afraid you are right that your perspective is different from the Christian perspective.

The claim that Mormonism is not Christian is a notorious, thoroughly discredited canard, and is never made by honest, informed people.

So I congratulate you on being sly enough to sneak it in as an insinuation, instead of boldly blurting it out as an unequivocal falsehood.

Regards,

Pahoran

[Pahoran]

Anyone in any church should take with a grain of salt the faith promoting history their church offers up and look at multiple sources when seeking after the full story. Those who are unwilling to fully examine their faith, warts, skeletons and all, is not as full of faith as he may suspect.

In the years that I have been defending the faith of the Latter-day Saints against attackers of various stripes, I have noticed a number of unfailing themes. One of those themes is this: every single time someone claims to want a "warts and all" view of LDS history, they actually want nothing of the sort. Because what they really want is a "nothing but the warts" view of it.

Now maybe, for the first time in two decades, I've come across someone who really means what he says; someone who really wants the whole picture of LDS history, and not just the warty bits.

Have I?

Because if I have, then I can tell you this: the whole picture of LDS history, warts and non-warts, skeletons and non-skeletons, with all of these in proper proportion, is "faith-promoting" from beginning to end.

Just so you know.

Regards,

Pahoran

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Pahoran-

I will gently set aside your ill-informed judgements and let you know that I approach everything with sincerity and a desire to know the truth. I know that is hard to believe for people from a religious culture were "apostates" are seen as sinners just wanting to justify their sins or people that left over some offense by committed another member or church leader. To deny that there are questions relating to official LDS versions of history and the actual events is looking through rose-colored glasses at it's finest.

[Pahoran]

Pahoran-

I will gently set aside your ill-informed judgements

Which "ill-informed judgements" are those?

and let you know that I approach everything with sincerity and a desire to know the truth. I know that is hard to believe for people from a religious culture were "apostates" are seen as sinners just wanting to justify their sins or people that left over some offense by committed another member or church leader. To deny that there are questions relating to official LDS versions of history and the actual events is looking through rose-colored glasses at it's finest.

I will gently set aside your ill-informed judgements and simply point out that I have denied nothing. Rather, I wish you to understand that I am fully informed about all the "warts" that some like to obsess about; I heard about these mostly from "official LDS versions of history" long before any anti-Mormon rushed forward to apologise for the indecent glee with which he presumed to be about to disillusion me. I suggest that if you imagine to yourself that there is some "wart" that you know all about that I haven't heard of, you are likely to find yourself mistaken. And I reiterate my view that, when we place these "warts" in their proper context, along with all the non-warts, the whole sweep of Church history is entirely "faith-promoting."

From beginning to end.

Regards,

Pahoran

[BookofMormonLuvr]

Which "ill-informed judgements" are those?

The obvious implication that I am like the "typical" "attackers of the church".

I will gently set aside your ill-informed judgements and simply point out that I have denied nothing. Rather, I wish you to understand that I am fully informed about all the "warts" that some like to obsess about; I heard about these mostly from "official LDS versions of history" long before any anti-Mormon rushed forward to apologise for the indecent glee with which he presumed to be about to disillusion me. I suggest that if you imagine to yourself that there is some "wart" that you know all about that I haven't heard of, you are likely to find yourself mistaken. And I reiterate my view that, when we place these "warts" in their proper context, along with all the non-warts, the whole sweep of Church history is entirely "faith-promoting."

From beginning to end.

Regards,

Pahoran

I disagree with your opinion but respect your right to have it.

[changed]

I often hear Mormons call Jesus the Only Begotten Son "in the flesh". ... 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.

I did not read all of it, so forgive if this was already stated but...

Jesus - the only one, means our HEavenly Parents do not beget chidlren in the same way that we do...

imo, Eve in her perfect form could not beget children either. I personally think that it goes against agency, because spirits cannot make an informed choice on coming to Earth - the first time you do something, you do it in ignorance... God waits until everyone is 8yo - old enough to make an informed choice, before His birth (baptism). Yes, JEsus was begotten, but They (cap T) had to use a handmaid in order to do this.

This is how They beget children:

(Book of Mormon | Mosiah 5:7)

7 And now, because of the covenant which ye have made ye shall be called the children of Christ, his sons, and his daughters; for behold, this day he hath spiritually begotten you; for ye say that your hearts are changed through faith on his name; therefore, ye are born of him and have become his sons and his daughters.

I think all the barren women in the scriptures are symbolic of Heavenly Mother not bearing children in the flesh, but having to wait until the age of accountability...

(Topical Guide | B Barren, Barrenness:Entry)

Barren, Barrenness

Gen. 11:30 Sarai was b.

Gen. 25:21 Isaac intreated the Lord for his wife, because she was b.

Gen. 29:31 Rachel was b.

Judg. 13:3 thou art b.

1 Sam. 1:2 Hannah had no children

1 Sam. 2:5 the b. hath born seven

2 Kgs. 2:21 there shall not be ... b. land

Ps. 113:9 b. woman ... to be a joyful mother

Isa. 54:1 Sing, O b., thou that didst not bear

Luke 1:7 they had no child, because that Elisabeth was b.

Luke 23:29 Blessed are the b.

Gal. 4:27 Rejoice, thou b. that bearest not

D&C 133:29 in the b. deserts there shall come forth pools

Moses 7:8 b. thereof shall go forth

See also Gen. 30:23; Luke 1:25.

the barren woman to become a joyful mother, is when HM is ruinted with all of Her children who have chosen Her, and have been spiritually begotten by Her.

The most sacred relashonship we have on Earth is that between husband/wife - this is a chosen relashonship, you are not born into it... I think our relashonship with God is also a chosen relashonship - which is a beautiful thing (the church is also often called the bridegroom - chosen trumps begotten imo)

Jesus is special though because he was our oldest brother, and because he was 1/2 immortal, he was perfect, the only one who could atone for us, so he does have a different relashonship with the Godhead (he is part of the Godhead)

[Pahoran]

The obvious implication that I am like the "typical" "attackers of the church".

On the contrary, I rather explicitly allowed for the possibility that you might be atypical, when I said that maybe I had come across "someone who really wants the whole picture of LDS history, and not just the warty bits."

So if you tell me that you are interested in the whole picture, I'll believe you.

And as you demonstrate your interest in the whole picture, and resist any temptation to obsess about warts to the exclusion of non-warts, my belief will be vindicated.

I disagree with your opinion but respect your right to have it.

And by the same token, I respect your right to hold your opinion, even in defiance of the truth.

Regards,

Pahoran

[jwhitlock]

Pahoran-

I will gently set aside your ill-informed judgements and let you know that I approach everything with sincerity and a desire to know the truth. I know that is hard to believe for people from a religious culture were "apostates" are seen as sinners just wanting to justify their sins or people that left over some offense by committed another member or church leader. To deny that there are questions relating to official LDS versions of history and the actual events is looking through rose-colored glasses at it's finest.

I find it fascinating that you made a blatant misrepresentation of what Pahoran said, and have refused to acknowledge it - even as it's been pointed out to you on this thread.

It leaves me wondering about your claim that you "approach everything with sincerity and a desire to know the truth".