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

[coolrok7]

JLH, that is your prerogative. But when the Mormon Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., they have an obligation to prove it being the new kids on the block so to speak.

[JLHPROF]

JLH, that is your prerogative. But when the Mormon Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., they have an obligation to prove it being the new kids on the block so to speak.

 

I disagree.  They have no more obligation to "prove" their religious beliefs to a different religion than the early Christians did to "prove" Christianity to the Jews (or the Romans for that matter).

 

If ALL our beliefs came from the same source as other Christians then perhaps we would have the obligation to make our beliefs match traditional biblical interpretation.  But we are NOT Bible-only Christians.  Only a percentage of our beliefs are expressed fully in the Bible, and only a larger percentage are alluded to (the stuff we seem in endless debate over).

 

I have no obligation to "prove" any aspect of my religion to traditional Christianity any more than a Hindu would.

Joseph Smith teaches that Christ was created, and that man can become as God.  You say that's not in the Bible.  We can either spend hours debating whether it is or not, or acknowledge that we believe something not spelled out in the Bible.  I choose the latter.  The Bible is not the only information on God I accept.

Edited May 21, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Vance]

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.

 

So?  Your point is pointless.

 

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.

So?  Did you not notice something?

 

In the Greek it is the Christ.

Nah, the Greek uses Greek words.

 

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

So now you are a mind reader?

 

You are changing your story now, first you claimed he got it from the Nicene creed now you are claiming that he got it from John 7:26 which doesn't have "the very God" in it at all.   You are getting more silly by the moment.

The term very God is from the so-called abominable creed.

Would you make up your deluded mind!!!!

 

Did it come from the Creed or did it come from the KJV?

 

Joseph claiming something he is not, a true prophet of God.

And you are claiming to be something that you are not, a knowledgeable person.

[Vance]

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.

 

So, you are claiming it is multiplication not addition.  But the question is, will you stick to this claim?  Answer => No.

 

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).

Sorry, but there is no way that 1 raised to any power can equal 3.  So, already you have abandon your 1x1x1=1 and gone back to 1+1+1=3.

 

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.

We have been over this numerous times and you still don't have it right.

[Vance]

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.

There you go again, back to the 1+1+1=3.

 

You can't be consistent to save your life.

[Vance]

JLH, that is your prerogative. But when the Mormon Church, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc., they have an obligation to prove it being the new kids on the block so to speak.

So, back when the protestants were "the new kids on the block so to speak" did "they have an obligation to prove it"?

 

Nah, they just claimed that the Catholic Church was totally apostate while swallowing the unbiblical creeds without question.

 

LOL!!!!

[Calm]

I really wish those who use the function of multiplication to symbolize the type of relationship the Trinity is wouldn't present it as if it had anything to actually do with math and thus they are proving something fundamental.

It is at best an analogy.

Do you really want to say the Father is multiplied by the Son and the Spirit and that multiplication equals God?

Edited May 22, 2015 by calmoriah

[TheSkepticChristian]

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.

 

but they believe God understand the Trinity, they have the same mentality as 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.

 

 

So do you believe the One Person X One Person X One Person = One Person? The Trinity teaches three persons. 

The Trinity is a logical contradiction because 3 is not equal to 1. 

[JLHPROF]

but they believe God understand the Trinity, they have the same mentality as you.

 

No, they believe GOD understands the Trinity.  I believe God expects US to understand the doctrines we are called to believe in.  There may be things we cannot understand in this life, but for my belief life eternal is to come to know God and Christ, not to accept them as incomprehensible.

[coolrok7]

For the sake of clarity in what is relevant to what we need to know, God (my perspective is that God--Father, Son, Holy Spirit; the one God of Deuteronomy, the Hebrew Schema which Jesus quoted from as recorded In Mark 12) has laid out in Scripture what we need to believe (the Gospel 1 Corinthians 15:1-4) in  order to have salvation (escape from an eternal punishment in hell  which will be a future state of residence for the goats of Matthew 25/ a parallel of Revelation 20).

 

The nature of God and man is distinct from each other. From everlasting to everlasting thou art God.

 

Man has a beginning but is now eternal in one direction (future state of existence) when the resurrection takes place at the Judgment Day. The sheep will live in glorified bodies like the one Jesus had in His resurrection for eternity: for we shall see him as he is and become like him in that way only, resurrected but not Deity as He is.

 

Until then we as individuals are given the opportunity to respond to His grace, regardless of what time period one lives in.

Edited May 22, 2015 by coolrok7

[mfbukowski]

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. 

So you are saying that the truth must be unreasonable to me for it to be true??

 

What theory of truth are you using?

[mfbukowski]

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

I have no clue what this means.

 

How can you know it is true if it doesn't make sense?

 

Mormonism is true.  There.  The fact that it doesn't make sense to you is irrelevant.  That is your logic.  When do you want to be baptized?

[Storm Rider]

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.

 

What you have stated above does not conflict with LDS teaching.  They are separate beings, but share the same nature, will, desire and act as one God.  Next question.

[Bobbieaware]

What you have stated above does not conflict with LDS teaching. They are separate beings, but share the same nature, will, desire and act as one God. Next question.

And remember, Peter testifies that by living the gospel men can be made full partakers of the same divine nature that unifies the Father and the Son.

3 According as his divine power hath given unto us ALL THINGS that pertain unto life and godliness, through the knowledge of him that hath called us to glory and virtue:

4 Whereby are given unto us exceeding great and precious promises: that by these ye might be partakers of the divine nature, having escaped the corruption that is in the world through lust. 2 Peter 1

And even the Lord himself promised this disciples they can be brought into and included in the same sacred circle of divine unity that exists between the Father and the Son.

20 Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word;

21 That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, THAT THEY ALSO MIGHT BE ONE IN US, that the world may believe that thou hast sent me.

22 And the glory which thou gavest me (i.e. the divine nature)I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

23 I IN THEM, AND THOU IN ME, that they may be made perfect in one; and that the world may know that thou hast sent me, and hast loved them, as thou hast loved me. John 17

Edited May 22, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[danielwoods]

So you are saying that the truth must be unreasonable to me for it to be true??

 

What theory of truth are you using?

 

Nope didn't say that. 

 

Correspondence theory. 

 

I have no clue what this means.

 

How can you know it is true if it doesn't make sense?

 

Mormonism is true.  There.  The fact that it doesn't make sense to you is irrelevant.  That is your logic.  When do you want to be baptized?

 

How we determine what is true is a fascinating study to me. The arguments against the veracity of the trinity was that it was incomprehensible. You even argued that to be a poor argument based on the many incomprehensible things in LDS theology. 

 

I was simply noting a theme. And in looking at myself, whether something is comprehensible or not is secondary to whether it's true or not. For example, I may not comprehend how the internal combustion engine works, and I don't need to know that, to know that it's true that if I put gas in, the car goes. So, the incomprehensibleness of something doesn't mean it's untrue. 

 

I would contend, that those here who disbelieve the trinity, do so based on prior beliefs and commitments, not incomprehensibility. But some have commented that truth that doesn't make sense, must not be true, and they therefore follow LDS theology because it makes sense to them, and therefore must be true. And in some sense, I agree with this, but when it comes to difficult theologies to understand, like the Trinity, I trust the primary sources, not my own sense of what is true or not. 

[coolrok7]

Jesus is identified as the Son of God and Son of man, each having their own distinction. Son of Man only has meaning in the context of the natural world we live in since the beginning of man (Adam first and then Eve). God likens this to the incarnation in which meaning is derived in Jesus being the Son of God (John 1:1-3, 18; Colossians 1; Philippians 2).

 

Since then procreation has taken place in which is the norm or natural/biological process (in the womb of a female) of peopling the world up to the present (can now due to scientific understanding be accomplished out of the womb by simulating the process by the combining of the sperm and the egg of already existing people). This in the beginning is what, Biblically speaking, God had declared, intended for His creation in relationship with Him.

 

While God allowed for the distortion (deception of the evil one, the devil or Satan- a fallen angel not human) He revealed that the seed of a woman (who don't have the seed, men do) would bring about a resolution of the evil introduced by this rebellious angel). The seed in Genesis 3 is the prophetical pronouncement of what we now know as the incarnation, the Virgin conception of Jesus in Mary's womb (no male activity involved, the normal/natural process of procreation).

 

Father/Son has a natural meaning for us but is not to be understood for the relationship in the Godhead for Jesus and the Father because there is no Biblically declared mother God as taught by Joseph Smith in Mormonism or as in Greek/Roman mythology. Concerning Jesus, from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. Mormonism has only an eternal progression of G(g)ods in which one becomes a god..

 

He has no beginning or end. His nature as solely a spiritual being before the incarnation where He took on a human body in the womb of Mary as recorded in Luke 1, does not change His Deity nor make His body God as He doesn't depend on it for His eternal existence. His glorified/spiritualized body so to speak still has physical form to prove that our resurrection is a realized promise for us in that which we can depend.

 

We depend on our human body in which our spirits dwell after being created in the wombs of our mothers for our biological life until our death, the result of the fall. God has remedied this in the atonement. Our physical forms will be glorified (all believers) on Judgment Day in which we will live forever with God in eternal life. Those that rejected this truth will be in existence for eternity as well but under eternal punishment which is not eternal life, given to all believers as a promise of God, saved by grace through faith, not of works. We were created in Christ Jesus, born again, unto good works.

 

All these things are distorted in the teachings of Joseph Smith by using Biblical terminology while changing the meaning of Biblical terms and adding to/taking away from God's declared truth in Biblical revelation.

 

Mormons will of course dispute this, it is their prerogative. They have the ability to believe whatever they choose to but not without a Biblical warning. It is stated that Mormons accept our Christianity but that is not really true based on official statements made by General Authorities.

 

After being asked the thread question, those who have been responding here have been chastised/rudely at times, often for giving our sincere beliefs based on Biblical teaching (using analogies to explain our understanding of scriptural teaching), in the context of the Old/New Testament.

 

I alone am responsible (as everyone else is for their belief) for what I believe, not what someone else does, even if they have declared themselves believers in Jesus Christ. Judgment Day will bear this out. Until then witness is given, believed or not but there will be eternal consequences of which I'm well aware of so I don't take any of these discussions lightly but give due diligence to the study and proclamation of God's truth as revealed in Biblical Scripture.

[coolrok7]

JLH, Mormons/Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door and in the process tell me I'm wrong. They do have an obligation to truth as declared in the Bible.

[JLHPROF]

JLH, Mormons/Jehovah's Witnesses come to my door and in the process tell me I'm wrong. They do have an obligation to truth as declared in the Bible.

 

No, they don't.  If we were Bible only Christians maybe.

There is no obligation to prove a non-bible only religion from the bible only.

If Catholics came to your protestant door and told you you were wrong THEY would have an obligation to use the bible as the only source of truth. 

The Jehovah's witnesses as Bible only Christians also have that obligation.

We have no such obligation.

Edited May 22, 2015 by JLHPROF

[thesometimesaint]

In LDS theology we are already Gods. We choose to live up to the blessings of God the Father or not.

[thesometimesaint]

No, they don't.  If we were Bible only Christians maybe.

There is no obligation to prove a non-bible only religion from the bible only.

If Catholics came to your protestant door and told you you were wrong THEY would have an obligation to use the bible as the only source of truth. 

The Jehovah's witnesses as Bible only Christians also have that obligation.

We have no such obligation.

 

Actually Catholics don't use the Protestant Bible. Plus they have Sacred Tradition, and the Pope to go on. 

[JLHPROF]

Actually Catholics don't use the Protestant Bible. Plus they have Sacred Tradition, and the Pope to go on. 

 

Fair enough.  But I know you get my point.  Mormons are not obligated to "prove" everything from the Bible alone since we don't believe all truth comes from the Bible alone.  If something is in a modern revelation and not in the Bible that's just the way it is for some gospel truths.  I may find evidence for all of Mormonism in the Bible, but using it alone as proof really doesn't work.

[thesometimesaint]

Fair enough.  But I know you get my point.  Mormons are not obligated to "prove" everything from the Bible alone since we don't believe all truth comes from the Bible alone.  If something is in a modern revelation and not in the Bible that's just the way it is for some gospel truths.  I may find evidence for all of Mormonism in the Bible, but using it alone as proof really doesn't work.

 

I think it is worse than that. LDS, Catholic and Orthodox churches don't rely on any Bible alone let alone the Protestant Bible alone premise. It is just the Protestant churches that have the Sola Scriptura problem.

 

I find a lot of support for my LDS beliefs in the Protestant Bible, but not all. I do believe we need the uniquely LDS Scripture and modern day Prophets to maintain the LDS religion.

 

Just my personal inclination, but I dislike using the word "proof". I much prefer the use of the words supporting evidence.

[JLHPROF]

 

Just my personal inclination, but I dislike using the word "proof". I much prefer the use of the words supporting evidence.

 

I agree.  I was responding to the claim that we needed to "prove" our beliefs from the Bible.

[coolrok7]

In their proselytizing materials, the Mormon Church's claim is that:

 

 

Bible doctrine is Mormon doctrine, and Mormon doctrine is Bible doctrine. They are one and the same. . . .(What Mormons Think of Christ pamphlet, p.3)

 

This is not true. It sounds like it at times but in reality it is not.

 

What is meant by the above, based on my experience in interacting with them over the years, is that the Bible is not trustworthy/can't be truly understood without Mormon so-called Scripture which is demonstrably not true:

 

Scholars look at the New Testament Gospels: . . .A major theme of the symposium was the authenticity of the New Testament text. . . ."the New Testament text is well established"--that it has an enviable position of reliability when compared with other ancient texts. . .no text is better attested in both quality and quantity of readings then in the New Testament writings. . . .(The Ensign, May 1985, p. 105, C. Wilfred Griggs in a paper read by his wife)

 

The Bible also is not the product of Roman Catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc.. The Bible is a God breathed document, not a product of Roman Catholicism as it was brought together before Catholicism was established as a distinct branch of Christianity.

 

JLH, Paul councils us to prove all things, hold fast to that which is good. You seem to disagree?

 

 

[mfbukowski]

The Bible is a God breathed document, not a product of Roman Catholicism as it was brought together before Catholicism was established as a distinct branch of Christianity.

CFR on all points

 

 

Bible doctrine is Mormon doctrine, and Mormon doctrine is Bible doctrine. They are one and the same. . . .(What Mormons Think of Christ pamphlet, p.3)

 

You quote that pamphlet all the time.

 

I would like to see a copy of it, along with who published it and when.  A scan or photo of the title page and copyright will be fine, along with the quote on the page itself

Edited May 23, 2015 by mfbukowski