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

[saemo]

And this response is why I will always be Mormon...where little events like the resurrection from the dead have some meaning.

And this is why I am not Mormon, where the resurrection has no meaning unless you believe God is made in your image.

Edited June 3, 2015 by saemo

[saemo]

Why do we need a body at all?

Why does Christ retain a body instead of returning to spirit?

What is the purpose in having an eternal, perfect, physical body?

Why bother resurrecting our bodies at all when our spirits are perfectly capable of dwelling with God and Christ?

See, if God is a spirit, and we are all spirits, and Christ has paid for our sins allowing us to dwell with God, the entire doctrine of resurrection of Christ and us serves no eternal purpose. The body means nothing in that plan. They could stay in the grave and we would still be in the exact same position in heaven, only as spirits. It turns the resurrection into a pointless event instead of the main event of Christianity.

Our God is a God of the living. A human is body and soul. A soul by itself is not a whole human and a body by itself is dead. Our God is not a God of the dead.

God desires us to love Him, with all our hearts, might, mind and strength. We yearn for God, body and spirit. It would be a cruel God, and is a cruel idea that you've come up with here, to believe that we would be whole for eternity without actually, being whole, as God created us. It is really, a diabolical idea, and would only be desired by someone or something that desired us to be not as God made us.

Edited June 3, 2015 by saemo

[TheSkepticChristian]

Adam and Eve were created as immortals

 

I don't believe Adam and Eve were created as immortals, the science tells us that death existed for billions of years. 

 

 

And this is why I am not Mormon

 

Why did God create a forbidden fruit? Why did God give easy access to Adam and Eve? 

[thesometimesaint]

And this is why I am not Mormon, where the resurrection has no meaning unless you believe God is made in your image.

 

God made man in his own likeness and image. Ergo we look like him, and he looks like us.

[Bobbieaware]

Why do we need a body at all?

Why does Christ retain a body instead of returning to spirit?

What is the purpose in having an eternal, perfect, physical body?

Why bother resurrecting our bodies at all when our spirits are perfectly capable of dwelling with God and Christ?

See, if God is a spirit, and we are all spirits, and Christ has paid for our sins allowing us to dwell with God, the entire doctrine of resurrection of Christ and us serves no eternal purpose. The body means nothing in that plan. They could stay in the grave and we would still be in the exact same position in heaven, only as spirits. It turns the resurrection into a pointless event instead of the main event of Christianity.

Bullseye! If, according to non-LDS Christians, God the Father dwells in a superior state of existence because he's unencumbered by a body of flesh and bone, why not allow his highest creation (us) to exist as spirits without encumbering bodies so that we too can enjoy an existence that's more like his perfect existence? If existing as spirits without bodies is a superior state of existence, why did God's perfect mind conceptualize that it was a good and desirable idea to put Adam ans Eve in bodies of flesh and bone in the first place? And after saddling their spirits with bodies, why did he pronounce it was very good to do such a thing? And finally, why would the Father encumber the perfect spirit his divine Son with a physical body when the Trinitarian God of one unified substance is supposed to only be a being of spirit?

Edited June 3, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[Flyonthewall]

The resurrection is for those of us with a body. "It is sown in corruption; it is raised in incorruption" and we put on immortality. 

 

What other purpose are you looking for?

Just out of curiosity... can our spirit die? Is our spirit mortal? And by death, I mean cease to exist, not simply not being in His presence.

Our spirit survives just fine without a body - from the moment of our death until our resurrection - so it is not the body that allows us to put on immortality... what do you think?

LDS believe the body is required because that is the way God is and we are made in His image and likeness.

Without that belief... what is there?

[Flyonthewall]

Our God is a God of the living. A human is body and soul. A soul by itself is not a whole human and a body by itself is dead. Our God is not a God of the dead.

God desires us to love Him, with all our hearts, might, mind and strength. We yearn for God, body and spirit. It would be a cruel God, and is a cruel idea that you've come up with here, to believe that we would be whole for eternity without actually, being whole, as God created us. It is really, a diabolical idea, and would only be desired by someone or something that desired us to be not as God made us.

We desire to be just as God made us... in HIS image and likeness - just as the Bible describes - that means body and spirit.

The diabolical idea is that were were NOT made in HIS image and likeness.

[danielwoods]

Just out of curiosity... can our spirit die? Is our spirit mortal? And by death, I mean cease to exist, not simply not being in His presence.

Our spirit survives just fine without a body - from the moment of our death until our resurrection - so it is not the body that allows us to put on immortality... what do you think?

LDS believe the body is required because that is the way God is and we are made in His image and likeness.

Without that belief... what is there?

 

In answer to your question, you are correct, our spirit is immortal, according to the NT it will survive our body's death and reside in either heaven or hell for eternity. 

 

As for your last question, the incorrect assumption that God the Father has a body leads to that false conclusion. 

 

Let's put it another way. God experiences all experiences at the same time. This creator created us to experience one thing at a time in a body. His image resides inside of us, in the form of his spirit. Those who may be deformed or disfigured on the outside, have his perfect image on the inside as we all do. The LDS focus on the external which leads to false conclusions about God. 

 

The resurrection is when the outside will be renewed and look like the inside. 

[JLHPROF]

Hello,

Our difference in belief here, goes back to how we each view the Fall. Adam and Eve were created as immortals, and lived in the immediate presence of God. Their sin caused death, and a separation of humanity from God. We are reconciled in Christ, who has conquered death and restored to us what was lost....life eternal, in the immediate presence of God.

I already said, we are created as God created us. That is why we are what we are. To us, that is not only enough, it is fantastically amazing! The Mormon propensity towards viewing our creation by God, as lacking in something, puzzles me to no end!

Why are we created with both body and soul? Because God willed it and in His infinite love and wisdom, we are profoundly grateful, to the point that we worship the One who created us!

We find no problem, that needs to be solved, when looking at what God has done for us.

 

 

Our God is a God of the living. A human is body and soul. A soul by itself is not a whole human and a body by itself is dead. Our God is not a God of the dead.

God desires us to love Him, with all our hearts, might, mind and strength. We yearn for God, body and spirit. It would be a cruel God, and is a cruel idea that you've come up with here, to believe that we would be whole for eternity without actually, being whole, as God created us. It is really, a diabolical idea, and would only be desired by someone or something that desired us to be not as God made us.

 

This does not answer any of the four questions I posed.  It instead is standard rhetoric.

Based on everything you have said the resurrection of the body serves no actual purpose.

Edited June 3, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Flyonthewall]

In answer to your question, you are correct, our spirit is immortal, according to the NT it will survive our body's death and reside in either heaven or hell for eternity.

...until it is re-united with the body... right?

 

As for your last question, the incorrect assumption that God the Father has a body leads to that false conclusion. 

 

Let's put it another way. God experiences all experiences at the same time. This creator created us to experience one thing at a time in a body. His image resides inside of us, in the form of his spirit. Those who may be deformed or disfigured on the outside, have his perfect image on the inside as we all do. The LDS focus on the external which leads to false conclusions about God.

Not sure what you mean that we focus on the outside....when we are always striving to improve upon the inner person.

The resurrection is when the outside will be renewed and look like the inside.

If the spirit will live for ever without the body, then what need is there for an outside at all? It cannot only be to match the outside with the inside if we can survive just fine without the outside... we are already have His perfect image on our inside without the body... unless...

[danielwoods]

...until it is re-united with the body... right?

 

Not sure what you mean that we focus on the outside....when we are always striving to improve upon the inner person.

If the spirit will live for ever without the body, then what need is there for an outside at all? It cannot only be to match the outside with the inside if we can survive just fine without the outside... we are already have His perfect image on our inside without the body... unless...

 

What do I mean by focusing on the outside? Just look at the many rules and regulations and discussions about all those LDS made rules and regulations... The main focus is on the external. The things people do and don't do. 

 

Christ is concerned about the heart, but maybe that's a discussion for a different thread. 

 

Your last statement is the same as others here. Questioning why a body is needed if the spirit is all we really need to live. The answer is, that is the way God designed us and made this system to work. That answer of course isn't good enough for the LDS because they believe they have further revelation, which doesn't mean the answer isn't sufficient. It simply means that the LDS already have their mind made up. So, the question is why ask the question if you have already determined the answer? 

[coolrok7]

James says the body without the spirit is dead. The term mortal is applied to the body, not the spirit as spirits don't die, bodies do.

 

Resurrection is the reuniting of the spirit with a glorified body at the Judgment Day (spiritualized so to speak as it will have properties that the corrupted one didn't have).  It was for our benefit that Jesus became a man in order to suffer death to pay for (the atonement) our sinful nature (corrupted in the fall).

 

Eternal life (the free gift given to believers, the sheep, as the result of faith) as contrasted with eternal punishment, eternally for those (the goats) who chose not to believe God.

 

This will happen by God's design for us.

Edited June 3, 2015 by coolrok7

[stephenpurdy]

Daniel: You see, the John 5 isn't just about resurrection, unless Jesus was resurrecting right then, because of the "and now" present tense statements. Rather, "passing from death to life" was a description of salvation. Which even Paul uses the same terminology. "You have passed from death to life…." 

 

Yes, it is salvation.  It is salvation from "death".  Jesus did not need salvation from sin.

 

Daniel:  And if we are in the image of God, what is that image? That is the question. The LDS are take a hard literal stance, which is not supported by the rest of the Biblical text.

 

Of course there is support in the rest of the Bible.  Look and see how "image and likeness" is used EVERYWHERE else in the text. 

 

Daniel:  That the "image" indicates that the Father has a body of which we are fashioned after. As I said, if this were the case we'd see plenty of evidence through out the rest of the Bible for this, but we don't.

 

Image and likeness always refers to the physical shape.  Statues and idols did not have spiritual or intellectual characteristics. 

 

Daniel:   So the "image" that we are fashioned after, has to be a non-physical thing.

 

Image and likeness is never used to refer to a "non-physical thing" anywhere else in the text.  Your presumption is forcing you to make this absurd assertion. 

 

Daniel.  And when we look at creation what is different about us? Our free will and intelligence and our ability to choose to love him or not. Every other creature is pre-programed by their DNA to do what they are designed to do. We have free will. 

 

I would like to see you try and apply this made up definition of "image and likeness" elsewhere in the text.  What you are arguing is nonsense of course.  Image and likeness refers to shape and physical appearance.  Always. 

 

Daniel:  So, while the LDS argue that the image has to be physical, it is clear to me that the image couldn't be physical, ...

 

Because instead of interpreting the text itself, you are forcing your preconceived idea of what God is into the text.

 

-stephen

[danielwoods]

Daniel: You see, the John 5 isn't just about resurrection, unless Jesus was resurrecting right then, because of the "and now" present tense statements. Rather, "passing from death to life" was a description of salvation. Which even Paul uses the same terminology. "You have passed from death to life…." 

 

Yes, it is salvation.  It is salvation from "death".  Jesus did not need salvation from sin.

 

Daniel:  And if we are in the image of God, what is that image? That is the question. The LDS are take a hard literal stance, which is not supported by the rest of the Biblical text.

 

Of course there is support in the rest of the Bible.  Look and see how "image and likeness" is used EVERYWHERE else in the text. 

 

Daniel:  That the "image" indicates that the Father has a body of which we are fashioned after. As I said, if this were the case we'd see plenty of evidence through out the rest of the Bible for this, but we don't.

 

Image and likeness always refers to the physical shape.  Statues and idols did not have spiritual or intellectual characteristics. 

 

Daniel:   So the "image" that we are fashioned after, has to be a non-physical thing.

 

Image and likeness is never used to refer to a "non-physical thing" anywhere else in the text.  Your presumption is forcing you to make this absurd assertion. 

 

Daniel.  And when we look at creation what is different about us? Our free will and intelligence and our ability to choose to love him or not. Every other creature is pre-programed by their DNA to do what they are designed to do. We have free will. 

 

I would like to see you try and apply this made up definition of "image and likeness" elsewhere in the text.  What you are arguing is nonsense of course.  Image and likeness refers to shape and physical appearance.  Always. 

 

Daniel:  So, while the LDS argue that the image has to be physical, it is clear to me that the image couldn't be physical, ...

 

Because instead of interpreting the text itself, you are forcing your preconceived idea of what God is into the text.

 

-stephen

 

It's always interesting to me when the LDS say that I am forcing a preconceived idea onto the text. When the exact opposite is occurring. 

 

I am taking the text for what it says and have no problem following the evidence of the Biblical text alone, where ever it may lead. On the other hand it is the LDS that claim that the Biblical text isn't enough, and therefore further revelation is needed to properly understand what it says. Who then force their preconceived ideas onto the text based on their claimed further revelation. 

 

"Image and likeness always refers to the physical shape."

 

Except when the image is referencing God the Father's image. Who has no physical body. 

[stephenpurdy]

 

Your last statement is the same as others here. Questioning why a body is needed if the spirit is all we really need to live. The answer is, that is the way God designed us and made this system to work.

 

 

I want to ask the question in another way.

 

Is it "superior" to have a spirit dwelling within a body OR is it superior to exist as ONLY a spirit?

 

-stephen

[stephenpurdy]

It's always interesting to me when the LDS say that I am forcing a preconceived idea onto the text. .....

 

"Image and likeness always refers to the physical shape."

 

Except when the image is referencing God the Father's image. Who has no physical body. 

 

 

You just proved my point for me.

 

Thanks.

 

-stephen

[stephenpurdy]

Hello,

Our difference in belief here, goes back to how we each view the Fall. Adam and Eve were created as immortals, and lived in the immediate presence of God. Their sin caused death, and a separation of humanity from God. We are reconciled in Christ, who has conquered death and restored to us what was lost....life eternal, in the immediate presence of God.

I already said, we are created as God created us. That is why we are what we are. To us, that is not only enough, it is fantastically amazing! The Mormon propensity towards viewing our creation by God, as lacking in something, puzzles me to no end!

Why are we created with both body and soul? Because God willed it and in His infinite love and wisdom, we are profoundly grateful, to the point that we worship the One who created us!

We find no problem, that needs to be solved, when looking at what God has done for us.

 

I would like to discuss this topic of our view of the Fall on another thread perhaps. 

 

You see, from the LDS point of view, the only reason that the creation lacked something, is because God was "limited", in a certain sense, in what God had to work with. 

 

In the "classical" Christian view, God could have created any kind of being possible, but created 1) ignorant 2) disobedient 3) easily deceived creatures.  God created these creatures out of God's own mind (ie out of nothing). 

 

Again, another thread is warranted for discussing this topic in more detail.

 

-stephen

[stephenpurdy]

When Moses asked God for His name, He said tell the people "I AM". "I AM" is the name God gave to Moses.

 

Jesus, in John 8:58, tells the Jews he was speaking with, "Amen, amen, I say to you, before Abraham came to be, I AM."  The Jews, in response, prepared to stone Jesus for what they perceived as a blasphemy, ie, naming Himself GOD.

 

Jesus is God.

 

It is true that Jesus is the same "I AM" from the Old Testament.  LDS believe that Jehovah/Yahweh is in fact Jesus Christ. 

 

However, perhaps a better translation not "I AM"  but rather "I become" or "the becoming one".

 

 

-stephen

[mfbukowski]

You just proved my point for me.

 

Thanks.

 

-stephen

Agreed.  That was a horrible argument he made

[saemo]

I would like to discuss this topic of our view of the Fall on another thread perhaps. 

 

You see, from the LDS point of view, the only reason that the creation lacked something, is because God was "limited", in a certain sense, in what God had to work with. 

 

In the "classical" Christian view, God could have created any kind of being possible, but created 1) ignorant 2) disobedient 3) easily deceived creatures.  God created these creatures out of God's own mind (ie out of nothing). 

 

Again, another thread is warranted for discussing this topic in more detail.

 

-stephen

LDS know the answer to this already, and so why ask?

God desires our love but forcing us to love Him by creating us without free will, would not be love at all.

[saemo]

This does not answer any of the four questions I posed. It instead is standard rhetoric.

Based on everything you have said the resurrection of the body serves no actual purpose.

Are you being purposefully obtuse?

Why do we need a body at all? We don't. It is how God created us. Period. Not difficult to understand that He did.

Why does Christ retain a body instead of returning to spirit? Our faith is rooted in reality, which is, God created us body and soul, Jesus does not need a body as Jesus is God and therefore has no need. He did so FOR OUR SAKE. He is the first fruit and our resurrection is tied to His,

What is the purpose in having an eternal, perfect, physical body? It is as God created us. Again, our faith is rooted in reality, not musings of fantasies, such as, what would happen if God created us like the Angels, as spirit only. He didn't.

Why bother resurrecting our bodies at all when our spirits are perfectly capable of dwelling with God and Christ? God is a God of the living, and desires to give us life, not leave us in death. God did not need to, and was not required, to restore us to life. It is His desire that we live! If you view that as rhetoric, then you don't understand Christianity at all.

Edited June 3, 2015 by saemo

[saemo]

It is true that Jesus is the same "I AM" from the Old Testament.  LDS believe that Jehovah/Yahweh is in fact Jesus Christ. 

 

However, perhaps a better translation not "I AM"  but rather "I become" or "the becoming one".

 

 

-stephen

Better translation for whom? Do you think Jesus misquoted Himself?

[stephenpurdy]

In Mormon theology we interpret Genesis 1:26 literally and John 17 figuratively. Mainstream Christians reverse that, but it's hardly clear from the text which is the best interpretation.  

 

 

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

 

In Genesis 1:26, LDS interpret "image and likeness" to mean the same thing that it means elsewhere in the text.  Again ...

Previously Stephen wrote:

• 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. 

So, LDS are entirely consistent with the entire Hebrew text when it comes to interpreting Gen 1:26.  When they saw a bird, or a cow, or an ox in the created universe, they would reconstruct the same "shape" and physical appearance and it was an "image and likeness".  They were not recreating its personality or some kind of spiritual characteristics.  Thus LDS clearly have a very strong stance when it comes to the interpretation here.

 

On the other hand, as danielwoods has so concisely demonstrated, Christians start with the presumption that God has no physical form, THEREFORE based on that preconceived notion, the "image and likeness" in Gen1:26 must mean something different than it means everywhere else in the text. 

 

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

Now look at John chapter 17.  Let me start by giving an interesting background note, way back in early Christianity:

 

225 AD Origen wrote in defense against a critic:

 

"In what follows, some may imagine that he (the critic) says something plausible against us (us the Christians). "If," says he, "these people worshipped one God alone, and no other, they would perhaps have some valid argument against the worship of others. But they pay excessive reverence to one who has but lately appeared among men, and they think it no offence against God if they worship also His servant."

 

To this we reply, that if Celsus had known that saying," I and My Father are one," and the words used in prayer by the Son of God, "As Thou and I are one, he would not have supposed that we worship any other besides Him who is the Supreme God. "For," says He, "My Father is in Me, and I in Him."   "For," says He, "My Father is in Me, and I in Him." And if any should from these words be afraid of our going over to the side of those who deny that the Father and the Son are two persons, let him weigh that passage, "And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul," that he may understand the meaning of the saying, "I and My Father are one."

 

Origen argues that by giving praise to Jesus Christ, they are still worshiping the Supreme God, God the Father.  Please note that he does NOT argue "because they are the same substance/being" as the later creeds argued.  What example did Origen give for the kind of oneness that the Father and Son have? He quotes, “the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul”.

 

So, we have a "multitude" of people (Acts 4:32).  More than one person.  More than one being, who are called "one".  Please note that these believers are not literally "one substance".   Many other examples are found in scripture, such as:

Mark 10:8 A man will cleave unto his wife, "they twain shall be ONE flesh".

Acts 4:32 multitude ... of one heart and of one soul

Rom. 12:5 we, being many, are one body in Christ

2 Cor. 13:11 Be perfect ... of one mind

Gal. 3:28 ye are all one in Christ

Philip. 1:27 one spirit, with one mind striving together

 

Now, Origen continues and it becomes quite clear:

 

“We worship one God, the Father and the Son, therefore, as we have explained; and our argument against the worship of other gods still continues valid. … We worship, therefore, the Father of truth, and the Son, who is the truth; and these, while they are two, considered as persons or subsistences, are one in unity of thought, in harmony and in identity of will. So entirely are they one, that he who has seen the Son, "who is the brightness of God's glory, and the express image of His person," has seen in Him who is the image, of God, God Himself." (Origen Against Celsus, book 8, chapter 12, 225 AD)

 

This is the LDS viewpoint.   The seperate and distinct beings who are members of the Godhead are united in a harmony of will and purpose. In the October 2007 General Conference, Jeffrey R. Holland put it this way:

 

"We believe these three [God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost] divine persons constituting a single Godhead are united in purpose, in manner, in testimony, in mission. We believe Them to be filled with the same godly sense of mercy and love, justice and grace, patience, forgiveness, and redemption. I think it is accurate to say we believe They are one in every significant and eternal aspect imaginable except believing Them to be three persons combined in one substance,"....

(bold added).

 

This make sense from a New Testament standpoint, because in John 17 we find Jesus praying for the diciples to be "one" with him, in the same sense that Jesus is one with the Father (ie, NOT in the literal sense of being a single being/substance).

 

John 17: 22 "That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us; And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one."

 

Again, the LDS interpretation is far, far more consistent with the Biblical text than the concepts defined in the creeds that developed later. 

 

-stephen

[saemo]

We desire to be just as God made us... in HIS image and likeness - just as the Bible describes - that means body and spirit.The diabolical idea is that were were NOT made in HIS image and likeness.

Two-fold. We are the image and likeness of Jesus, who is God, who is Spirit, who Incarnated and became man. We did not incarnate, as we are not God. We are created, body and soul. Our immaterial and immortal soul is created in the likeness and image of our immaterial and immortal God.

Likeness and image taken so literally, as to believe if you look in a mirror that you see God looking back at you, defies what God has revealed about Himself. God is Spirit. We have a spirit. There is a difference between being and having. God is not seen.

Edited June 3, 2015 by saemo

[stephenpurdy]

Better translation for whom? Do you think Jesus misquoted Himself?

Not at all.  Jesus identified himself as the one who led the Israelites out of captivity, the God of Isaac, Abraham, and Jacob, the very same who spoke to Moses.

 

The Greek phrase "Ego eimi", simply means "I am the one", or "I am He."

 

However, please note that the Hebrew phrase can be translated the same way as the Greek OR it can be translated as "I Become". 

 

-Stephen