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

[rodheadlee]

Which always leads to the question WHERE Jesus saw Heavenly Father as a mortal being?

Christ being the eldest spirit child of Heavenly Father would not have been there to see Heavenly Father when he was in mortality.

 

Some believe that he only saw it in vision.

Some believe that all things past/present/future were available for us all to see in premortality.

Some who believe in Adam-God believe that Heavenly Father on earth as Adam was the laying down his life in mortality that was seen.

 

Always an interesting question.

I think in a vision as Christ was being taught by Heavenly Father as per John 8:28

[coolrok7]

Storm Rider. I can't answer everyone all at once. We were asked in the thread question (non-Mormons concerning Jesus being the Son of God before the earth was created).

Personally I don't think He was but others do. I've been trying to explain my perspective on the matter. I'll get to you when I can.

Edited May 29, 2015 by coolrok7

[coolrok7]

Concerning John 5:19, it eisegesis, on Joseph's part, reading into what is not there. He's in context dealing with the Jews who were always questioning what He was doing.

In the previous verse He was equating what He was doing with the Father (to them, God). It was a blasphemous statement to them. They accused Jesus of making Himself out to be God and wanting to kill Him for it.

Edited May 29, 2015 by coolrok7

[rodheadlee]

Concerning John 5:19, it eisegesis, on Joseph's part, reading into what is not there. He's in context dealing with the Jews who were always questioning what He was doing.

In the previous verse He was equating what He was doing with the Father (to them, God). It was a blasphemous statement to them. They accused Jesus of making Himself out to be God and wanting to kill Him for it.

I understand the context, it doesn't change the meaning of Christ's words. Christ was taught by Heavenly Father (John 8:28) and he has only done that which He has seen His father do. 

[coolrok7]

Rod, the point being Joseph's recasting of God as used to being a man, who became a god, is not the Biblical teaching.

Jesus is the Son of God in the conception of Jesus' physical form by the work of the Holy Spirit, no male activity involved whatsoever.

Which is why we'll never agree on the topic. Were were asked to answer the thread question which is what we are doing here.

I had stated to Bluebell in her talking with Paloma that her bias in believing Joseph Smith over and against Biblical teaching is why she can't go along with the points Paloma was making.

Edited May 29, 2015 by coolrok7

[thesometimesaint]

Rod, the point being Joseph's recasting of God as used to being a man, who became a god, is not the Biblical teaching.

Jesus is the Son of God in the conception of Jesus' physical form by the work of the Holy Spirit, no male activity involved whatsoever.

Which is why we'll never agree on the topic. Were were asked to answer the thread question which is what we are doing here.

I had stated to Bluebell in her talking with Paloma that her bias in believing Joseph Smith over and against Biblical teaching is why she can't go along with the points Paloma was making.

 

So Jesus wasn't a man?

 

Jesus is not the son of the Holy Ghost. So God the Father isn't male?

 

True.

 

Why should I believe you over Joseph Smith? What Joseph Smith taught about God isn't against the Bible.

[JLHPROF]

I've long ago come to the conclusion that what "traditional Christians" believe about God's existence and what Mormons believe about God's existence are completely different, and probably incompatible.

I will never be convinced that the God/Christ the trinitarians worship even exists, and the majority of them will never be convinced that God is so like us.

 

Much better then to focus on what really matters about God and Christ - their love for us, the atonement, and their characteristics we try to emulate.

[Gray]

I've long ago come to the conclusion that what "traditional Christians" believe about God's existence and what Mormons believe about God's existence are completely different, and probably incompatible.

I will never be convinced that the God/Christ the trinitarians worship even exists, and the majority of them will never be convinced that God is so like us.

 

Much better then to focus on what really matters about God and Christ - their love for us, the atonement, and their characteristics we try to emulate.

 

They really are quite philosophically different, even though in practice there are a lot of similarities. 

[TheSkepticChristian]

It's only a contradiction if you insist on trying to force the God I believe in into the box you call 'logic' using the finite quantities of the numeric values of one and three. As I've said, the Infinite cannot be adequately described or understood using finite

 

three persons is three, not an infinite number. I say you believe that 3 = 1 because you believe God in three persons. Instead of using words, I want to use numbers to describe the Trinity. 

 

 

 I'm no Bible-alone Christian. You have prophets; I have the Ecumenical Councils and the Apostolic Tradition, including the councils that selected the books that would be included in your New Testament. We selected those books and put them together with the Old Testament to make the Bible 1100 years before there were any Protestants and 1400 years before there were any Mormons. The Bible is our book and it only exists because we put it together and preserved it over the centuries. It's important to keep that in mind when you say things like "The Bible never mentions..." to an Orthodox Christian or a Catholic. Yes, we know. We put the Bible together. We know what's in there.

 

Where is the evidence that the Bible is complete? Where is the evidence for the Trinity? Where is the evidence that early first century Christians believed in the Trinity. 

[rodheadlee]

Rod, the point being Joseph's recasting of God as used to being a man, who became a god, is not the Biblical teaching.

Jesus is the Son of God in the conception of Jesus' physical form by the work of the Holy Spirit, no male activity involved whatsoever.

Which is why we'll never agree on the topic. Were were asked to answer the thread question which is what we are doing here.

I had stated to Bluebell in her talking with Paloma that her bias in believing Joseph Smith over and against Biblical teaching is why she can't go along with the points Paloma was making.

Um, It's plain a day right there in John 5:19. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

[danielwoods]

Um, It's plain a day right there in John 5:19. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

Your argument is that John 5 indicates that the Father must have a body like Jesus, otherwise Jesus couldn't have seen him do those things, right? 

 

 Unfortunately, a body isn't needed, or indicated as necessary for the Father to have. 

John 5:16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

19 Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, and he will show him even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it.

 

Notice that Jesus isn't talking about observing the Father in the past, but the present, and even the future. Jesus is talking about observing the Father work in present tense, and in the future. Doing what? Loving, raising the dead, giving life. The Father is always working and no reference to a body being needed to do this work, or for Jesus to observe his work being done. 

[Calm]

The Father is always working and no reference to a body being needed to do this work, or for Jesus to observe his work being done. 

 

 

There is a difference between observing the end result of work and observing someone doing it.

[mfbukowski]

He used to be a man like Jesus Christ. John 5: 19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he ^aseeth the ^bFather do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

 

edited to ad: To me that means Heavenly Father was crucified and resurrected in some other eternity. He was a Christ.

"For that is the way Father gained his knowledge"

[Calm]

Did you check the FM conference thread...I posted some direct links for the conference there.

 

If you end up going, be sure and let me know.

[mfbukowski]

There is a difference between observing the end result of work and observing someone doing it.

I see that the new replacement for the World Trade Center is now finished in New York.

[mfbukowski]

Did you check the FM conference thread...I posted some direct links for the conference there.

 

If you end up going, be sure and let me know.

Is this for me?  I wrote there that the site is down, and yes I am going but can't buy tickets

[danielwoods]

There is a difference between observing the end result of work and observing someone doing it.

 

Yes, and Jesus using the present tense to indicate that he is actively observing the Father at that time. 

[Calm]

Is this for me?  I wrote there that the site is down, and yes I am going but can't buy tickets

The bookstore is working, just the main site is down.  You should be able to get tickets from the links I posted.  If not let me know.

Edited May 30, 2015 by calmoriah

[mfbukowski]

The bookstore is working, just the main site is down.  You should be able to get tickets from the links I posted.  If not let me know.

Done.

[VideoGameJunkie]

Just watch the temple video.

[thesometimesaint]

 

Your argument is that John 5 indicates that the Father must have a body like Jesus, otherwise Jesus couldn't have seen him do those things, right? 

 

 Unfortunately, a body isn't needed, or indicated as necessary for the Father to have. 

John 5:16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

19 Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, and he will show him even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it.

 

Notice that Jesus isn't talking about observing the Father in the past, but the present, and even the future. Jesus is talking about observing the Father work in present tense, and in the future. Doing what? Loving, raising the dead, giving life. The Father is always working and no reference to a body being needed to do this work, or for Jesus to observe his work being done. 

 

This on again off again Resurrection thing of yours is really confusing.

[Vance]

 

Your argument is that John 5 indicates that the Father must have a body like Jesus, otherwise Jesus couldn't have seen him do those things, right? 

 

 Unfortunately, a body isn't needed, or indicated as necessary for the Father to have. 

John 5:16 So, because Jesus was doing these things on the Sabbath, the Jewish leaders began to persecute him. 17 In his defense Jesus said to them, “My Father is always at his work to this very day, and I too am working.” 18 For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God.

19 Jesus gave them this answer: “Very truly I tell you, the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does. 20 For the Father loves the Son and shows him all he does. Yes, and he will show him even greater works than these, so that you will be amazed. 21 For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it.

 

Notice that Jesus isn't talking about observing the Father in the past, but the present, and even the future. Jesus is talking about observing the Father work in present tense, and in the future. Doing what? Loving, raising the dead, giving life. The Father is always working and no reference to a body being needed to do this work, or for Jesus to observe his work being done. 

So, you are saying that when the Son was being born of a woman he was observing the Father being born of a woman at the same time.  And when the Son was being crucified, He was observing the Father being crucified at the same time. And when the Son was resurrecting to a body of flesh and bones, He was observing the Father resurrecting to a body of flesh and bones AT THE SAME TIME.

 

How does this hurt our argument that the Father has a body of flesh and bones?

Edited May 31, 2015 by Vance

[danielwoods]

So, you are saying that when the Son was being born of a woman he was observing the Father being born of a woman at the same time.  And when the Son was being crucified, He was observing the Father being crucified at the same time. And when the Son was resurrecting to a body of flesh and bones, He was observing the Father resurrecting to a body of flesh and bones AT THE SAME TIME.

 

How does this hurt our argument that the Father has a body of flesh and bones?

 

The Father isn't seen as ever having a body of flesh and bones, no body of the Father is ever mentioned, so the argument isn't hurt at all, it's simply not even supported. What is mentioned, in that verse is Jesus observing the Father, in present tense. Obviously, that observation was missed by the average observer, but not by Jesus as he was able to see and understand that the Father was working everyday. 

[mfbukowski]

The Father isn't seen as ever having a body of flesh and bones, no body of the Father is ever mentioned, so the argument isn't hurt at all, it's simply not even supported. What is mentioned, in that verse is Jesus observing the Father, in present tense. Obviously, that observation was missed by the average observer, but not by Jesus as he was able to see and understand that the Father was working everyday.

Except Sundays of course when I suppose he takes a nap? He watched him work?

How does one observe disembodied spirit at work anyway?

What does God look like that he could be "observed"?

And does he work 24 hours a "day"?

And you think OUR metaphors are "wrong"? How can you tell?

[rodheadlee]

The Father isn't seen as ever having a body of flesh and bones, no body of the Father is ever mentioned, so the argument isn't hurt at all, it's simply not even supported. What is mentioned, in that verse is Jesus observing the Father, in present tense. Obviously, that observation was missed by the average observer, but not by Jesus as he was able to see and understand that the Father was working everyday. 

 26 ¶ And God said, Let ^aus ^bmake ^cman in our ^dimage, after our ^elikeness: