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

[stephenpurdy]

I don't believe animals are, or ever were, created in the image of God. That is, they don't have an immortal soul. I can't say I've always believed this.

God showed his trust and faith in Adam and Eve, which is based on and is a sign of love. Adam and Eve did not have trust and faith in God. Our relationship is two way.

 

Why did God create beings (Adam and Eve) who did not have trust and faith in God?

 

I plan to discuss that topic here: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65449-the-nature-and-relationship-of-god-and-creation/

 

-s

[Bobbieaware]

Thanks, I see what you are saying now, and I appreciate your patience. 

 

My response. Paul is indeed quoting Genesis, when he references Adam was made a living soul, but not when referencing Christ (At least I don't know of a scripture that describes the "last Adam" in the OT). The whole paragraph is type of jewish writing that uses contrasts to make a point. Paul employs this style on a few occasions. The topic then isn't about Christ's spiritual body, rather it is the contrast between Adam and Christ. 

 

So, when we get to the phrase Adam was made a living soul, what contrasts with that? Well, it has to be something about Christ that is so beyond "a living soul" to make the point. So emphasizing that Christ is the Spirit that gives us eternal life, quickening us to life. It is clearly not equating a "spiritual body" with that "quickening spirit". 

 

Paul is not equating "spiritual body" with "quickening spirit" rather, he's contrasting the spiritual body with the natural body of Adam. And contrasts the life giving nature of Adam's soul, to the Eternal life giving nature of Christ Spirit.

I respectfully disagree. To me it is clear he's is equating a spiritual body with a life-giving spirit. You have no choice but to strain the plain meaning of Paul's similie because to not do so would turn your world upside down. Remember, it doesn't say Christ IS a quickening Spirit but that he was MADE a quickening spirit by the resurrection. To say that the only time the eternal Son of God could have had the power to indwell and inspire the people was not until after his resurrection negates the entire word of God. He is the light that lights every man that comes into the world, including all those who were born before his earthly advent. Remember, during his time on earth in mortality his body was also made a little lower than the angels, and it wasn't until his resurrection that he was raised with a spiritual body that, once again, made him wholly spiritual by nature, just as he was before he was born on earth.

[stephenpurdy]

stephpurdy:

Whoa, whoa, whoa.

 

That is an ENTIRELY different context.

 

 

Jesus Christ, for example, would NEVER, while standing on the right hand of the Father, say, "There is no god besides me".  Your attempt to misuse the context is appalling.

 

saemo:

 

Well, I agree with you, that there are no other Gods, but you’ve pulled your reply here out of a Mormon context.

 

Let’s step through this:

 

God says to Moses, you shall have no other gods before me.

 

In an LDS context, there are believed to exist enumerable gods, of which you focus on three who are relevant to your existence.  If the God you call Jesus, says, “You shall have no other gods before me” to a people who are not aware of a God named Jesus, who are the “other gods” and who is the “me”?

 

Certainly, Moses believed he was speaking to the One God, called many things, including Father (Isa 64:8  But now, O LORD, thou art our father; we are the clay, and thou our potter; and we all are the work of thy hand.), and not a God named Jesus. This would mean to Moses that he should not worship a God named Jesus.

Your reply to me is, there is another rule not given to Moses, that says, the God named Jesus said to Moses, “You shall have no other gods before us.” Which of course, is not what God said to Moses.

 

Additionally LDS take this commandment to mean that the other gods, are real gods (not false) and so claim this supports the belief of a plurality of gods. (http://www.jefflindsay.com/LDSFAQ/FQ_Relationships.shtml#besides)

OR

We can accept scripture, what God has revealed about Himself, when he says “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD” (Deut 3:4), and that “me” in God’s commandment, means One God. Who reveals Himself much later than Moses, as Father, Son and Holy Spirit.

 

The Shema "The Lord our God is one Lord" is not a claim that the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are a single Being/Substance.  It is a claim about the character and integrity of Jehovah, the God of Israel.

 

LDS agree that Jesus is God.  "God" is being used as a title not a single Being.    From the very beginning of the Bible God is plural. Even the Hebrew word for God "Elohim" is plural. Hence "Elohim", they say "Let US create man in OUR image and after OUR likeness." They act as "one".

The Shema and other scriptures are precisely what I said they are; a declaration of the uniqueness, superiority, and salvific relationship of Yahweh/Jehovah to his people.  It is only by taking those verses out of context that you can even try to claim that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are a single Being/Substance. Those texts are not saying say what you claim.

 

The Hebrews were to to deny the false gods and worship Yahweh/Jehovah. It really is just that simple. Allow me to demonstrate the context in order to leave no doubt at all.

Moses was reared in an atmosphere of idolatry. There were numerous deities among the Egyptians. In commencing the work which the Lord said he had for Moses to do, it was necessary to center his mind and faith upon Yahweh.

This was described in the first of the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me,"    that is, beside me, above me, or equal to me, or to be an object of worship, (Exodus 20:2­5).  This is reiterated in different ways throughout the Old Testament:

"Yet I am the Lord thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt have no god but me: for there is no savior beside me." (Hos. 8:4; 13:2­4.)

Micah, speaking the will of the Lord regarding Samaria, declared:

"And all the graven images thereof shall be beaten to pieces, and all the hires thereof shall be burned with the fire, and all the idols thereof will I lay desolate: for she gathered it of the hire of an harlot, and they shall return to the hire of an harlot." (Mic. 1:7; see also Habakkuk 2:18; Zechariah 10:2;

"Tell ye, and bring [them] near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? [who] hath told it from that time? [have] not I the LORD? and [there is] no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; [there is] none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else." (Isaiah 45:21­-22)

The Old Testament prophets never ceased to condemn Israel for the worship of idols, and urged them to worship the only God that could truly provide them with salvation. That is what the scriptures you refer to clearly and unambiguously teach.

 

Nevertheless, the context elsewhere in the Bible is different in referring to members of the Godhead, rather than comparison to false idols.  The context elsewhere starts with a plural God, and ends with a plural God. Plain and simple. If you want to know the sense in which Jesus Christ is "one" with the Father, then all you need to do is read his very own words which refer to it. (John 17)

-s

[Calm]

but what Joseph Smith did do with his JST is establish the KJV as the proper translation. 

 

 

Not sure where you are going with this, but as far as what Joseph saw as the "proper translation"....

 

https://www.lds.org/ensign/1971/04/the-king-follett-sermon?lang=eng

 

I have an old edition of the New Testament in the Latin, Hebrew, German and Greek languages. I have been reading the German, and find it to be the most [nearly] correct translation, and to correspond nearest to the revelations which God has given to me for the last fourteen years. It tells about Jacobus, the son of Zebedee. It means Jacob. In the English New Testament it is translated James. Now, if Jacob had the keys, you might talk about James through all eternity and never get the keys. In the 21st [verse] of the fourth chapter of Matthew, my old German edition gives the word Jacob instead of James.

The doctors (I mean doctors of law, not physic) say, “If you preach anything not according to the Bible, we will cry treason.” How can we escape the damnation of hell, except God be with us and reveal to us? Men bind us with chains. The Latin says Jacobus, which means Jacob; the Hebrew says Jacob, the Greek says Jacob and the German says Jacob, here we have the testimony of four against one. I thank God that I have got this old book; but I thank him more for the gift of the Holy Ghost. I have got the oldest book in the world; but I have got the oldest book in my heart, even the gift of the Holy Ghost....

Edited June 5, 2015 by calmoriah

[stephenpurdy]

stephenpurdy

 

Jehovah when saying "there are no gods besides me" is using an old Hebrew idiom in comparison with the false gods/idols of other nations.  

saemo:

I agree with this.

stephenpurdy:

The idiom means that He is superior to all others, as well as saying that there is no other source of salvation.  "Besides me there is no Savior".

saemo:

Moses did not hear and God did not say Savior. He said gods before ME. You’ve once again changed scripture to suit what you want to believe.

 

stephenpurdy:

In contrast, in the context of Jesus referring to God the Father, Jesus says "My Father is greater than I".  He says that He had not yet ascended to His father and to His God.

saemo:

Yes.

stephenpurdy:

People ask me, "Are you saying that as Deity, Jesus Christ has a God.  God has a God?"  The answer is yes.  Hebrews 1:9 reiterates it, "Thou (Jesus Christ) hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God (the Father), hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows."

saemo:

You conveniently overlook verse 8, where Jesus is named God. “but of the Son: “Your throne, O God….” Not a God, but God. And you overlook verse 10 where Jesus is named Creator ( God, not a God).

In addition, if you interpret verse 9, as you are, then you make it in direct contradiction to 1 Timothy 3:16 “And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.”  Again GOD, not a God.

So what could verse 9 possibly mean? Philippians 2:5-8 explains it for us:

Who, though he was in the form of God,

did not regard equality with God something to be grasped.

Rather, he emptied himself,

taking the form of a slave,

coming in human likeness;

and found human in appearance,

he humbled himself,

becoming obedient to death, even death on a cross.

stephenpurdy:

God, the Son, was chosen/anointed above the other sons.  Chosen and anointed by His God, the Father.  Why, because he loved righteousness.  He was superior/preeminent above the other sons of God.

saemo:

John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, so that everyone who believes in him might not perish but might have eternal life.

stephpurdy:

So, please spare me your misuse of context, where Jehovah is comparing himself to false idols/gods, and try to place those phrases in the context of Jesus comparing Himself to the Father.  It is just another example of poor interpretation and misuse of the text.

saemo:

Please spare me your condescension. As I already pointed out, it is LDS who use the commandment of having no other gods as a proof text for claiming there are in fact other gods (and not false). You equivocate when this is taken it to its logical conclusion, and have to claim that the commandment excludes one of your Gods, but ignore that the one giving the commandment gives the commandment for Himself (ME), not for another God who is above him.

 

Just one example of a nonsensical interpretation and misuse of scripture.

 

I do not use "no other gods" as a proof text that there are indeed other gods. 

 

There are many uses of "God/gods" in the Bible.  The term refers to

 

1) A single member of the Godhead or multiple members of the Godhead

 

2) Men who have been given authority by God

 

3) False gods/idols

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

 

In one sense Jesus is the "only" son and in another sense he is the "first" among many

 

I do not ignore any of the verses of Hebrews chapter 1

 

See here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65453-lds-view-of-godhead-trinity/

 

-stephen

[danielwoods]

I'm not sure I agree with you about the KJV. The KJV was a commonly available translation available at the time. It was used to standardize the scriptures that everyone was using so everyone would be on the same page so to speak. The fact that Joseph set out to clarify the meaning of the KJV meant that there were things lost in translation, and not necessarily the "proper" translation.

As a prophet of God, his clarifications would be better than any scholar. Same reason Jesus' interpretation of scripture was better than any Pharisee's interpretation.

 

What can't it refer to any One "of God"?

Jesus also taught that the pure in heart will see God.

 

 

It is commonly accepted as a vision, but that doesn't mean it didn't actually happen as written. There is no mention of it being a vision.

 

A simple study of it would reveal to you why it can't refer to anyone of God.

This one has seen the Father (ουτος εωρακεν τον πατερα — houtos heōraken ton patera). Perfect active indicative of οραω — horaō

With the eyes no one has seen God (John 1:18) save the Son who is “from God” in origin (John 1:1, John 1:14; John 7:29; John 16:27; John 17:8 ). The only way for others to see God is to see Christ (John 14:9).

 

"No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him." (John 1:18)

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God." (John 1:1,2)

"But I know him: for I am from him, and he hath sent me." (John 7:29)

"for the Father himself loveth you, because ye have loved me, and have believed that I came out from God. 28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father." (John 16:27,28)

"8 For I have given unto them the words which thou gavest me; and they have received them, and have known surely that I came out from thee, and they have believed that thou didst send me." (John 17:8 )

 

 

As far as Stephen's vision, the key is his statement. "56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened,"

 

Just like when Paul saw Jesus for the first time, no one else saw anything. A vision is like that. 

[danielwoods]

I respectfully disagree. To me it is clear he's is equating a spiritual body with a life-giving spirit. You have no choice but to strain the plain meaning of Paul's similie because to not do so would turn your world upside down. Remember, it doesn't say Christ IS a quickening Spirit but that he was MADE a quickening spirit by the resurrection. To say that the only time the eternal Son of God could have had the power to indwell and inspire the people was not until after his resurrection negates the entire word of God. He is the light that lights every man that comes into the world, including all those who were born before his earthly advent. Remember, during his time on earth in mortality his body was also made a little lower than the angels, and it wasn't until his resurrection that he was raised with a spiritual body that, once again, made him wholly spiritual by nature, just as he was before he was born on earth.

 

Much of what you are saying isn't quite accurate. First, I "have no choice..." is a common defense mechanism, I hear from the LDS. The fact is that I don't really care one way or the other. If the Father has body of flesh or not, I'm interested in the truth. The plain and simple fact is that his corporality isn't taught in the Biblical text anywhere. Second, I'm taking Paul's writing at face value. It means what it says. He's contrasting Adam with Christ, as he often does. So, I'm sorry but it wouldn't turn my world upside down if I found out later I was wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. I really don't care one way or another. What I do care about is truth.

45 AND SO IT IS WRITTEN, The first man Adam was made a living soul; THE LAST ADAM WAS MADE A QUICKENING SPIRIT. (1 Corithians 15)

 

I figured you were a little hung up on the "MADE" a quickening spirit and if you were correct, that it was a reference back to the spiritual body statement, then it wouldn't match the wording that Adam was MADE a living soul. The fact that the same wording is used, only further demonstrates that it connects to the previous statement about Adam.

Second, even you just said,"He is the light that lights every man that comes into the world, including all those who were born before his earthly advent." So, Jesus wasn't Made into anything, he always has been a quickening spirit. As Jesus said to Lazarus' Sister, "I AM the resurrection and the life." It's not something that Jesus was ever "made" into or acquired, but it is his eternal nature that he is who he is, and always has been. 

 

You will probably protest and say, but look at what Paul has stated, that he was "made".... And I will say, yes but in the larger context it can be seen that Paul is using a literary device to contrast Adam and Christ, because if Christ was suddenly "made" into something as the result of his resurrection, then the countless verses that teach about Christ as Creator of  and source of everything would be false. So, the larger context has to be taken into account. 

[saemo]

Why did God create beings (Adam and Eve) who did not have trust and faith in God?

 

I plan to discuss that topic here: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65449-the-nature-and-relationship-of-god-and-creation/

 

-s

I answered this already. God created us with free will.

I'll pass on another discussion that goes nowhere.

[saemo]

The Shema "The Lord our God is one Lord" is not a claim that the Father and Son and Holy Spirit are a single Being/Substance. It is a claim about the character and integrity of Jehovah, the God of Israel.

It is simple, why make it so complicated. Israel was led by God out other belief in "the gods". This passage in Deuteronomy indicates where God led them, in an expression that leaves out "the Gods", entirely.

I agree that Jesus is God. "God" is being used as a title not a single Being. [

God is not a title. God IS.

From the very beginning of the Bible God is plural. Even the Hebrew word for God "Elohim" is plural. Hence "Elohim", they say "Let US create man in OUR image and after OUR likeness." They act as "one".

See John 1:1, where the Word of God is shown to be Jesus. Let us then, in Christian understanding, see that Genesis is referencing the Holy Trinity.

My understanding is that Elohim can be compared to the Enflish word "you", which can be used in both a singular and a plural sense, and the sense of Elohim in the OT, is singular.

The Shema and other scriptures are precisely what I said they are; a declaration of the uniqueness, superiority, and salvific relationship of Yahweh/Jehovah to his people.

Indeed, unique because there is only one God. ALL the other gods that the Hebrews ever believed existed were pagan gods. False gods. Every one. Post exilic, Israel has no belief, whatsoever, in any other gods. No longer believing the pagan gods are real, and are absolute monotheists. This is where God led them in their understanding about Himself. Why do you seek to regress to a false understanding?

It is only by taking those verses out of context that you can even try to claim that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are a single Being/Substance. Those texts are not saying say what you claim.

yes, they are.

The Hebrews were to to deny the false gods and worship Yahweh/Jehovah. It really is just that simple. Allow me to demonstrate the context in order to leave no doubt at all.

Moses was reared in an atmosphere of idolatry. There were numerous deities among the Egyptians. In commencing the work which the Lord said he had for Moses to do, it was necessary to center his mind and faith upon Yahweh.

This was described in the first of the Ten Commandments: "Thou shalt have no other gods before me," that is, beside me, above me, or equal to me, or to be an object of worship, (Exodus 20:2­5). This is reiterated in different ways throughout the Old Testament:"Yet I am the Lord thy God from the land of Egypt, and thou shalt have no god but me: for there is no savior beside me." (Hos. 8:4; 13:2­4.)

Right. So why insist that the gods exist?

Micah, speaking the will of the Lord regarding Samaria, declared:"And all the graven images thereof shall be beaten to pieces, and all the hires thereof shall be burned with the fire, and all the idols thereof will I lay desolate: for she gathered it of the hire of an harlot, and they shall return to the hire of an harlot." (Mic. 1:7; see also Habakkuk 2:18; Zechariah 10:2;"Tell ye, and bring [them] near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? [who] hath told it from that time? [have] not I the LORD? and [there is] no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; [there is] none beside me. Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else." (Isaiah 45:21­-22)

The Old Testament prophets never ceased to condemn Israel for the worship of idols, and urged them to worship the only God that could truly provide them with salvation. That is what the scriptures you refer to clearly and unambiguously teach.

right, because there is only one God. None other exist.

Nevertheless, the context elsewhere in the Bible is different in referring to members of the Godhead, rather than comparison to false idols. The context elsewhere starts with a plural God, and ends with a plural God. Plain and simple. If you want to know the sense in which Jesus Christ is "one" with the Father, then all you need to do is read his very own words which refer to it. (John 17)

-s

I am quite familiar with John 17, which is very Trinitarian! Jesus teaches clearly, that the Father and He are One. ONE. LDS are always trying to make many out of One. Edited June 5, 2015 by saemo

[saemo]

I do not use "no other gods" as a proof text that there are indeed other gods.

There are many uses of "God/gods" in the Bible. The term refers to

1) A single member of the Godhead or multiple members of the Godhead

2) Men who have been given authority by God

3) False gods/idols

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

In one sense Jesus is the "only" son and in another sense he is the "first" among many

I do not ignore any of the verses of Hebrews chapter 1

See here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65453-lds-view-of-godhead-trinity/

-stephen

Yes, I said you removed your argument from an LDS context and gave you a link to an LDS apologist that is used often by LDS, online.

There is only one use of "the gods" in the Bible and it is in reference to "the gods" that are not God. Even Genesis, with its "let us" came to be viewed by Jews as a leftover expression from pagan days.

For Christians, John 1:1 clarifies "let us" in context of the Word of God, who is Jesus Christ. But all other instances of "the gods" in the OT are false, pagan gods, over which the Hebrews had to overcome a belief about.

Jesus is the only begotten of the Father, and He is the First born of many, which references our sonship made possible by Jesus reconciling us to the Father. Making us adopted children. Jesus is not adopted, He is the only, unique, Son.

Edited June 5, 2015 by saemo

[Maedros]

It's a good video but it doesn't explain much - he says that God is one but is not a single being neither is he separate beings - so he is neither three-in-one nor is he three distinct beings, so what is he then? A mythological being that is undefinable because He is God - read the Lectures on Faith by Joseph Smith. 

[Anakin7]

       Free will saemo ?, don't tell that to our Calvinist Christian friends who post here !.

 

In His Eternal Debt/Grace

             Anakin7

[stephenpurdy]

I answered this already. God created us with free will.

I'll pass on another discussion that goes nowhere.

 

The very basis of your theology does not allow for free will. 

 

-stephen

[stephenpurdy]

There is only one use of "the gods" in the Bible and it is in reference to "the gods" that are not God. Even Genesis, with its "let us" came to be viewed by Jews as a leftover expression from pagan days.

For Christians, John 1:1 clarifies "let us" in context of the Word of God, who is Jesus Christ. But all other instances of "the gods" in the OT are false, pagan gods, over which the Hebrews had to overcome a belief about.

Jesus is the only begotten of the Father, and He is the First born of many, which references our sonship made possible by Jesus reconciling us to the Father. Making us adopted children. Jesus is not adopted, He is the only, unique, Son.

 

I can demonstrate to you that "gods" is used in all of the ways I indicated above.  But apparently, you are afraid of "conversations that will go nowhere". 

 

Jesus Christ was the "Firstborn" prior to even entering into mortality.  As I demonstrated from the other thread, the sons of God existed prior to mortality, and the Father "brought the Firstborn into the world".

 

-stephen

[stephenpurdy]

I am quite familiar with John 17, which is very Trinitarian! Jesus teaches clearly, that the Father and He are One. ONE. LDS are always trying to make many out of One.

 

I don't think you are. 

 

If you read the whole chapter, and claim that being "one" is what you think it means, then you must also conclude that the disciples of Christ are also the single substance/being that you imagine God to be.

 

-stephen

Edited June 6, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[stephenpurdy]

God is not a title. God IS.

My understanding is that Elohim can be compared to the Enflish word "you", which can be used in both a singular and a plural sense, and the sense of Elohim in the OT, is singular.

 

 

God is a title appropriate to refer to the Son, appropriate to refer to the Father, appropriate to refer to the Holy Spirit. 

 

And you are wrong about the term "Elohim".  The singular form is "Eloah". 

 

The rest of your comments are answered in more detail here: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65453-lds-view-of-godhead-trinity/

 

-s

[stephenpurdy]

       Free will saemo ?, don't tell that to our Calvinist Christian friends who post here !.

 

             Anakin7

 

The Calvinists are right.

 

IF God creates all things Ex Nihilo, then there is no free will and God decides who goes to Heaven or Hell.  We are getting into that conversation here:

 

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65449-the-nature-and-relationship-of-god-and-creation/

 

-s

[Bobbieaware]

Much of what you are saying isn't quite accurate. First, I "have no choice..." is a common defense mechanism, I hear from the LDS. The fact is that I don't really care one way or the other. If the Father has body of flesh or not, I'm interested in the truth. The plain and simple fact is that his corporality isn't taught in the Biblical text anywhere. Second, I'm taking Paul's writing at face value. It means what it says. He's contrasting Adam with Christ, as he often does. So, I'm sorry but it wouldn't turn my world upside down if I found out later I was wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth. I really don't care one way or another. What I do care about is truth.

45 AND SO IT IS WRITTEN, The first man Adam was made a living soul; THE LAST ADAM WAS MADE A QUICKENING SPIRIT. (1 Corithians 15)

I figured you were a little hung up on the "MADE" a quickening spirit and if you were correct, that it was a reference back to the spiritual body statement, then it wouldn't match the wording that Adam was MADE a living soul. The fact that the same wording is used, only further demonstrates that it connects to the previous statement about Adam.

Second, even you just said,"He is the light that lights every man that comes into the world, including all those who were born before his earthly advent." So, Jesus wasn't Made into anything, he always has been a quickening spirit. As Jesus said to Lazarus' Sister, "I AM the resurrection and the life." It's not something that Jesus was ever "made" into or acquired, but it is his eternal nature that he is who he is, and always has been.

You will probably protest and say, but look at what Paul has stated, that he was "made".... And I will say, yes but in the larger context it can be seen that Paul is using a literary device to contrast Adam and Christ, because if Christ was suddenly "made" into something as the result of his resurrection, then the countless verses that teach about Christ as Creator of and source of everything would be false. So, the larger context has to be taken into account.

It does refer back to the spiritual body. It is so obvious to me that I'm shocked you still can't see it. Paul is saying Christ has a spiritual body and that's why it is said he was made (In the creative act of resurrection) a quickening spirit. And I bet hundreds of non-LDS scholars agree with me that the second expression was used by Paul to be another way of saying the first. All Paul was trying to say is that Christ's resurrected body is a spiritual body, a body that by its holy nature, and it's full unification with the Spirit of truth, is capacitated to help others become like him and eventually gain sanctified spiritual bodies of their own. In other words, Christ is the Savior and he could not function in that capacity if he did not have a glorious and infinitely powerful spiritual body.

We're played out on this point and so I agree to disagree with you and say we move on to other exercises in futility.

Edited June 6, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[coolrok7]

Vance, the resurrection was for us to maintain into eternity, God's intended purpose for us in the physical realm, to enjoy God's presence like it was before the fall. Jesus is quoted as saying in Luke 24:36-42 in part, "a spirit doesn't hath flesh and bones, as you see me have."

 

In 1 John 3 it explains, "when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is". This will be His resurrected (spiritualized so to speak as it had additional properties in the act of glorification at His resurrection) body which descends from heaven with a shout" (1 Thessalonians 4) at the Judgment Day.

 

Before we were created God (Elohim which is not the Father's name, the term applies to all three) Father, Son, Holy Spirit are spirit without physical forms as Deity or God. Jesus took on an additional human nature as God (Philippians 2:5-11) in a flesh, blood, and bone physical form (which is not where His Deity is derived) from the womb of the Virgin Mary. A miraculous event wherein His body began as ours does, but His conception was without any male activity involved (see Luke 1:26. . .55 for context).

 

To read John 5 in the Mormon context, is reading in to what is not there. It is Jesus in the context of being falsely accused to explain to humans in a relational way what humans could understand was His relationship to God (the Father) who they believed existed as Jews in which they couldn't accept Jesus' claim. This was recorded in the "Word of God"; way before the Mormon Church came along making it's claims  wherein it had identified it as such in a 1972 Reader's Digest Christmas advertisement insert.

 

We (post Adam and Eve's special creation, not born from a mother because none existed) were created as physical/spiritual beings (at our conception) without pre-existing. Angels were also created spirit beings without physical forms. Hebrews explains Jesus identified with us, not the angels, in His coming into the world for our benefit. God did pre-exist as in, "from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God." (Psalm 90:2).

 

The reference in Hebrews 1 being the "express image of his person" is in the Greek the example of a signet ring being stamped in the wax (the wax being the flesh in which Jesus was born in) so to speak so the Son, Jesus (see Colossians 2:9), would do the same things as if it was the Father in the flesh that was there, which He wasn't.

Edited June 6, 2015 by coolrok7

[danielwoods]

It does refer back to the spiritual body. It is so obvious to me that I'm shocked you still can't see it. Paul is saying Christ has a spiritual body and that's why it is said he was made (In the creative act of resurrection) a quickening spirit. And I bet hundreds of non-LDS scholars agree with me that the second expression was used by Paul to be another way of saying the first. All Paul was trying to say is that Christ's resurrected body is a spiritual body, a body that by its holy nature, and it's full unification with the Spirit of truth, is capacitated to help others become like him and eventually gain sanctified spiritual bodies of their own. In other words, Christ is the Savior and he could not function in that capacity if he did not have a glorious and infinitely powerful spiritual body.

We're played out on this point and so I agree to disagree with you and say we move on to other exercises in futility.

 

Which is fine if you ignore what I said. Jesus was fully capable of functioning in that capacity before his resurrection, as he said "I AM the resurrection and the life" before he died and rose again. So having a spiritual body or not didn't change that. 

Edited June 6, 2015 by danielwoods

[saemo]

The very basis of your theology does not allow for free will. 

 

-stephen

I don't believe you've demonstrated an understanding of "my theology", that remotely qualifies you to make this statement.

[saemo]

I can demonstrate to you that "gods" is used in all of the ways I indicated above.  But apparently, you are afraid of "conversations that will go nowhere". 

 

Jesus Christ was the "Firstborn" prior to even entering into mortality.  As I demonstrated from the other thread, the sons of God existed prior to mortality, and the Father "brought the Firstborn into the world".

 

-stephen

I understand that is what you believe.

Don't worry, I have no fear, but it is boredom.

[saemo]

I don't think you are.

If you read the whole chapter, and claim that being "one" is what you think it means, then you must also conclude that the disciples of Christ are also the single substance/being that you imagine God to be.

-stephen

God desires we enter into the life of the Holy Trinity. This is in and through the Son, who is God. We are not God. I don't imagine what God is, I accept what God has revealed. If is you who are making the attempt to explain away what God has revealed, not I. Edited June 6, 2015 by saemo

[saemo]

God is a title appropriate to refer to the Son, appropriate to refer to the Father, appropriate to refer to the Holy Spirit.

And you are wrong about the term "Elohim". The singular form is "Eloah".

The rest of your comments are answered in more detail here: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65453-lds-view-of-godhead-trinity/

-s

Jesus commissioned the Apostles to baptize in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit. "Name" not "names". God is, Father, Son and Holy Spirit. God is God. A unique being. God is what God is. Which you are not. Edited June 6, 2015 by saemo

[saemo]

The Calvinists are right.

IF God creates all things Ex Nihilo, then there is no free will and God decides who goes to Heaven or Hell. We are getting into that conversation here:

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65449-the-nature-and-relationship-of-god-and-creation/

-s

Says you.

God has shown us otherwise.

Ok, I'll add, in my experience, "free will" is defined differently by LDS than Catholics, and LDS would be closer to a Calvimist view. Catholics are not Calvinists.

Edited June 6, 2015 by saemo