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

[Vance]

  God is uncreated and there is only one God, one divine being who is immaterial and a spirit.  

Is the "immaterial" aspect of God something that is also "posited" or is it based upon your authority, or on scripture?

 

If scripture, I would like a reference with an explanation. (Because we all know that the word "immaterial" is not found in scripture.

[Vance]

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

So?  What is your point?  "Very" is an English word, why would I expect to see it in the Greek?

Edited May 21, 2015 by Vance

[coolrok7]

There is no linguistic need for the term "very" to be there. If you look in John 7:26 you'll see where Joseph gets the use of the term very from which in this case is Mormon 3:21, your ref 3 from the above post you provided.

Joseph Smith was English speaking, so when he read the supposed translated letters of light on the stone he placed there, with his face in the hat, he read the term "very" (which is in the BofM, actually from the "abominable" Nicene Creed, where the Deity of Jesus is being defended against the heresy of Arius by the use of the term very God.

There is no need for the term to be there except it was the laguage tradition of the KJV translation but not in the Greek.

[Vance]

Are you saying that the Bible isn't translated correctly?

[Vance]

It is quite clear that you are not grasping the tremendous linguistic difference between, "Very God of Very God" and "the very God".

 

Here is a clue, "very man of very man" = linguistic gibberish.

 

"the very man"  =  the same man or the one man or the exact same man.  You know like the very one or the very same man.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Vance

[coolrok7]

No, in this instance the term very is an English idiom but is not necessarily wrong. It is not necessary to be there is my point.

In the KJV tradition it is there in John 7:26 where it says that Jesus is the very Christ but very God is not. In the Greek it is the Christ.

It's not hard to figure out that Joseph inserted the terms very God along with the very Christ of John 7:26.

The term very God is from the so-called abominable creed. That is the problem. Not with the creed, but Joseph claiming something he is not, a true prophet of God.

Edited May 21, 2015 by coolrok7

[coolrok7]

It implies the same thing as Jesus is the Christ, God in the flesh, not made but begotten in the flesh to suffer death. This does not make us Deity.

[JLHPROF]

It implies the same thing as Jesus is the Christ, God in the flesh, not made but begotten in the flesh to suffer death. This does not make us Deity.

 

This right here is the reason I could never accept traditional Christian beliefs.

They insist on applying unexplainable supernatural occurrences to things that are actually pretty easy to follow.

But since we interpret scriptures so very differently I don't see this as changing.

 

Christ was conceived.  Christ grew in his mothers womb.  Christ was born a fully mortal man.

Prior to entering mortality he was a spirit without a body, just as we were, and according to modern revelation would therefore have been subject to any being with a body.

 

The notion of an uncreated, always existing 3 part God who never did anything until this world came into existence because God felt like making some creatures with no other purpose than to praise him it just baffles me.

Edited May 21, 2015 by JLHPROF

[TheSkepticChristian]

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. 

 

So you believe God is an infinite number of persons? The Trinity doctrine says  three persons = one, how is that possible? Three is three, not one or infinity. Three is a finite number. 

 

 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. 

 

but we can do theoretical physics. In Math (pen and paper) we can work with 4D objects, but we cannot make 1 + 1 + 1 = 1. I like what apologist Daniel Peterson said, "We don’t expect coercive proof of the kind found in mathematics (and virtually only in mathematics)"

 

 

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

 

You are skipping too many steps. 

First You have to show how the Trinity is possible 

Second You have to prove that it is taught in the Bible

Third You have to prove that it is true 

 

Please don't skip steps, tell us how the Trinity is possible, at least speculate. At least give us a vague explanation.  

Edited May 21, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[coolrok7]

I'm not skipping, I told you that I would explain it using Biblical terms. I just began.

[danielwoods]

Well that's one main reason I joined the Church, the theology made sense to me.

 

 

This right here is the reason I could never accept traditional Christian beliefs.

[snip]

The notion of an uncreated, always existing 3 part God who never did anything until this world came into existence because God felt like making some creatures with no other purpose than to praise him it just baffles me.

 

 

we cannot make 1 + 1 + 1 = 1. 

 

First You have to show how the Trinity is possible 

 

 

I'm seeing an interesting theme here. It has to do with how one learns to accept what is true or not. 

 

From the three quotes above, it appears that truth can only be true if it fits with my understanding. If it doesn't, then it therefore, must not be true. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

I'm not skipping, I told you that I would explain it using Biblical terms. I just began.

 

So where does the Bible explain how 1 + 1 + 1 is one? A statement of faith is not an explanation.  

 

The Trinity doctrine requires a lot of explanation because it contradicts known logic and Math. It is true that there are many unsolved problems in our universe, but none of them contradict simple Math. 

 

  "We don’t expect coercive proof of the kind found in mathematics (and virtually only in mathematics)" -  Daniel Peterson

 

From the three quotes above, it appears that truth can only be true if it fits with my understanding. If it doesn't, then it therefore, must not be true. 

 

There are many things I do not understand, but I understand that 1 + 1 + 1 = 3, I do not believe in logical contradictions. 

Edited May 21, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[JLHPROF]

I'm seeing an interesting theme here. It has to do with how one learns to accept what is true or not. 

 

From the three quotes above, it appears that truth can only be true if it fits with my understanding. If it doesn't, then it therefore, must not be true. 

 

I don't think that's accurate at all.

I think that for me personally, I think God makes sense.  If something doesn't make sense to logic/reason, even if I don't fully understand it yet, I don't see it as coming from God.  I think I can only accept a God that is a creature of law.

 

I fully accept that others have every right to believe in any God they feel drawn to.  I feel no connection with a being that is so incomprehensible, immaterial, and has no real resemblance to me.  That's not an issue of understanding, but I feel no incentive to worship such an ethereal being.  I have a need to recognize what I worship.  Christ, not because he is a completely different being from me, but because he is a 100% perfect version of us.  That is worth celebrating.

[danielwoods]

I don't think that's accurate at all.

I think that for me personally, I think God makes sense.  If something doesn't make sense to logic/reason, even if I don't fully understand it yet, I don't see it as coming from God.  I think I can only accept a God that is a creature of law.

 

I fully accept that others have every right to believe in any God they feel drawn to.  I feel no connection with a being that is so incomprehensible, immaterial, and has no real resemblance to me.  That's not an issue of understanding, but I feel no incentive to worship such an ethereal being.  I have a need to recognize what I worship.  Christ, not because he is a completely different being from me, but because he is a 100% perfect version of us.  That is worth celebrating.

 

And I would rather know the truth, regardless if it makes complete sense to me or not. 

[JLHPROF]

And I would rather know the truth, regardless if it makes complete sense to me or not. 

 

Truth makes sense.  That's kind of a defining characteristic of truth.  If it doesn't make sense it's probably not true.

Edited May 21, 2015 by JLHPROF

[danielwoods]

Truth makes sense.  That's kind of a defining characteristic of truth.  If it doesn't make sense it's probably not true.

 

Right, that is what I am hearing. Trinity doesn't make sense, therefore it's not true. No amount of explanations will change that. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

 If it doesn't make sense it's probably not true.

 

I disagree with that. Does resurrection make sense? Does water to wine make sense?  Does the story of Jonah and the fish make sense? How do you explain that? Does the hat and the translation process make sense? 

http://infidels.org/library/modern/donald_morgan/absurd.html

 

Just because you cannot understand something doesn't mean it is not true.

 

However, I can understand that 1 + 1 + 1  = 3, and I simply do not believe in logical contradictions. 

 

 

 

And I would rather know the truth, regardless if it makes complete sense to me or not. 

 

Biological Evolution is true

Edited May 21, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[JLHPROF]

I disagree with that. Does resurrection make sense? Does water to wine make sense?  Does the story of Jonah and the fish make sense? Does the hat and the translation process make sense? 

 

 

Yes, they all make sense.

There is a huge difference between not completely understanding how something is done, and something that doesn't make any sense to reason.

 

For example, I don't understand exactly how Christ walked on water, but it makes sense that a person with authority over the elements and perfect faith can command the water molecules to hold together beneath him instead of dispersing or command the molecules of his own body to rise.

 

But compare that to one of the creeds:

"There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of His own immutable and most righteous will, for His own glory"

 

There are elements applied to God here that defy any reason or logic.  Now I begrudge nobody believing in such a being.  Let them worship however they choose.  But to argue that I am wrong because I cannot accept such a being as existing (or being scriptural) is not an issue of understanding.

I could accept Christ walking on water, but not a God being made out of water.  I can accept a God that can create and move mountains, but not a God that was a mountain.  I can accept resurrection from the dead, but not zombies.

One has logic, the other does not.

[coolrok7]

If you're going to insist on using the math problem, it is 1x1x1=1 not 1+1+1=1.

This idea of the 1×1×1=1 is from Matthew 28 in the baptismal command.

God Who at the beginning created (Father, Son, Holy Spirit; the three of the Godhead) are the one God of Deuteronomy 6, (the Hebrew Schema).

In John 1, Jesus is identified as in the beginning He (as the word) was with God and was God in which He became flesh. Luke 1/Phillipians 2/John 8:56-59 is where it is further explained.

Edited May 21, 2015 by coolrok7

[JLHPROF]

Right, that is what I am hearing. Trinity doesn't make sense, therefore it's not true. No amount of explanations will change that. 

 

Ding ding ding...we have a winner.

But others are welcome to believe.

[TheSkepticChristian]

Yes, they all make sense.

 

What does that even mean? others disagree, so "it makes sense" is just subjective. 

 

 

For example, I don't understand exactly how Christ walked on water, but it makes sense that a person with authority over the elements and perfect faith can command the water molecules to hold together beneath him instead of dispersing or command the molecules of his own body to rise.

 

They have the same mentality. They cannot explain the Trinity, they do not understand it, but they think God understands it. They think God with authority can be three persons. The Trinity makes sense to them, but they cannot explain it. Again, it is all subjective. 

 

You cannot explain how Jesus walked on water, but that makes sense to you.  

 

If you're going to insist on using the math problem, it is 1x1x1=1 not 1+1+1=1.

This idea of the 1×1×1=1 is from Matthew 28 in the baptismal command.

 

1 x 1 x 1 = 1 is modalism, not Trinity. Three persons is three, not one, I do not believe in logical contradictions. 

Edited May 21, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Storm Rider]

If you're going to insist on using the math problem, it is 1x1x1=1 not 1+1+1=1.

This idea of the 1×1×1=1 is from Matthew 28 in the baptismal command.

God Who at the beginning created (Father, Son, Holy Spirit; the three of the Godhead) are the one God of Deuteronomy 6, (the Hebrew Schema).

In John 1, Jesus is identified as in the beginning He (as the word) was with God and was God in which He became flesh. Luke 1 is where it is further explained.

 

I can understand why you cite those verses, but then there are all those other verses where Jesus talks about God the Father as an other, a third person,  He prays that his disciples would be one as he is with the Father....then your whole context falls apart.  Oneness as in Jesus' desire for his disciples is the Oneness he has with God; he does want the disciples to be one entity, but of one mind, one purpose. 

 

When you take scriptures out of context you can make the Bible say anything you want.  However, you don't have the truth; you only have what you want to hear.  Take the Bible as a whole and the doctrine of the Trinity, as you teach it, as a teaching of man rather than of God. 

[Spammer]

Appealing to the laws of physics or math to argue that the Trinity makes no sense shows that the person making such an appeal is still only thinking from within the context of our existing physical universe and its laws and is thinking from a point of view that places the Trinitarian God within it, as a member of that universe.  Trinitarians believe that God does not dwell within the universe.  He is not in the universe and is not a part of it.  He dwells outside, but 'outside' is best placed in quotes because the 'place' where God dwells is not a place in the sense that we understand place. Further, we believe He doesn't dwell within any universe anywhere.  He dwells outside and beyond any and all universes, times, and spaces.  Our time- and space-bound laws of physics and mathematics  therefore do not apply.  They are His creation, along with matter.  The mathematical concept of infinity also doesn't apply.  Rather, when we talk about God's infinity we're not thinking of mathematical infinity but thinking of it in a more philosophical sense denoting limitlessness.  Before time, space, and the material cosmos was created there was only God.  Equally, before time, space and the material cosmos was created there was no before, after, here, there, or anywhere.  God is not localized and time does not exist for Him in his dwelling place.  When we talk or think about the place where God dwells, we should put quotation marks around the words 'place' and 'where', indicating that we're not talking about a place in the sense we know and understand.  God's 'place' does not exist in any space.  Where God 'dwells', space and time do not exist. Space and time only exist for us and everything in the material cosmos exists 'within' God.  He is the ground of being, Being itself.  Thus, to ask a question like 'what did God do before the creation and where did He live' misses the point.  There is no 'before', 'after', 'where', or 'when' with God.  Those concepts only exist for finite beings that dwell in time.  To ask 'what did God do before the creation and where did He live' conceptually still places God's dwelling place before the material creation within some other material cosmos where time exists.  To understand what we Trinitarians believe, you have to get rid of all of that and try to conceptualize what an existence where time and space do not exist is like.  Spending a bit of time trying to grasp that inevitably leads to the conclusion that it's incomprehensible.  Obviously.  We can understand nothing without language and concepts and all that we know comes from within space-time and is conditioned by it.  Those are the only conceptual and linguistic tools we have and we're stuck with them.  No wonder people find it confusing.  We're forced to think about life outside time and space using terms that make no sense outside time and space.    Spending some time thinking about that should reveal why we use terms like ineffable, incomprehensible, and Mystery to refer to God.  The only way we can truly grasp the nature of this kind of God on our own is to somehow break through conceptually to where God dwells, which is impossible, for reasons I just provided, or to somehow travel to where He dwells, which is equally impossible, since to travel 'there' with our bodies is impossible (we imagine that we would somehow be floating, but notice that we've now introduced the concept of space into our thinking, so whoops!, we've found ourself in some kind of space which surrounds our bodies, but since we're in space we're still not 'where' God dwells.  God dwells outside and beyond any and all space-times).  How then do we know anything about Him?  There's only one way.  He began to reveal knowledge of Himself through the patriarchs and prophets of Israel.  This was still imperfect knowledge recorded by imperfect people who sought to understand the Divine Mystery in their own way and wrote about it.  Finally, He revealed Himself to us through the Incarnation of Christ.  God entered the material cosmos and became one of us, Jesus the God-Man, who walked among us and told the apostles about the nature of God as Holy Trinity and the apostles passed that same knowledge down to the bishops through the Church, which has preserved it carefully to this very day.  

 

I'm not trying to persuade, just trying to explain how and why we believe what we believe.  

Edited May 21, 2015 by Spammer

[JLHPROF]

What does that even mean? others disagree, so "it makes sense" is just subjective. 

 

 

Well it's religion.  It's ALL a matter of faith.  I choose to put my faith in things I CAN see reason in.  It's a personal thing.

If others want to put their faith in something incomprehensible that is their right.  But I won't follow that course.

[coolrok7]

The three, Father, Son, Holy Spirit are not modalistic. They each (not the same person so to speak) have their own identity but share in the same nature or state of being as the one God.

Jesus quoted in Mark 12:29 of Deuteronomy 6 the Hebrew Schema.

Edited May 21, 2015 by coolrok7