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

[JAHS]

And yet John describes him as being Eternal, just as God the father is. 

Jesus is eternal in the same way we are. LDS beliefs teach that we have always existed as intelligences before God created our spirits. At the monent he created our spirits we became His spirit children, including Jesus who was the first born in the spirit. That is when He had His beginning as the son of God. But of course you have to be LDS to agree with that doctrine. 

[jackson20]

I really appreciate the links but i don't know when i'll get to watch them.  I've got kids and noise galore over here and for that reason i don't typically watch videos online.  If you've got something written you can link to i'll read that (as long as it's not crazy long!).  

LOL I hear you. It's something you have to be in the head space to listen to....quiet .   Hope you do have a chance to listen....as I said it is very well done....certainly give one some things to contemplate. thanks for the thanks

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

So what makes Jesus the Son of God then?

According to the Book of Mormon Mosiah 15:3 Jesus was the Son of God at conception, Jesus was God Eternally, Mosiah 3:5 . The Book of Mormon agrees with the Creeds of the 4th and 5th century. The Creeds teach when he became flesh Jesus stripped himself of equality and humbled himself to a lower or slave position, Phil 2:8-9, 2 Cor 8:9 . Line 33 of the Athanasion Creed teaches Jesus became inferior to the Father a separate person as man

[bluebell]

 

The Bible is clearly describe Jesus as being Eternal just as God the Father is.

 

 

This is true.  Have you considered though that the way you are defining eternal might not be the way that the bible defines the term?  For example, the bible also says that some people will be eternally damned, yet no one thinks that that means that those people were always damned in the past, only that they always will be damned in the future.

 

When the bible says that something is eternal, it's clear that it does not have to mean that something always was that way.  

[bluebell]

According to the Book of Mormon Mosiah 15:3 Jesus was the Son of God at conception, Jesus was God Eternally, Mosiah 3:5 . The Book of Mormon agrees with the Creeds of the 4th and 5th century. The Creeds teach when he became flesh Jesus stripped himself of equality and humbled himself to a lower or slave position, Phil 2:8-9, 2 Cor 8:9 . Line 33 of the Athanasion Creed teaches Jesus became inferior to the Father a separate person as man

 

I know what the book of mormon teaches (better than you seem to).  In LDS theology Jesus is known as both the Father and the Son, but for different (or more) reasons than most other Christians understand or use those terms.

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

Jesus is eternal in the same way we are. LDS beliefs teach that we have always existed as intelligences before God created our spirits. At the monent he created our spirits we became His spirit children, including Jesus who was the first born in the spirit. That is when He had His beginning as the son of God. But of course you have to be LDS to agree with that doctrine.

Where in the Book of Mormon or Bible does it teach humans are eternal ? This is exclusive with only GOD according to these two books

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

I know what the book of mormon teaches (better than you seem to).  In LDS theology Jesus is known as both the Father and the Son, but for different (or more) reasons than most other Christians understand or use those terms.

If Jesus and God the Father are same person, Ether 3:14, Mosiah 16:15 and Mosiah 15:3 then the Book of Mormon teaches MODALISM a teaching both Catholics and Protestants consider a heresy

[bluebell]

Where in the Book of Mormon or Bible does it teach humans are eternal ? This is exclusive with only GOD according to these two books

 

LDS have more scripture than just the Bible and the Book of Mormon.  

 

This is a verse from the Pearl of Great Price-

 

"if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal."

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

LDS have more scripture than just the Bible and the Book of Mormon.  

 

This is a verse from the Pearl of Great Price-

 

"if there be two spirits, and one shall be more intelligent than the other, yet these two spirits, notwithstanding one is more intelligent than the other, have no beginning; they existed before, they shall have no end, they shall exist after, for they are gnolaum, or eternal."

Why not quote from the Book of Mormon the keystone of the Mormon Religion ?

[bluebell]

If Jesus and God the Father are same person, Ether 3:14, Mosiah 16:15 and Mosiah 15:3 then the Book of Mormon teaches MODALISM a teaching both Catholics and Protestants consider a heresy

 

We've been over this on other threads-Jesus and God the Father are NOT the same person.  

 

Jesus is called the Father because when we covenant with Him, we symbolically become His offspring.  We are adopted into His family as His children and thus become eligible to inherit His inheritance (which inheritance is 'all the Father has').  

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

Introduction of Book of Mormon

this isn't said about the Pearl of Great Price

[bluebell]

Why not quote from the Book of Mormon the keystone of the Mormon Religion ?

 

This question makes no sense and shows that you don't understand what it means for the BOM to be the keystone of our religion.

[bluebell]

record the Prophet Joseph Smith said: “I told the brethren that the Book of Mormon was the most correct of any book on earth, and the keystone of our religion, and a man would get nearer to God by abiding by its precepts, than by any other book.”

Introduction of Book of Mormon

this isn't said about the Pearl of Great Price

 

Please stay on topic.  If you want to discuss this then create your own thread.

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

We've been over this on other threads-Jesus and God the Father are NOT the same person.  

 

Jesus is called the Father because when we covenant with Him, we symbolically become His offspring.  We are adopted into His family as His children and thus become eligible to inherit His inheritance (which inheritance is 'all the Father has').

Modalism teaches there the same person, not the Trinity which teaches there separate and distinct persons

, first used by Theophilus (A.D. 168 A.D. - 183 A.D.), or from the Lat. trinitas, first used by Tertullian (A.D. 220 A.D.), to express this doctrine. The propositions involved in the doctrine are these: 1. That God is one, and that there is but one God (Deut 6:4; 1 Kings 8:60; Isa 44:6; Mark 12:29,32; John 10:30). 2. That the Father is a distinct divine Person (hypostasis, subsistentia, persona, suppositum intellectuale), distinct from the Son and the Holy Spirit. 3. That Jesus Christ was truly God, and yet was a Person distinct from the Father and the Holy Spirit. 4. That the Holy Spirit is also a distinct divine Person.

(from Easton's Bible Dictionary, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 2003, 2006 Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved.)

God- Godhead- Substance- Essence- Being [ all Synonyms ]

[JAHS]

Why not quote from the Book of Mormon the keystone of the Mormon Religion ?

We regard all LDS scriptures as containing true doctrines including Bible, Book ofMormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price, the latter of which explains our eternal nature. 

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

2 Nephi 29:9

And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

Moroni 8:18 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.

Mormon 9:9 For do we not read that God is the same yesterday, today, and forever , and in him there is no variableness neither shadow of changing?

Mormon 9:19

And if there were miracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchanging Being? And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles.”

Hebrews 12: 8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever.

2 Nephi 19:9 And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever.

Moroni 7:22

For behold, God knowing all things, being from everlasting to everlasting, behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing.

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

We regard all LDS scriptures as containing true doctrines including Bible, Book ofMormon, Doctrine and Covenants and Pearl of Great Price, the latter of which explains our eternal nature.

The Book of Mormon and Bible teach only GOD is Eternal

[JAHS]

The Book of Mormon and Bible teach only GOD is Eternal

And the Pearl of Great Price teaches that we and Jesus are all eternal. One of the reason we have that scripture is to teach us some things that the others do not have.  God gives us information "line upon line" (Isaiah 28: 10) as we are ready to receive it.

[bluebell]

The Book of Mormon and Bible teach only GOD is Eternal

 

They teach that God is eternal.  They don't teach that only God is eternal in the way you want to define the term.

[bluebell]

Modalism teaches there the same person, not the Trinity which teaches there separate and distinct persons

 

 

Yes, i know.

[CCRW]

Jahs touched on this eariler ... but what ever happened to the likes of;

 

1. Christ is the firstborn of the Spirit and of the Flesh.

2. This is the "Redemptive Earth" and that Christ is the Redeemer over millions of others, but only this one was wicked enough to crucify him.

3. That the God head positions are roles, like bishop or Prophet and that many hold those roles.  Possibly various “houses of Israel”  Maybe even totally different trees/houses headed by others.  i.e. other Christ’s over other millions of earths, also needing one of them to be redemptive at the end of its eternal round. 

 

bluebell ... it also always struck me that eternal, like say eternal round does have the concept of beginning and end, with many things having a beginning but no end.  Like say Christ being the first born of the spirit (beginning) but having no end.

[danielwoods]

I appreciate the answer.  Two thoughts-

 

Does 'eternal' have to mean that something has no beginning and no end?  For example, we are promised eternal life if we follow Christ (to put it simply).    That means that at some point in the distant future it might be said of you "Daniel has eternal life".  Would someone, according to your beliefs about what eternal life is for you, hearing that be right to interpret that to mean that you always had life in the past and always will in the future?

 

Edit to add-The same question can be asked for whenever the scriptures promise 'eternal damnation'.  Does that mean that someone who becomes eternally damned was always damned and always will be?  Does the word eternal work both forward and backward when the scriptures use it to describe damnation (or salvation)?

 

That is how you are defining the word 'eternal' when it comes to God the Father so i'm asking whether or not your definition is legitimate when the word is used in the bible to describe something other than God the Father?

 

Eternal is defined (by theologians that I studied) as meaning no beginning and no end. So, we aren't eternal beings, only God is. We are immortal beings, in that we have a beginning, but live forever. So, when referencing Jesus statements about our salvation or damnation, the context of our lives has to be taken into account. To the woman at the well, Jesus said, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, 14 but whoever drinks the water I give them will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give them will become in them a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” (John 4:13,14) 

In this context (our lives) eternal life is a reference to the quality of life we will and do have because of our being connected to Jesus. Jesus is sharing his eternal life with us, which is not a reference to time, but quality. And the idea of eternal damnation further nails this point down, because eternal damnation certainly couldn't be a reference to eternal time in the past, so it has to be referencing quality of life into the future. 

Second thought, like JLH has said, it seems obvious that the phrase 'in the beginning' is talking about the beginning of this creation and not the beginning of everything.  If that's true, then does the bible, in your belief, actually teach us what happened before 'the beginning'?

If it does, and there is some dispute about that, it is very little. Such as the question of when exactly did Lucifer fall, etc...

 

Asking about the "beginning" is an interesting question. One that brings up other topics such as Time. I believe that Time only really exists in this creation. Because the reference to Time is always based on entropy, there is no Time without some other reference to compare it to.

 

With our limited amount of time on Earth, the concept of Time becomes paramount (how much do we have?). If Time was unlimited (such as to an Eternal being), then references to Time would also be irrelevant. Thus, "in the beginning" marks the beginning of referencing Time. Before that, a reference to eternal "time" was irrelevant because God knew all that he would do and what would happen. And at no time was there a lack of anything, time, power, energy, anything. 

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

Jahs touched on this eariler ... but what ever happened to the likes of;

 

1. Christ is the firstborn of the Spirit and of the Flesh.

2. This is the "Redemptive Earth" and that Christ is the Redeemer over millions of others, but only this one was wicked enough to crucify him.

3. That the God head positions are roles, like bishop or Prophet and that many hold those roles.  Possibly various “houses of Israel”  Maybe even totally different trees/houses headed by others.  i.e. other Christ’s over other millions of earths, also needing one of them to be redemptive at the end of its eternal round. 

 

bluebell ... it also always struck me that eternal, like say eternal round does have the concept of beginning and end, with many things having a beginning but no end.  Like say Christ being the first born of the spirit (beginning) but having no end.

the biblical use of the word "firstborn" is most interesting. It can mean the first born child in a family (Luke 2:7), but it can also mean "pre-eminence." In Psalm 89:20, 27 it says, "I have found David My servant; with My holy oil I have anointed him...I also shall make him My first-born" (NASB). As you can see, David, who was the last one born in his family was called the firstborn by God. This is a title of preeminence.

Gen. 41:51-52, "And Joseph called the name of the first-born Manasseh: For, said he, God hath made me forget all my toil, and all my fatherï's house. And the name of the second called he Ephraim: For God hath made me fruitful in the land of my affliction" (NASB)

Jer. 31:9, "...for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is My firstborn (NASB)."

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

Excessive cut and paste removed.

[Storm Rider]

Jahs touched on this eariler ... but what ever happened to the likes of;

 

1. Christ is the firstborn of the Spirit and of the Flesh.

2. This is the "Redemptive Earth" and that Christ is the Redeemer over millions of others, but only this one was wicked enough to crucify him.

3. That the God head positions are roles, like bishop or Prophet and that many hold those roles.  Possibly various “houses of Israel”  Maybe even totally different trees/houses headed by others.  i.e. other Christ’s over other millions of earths, also needing one of them to be redemptive at the end of its eternal round. 

 

bluebell ... it also always struck me that eternal, like say eternal round does have the concept of beginning and end, with many things having a beginning but no end.  Like say Christ being the first born of the spirit (beginning) but having no end.

 

There is another way of looking at things; eternal beings are outside of time; there is no linear progression of beginning and end because it those concepts do not exist in their realm.  Jesus remains the first born, but he is firstborn eternally.  I don't think the concept of eternally begotten is completely foreign to LDS, in other words there is some truth there.  These topics are rather deep and at some point we draw a line and say I do not understand what has been revealed and it is acceptable to not yet understand.  

 

It is interesting how you enjoy bringing up teachings of the Church that still remain part of our folklore, but are not and have never been doctrine of the Church.  It has been contemplated that this is the only world that was wicked enough to crucify the Son of God.  He was the Christ for all of God's creations and was not limited to this world as Savior.  

 

The concept that the Godhead is really only a set of roles that are fulfilled by beings as they eternally progress remain for some to be doctrinal, but they are firmly in the realm of mystery and there is a distinct lack of teachings in these areas. Some LDS will remain firmly adamant that it is the revealed truth of God, but I tend to think they are incomplete and raise more questions than they answer.