Was Jesus The Son Of God Before The Earth Was Created?

[Spammer]

Yes, i know that's what you believe.

 

But, according to spammer, a human (someone who is material and finite) cannot be a member of the Trinity because the human would be his own being, rather than sharing his being with two other persons.  

 

Jesus is human (as well as God) though, and has a material body, so how is he a part of the trinity?  How can He he share His being with two other spirits when He has a physical body and they don't?

 

That's all i'm asking spammer to explain.

 

A human being cannot be a member of the Trinity because human beings are created beings.  God is uncreated and there is only one God, one divine being who is immaterial and a spirit.  God is Holy Trinity because the one, infinite divine being is in three persons.  Human beings are finite and limited and human beings cannot exist as multiple persons in one being.  God, being infinite in nature, can be both one and many.  At least that's how we try to understand how the one can be many.  It violates common sense based on our experience, but then our experience is limited to our life in the material universe of space and time.  We believe God is transcendent and not subject to those limitations.  We use the concept of infinity, God's limitlessness, both of them human concepts, to seek to explain how the one can be many.  We know through revelation that God is both one and three - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  God become man in the person of the divine logos - the second person of the Holy Trinity.  The one divine nature in the person of the Son united with man and became the God-Man, Jesus through the Incarnation - God in the flesh.  The second person of the Holy Trinity took on human flesh and acquired a second nature.  The Son was simultaneously God and Man through that hypostatic union.  Jesus has both a human nature and a divine nature. The Father and the Holy Spirit have only a divine nature, one and the same divine nature shared by the Son without division.  The Father and Holy Spirit are God but have not become Incarnate.  There is only one divine nature or being and that being is immaterial and spirit.  There are not three divine spirits, there is only one divine spirit - God - so asking 'how can He share His being with two other spirits' reveals a misunderstanding of what we believe.  The Holy Trinity is not three separate divine spirits or or beings.  That would mean there are three gods.  There is only one God and He is uncreated, immaterial, spirit, and One.  The fact that the one divine being is infinite and immaterial is the basis of our limited understanding of how how exactly one can also be many.  This is impossible for finite, created beings who dwell within space and time. 

 

Everything comes down to the God you posit.  We posit a God who dwells outside time and space.  Without time, there is no change; without space there is no division, parts, or matter, i.e., we believe that God is changeless, there is no before or after for God, and He does not have a spatial location.  Everything we believe about God flows from from that starting point, including his infinity, immateriality, and immanence in His creation.  The only way to understand what it is we believe is to strip away any notion of time, matter, and space as it applies to the divine.  Those are all human concepts rooted to our concrete existence as material beings.  Even the language I've been using is flawed.  It too is rooted in human concepts.  We can't escape them.  We have no experience of what a life outside time and space is like so we inevitably use our finite, time- and space-based concepts when we seek to explain our belief of what the nature of God is.  The only thing that must be believed as a Trinitarian Christian is found in the Creed.  God is both one and three and the Incarnate Son is God in two natures.

 

I'm sure I sound like I'm rambling.  I too tired to go through it again and try to tighten it up.  Someone might interject and say that it's all just words and concepts.  True.  It's all just my own language trying to describe an infinite being who dwells outside time and space and is everywhere present and fills all things who we know through revelation is both one and three and who also became man in the person of the Son.  That is the Trinitarian formula in a nutshell.  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one God, not three gods.  Exactly how the one can also be three is what people stumble over.  Human language can't properly describe such a being so we acknowledge the limitation and move on in faith, knowing that the dogma was revealed to the Church by the Holy Spirit.  As I said, the starting point to trying to understand it conceptually is our belief that God dwells outside of time and space.  Concepts like parts, division, change, before, after, above, below, here, and there don't apply to an existence outside time and space, but we're forced to use them anyway.  That's why you also hear Trinitarians using words like ineffable and incomprehensible to describe what God is like.  One thing we don't do is conclude that that kind of God can't exist because 'it doesn't make sense'.  Of course it doesn't make sense.  All of our language and concepts is tied to a finite, material existence.  God dwells outside time and space in the eternities.  We don't expect that our language and concepts can ever adequately capture the divine nature.  In fact, we consider attempts to do so in place of humble worship of God in the face of the Divine Mystery to be an act of idolatry. 

 

I rambled again.  I'm too easily drawn into this kind of discussion as it's one of my favorite topics and I end up wasting a lot of time better spent elsewhere.  I really should put a stop to my board participation(s).  I suggest reading Gregory of Nazienzen's (4th Century) 'Theological Orations'.  They're available for free at ccel.org and they're a thorough explication of what we believe.   

Edited May 21, 2015 by Spammer

[coolrok7]

Skep, with God, nothing is impossible. But what God says in the Old/New Testament can be twisted to ones own destruction. I have to type everything which for me is slow (not able to cut and past which would speed up the process).

 

As the term "Trinity" is not a Biblical term I will use biblical terminology to explain what you ask.

Edited May 21, 2015 by coolrok7

[coolrok7]

The term, "Godhead" is what the term "Trinity" is addressing "in other words" so to speak. "In the beginning God (Elohim) created. This would be Father, Son, Holy Spirit of Matthew 28 where Christians are baptized into the name of God as a command.

Edited May 21, 2015 by coolrok7

[JLHPROF]

The term, "Godhead" is what the term "Trinity" is addressing "in other words" so to speak. "In the beginning God (Elohim) created. This would be Father, Son, Holy Spirit of Matthew 28 where Christians are baptized into the name of God as a command.

 

Nothing here to disagree with.  It is the explanation of the characteristics of the three members of the Godhead and how they work together that causes disagreement. 

 

If it wasn't for the attempt to meld the three separate members into one entity of some kind based on strange interpretation of scripture or give one member the attributes belonging to another there would never be any disagreement.

[mfbukowski]

See Phillipians 2.Jesus has two natures, both God and man in the incarnation.

He already existed with no beginning as Deity (not born to a heavenly mother as a spirit child).

He then took the form of a man in order to suffer death as spirits cannot die because there is no physical form to separate from.

He, not the Father/Holy Spirit now has a glorified physical form which does not make us deity.

Words.  The gizmo is verkempt.  Reverse the coils the warp drive is fixed!

 

I know.  We don't understand it.  You can say that again. 

 

As people have for 2000 years.    Back under my rock.

Edited May 21, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

Skep, with God, nothing is impossible.

Except explaining the Trinity, apparently.

[mfbukowski]

A human being cannot be a member of the Trinity because human beings are created beings.  God is uncreated and there is only one God, one divine being who is immaterial and a spirit.  God is Holy Trinity because the one, infinite divine being is in three persons.  Human beings are finite and limited and human beings cannot exist as multiple persons in one being.  God, being infinite in nature, can be both one and many.  At least that's how we try to understand how the one can be many.  It violates common sense based on our experience, but then our experience is limited to our life in the material universe of space and time.  We believe God is transcendent and not subject to those limitations.  We use the concept of infinity, God's limitlessness, both of them human concepts, to seek to explain how the one can be many.  We know through revelation that God is both one and three - Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.  God become man in the person of the divine logos - the second person of the Holy Trinity.  The one divine nature in the person of the Son united with man and became the God-Man, Jesus through the Incarnation - God in the flesh.  The second person of the Holy Trinity took on human flesh and acquired a second nature.  The Son was simultaneously God and Man through that hypostatic union.  Jesus has both a human nature and a divine nature. The Father and the Holy Spirit have only a divine nature, one and the same divine nature shared by the Son without division.  The Father and Holy Spirit are God but have not become Incarnate.  There is only one divine nature or being and that being is immaterial and spirit.  There are not three divine spirits, there is only one divine spirit - God - so asking 'how can He share His being with two other spirits' reveals a misunderstanding of what we believe.  The Holy Trinity is not three separate divine spirits or or beings.  That would mean there are three gods.  There is only one God and He is uncreated, immaterial, spirit, and One.  The fact that the one divine being is infinite and immaterial is the basis of our limited understanding of how how exactly one can also be many.  This is impossible for finite, created beings who dwell within space and time. 

 

Everything comes down to the God you posit.  We posit a God who dwells outside time and space.  Without time, there is no change; without space there is no division, parts, or matter, i.e., we believe that God is changeless, there is no before or after for God, and He does not have a spatial location.  Everything we believe about God flows from from that starting point, including his infinity, immateriality, and immanence in His creation.  The only way to understand what it is we believe is to strip away any notion of time, matter, and space as it applies to the divine.  Those are all human concepts rooted to our concrete existence as material beings.  Even the language I've been using is flawed.  It too is rooted in human concepts.  We can't escape them.  We have no experience of what a life outside time and space is like so we inevitably use our finite, time- and space-based concepts when we seek to explain our belief of what the nature of God is.  The only thing that must be believed as a Trinitarian Christian is found in the Creed.  God is both one and three and the Incarnate Son is God in two natures.

 

I'm sure I sound like I'm rambling.  I too tired to go through it again and try to tighten it up.  Someone might interject and say that it's all just words and concepts.  True.  It's all just my own language trying to describe an infinite being who dwells outside time and space and is everywhere present and fills all things who we know through revelation is both one and three and who also became man in the person of the Son.  That is the Trinitarian formula in a nutshell.  Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is one God, not three gods.  Exactly how the one can also be three is what people stumble over.  Human language can't properly describe such a being so we acknowledge the limitation and move on in faith, knowing that the dogma was revealed to the Church by the Holy Spirit.  As I said, the starting point to trying to understand it conceptually is our belief that God dwells outside of time and space.  Concepts like parts, division, change, before, after, above, below, here, and there don't apply to an existence outside time and space, but we're forced to use them anyway.  That's why you also hear Trinitarians using words like ineffable and incomprehensible to describe what God is like.  One thing we don't do is conclude that that kind of God can't exist because 'it doesn't make sense'.  Of course it doesn't make sense.  All of our language and concepts is tied to a finite, material existence.  God dwells outside time and space in the eternities.  We don't expect that our language and concepts can ever adequately capture the divine nature.  In fact, we consider attempts to do so in place of humble worship of God in the face of the Divine Mystery to be an act of idolatry. 

 

I rambled again.  I'm too easily drawn into this kind of discussion as it's one of my favorite topics and I end up wasting a lot of time better spent elsewhere.  I really should put a stop to my board participation(s).  I suggest reading Gregory of Nazienzen's (4th Century) 'Theological Orations'.  They're available for free at ccel.org and they're a thorough explication of what we believe.   

So this is what you posit to begin with.

 

That's the problem right there.  The problem is YOU positing anything instead of listening to revelation.

Edited May 21, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

  Back under my rock.

Sorry all.

 

Got carried away. 

 

Bye all!

[Spammer]

So this is what you posit to begin with.

 

That's the problem right there.  The problem is YOU positing anything instead of listening to revelation.

 

Nah.  I posit a God based on the authority I trust, which received knowledge of God's nature by revelation.  I acknowledge that authority,based on my experiences, therefore I trust it when it says it received revelation.  Mormons are no different.  'Taste and see'.  Alma 32, etc. 

[mfbukowski]

Nah.  I posit a God based on the authority I trust, which received knowledge of God's nature by revelation.  I acknowledge that authority,based on my experiences, therefore I trust it when it says it received revelation.  Mormons are no different.  'Taste and see'.  Alma 32, etc. 

Good for you.

 

Then stop preaching your point of view as if it applies to us.

 

You have your Trinity and we have our Godhead.  God loves us both and both of us are wrong about Him but we are just doing our best.  It's all the creations of men except what you feel in your heart, and God teaches us in the way we need to learn.

 

You need that authority and I rebel at anything that is irrational.  God loves us both.  There's nothing to argue about! 

 

Since we are using words, and talking and trying to communicate, we are limited to sentences that make sense.

 

And personal experiences cannot be put into words.  Explain the experience of red to a blind person.  You cannot.  Words cannot describe it.

 

So I say stop trying.  We could perhaps analyze, as you have, what appeals to us about out own churches.

 

But don't get me wrong.  For me the Mormon model is absolutely the best rational model for explaining God.  It is the only "true and living church" that I can imagine believing in.

 

But notice that sentence is qualified for me- it is MY explanation that I have accepted.  You have a different explanation that you accepted. 

 

All the words in the world cannot make me love your wife, all the words in the world cannot make you love mine.   Of course mine is the absolute best in the universe.   I also have honestly, the cutest grandchildren.  I am not kidding.  I have never in my life seen more beautiful children, totally objectively

 

I don't expect you to believe either of those assertions- why should I expect you to believe my explanation of God?

 

We are not talking about the boiling point of water here- get out a thermometer and we will agree that when it bubbles, we will see what the thermometer reads and we will both agree and shake hands.

 

But this is not a discussion on what any of us can verify for any one of the others here. Really there is nothing to discuss. 

 

Which color is better, red or blue?  Clearly red is the best color.  Absolutely.  Not green, not purple.  And if you think otherwise, you are all wrong.

 

We have no basis for claiming that our preferences are better, yet each of us knows that they are.

 

I truly think ours is the one true church.  I feel that God has revealed it to me.

 

None of us have a basis on which to argue that with any other human being.  It is up to personal revelation, not argumentation. and the mystery is why we disagree, if there IS any mystery to any of this.

Edited May 21, 2015 by mfbukowski

[TheSkepticChristian]

Skep, with God, nothing is impossible. 

 

Can God create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift? I like what apologist Daniel Peterson said, "We don’t expect coercive proof of the kind found in mathematics (and virtually only in mathematics)" So how is three = one? 

[Spammer]

Good for you.

 

Then stop preaching your point of view as if it applies to us.

 

You have your Trinity and we have our Godhead.  God loves us both and both of us are wrong about Him but we are just doing our best.  It's all the creations of men except what you feel in your heart, and God teaches us in the way we need to learn.

 

You need that authority and I rebel at anything that is irrational.  God loves us both.  There's nothing to argue about! 

 

Since we are using words, and talking and trying to communicate, we are limited to sentences that make sense.

 

And personal experiences cannot be put into words.  Explain the experience of red to a blind person.  You cannot.  Words cannot describe it.

 

So I say stop trying.  We could perhaps analyze, as you have, what appeals to us about out own churches.

 

But don't get me wrong.  For me the Mormon model is absolutely the best rational model for explaining God.  It is the only "true and living church" that I can imagine believing in.

 

But notice that sentence is qualified for me- it is MY explanation that I have accepted.  You have a different explanation that you accepted. 

 

All the words in the world cannot make me love your wife, all the words in the world cannot make you love mine.   Of course mine is the absolute best in the universe.   I also have honestly, the cutest grandchildren.  I am not kidding.  I have never in my life seen more beautiful children, totally objectively

 

I don't expect you to believe either of those assertions- why should I expect you to believe my explanation of God?

 

We are not talking about the boiling point of water here- get out a thermometer and we will agree that when it bubbles, we will see what the thermometer reads and we will both agree and shake hands.

 

But this is not a discussion on what any of us can verify for any one of the others here. Really there is nothing to discuss. 

 

Which color is better, red or blue?  Clearly red is the best color.  Absolutely.  Not green, not purple.  And if you think otherwise, you are all wrong.

 

We have no basis for claiming that our preferences are better, yet each of us knows that they are.

 

I truly think ours is the one true church.  I feel that God has revealed it to me.

 

None of us have a basis on which to argue that with any other human being.  It is up to personal revelation, not argumentation. and the mystery is why we disagree, if there IS any mystery to any of this.

 

I wasn't preaching, just trying to clarify and help explain our belief.  I saw some posters asking questions and thought I'd chime in and try to help explain what we believe and why.  I've done the best I could and pointed to an ancient source for those interested in a far better explanation than mine.  I'll bow out at this point.

[mfbukowski]

I wasn't preaching, just trying to clarify and help explain our belief.  I saw some posters asking questions and thought I'd chime in and try to help explain what we believe and why.  I've done the best I could and pointed to an ancient source for those interested in a far better explanation than mine.  I'll bow out at this point.

Dang.  Don't have to do that.  I only came back to reply to your excellent post.

 

I won't respond to any more.  As I said, I got carried away.

 

Please resume your discussion all.  Sorry again

Edited May 21, 2015 by mfbukowski

[Spammer]

Dang.  Don't have to do that.  I only came back to reply to your excellent post.

 

I won't respond to any more.  As I said, I got carried away.

 

Please resume your discussion all.  Sorry again

 

No worries!  I'm only bowing out of this thread because I've tried my best to describe what we believe and why and don't know how to say it better.  I'm going to let what I wrote stand.  Like I said, I spend too much time on boards like these and this particular topic and discussions on the patristic literature always draw me back in.  I really enjoyed the rest of what you wrote in #260.  Sorry, I should have said that. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

 I'm only bowing out of this thread because I've tried my best to describe what we believe and why and don't know how to say it better. 

 

Please explain how the Trinity is possible 

[Spammer]

Please explain how the Trinity is possible 

 

See what I wrote.  I did my best.  Perhaps also read Gregory Nazienzen's 'Theological Orations'.  That should help you understand why we believe what we believe. 

[mfbukowski]

Please explain how the Trinity is possible 

He can't because the words don't make sense.  That's ok- you can't explain what a testimony feels like either and how you know it's from God.

 

My only point was that we all believe things we can't explain- I just hate it when people pretend they know how to speak about the unspeakable.  Ours is rational, but it is based on the ineffable- a "testimony".  How can we be sure etc? 

 

Remember religion is based on faith.  They all are.  At their base there is gong to be something in all religions we just do not have a good "reason" which can be verbalized, for belief.

 

The problem arises when we do not understand that in a debate

 

In my never humble opinion, I think we should phrase what we say in terms of "I believe thus and so, because....." and then perhaps discuss why belief A suits a certain purpose better than another purpose.

 

We put our "unspeakable" in terms of testimonies.  Others who call themselves "Christians" think we are crazy to do so because their beliefs are based on authority- either the bible or the church and tradition.

 

At our base we cannot explain testimony- they cannot explain why the accept the authority they accept.  But ultimately it is all about what is taken on faith

Edited May 21, 2015 by mfbukowski

[TheSkepticChristian]

See what I wrote.  I did my best.  Perhaps also read Gregory Nazienzen's 'Theological Orations'.  That should help you understand why we believe what we believe. 

 

i didn't ask why, I am asking how? can you at least speculate? 

Edited May 21, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Spammer]

i didn't ask why, I am asking how? can you at least speculate?

Any attempt would just be a reiteration of my first paragraph in #251. For finite beings like us, 1=1. For an infinite being (which must be uncreated without beginning and of which there can only be one and besides whom there can be no other), one can also be many. We know through revelation that that One is also three. One being and three persons, not three beings and three persons, as it is for those of us who are finite and stuck in space and time. That's it in a nutshell. Like Mark says, they're just words and they have their limitations, but they're the ones we use to explain how we believe it's possible for one to also be more than one at the same time.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Spammer

[coolrok7]

Skep, that is not what I was saying. You asked, how is it possible? (Please explain how does the trinity work?)

I quoted a Biblical statement.

Jesus quoted from Deuteronomy, the Hebrew Schema, Hear O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one.

We use the term person when we speak of the Godhead for identity purposes (Father, Son, Holy Spirit) so the reference is to one God Biblically speaking.

The Nicene Creed in part was to oppose the heretical teaching of Arius of Alexandria where he was denying that Jesus existed as Deity in the way the Father/Holy Spirit was by teaching that He had a beginning (as Jehovah's teach).

It is quite revealing that the term, Very God, from the "abominable creed" is used in the BofM. In the Nicene Creed it was used to defend against Arius in what he was teaching.

Edited May 21, 2015 by coolrok7

[Anakin7]

   Which form/model of "TheTrinity" are we talking about - Athanasian/Augustinian/Western/Eastern/Economic/Essential/Social ?.

 

   In His Eternal Debt/Grace

                Anakin7

[Vance]

It is quite revealing that the term, Very God, from the "abominable creed" is used in the BofM.

WOW!!!

 

You really got us with that one.  And here is the proof.

 

1. 1 Thes. 5: 23 And the very God of peace sanctify you wholly; and I pray God your whole spirit and soul and body be preserved blameless unto the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
2. 1 Ne. 19: 7 For the things which some men esteem to be of great worth, both to the body and soul, others set at naught and trample under their feet. Yea, even the very God of Israel do men trample under their feet; I say, trample under their feet but I would speak in other words—they set him at naught, and hearken not to the voice of his counsels.
3. Morm. 3: 21  And also that ye may believe the gospel of Jesus Christ, which ye shall have among you; and also that the Jews, the covenant people of the Lord, shall have other witness besides him whom they saw and heard, that Jesus, whom they slew, was the very Christ and the very God.

[coolrok7]

Certainly not the modalism Joseph Smith opposed.

The link below says page not found

Edited May 21, 2015 by coolrok7

[Anakin7]

    http://www.ldsmag.com/lineuponline/090113creed.html   

 

   In His Debt/Grace

          Anakin7

 

   Sorry page no longer available.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Anakin7

[coolrok7]

Vance, the term very is not in the Greek text but is in the KJV.