1 John 4:9

[David T]

Do you mean we are to ignore the premortality implications of this verse?

John 9:2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

Most likely the implications were to the debate and discussion concerning the possibility of sin being committed in the womb. Not of any sort of spirit existence. That, in John's Gospel, is reserved for Jesus. John's Jesus always references his 'coming down from heaven' as a unique attribute of himself.

[Vance]

Most likely the implications were to the debate and discussion concerning the possibility of sin being committed in the womb.

"Most likely"? That sounds convincing.

If this was a "debate and discussion concerning the possibility of sin being committed in the womb", why aren't there indications of that? Other than your presumption of course?

Not of any sort of spirit existence.

Still just presumption.

That, in John's Gospel, is reserved for Jesus. John's Jesus always references his 'coming down from heaven' as a unique attribute of himself.

Again, You are presuming.

There is no indication of "uniqueness" to Jesus "came/cometh down from heaven" in these verses.

John 3:13 And no man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven.

John 6:33 For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven, and giveth life unto the world.

• • •

38 For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

• • •

41 The Jews then murmured at him, because he said, I am the bread which came down from heaven.

42 And they said, Is not this Jesus, the son of Joseph, whose father and mother we know? how is it then that he saith, I came down from heaven?

• • •

50 This is the bread which cometh down from heaven, that a man may eat thereof, and not die.

51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.

• • •

58 This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.

[WalkerW]

"Most likely"? That sounds convincing.

If this was a "debate and discussion concerning the possibility of sin being committed in the womb", why aren't there indications of that? Other than your presumption of course?

From the NET commentary:

The disciples assumed that sin (regardless of who committed it) was the cause of the man’s blindness. This was a common belief in Judaism; the rabbis used Ezek 18:20 to prove there was no death without sin, and Ps 89:33 to prove there was no punishment without guilt (the Babylonian Talmud, b. Shabbat 55a, although later than the NT, illustrates this). Thus in this case the sin must have been on the part of the man’s parents, or during his own prenatal existence. Song Rabbah 1:41 (another later rabbinic work) stated that when a pregnant woman worshiped in a heathen temple the unborn child also committed idolatry. This is only one example of how, in rabbinic Jewish thought, an unborn child was capable of sinning.

[WalkerW]

Is that a bad thing?

It can be. Reading one's modern views on to an ancient text distorts the original message. I'm more comfortable saying, "This reflects a belief of Second Temple Judaism that we do not hold" rather than trying to force a modern Mormon interpretation.

[Vance]

From the NET commentary:

The disciples assumed that sin (regardless of who committed it) was the cause of the man’s blindness. This was a common belief in Judaism; the rabbis used Ezek 18:20 to prove there was no death without sin, and Ps 89:33 to prove there was no punishment without guilt (the Babylonian Talmud, b. Shabbat 55a, although later than the NT, illustrates this). Thus in this case the sin must have been on the part of the man’s parents, or during his own prenatal existence. Song Rabbah 1:41 (another later rabbinic work) stated that when a pregnant woman worshiped in a heathen temple the unborn child also committed idolatry. This is only one example of how, in rabbinic Jewish thought, an unborn child was capable of sinning.

And this is making the presumption that the Apostles (being fishermen, etc) would have been well versed in the Talmud and other rabbinic work. And that Jesus hadn't (or wouldn't have) taught them, the premortality of the spirit.

Edited to add,

Also, given this

Song Rabbah 1:41 (another later rabbinic work) stated that when a pregnant woman worshiped in a heathen temple the unborn child also committed idolatry. This is only one example of how, in rabbinic Jewish thought, an unborn child was capable of sinning.

How does the child sin without the parent also sinning (or sinning first)? Thus this doesn't address the original question.

[mfbukowski]

It can be. Reading one's modern views on to an ancient text distorts the original message. I'm more comfortable saying, "This reflects a belief of Second Temple Judaism that we do not hold" rather than trying to force a modern Mormon interpretation.

I have no problem with that at all

I think it's important, at least for me, that we keep the distinctions clear. I think the question goes more toward how interested we are in being obedient than having anything to do with what is "true" in any sense whatsoever.

But I suppose that is just my peculiar way of looking at what is "true", whatever that could mean in this context. I suppose it is just because "truth" is so amorphous that I think, in terms of what will advance my personal spirituality more, the principles of obedience and loyalty take precedence here.

But of course not everyone sees things as I do!

[volgadon]

And this is making the presumption that the Apostles (being fishermen, etc) would have been well versed in the Talmud and other rabbinic work. And that Jesus hadn't (or wouldn't have) taught them, the premortality of the spirit.

Umm, no, Vance, nobody is arguing that the Apostles would have been well versed in the Talmud, seeing as it hadn't been written yet. The point being made was of Jewish beliefs regarding the capacity to sin before birth.

Besides, the Talmud itself is full of stories of ***-drivers and others of the unwashed masses showing themselves to be quite adept at scriptural learning and reasoning.

[Vance]

Umm, no, Vance, nobody is arguing that the Apostles would have been well versed in the Talmud, seeing as it hadn't been written yet.

Ok.

The point being made was of Jewish beliefs regarding the capacity to sin before birth.

But, for his presumption to be supported, it has to be shown that "before birth" MUST ONLY apply to time spent in the womb.

Also, for his presumption to be supported, it has to be shown that a child in the womb could sin WITHOUT either parent also sinning.

Besides, the Talmud itself is full of stories of ***-drivers and others of the unwashed masses showing themselves to be quite adept at scriptural learning and reasoning.

Being "adept" isn't the same as having the interest, means and opportunity.

[volgadon]

But, for his presumption to be supported, it has to be shown that "before birth" MUST ONLY apply to time spent in the womb.

If you can find a Jewish source of that time or earlier stating otherwise, then please provide it.

Also, for his presumption to be supported, it has to be shown that a child in the womb could sin WITHOUT either parent also sinning.

Why?

Being "adept" isn't the same as having the interest, means and opportunity.

True, but the sources we have show that they did have the interest, means, and opportunity, and that the sages were suitably impressed.

[WalkerW]

How does the child sin without the parent also sinning (or sinning first)? Thus this doesn't address the original question.

No one said it made sense. Only stating what was a belief at the time. However, it is possible that they had similar views to the apocalyptic and pseudepigraphic work which depicted pre-mortal souls.

Those interested in pre-mortal existence through the ages should see Terryl L. Givens, When Souls Had Wings: Pre-Mortal Existence in Western Thought (Oxford University Press, 2010) or John A. Tvedtnes, “The King Follett Discourse in the Light of Ancient and Medieval Jewish and Christian Beliefs,” 2004 FAIR Conference.

[inquiringmind]

Do you mean we are to ignore the premortality implications of this verse?

John 9:2 And his disciples asked him, saying, Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?

The disciples' question could presuppose a belief in God's forknowledge of the future, as easily as it could a belief in the man's past pre-existence (i.e. the man could have been born blind because of a sin he commited on his eightenth birthday.)

[consiglieri]

I'm very aware of the scholarship surrounding monogenes. The "only begotten in the flesh" is nothing more than an attempt to Mormonize the New Testament.

This is an important point WalkerW makes.

This phrase is repeated so often in Mormon circles most LDS would think it was scriptural.

But nowhere do the scriptures apply this descriptor to Jesus (or anybody else, for that matter).

The scriptures do refer to Jesus as the Only Begotten of the Father.

The scriptures also refer to Jesus as the First Born.

LDS have attempted to harmonize these two scriptural statements by the unscriptural pronouncement that Jesus was the "only begotten in the flesh."

But it ain't necessarily so . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

[volgadon]

But it ain't necessarily so . . .

All the Best!

--Consiglieri

Good song. I don't see why it couldn't be so, but the distinction should be made as to what the texts actually say.

[Vance]

If you can find a Jewish source of that time or earlier stating otherwise, then please provide it.

Why should I need to support his presumption? Shouldn't that be his responsibility?

Why?

Unless the child can sin independent of the mother then the question is just plain stupid.

True, but the sources we have show that they did have the interest, means, and opportunity, and that the sages were suitably impressed.

After being under Jesus' tutelage for a couple of years, yes.

[LeSellers]

The scriptures do refer to Jesus as the Only Begotten of the Father.

The scriptures also refer to Jesus as the First Born.

LDS have attempted to harmonize these two scriptural statements by the unscriptural pronouncement that Jesus was the "only begotten in the flesh."

"Unscriptural" does not mean "untrue".

Jesus was (and is) the "Firstborn" in the premortal world. Jesus was (and is) the "Only Begotten of the Father" on the earth. To say He was the Only Begotten in the flesh may not be a scriptural phrase, but it is clearly a scriptural concept: "on the earth" and "in the flesh" are as close to exact synonyms as possible.

There are dozens of titles that apply to Jesus. They all refer to Him, but few of them refer to precisely the same quality. For instance, we call Him the Redeemer of the world and the Redeemer of Israel, or the Holy One of Israel and the Holy One of God. In the case before us, both refer to His generation, the first to His spiritual birth, the second to His physical birth.

Whatever one may say about the subtlety of the Greek monogenes, the word means "only generated" or "only begotten".

Lehi

[Ron Beron]

Is that a bad thing?

Probably no more than the Christianizing the Old Testament which I am sure some Jews might find disagreeable.

[inquiringmind]

The Greek monogenes really means "unique" or "one-of-a-kind." The same term is used in regards to Isaac in Heb. 11:17, who was not an only child. LXX Gen. 22:16 refers to Isaac as Abraham's "beloved son." This was probably what the NT authors were drawing on when they called Jesus God's "beloved son." There are covenant implications here.

I find explanations such as "only begotten in the flesh" to be confusing. I think they miss the point as well.

Then why does the BOM, and the JST use the term "only begotten"?

[WalkerW]

Then why does the BOM, and the JST use the term "only begotten"?

Because it relies on KJV English terminology. I don't object to the term "only begotten" as long as one understands the contextual and cultural meaning of the phrase. Tacking on "...in the flesh" is, as I said before, a Mormonization of the passage(s).

[Kingsson]

We are spirit sons and daughters of God. Our spirits are his sons and daughters, but we have physical parents as well- the parents of our bodies.

Jesus was a spirit Son as well, but God was also his physical father- of his body since he was literally the Son of God.

We are not "begotten" sons and daughters- He was the only one "begotten" by the Father.

Born again Christians are begotten of God, Jn 1: 12--13. Jn 3: 3--8. 1 Cor 4: 15.

Only born again Christians are sons and daughters of God.

God isn't our physical parent... WHERE DO YOU GET YOUR IDEARS FROM??.

[Kingsson]

If we all had a pre-existence, and we're all the literal ofspring of heavenly parents, why does 1 John 4:9 say that "God sent His only begotten Son into the world"?

Where does the Bible we had a pre-existance??

[David T]

Where does the Bible we had a pre-existance??

Where does the Bible say Mormons only get their beliefs from the Bible?

[WalkerW]

Where does the Bible we had a pre-existance??

Some the OT verses listed in Terryl Givens, When Souls Had Wings: Pre-Mortal Existence in Western Thought (Oxford University Press, 2010) are:

Job 15:7-8 (Adam is brought forth before the creation)

Jeremiah 1:5 (possibly a reference to foreknowledge, though the ordination seems to require a physical presence)

Psalms 139:15 (the "depths of the earth" could be a reference to the underworld)

I strongly suggest picking up the book.