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

[danielwoods]

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

 

So, instead of defending your interpretation of John, we move on to Genesis. And again, here there is no reference to a physical body for the Father. 

Edited May 31, 2015 by danielwoods

[danielwoods]

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?

 

Oh so you are arguing that the Father doesn't actually have a physical body, that these are just metaphors? 

[mfbukowski]

Oh so you are arguing that the Father doesn't actually have a physical body, that these are just metaphors? 

"Just metaphors"?  Lol! 

 

Have you noticed that words are squiggles on a page?  When you say "cat" does a black furry creature with a long tail come out of your mouth?  Every word you utter is a "metaphor"- a symbol for some idea in your head, and nowhere else.  The world is not in your head, thoughts are in your head and words speak of thoughts.  Unless furry things and tables and chairs and ferris wheels jump out of your mouth, that is.

 

Just remind me not to be around when you talk about tsunamis or the Grand Canyon.

 

Some metaphors make sense, others don't. 

 

THAT is the only issue here.  Does the metaphor of being created in His image make more sense than the metaphor of praying to an invisible "substance"??   A formless fog of ..... What??   Three formless fogs blending into one formless fog?  Does that help you want to pray to God?

 

Funny, I thought that the Trinity was a "mystery" to you and "just a metaphor" because of course we cannot fully understand the things of God.

 

I guess now you can describe what God "actually" is without metaphors.  Good for you.  Point that substance out to me next time you see it ok?

 

Can you now maybe see the problems with "correspondence"?  What does "substance" or "essence" or "being"  correspond to??

Edited May 31, 2015 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

So, instead of defending your interpretation of John, we move on to Genesis. And again, here there is no reference to a physical body for the Father. 

Oh yes of course.

 

Clearly we also are a formless "substance" reflecting his image.

 

.......talk about metaphors!

[danielwoods]

"Just metaphors"?  Lol! 

 

Have you noticed that words are squiggles on a page?  When you say "cat" does a black furry creature with a long tail come out of your mouth?  Every word you utter is a "metaphor"- a symbol for some idea in your head, and nowhere else.  The world is not in your head, thoughts are in your head and words speak of thoughts.  Unless furry things and tables and chairs and ferris wheels jump out of your mouth, that is.

 

Just remind me not to be around when you talk about tsunamis or the Grand Canyon.

 

Some metaphors make sense, others don't. 

 

THAT is the only issue here.  Does the metaphor of being created in His image make more sense than the metaphor of praying to an invisible "substance"??   A formless fog of ..... What??   Three formless fogs blending into one formless fog?  Does that help you want to pray to God?

 

Funny, I thought that the Trinity was a "mystery" to you and "just a metaphor" because of course we cannot fully understand the things of God.

 

I guess now you can describe what God "actually" is without metaphors.  Good for you.  Point that substance out to me next time you see it ok?

 

Can you now maybe see the problems with "correspondence"?  What does "substance" or "essence" or "being"  correspond to??

 

I see a lot of criticism and sarcasm. Don't answer the question, that's fine. 

[stephenpurdy]

Lets look at the phrase "image and likeness" as it is used in the Old Testament.  Not only is it used to describe the son of Adam (his son looks like his father), but it is used often in the context of idol worship.  Often in the Old Testament texts, we see people making an observation about something in the created Universe, whether it be in heaven or on earth.  Perhaps they observed an Ox , an Eagle, a star (Sun), etc.   They would then make a statue replica of that object , they would make an "image" or a "likeness" of that thing and begin to worship it.  The root etymology of "image" is the SHADOW/SHAPE of the object.  For example, the shadow/shape of a human would have a head, two arms, two legs, etc.  If any of you have seen a statue of a human, then you have seen the image and likeness of that person.  This is how the terms "image and likeness" are used EVERYWHERE in the Old Testament.

 

Now, non-LDS would have us believe that this is what those words mean everywhere in the old Testament EXCEPT in Gen 1:26.  There it MUST mean something different, because God simply has no image or likeness in that sense. 

 

This is an example of taking a preconcieved notion and then trying to force it into the text.  The LDS have it correct. 

 

-Stephen

[danielwoods]

Lets look at the phrase "image and likeness" as it is used in the Old Testament.  Not only is it used to describe the son of Adam (his son looks like his father), but it is used often in the context of idol worship.  Often in the Old Testament texts, we see people making an observation about something in the created Universe, whether it be in heaven or on earth.  Perhaps they observed an Ox , an Eagle, a star (Sun), etc.   They would then make a statue replica of that object , they would make an "image" or a "likeness" of that thing and begin to worship it.  The root etymology of "image" is the SHADOW/SHAPE of the object.  For example, the shadow/shape of a human would have a head, two arms, two legs, etc.  If any of you have seen a statue of a human, then you have seen the image and likeness of that person.  This is how the terms "image and likeness" are used EVERYWHERE in the Old Testament.

 

Now, non-LDS would have us believe that this is what those words mean everywhere in the old Testament EXCEPT in Gen 1:26.  There it MUST mean something different, because God simply has no image or likeness in that sense. 

 

This is an example of taking a preconcieved notion and then trying to force it into the text.  The LDS have it correct. 

 

-Stephen

 

If the LDS have it correct, then one would expect other teachings throughout the Bible to confirm such teaching. But, what do we find? Don't make an image or likeness of God. Statements that indicate that the Father is Spirit, and that only Jesus has a body. Never is there a place in the Bible that teaches the Father possesses a body like man does. 

So, since this is the case, Genesis can't be read as saying that the Father's image is one of a body like man. Rather, what we can say is that Jesus, God the Son, could have likely made a pre-incarnate appearance when he appeared in the Garden. 

[rodheadlee]

Lets look at the phrase "image and likeness" as it is used in the Old Testament.  Not only is it used to describe the son of Adam (his son looks like his father), but it is used often in the context of idol worship.  Often in the Old Testament texts, we see people making an observation about something in the created Universe, whether it be in heaven or on earth.  Perhaps they observed an Ox , an Eagle, a star (Sun), etc.   They would then make a statue replica of that object , they would make an "image" or a "likeness" of that thing and begin to worship it.  The root etymology of "image" is the SHADOW/SHAPE of the object.  For example, the shadow/shape of a human would have a head, two arms, two legs, etc.  If any of you have seen a statue of a human, then you have seen the image and likeness of that person.  This is how the terms "image and likeness" are used EVERYWHERE in the Old Testament.

 

Now, non-LDS would have us believe that this is what those words mean everywhere in the old Testament EXCEPT in Gen 1:26.  There it MUST mean something different, because God simply has no image or likeness in that sense. 

 

This is an example of taking a preconcieved notion and then trying to force it into the text.  The LDS have it correct. 

 

-Stephen

Welcome to the board!

[stephenpurdy]

"Welcome to the board!"

 

Thanks.    I have been an active member of the Church since around 2002, in my college years.

[stephenpurdy]

If the LDS have it correct, then one would expect other teachings throughout the Bible to confirm such teaching. But, what do we find? Don't make an image or likeness of God. Statements that indicate that the Father is Spirit, and that only Jesus has a body. Never is there a place in the Bible that teaches the Father possesses a body like man does. 

So, since this is the case, Genesis can't be read as saying that the Father's image is one of a body like man. Rather, what we can say is that Jesus, God the Son, could have likely made a pre-incarnate appearance when he appeared in the Garden. 

 

The scriptures NEVER make the claim that "ONLY Jesus has a body."   The Bible does not claim that God is "ONLY a Spirit".

 

First, let's review what Joseph Smith taught and exactly how it fits into the Biblical text:

 

- - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

Joseph Smith wanted to preach about who and what God is. What kind of being is God? What is He like? If you were to see God, what would God look like? That is what Joseph Smith is getting at and he addressed it in the King Follet Sermon. He wanted to dispel the concepts of God which say that God is some kind of literally omnipresent substance which literally exists in the entirety of existence. He wanted to explain that God is not "wholly other" like modern Christianity teaches. So, near the beginning of the sermon, Joseph says:

"In the first place, I wish to go back to the beginning--to the Creation. That is the starting point if we are to be fully acquainted with the mind, the purposes, and the decrees of the great Elohim who sits in yonder heavens. We must have an understanding of God himself in the beginning. If we start right, it is easy to go right all the time; but if we start wrong, it is a hard matter to get right."

So, if we misunderstand God and God's relationship to the Creation from the beginning, then incorrect interpretations of scripture will follow after that. This is why in previous discussions I have stressed the the importance of rejecting Ex Nihilo creation (i.e. creation out of nothing), because so many erroneous conclusions come from that false premise.

"I want to ask this congregation, every man, woman and child, to answer the question in his own heart what kind of a being God is. What kind of a being is God? Does any man or woman know? Have any of you seen him, heard him, communed with him? Here is the question, perhaps, that will from this time forth occupy your attention. The apostle [John] says, "This is life eternal"--to know God and Jesus Christ, whom he has sent... I want you all to know God, to be familiar with him. And if I can bring you to him, all persecutions against me will cease; you will know that I am his servant, for I speak as one having authority."

Joseph Smith claimed to have seen both God the Father AND Jesus Christ as distinct personal beings. He believed that he was chosen by God to reveal the true nature of God to the world, and was given authority to do so.

"God himself, who sits enthroned in yonder heaven, is a man like one of you. That is the great secret. If the veil were rent today and you were to see the great God who holds this world in its orbit and upholds all things by his power, you would see him in the image and very form of a man; for Adam was created in the very fashion and image of God. He received instruction from and walked, talked, and conversed with him as one man talks and communes with another. "

Now, critics of the LDS church will just take the first sentence here out of context. They will say that Mormons believe that God was like one of us in every sense. That is not what Joseph Smith is saying. He explained here what he means. He means that God is a personal being with hands, feet, head, etc. We are created in the image of God. In the Garden of Eden, God literally was walking and talking with God, exactly as the History of the Old Testament describes it. Moses had a similar experience, when "The LORD would speak to Moses face to face, as one speaks to a friend." (Exodus 33:11) Or when the elders of Israel saw God, "and they saw the God of Israel; and under His feet there appeared to be a pavement of sapphire, as clear as the sky itself."  Yes, God has feet.

Joseph Smith is expressing the exact same concept in this sermon. If you were to ask Moses or the elders of Israel, what kind of being does God look like, they would describe "the image and very form of a man."

The sermon given by Joseph Smith expresses the idea that God the Father, at some point in eternities past, lived in a human mortal body like we have (i.e. a man like us, and a man like Jesus Christ was a man), and then God the Father obtained a resurrected body in the same way that Jesus Christ obtained a resurrected body here on Earth.

"What did Jesus say? Jesus said, "As the Father hath power in himself, even so hath the Son power." To do what? Why, what the Father did. The answer is obvious--in a manner to lay down his body and take it up again. Jesus, what are you going to do? To lay down my life as my Father did, and take it up again. If you do not believe it, you do not believe the Bible."

Now, let's look for some context of the verse that Joseph Smith is referring to in John chapter 5, whereby the Jews accuse Jesus and Jesus responds by discussing the resurrection,

18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, “Amen, Amen I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do; for what things soever He doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

20 For the Father loveth the Son and showeth Him all things that He Himself doeth; and He will show Him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will.

Just a couple verses later, Jesus returns to the topic of resurrection,

24 Verily, verily I say unto you, he that heareth My Word and believeth in Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life.

What does it mean to pass from death unto life in this verse? It means resurrection from the dead:

25 “Verily, verily I say unto you, the hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.

26 For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself,

Joseph Smith was teaching that God the Father has life in Himself, meaning that He is a resurrected Being. When the prophet Joseph said that God is a man like us, he was saying that God the Father is a man like us in the same sense that Jesus Christ is a man like us. Again, this is why Joseph said:

"God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did, ...

What did Jesus do? Why, I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. I saw my Father work out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom I shall present it to my Father so that he obtains kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt his glory. And so Jesus treads in his tracks to inherit what God did before."

As you can see, Joseph Smith was indicating that God the Father was a man in the same way that Jesus Christ was a man.

Jesus Christ has the exact nature and being as God the Father, but they have lives which are closely knit and a relationship/bond between them. Nevertheless, they are distinct beings from one another. They are not the same being, but instead Jesus, as a perfect Son, is the is the exact same kind of being, who is "one" with God the Father in the Biblical sense as described in John chapter 17. Furthermore, we see that one of Christ's missions on Earth was to show the world exactly what kind of Being God the Father is, in every sense,

"in these last days [God the Father] has spoken to us in His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the world. And [Jesus] who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

This is also what Jesus means when he says, "If you know Me, you will also know My Father. From now on you do know Him and have seen Him." (John 14:7) He does not mean that Jesus and God the Father are the same person. He is saying that He is a perfect representation of the kind of being and nature of God the Father in every sense.

 

The Holy Spirit is referred to as a "spirit" because He is the one who does not have a body.  The Father and Son have "life in themselves" as Jesus referred to , a resurrected body.

 

-stephen

[Vance]

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. 

LOL!!!

 

It doesn't have to mention that the Father is being seen with a body of flesh and bones.  Your argument that it is "present tense" doesn't require a change to from our position that the Father has a body of flesh and bones, it only changes the timing of it. 

 

The conclusion is obvious, your argument that it has to have been in the present is useless against our position.

 

As to timing, as I understand it, Hebrew (or Aramaic) only has two tenses, perfect and imperfect.  From here http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/m.sion/hebrtens.htm

we get

  Therefore it is wrong to say that Isaiah 53 or other prophecies are in the "past tense." BIblical Hebrew has no tenses. There are many examples of what is wrongly called the "past tense" form (properly called "the perfective" or "perfect") being used for future time.

There is no such thing as "tense" in biblical Hebrew. (Modern Hebrew, on the other hand, does have tenses.) Biblical Hebrew is not a "tense" language. Modern grammarians recognize that it is an "aspectual" language. This means that the same form of a verb can be translated as either past, present, or future depending on the context and various grammatical cues. The most well known grammatical cue is the "vav-consecutive" that makes an imperfective verb to refer to the past.

 

And from here http://ancient-hebrew.org/37_lesson03.html

 

we get,

Each Hebrew verb also identifies the tense of the verb. In English a verb can have three tenses - past, present or future. Examples of these would be "You cut a tree" (past), "You are cutting a tree" (present) and "You will cut a tree" (future). Biblical Hebrew only has two tenses - perfect and imperfect. While the three verb tenses in English are related to time, Biblical Hebrew verb tenses are related to action. The perfect tense is a completed action while the imperfect tense is an incomplete action.

As we have learned, the verb קצרתי identifies the subject of the verb as first person - "I" but, it also identifies the verb as "perfect tense," a completed action - "I cut." When the verb is written as אקצר the subject of the verb is also first person - "I" but, the tense is now "imperfect tense," an incomplete action and can be translated as "I am cutting a tree" (an action that has begun but not yet completed) or "I will cut a tree" (an action that has not yet begun).

 

So, it seems to me that your "present tense" is simply an uncompleted task.  It doesn't require that the actions of the Father be observed in real time by the Son, but only that the tasks of the Father and the observation of the Son are ongoing.

 

Perhaps, someone who is familiar with Hebrew can weigh in.  But your "present tense" argument is without merit.

[Vance]

Oh and just for fun, from here,http://biblicalhebrew.org/hebrew-tenses.aspx

we get,

The name ‘tenses’ as applied to Hebrew verbs is misleading. The so-called Hebrew ‘tenses’ do not express the time but merely the state of an action. Indeed were it not for the confusion that would arise through the application of the term ‘state’ to both nouns and verbs,’states’ would be a far better designation than ‘tenses.’ It must always be borne in mind that it is impossible to translate a Hebrew verb into English without employing a limitation (viz. of time) which is entirely absent in the Hebrew. The ancient Hebrews never thought of an action as past, present, or future, but simply as perfect, i.e. complete, or imperfect, i.e. as in course of development. When we say that a certain Hebrew tense corresponds to a Perfect, Pluperfect, or Future in English, we do not mean that the Hebrews thought of it as Perfect, Pluperfect, or Future, but merely that it must be so translated in English. The time of an action the Hebrews did not attempt to express by any verbal form.

[stephenpurdy]

My understanding is that when Christ was in communion with the Father, the Father would provide revelation to Jesus "present tense" concerning what Jesus should do, however, that does not preclude the idea that the Father was revealing what the Father had done in the past.

[stephenpurdy]

Might I add that when Christians try to use "God is spirit" as a phrase "from scripture" that supposedly precludes the idea of God having a body, it is a blatent misuse of scripture.  Not only does it ignore the immediate context, but it ignores the context of the rest of the Biblical text, including John's own words in the very same book of the New Testament.

 

Sure God is "spirit".   So are you. So are angels. So is Jesus. We are all spirits.

In 1 Corinthians 2:11, Paul wrote about "the spirit of man and the Spirit of God." Elsewhere he spoke of the resurrection of the body and then noted that it is a "spiritual" body (1 Corinthians 15:44-46). He also said things like, "But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you" (Romans 8:9).

So, it is poor interpretation to throw in isolated parts of a verse like John 4:24 in isolation and attempt to claim that it means what you want it to mean.

We are all spirit:

I already mentioned that God is "the God of the spirits of all flesh" (Numbers 16:22) (Numbers 27:16)

Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of our Spirits and live? (Hebrews 12:9)

1 Cor 6:17 "But the one who joins himself to the Lord is one spirit with Him."

 

Does that mean that Christians do not have physical bodies?

Also consider the words of Jesus: Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6"That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7"Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'…

Tell me Daniel, does John 3:6 teach that when we are "born again" or "born of the Spirit", we no longer have a physical body?

 

Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. "That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. "Do not be amazed that I said to you, 'You must be born again.'

 

Clearly, saying that someone is "spirit" does not mean they have ONLY a spirit.  Like I said, to make such a claim is poor scriptural interpretation.

 

-Stephen

[Vance]

If the LDS have it correct, then one would expect other teachings throughout the Bible to confirm such teaching.

 

No, not really.  If THAT were true and IF your understanding were correct "THEN one would expect other teachings throughout the Bible to confirm such teaching" BUT NOWHERE does it teach that the Father is without a body of flesh and bones.  Your position can't even live up to your own standard.

 

And then again, WE are not limited to only what is found in the Bible.

 

But, what do we find? Don't make an image or likeness of God.

Shall we just disregard the context?

 

If the LDS have it correct, then one would expect other teachings throughout the Bible to confirm such teaching.

Your position that the Father doesn't have a body of flesh and bones doesn't meet this standard. 

 

But, what do we find? Don't make an image or likeness of God.

 

Shall we add some context?

  3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.

  4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:

  5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;

  6  And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments.

 

It is about the worship images much more than the making of them.

 

 

Statements that indicate that the Father is Spirit,

1) That doesn't preclude the possession of a physical body.  You are also spirit and you also possess a physical body.

2) The Greek word "pneuma" is translated to "spirit" or "breath" or "wind".  There is no reason to assume that "spirit" means "immaterial" when both "wind" and "breath" are material.

 

And that only Jesus has a body.

Nowhere does is say that only Jesus has a body.  This is a blatant falsehood.

 

BTW, you also have a body.

 

 

Never is there a place in the Bible that teaches the Father possesses a body like man does.

And "Never is there a place in the Bible that teaches the Father" does not "possesses a body like man does".

 

So, your argument is without support.

 

So, since this is the case, Genesis can't be read as saying that the Father's image is one of a body like man.

It has been shown otherwise.

 

Rather, what we can say is that Jesus, God the Son, could have likely made a pre-incarnate appearance when he appeared in the Garden.

So?  Such appearance does not require a change in our position.

Edited June 1, 2015 by Vance

[stephenpurdy]

Reviewing the thread, I wanted to throw my two cents in concerning "ETERNAL".   I will just ask some questions:

 

 

Do non-LDS Christians believe that they can have "Eternal Life"?

 

How can that life be "Eternal" if they are beings who are created from God's own mind "out of nothing" at a specific point in the past?

 

Those who will be consigned to hell will ALSO exist forever in the eternity future, as they will have "eternal damnation".  Even though they will exist for eternity, that does not mean that they have "eternal life".  So, doesn't "eternal life" mean something more than just simply existing?  It is a quality of life, is it not?

 

This lines up also with Joseph Smith's teaching that eternal damnation is a quality of punishment, perhaps rather than a duration (also a LACK of eternal life).

 

So, in what sense is God "Eternal"?  Does that refer to God simply existing, or does it refer to the QUALITY/Characteristics of God's existence?

 

-stephen

[Vance]

The Father isn't seen as ever having a body of flesh and bones, no body of the Father is ever mentioned.

 8 Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

A specific request is made. 

 

  9 Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father?

 

In visible/physical appearance the Father looks EXACTLY like the Son.

[danielwoods]

The scriptures NEVER make the claim that "ONLY Jesus has a body."   The Bible does not claim that God is "ONLY a Spirit".

 

First, let's review what Joseph Smith taught and exactly how it fits into the Biblical text:

 

- - - - - - -  - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

 

Joseph Smith was teaching that God the Father has life in Himself, meaning that He is a resurrected Being. When the prophet Joseph said that God is a man like us, he was saying that God the Father is a man like us in the same sense that Jesus Christ is a man like us. Again, this is why Joseph said:

"God himself, the Father of us all, dwelt on an earth the same as Jesus Christ himself did, ...

 

Indeed, I understand that is what Joseph Smith taught. Unfortunately, Jesus was speaking in present tense, not past tense, in John 5. So, Joseph Smith's interpretation isn't supported by the Bible. 

 

As for your claim that the Bible never makes the claim that only Jesus has a body. 

 

Notice that God the Father is called a Spirit, not a body.

Further in 1 Tim. 2:5 "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time."

 

God the Father is never called "the man" in the Biblical text. So that leaves only Jesus being claimed as having a body doesn't it? 

[danielwoods]

LOL!!!

 

It doesn't have to mention that the Father is being seen with a body of flesh and bones.  Your argument that it is "present tense" doesn't require a change to from our position that the Father has a body of flesh and bones, it only changes the timing of it. 

 

The conclusion is obvious, your argument that it has to have been in the present is useless against our position.

 

As to timing, as I understand it, Hebrew (or Aramaic) only has two tenses, perfect and imperfect.  From here http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/m.sion/hebrtens.htm

we get

 

 

 

And from here http://ancient-hebrew.org/37_lesson03.html

 

we get,

 

 

 

So, it seems to me that your "present tense" is simply an uncompleted task.  It doesn't require that the actions of the Father be observed in real time by the Son, but only that the tasks of the Father and the observation of the Son are ongoing.

 

Perhaps, someone who is familiar with Hebrew can weigh in.  But your "present tense" argument is without merit.

 

Since John is written in Greek, I'm unclear what your point is. 

 

But, I understand how it is useless against your position since it doesn't rest on the Biblical text anyway. 

Edited June 1, 2015 by danielwoods

[saemo]

Reviewing the thread, I wanted to throw my two cents in concerning "ETERNAL". I will just ask some questions:

Do non-LDS Christians believe that they can have "Eternal Life"?

How can that life be "Eternal" if they are beings who are created from God's own mind "out of nothing" at a specific point in the past?

Those who will be consigned to hell will ALSO exist forever in the eternity future, as they will have "eternal damnation". Even though they will exist for eternity, that does not mean that they have "eternal life". So, doesn't "eternal life" mean something more than just simply existing? It is a quality of life, is it not?

This lines up also with Joseph Smith's teaching that eternal damnation is a quality of punishment, perhaps rather than a duration (also a LACK of eternal life).

So, in what sense is God "Eternal"? Does that refer to God simply existing, or does it refer to the QUALITY/Characteristics of God's existence?

-stephen

"Eternal life" for us is knowing God intimately, and does not refer to a characteristic about ourselves. "And this is eternal life, that they may know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent." [Jn. 17:3]

The eternal nature of God is not something that was gained or given to God. God is eternal in nature.

Eternal life is a gift given to us by God, and is not something we are in nature.

Eternal damnation means being cut off from the presence of God, forever. That is, no intimate knowing, but the opposite, a lack thereof. Knowing, not meaning book learning, but as you know a loved one, deeply and intimately. This is eternal life, to know God.

Hope that helps.

Edited June 1, 2015 by saemo

[stephenpurdy]

 

Indeed, I understand that is what Joseph Smith taught. Unfortunately, Jesus was speaking in present tense, not past tense, in John 5. So, Joseph Smith's interpretation isn't supported by the Bible. 

 

As for your claim that the Bible never makes the claim that only Jesus has a body. 

 

Notice that God the Father is called a Spirit, not a body.

Further in 1 Tim. 2:5 "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave himself as a ransom for all people. This has now been witnessed to at the proper time."

 

God the Father is never called "the man" in the Biblical text. So that leaves only Jesus being claimed as having a body doesn't it? 

 

For starters, interestingly enough, Jesus calls himself "Son of Man" more often than he calls himself anything else, and it is ALWAYS in reference to his authority.

 

Second, in the section of John that I provided in my post to you, you will see that Jesus is speaking specifically about RESURRECTION.  Let's look at the context again, because it appears that you ignored it.

 

John chapter 5, whereby the Jews accuse Jesus and Jesus responds by discussing the resurrection,

18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, “Amen, Amen I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do; for what things soever He doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

20 For the Father loveth the Son and showeth Him all things that He Himself doeth; and He will show Him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will.

Clearly the context of the discussion is resurrection.  Just a couple verses later, Jesus returns to the topic of resurrection,

24 Verily, verily I say unto you, he that heareth My Word and believeth in Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life.

What does it mean to pass from death unto life in this verse? It means resurrection from the dead:

25 “Verily, verily I say unto you, the hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.

26 For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself,

 

"Having life in Himself" refers to becoming a resurrected being and this is clear from the context. Yes ... it is present tense, God the Father is a resurrected being in the present tense.  This is true because the Father has resurrected to eternal life and currently NOW has a resurrected body, just as the Son was going to be resurrected to eternal life in the context we see here. 

 

So as you see, it isn't just what Joseph Smith taught, it is what Jesus himself taught.

 

 

-Stephen

[Anakin7]

    Stephenpurdy agape greetigs to you, thank you for coming to share and Defend in this part of the Kingdom/Vinyard. I Hope and Pray that True Grace that is accepted/accessed/activated by True Faith Be With you and those you Love.

 

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

             Anakin7

[danielwoods]

For starters, interestingly enough, Jesus calls himself "Son of Man" more often than he calls himself anything else, and it is ALWAYS in reference to his authority.

 

Second, in the section of John that I provided in my post to you, you will see that Jesus is speaking specifically about RESURRECTION.  Let's look at the context again, because it appears that you ignored it.

 

John chapter 5, whereby the Jews accuse Jesus and Jesus responds by discussing the resurrection,

18 Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill Him, because He not only had broken the Sabbath, but said also that God was His Father, making Himself equal with God.

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, “Amen, Amen I say unto you, the Son can do nothing of Himself, but what He seeth the Father do; for what things soever He doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

20 For the Father loveth the Son and showeth Him all things that He Himself doeth; and He will show Him greater works than these, that ye may marvel.

21 For as the Father raiseth up the dead and quickeneth them, even so the Son quickeneth whom He will.

Clearly the context of the discussion is resurrection.  Just a couple verses later, Jesus returns to the topic of resurrection,

24 Verily, verily I say unto you, he that heareth My Word and believeth in Him that sent Me, hath everlasting life and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life.

What does it mean to pass from death unto life in this verse? It means resurrection from the dead:

25 “Verily, verily I say unto you, the hour is coming and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God; and they that hear shall live.

26 For as the Father hath life in Himself, so hath He given to the Son to have life in Himself,

 

"Having life in Himself" refers to becoming a resurrected being and this is clear from the context. Yes ... it is present tense, God the Father is a resurrected being in the present tense.  This is true because the Father has resurrected to eternal life and currently NOW has a resurrected body, just as the Son was going to be resurrected to eternal life in the context we see here. 

 

So as you see, it isn't just what Joseph Smith taught, it is what Jesus himself taught.

 

 

-Stephen

 

Unfortunately that isn't the case. God the Father is never taught as being resurrected, or having a body. Eternal life is his nature, not what he attained. Notice that it says, "the Father has life in Himself" which indicates he's the source of all life. Eternal life flows from the "I AM", the source of all life, the only uncreated one. 

Edited June 1, 2015 by danielwoods

[thesometimesaint]

SEE http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/oneness.shtml#Godhead

[Anakin7]

   "Eternal Life" is an attribute of his [Fathers] nature not it's Entirty.The "I AM" is Jesus Christ not GOD The Father. Ex 3:14 cf Jn 8:58.

 

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

           Anakin7

Edited June 1, 2015 by Anakin7