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

[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

You are talking about the form, I said the sense.

I read your other thread. Do you know how many anti-Trinity threads are started here, and that yours is same old same old, and I've no interest in discussing the same old same old, again. You can find those threads and read them.

[Bobbieaware]

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.

Come on Daniel, you know better than that. You most surely know everything Christ was able to do for the salvation of men prior to his atoning sacrifice and glorious resurrection was made possible only by the fact THAT THERE WOULD BE AN ATONING SACRFICE AND GLORIOUS RESURRECTION. I hope you're not trying to say that Christ would be our Savior if he had shrunk from drinking the bitter cup and never atoned for our sins and rose from the dead? Paul makes it very clear that if there had been no atoning sacrifice and resurrection of Christ to a glorified spiritual body that ALL the saving work that went on before the atonement and resurrection would have been for absolutely nothing and all would have been in vain.

12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

17 And if Christ be not raised, YOUR FAITH IS IN VAIn; YE ARE YET IN YOUR SINS.

18 THEN THEY ALSO WHICH ARE FALLEN ASLEEP IN CHRIST ARE PERISHED. (1 Corinthians 15)

All that Christ did for the salvation of man prior to his resurrection was affirmed only on the basis that he one day WOULD atone for our sins and rise from the dead to the Father's throne with a life-giving spiritual body. "And if Christ be not raised from the dead, your faith is in vain."

Edited June 6, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[stephenpurdy]

You are talking about the form, I said the sense.

I read your other thread. Do you know how many anti-Trinity threads are started here, and that yours is same old same old, and I've no interest in discussing the same old same old, again. You can find those threads and read them.

On that thread, I responded specifically to some of the arguments you made here.

 

If you do not want to address my responses to you, then that is up to you. 

 

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

 

-Stephen

Edited June 6, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[stephenpurdy]

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

 

I demonstrate a very clear understanding of what Ex Nihilo is, and lay out the implications of such a doctrine.

 

For some reason, you are reluctant to get into that conversation.

 

Trust me, this is not a "boring" conversation.  And you may find that it is not a conversation that you have had before: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65449-the-nature-and-relationship-of-god-and-creation/

 

-stephen

[saemo]

On that thread, I responded specifically to some of the arguments you made here.

If you do not want to address my responses to you, than that is up to you.

-Stephen

Yes, I know that I respond to what I wish, and do so without your permission.

I see that thread is all about LDS views and beliefs, and here on an LDS forum. I don't hold those beliefs or views and so have nothing to contribute.

I'm not here to "fix" what you believe, or be "fixed" by you, and I sense that is what you are inviting.

I leave your ant-Trinity discussion to the anti-Trinitarians.

Edited June 6, 2015 by saemo

[saemo]

I demonstrate a very clear understanding of what Ex Nihilo is, and lay out the implications of such a doctrine.

For some reason, you are reluctant to get into that conversation.

Trust me, this is not a "boring" conversation. And you may find that it is not a conversation that you have had before: http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/65449-the-nature-and-relationship-of-god-and-creation/

-stephen

Also, discussed ad nauseum here, which you can find and read. Edited June 6, 2015 by saemo

[stephenpurdy]

Also, discussed ad nauseum here, which you can find and read.

 

Where, exactly, Saemo?

 

Based on your replies to my posts so far, you have not demonstrated that you even understand the actual points that I am making, but instead respond to arguments that you wish I was making.

 

Forgive me if I don't have confidence in your ability to judge whether or not the discussion opened on the other thread has been hashed out before.

 

-Stephen

[danielwoods]

Come on Daniel, you know better than that. You most surely know everything Christ was able to do for the salvation of men prior to his atoning sacrifice and glorious resurrection was made possible only by the fact THAT THERE WOULD BE AN ATONING SACRFICE AND GLORIOUS RESURRECTION. I hope you're not trying to say that Christ would be our Savior if he had shrunk from drinking the bitter cup and never atoned for our sins and rose from the dead? Paul makes it very clear that if there had been no atoning sacrifice and resurrection of Christ to a glorified spiritual body that ALL the saving work that went on before the atonement and resurrection would have been for absolutely nothing and all would have been in vain.

12 Now if Christ be preached that he rose from the dead, how say some among you that there is no resurrection of the dead?

13 But if there be no resurrection of the dead, then is Christ not risen:

14 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain.

15 Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not.

16 For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised:

17 And if Christ be not raised, YOUR FAITH IS IN VAIn; YE ARE YET IN YOUR SINS.

18 THEN THEY ALSO WHICH ARE FALLEN ASLEEP IN CHRIST ARE PERISHED. (1 Corinthians 15)

All that Christ did for the salvation of man prior to his resurrection was affirmed only on the basis that he one day WOULD atone for our sins and rise from the dead to the Father's throne with a life-giving spiritual body. "And if Christ be not raised from the dead, your faith is in vain."

 

Your argument is that Christ's resurrection Body made him into a quickening spirit. My argument is that everything stems from who Christ is and was already. Christ always has been the resurrection and the life he wasn't made to be that. He's always been the I AM, it was not his bodily resurrection that did that (or even the anticipation of it). His resurrection body, the atonement, everything comes from who he is, the very source for all life and all creation itself. 

[stephenpurdy]

I see that thread is all about LDS views and beliefs, and here on an LDS forum. I don't hold those beliefs or views and so have nothing to contribute.

I'm not here to "fix" what you believe, or be "fixed" by you, and I sense that is what you are inviting.

I leave your ant-Trinity discussion to the anti-Trinitarians.

 

So, is it a "thread all about LDS views and beliefs"  OR is it an "anti-Trinitarian" discussion?

 

By the way, I have referenced two different threads:

 

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

 

Which deals with views of the Godhead, both LDS views and traditional Christian view

 

and

 

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

 

Which deals with the nature of God, the nature of creation, but more interestingly, how the doctrine of Ex Nihilo creation negates the possibility of true free will, and invites this "problem of evil"  and suffering to be more troublesome than it would normally be.

 

-Stephen

Edited June 6, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[saemo]

So, is it a "thread all about LDS views and beliefs"  OR is it an "anti-Trinitarian" discussion?

It's both. LDS are anti-Trinitarian.

By the way, I have referenced two different threads:

 

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

 

Which deals with views of the Godhead, both LDS views and traditional Christian view

 

and

 

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

 

Which deals with the nature of God, the nature of creation, but more interestingly, how the doctrine of Ex Nihilo creation negates the possibility of true free will, and invites this "problem of evil"  and suffering to be more troublesome than it would normally be.

 

-Stephen

Yes, I can read.

[saemo]

Where, exactly, Saemo?

 

Based on your replies to my posts so far, you have not demonstrated that you even understand the actual points that I am making, but instead respond to arguments that you wish I was making.

 

Forgive me if I don't have confidence in your ability to judge whether or not the discussion opened on the other thread has been hashed out before.

 

-Stephen

Let me Google that for you.

Edited June 6, 2015 by saemo

[Bobbieaware]

Your argument is that Christ's resurrection Body made him into a quickening spirit. My argument is that everything stems from who Christ is and was already. Christ always has been the resurrection and the life he wasn't made to be that. He's always been the I AM, it was not his bodily resurrection that did that (or even the anticipation of it). His resurrection body, the atonement, everything comes from who he is, the very source for all life and all creation itself.

Paul's whole point in 1 Corinthians 15 is that the nature of Christ's earthly body - the one that was MADE (remember that word?) a little lower than th angels - was changed from an "earthy" state to a heavenly spiritual state in the resurrection. It's true that Christ was the Son of God before his resurrection, but Paul says his being the Son of God would have been to no avail unless he obtained a glorious bodily resurrection -- a change from a lower state to a higher one. Will you acknowledge that Christ could not save anyone, past or present, unless his earthly body was resurrected to spiritual glory? Here'are some questions that should put an end to this exercise:

* If Christ could save us merely because of who he was, why did the Father require him to make an infinite and eternal sacrifice of unimaginable pain and sorrow before we could be saved?

* Why all the suffering and need for a glorious resurrection if he could save us without these things? Kind of unnecessarily cruel, don't you think?

In Islam, it is taught that there was no need for a Son of God to make an atoning sacrifice because God can save the human race by virtue of his very nature. He can forgive and bless anyone he wants without the need for a great and last sacrifice. Is this what you believe?

[stephenpurdy]

Let me Google that for you.

Please do.

 

Let me know if you find, for example, a treatise which defends against my assertion that:

 

"determinism logically results from ex nihilo creation."

 

Then come back to the thread here on the subject, and see if the arguments you can find can stand up to scrutiny.

 

-stephen

Edited June 6, 2015 by stephenpurdy

[saemo]

Please do.

 

Let me know if you find, for example, a treatise which defends against my assertion that:

 

determinism logically results from ex nihilo creation.

 

-stephen

Oh my heck, I've given you what you're looking for. Just read and click.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/47855-serious-implications-of-creation-ex-nihilo/

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59969-rorty-and-mormonism/

Now quit badgering me to join your thread.

[stephenpurdy]

Oh my heck, I've given you what you're looking for. Just read and click.

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/47855-serious-implications-of-creation-ex-nihilo/

http://www.mormondialogue.org/topic/59969-rorty-and-mormonism/

Now quit badgering me to join your thread.

 

I am not badgering you only to join the Ex Nihilo / free will discussion,  I am also badgering you to respond to your inconsistencies concerning the Trinity.

 

Trinitarians assert that between the Father and Son there is a subject / object distinction in the Biblical text.  When the Son says "me" or "I", it is referring to the Son, not the Father.  Etc.

 

LDS say that when Yahweh told Israel to worship Him only, because "there is no God besides Me", it is a use of a Hebrew idiom to denote His superiority over the false gods of other nations.  The statement does not apply in other contexts.   (For example, it does not apply to those who God named "gods" who carry his authority and judgment.)

 

You try to say that this statement, "no God besides Me" should not only be taken literally as existential exclusivity, but also that it applies universally to all other contexts.  If that is the case, then one member of the Trinity would be denying the existence of the others in those verses, because of the subject / object distinction that Trinitarians insist exist between members of the Trinity.  I say that this does not work with the Biblical text, because Christ, for example, would never be seen standing on the right hand of the Father's throne and say "There is no God besides me." 

 

Therefore, your use of the old testament verses to this effect should not be considered as a universal statement of understanding the nature of the Godhead or true Deity in all other contexts.  Context, context, context , context  ....... context  ; )

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

 

As for the Ex Nihilo threads you provided, which post do you feel best represents or defends your position?  (By giving me that,  you can perhaps avoid that other thread without me badgering you too much 

 

-stephen

[Vance]

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."

Then, by your logic Christ can NOT be God.

 

1) "a spirit doesn't hath flesh and bones, as you see me have". In other words Christ is not a spirit.

 

2) God IS spirit  Jn 4:24

 

3) Conclusion: Christ is NOT God.

 

Thank you for playing.

 

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.

Yup!  Christ has a body of flesh and bones, and will have forever.  We will also have a body of flesh and bones upon our resurrection.

 

So, what is your point?

 

Before we were created God Father, Son, Holy Spirit are spirit without physical forms as Deity or God.

False.  God, the Father had a physical body of flesh and bones.

 

D&C 130:22 The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit. Were it not so, the Holy Ghost could not dwell in us.

 

To read John 5 in the Mormon context, is reading in to what is not there.

Also false. 

 

  . . . without pre-existing.

Also false.

 

Angels were also created spirit beings without physical forms.

We have been over this numerous times.  Angels are people.  John the Baptist was an angel, just look at the Greek.

[danielwoods]

Paul's whole point in 1 Corinthians 15 is that the nature of Christ's earthly body - the one that was MADE (remember that word?) a little lower than th angels - was changed from an "earthy" state to a heavenly spiritual state in the resurrection. It's true that Christ was the Son of God before his resurrection, but Paul says his being the Son of God would have been to no avail unless he obtained a glorious bodily resurrection -- a change from a lower state to a higher one. Will you acknowledge that Christ could not save anyone, past or present, unless his earthly body was resurrected to spiritual glory?

This is false. Paul does not say what you are claiming. 

 

Salvation came to man as a result of Christ's work on the cross, not the resurrection. The resurrection gives us hope and faith that our sins are forgiven, but without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins, hence the work of salvation occurred on the cross. 

 

Here'are some questions that should put an end to this exercise:

* If Christ could save us merely because of who he was, why did the Father require him to make an infinite and eternal sacrifice of unimaginable pain and sorrow before we could be saved?

* Why all the suffering and need for a glorious resurrection if he could save us without these things? Kind of unnecessarily cruel, don't you think?

In Islam, it is taught that there was no need for a Son of God to make an atoning sacrifice because God can save the human race by virtue of his very nature. He can forgive and bless anyone he wants without the need for a great and last sacrifice. Is this what you believe?

The nature of the sacrifice or punishment is based solely on who the transgression is against, in this case an Eternal, Infinite Creator. It's this reason that only a sacrifice of the level required by this Creator would suffice. 

 

Is that sacrifice necessary for us to be saved? Yes. IS the resurrection necessary for us to be saved? No. It doesn't have anything to do with salvation, rather, it represents our hope, it is what was seen as evidence of Christ's finished work. The fact that he's raised, means we too have that hope. It represents our hope for salvation. 

 

Islam can believe what it wants, and God saves those who have a heart that is humble towards him. How does this salvation work? Through Christ of course, even if Islam does't believe it. 

[Bobbieaware]

This is false. Paul does not say what you are claiming.

Salvation came to man as a result of Christ's work on the cross, not the resurrection. The resurrection gives us hope and faith that our sins are forgiven, but without the shedding of blood there is no remission of sins, hence the work of salvation occurred on the cross.

The nature of the sacrifice or punishment is based solely on who the transgression is against, in this case an Eternal, Infinite Creator. It's this reason that only a sacrifice of the level required by this Creator would suffice.

Is that sacrifice necessary for us to be saved? Yes. IS the resurrection necessary for us to be saved? No. It doesn't have anything to do with salvation, rather, it represents our hope, it is what was seen as evidence of Christ's finished work. The fact that he's raised, means we too have that hope. It represents our hope for salvation.

Islam can believe what it wants, and God saves those who have a heart that is humble towards him. How does this salvation work? Through Christ of course, even if Islam does't believe it.

I must say I'm absolutely astonished. Do yourself a favor and go read 1 Corinthinans 15 again, carefully, and see if you can still make a case that Paul did not teach we're saved by the resurrection of Christ as well as by his atoning sacrifice.

24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

25 Who was delivered for our offences, AND WAS RAISED AGAIN FOR OUR JUSTIFCATION. (Romans 4)

Edited June 7, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[saemo]

I am not badgering you only to join the Ex Nihilo / free will discussion, I am also badgering you to respond to your inconsistencies concerning the Trinity.

Trinitarians assert that between the Father and Son there is a subject / object distinction in the Biblical text. When the Son says "me" or "I", it is referring to the Son, not the Father. Etc.

LDS say that when Yahweh told Israel to worship Him only, because "there is no God besides Me", it is a use of a Hebrew idiom to denote His superiority over the false gods of other nations. The statement does not apply in other contexts. (For example, it does not apply to those who God named "gods" who carry his authority and judgment.)

You try to say that this statement, "no God besides Me" should not only be taken literally as existential exclusivity, but also that it applies universally to all other contexts. If that is the case, then one member of the Trinity would be denying the existence of the others in those verses, because of the subject / object distinction that Trinitarians insist exist between members of the Trinity. I say that this does not work with the Biblical text, because Christ, for example, would never be seen standing on the right hand of the Father's throne and say "There is no God besides me."

Therefore, your use of the old testament verses to this effect should not be considered as a universal statement of understanding the nature of the Godhead or true Deity in all other contexts. Context, context, context , context ....... context ; )

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

As for the Ex Nihilo threads you provided, which post do you feel best represents or defends your position? (By giving me that, you can perhaps avoid that other thread without me badgering you too much

-stephen

No, you didnt address anything I said. Context is important. When God told Moses I AM, He gave the Name of God. Not Gods. The Father later reveals the Son, who reveals the Father, and the Father and the Son reveal the Holy Spirit. But the Name of God, I AM, is not changed to WE ARE. Still One God, I AM, revealed as Father Son and Holy Spirit. When Jesus says, I AM, He is giving the name of God, not Gods, and applying the Name to Himself.

You haven't presented anything that represents my position. You present the LDS position. Both those threads have responses that say the Catholic position has not been represented.

Edited June 7, 2015 by saemo

[Anakin7]

       Which Trinity Form/Model does True Catholicism accept asTrue - Athanasious/Augustine/Western/Eastern/Economic/Essential/Monarch/Social ?. To bad our Catholic Friend David Waltz is not here to share and respond.

 

In His Debt/Grace

         Anakin7

[Anakin7]

       The I AM is the pre motal GOD Yahweh/Jehovah = Jesus Christ. John 8:58 cf Exodus 3:14.

 

        In His Eternal Debt/Grace

                       Anakin7

[saemo]

The I AM is the pre motal GOD Yahweh/Jehovah = Jesus Christ. John 8:58 cf Exodus 3:14.

 

        In His Eternal Debt/Grace

                       Anakin7

Moses was speaking to God. Yes, to the pre-Incarnate Jesus, who is God.

[saemo]

Which Trinity Form/Model does True Catholicism accept asTrue - Athanasious/Augustine/Western/Eastern/Economic/Essential/Monarch/Social ?. To bad our Catholic Friend David Waltz is not here to share and respond.

 

In His Debt/Grace

         Anakin7

Model?

Monarchism is a heresy.

All the others in your list reference theologies, and they all explain the Trinity.

[danielwoods]

I must say I'm absolutely astonished. Do yourself a favor and go read 1 Corinthinans 15 again, carefully, and see if you can still make a case that Paul did not teach we're saved by the resurrection of Christ as well as by his atoning sacrifice.

 

Again, Paul never states this. Rather it's the blood of Christ that cleans us. 

 

All you have to do is quote where Paul states what you claimed: "Paul says his being the Son of God would have been to no avail unless he obtained a glorious bodily resurrection -- a change from a lower state to a higher one."

 

24 But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead;

25 Who was delivered for our offences, AND WAS RAISED AGAIN FOR OUR JUSTIFCATION. (Romans 4)

 

If we take this verse in isolation it could be argued that we are justified by him being raised from the dead. If this is your argument, then please tell me how exactly that works? How is one justified by Christ's resurrection. 

 

Of course, taking verses in isolation only leads to error. So, let's look at the bigger picture. Let's look at what other verses in the same book say about our justification.

Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Romans 5:18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

 

What is clear in the greater context is that our justification is laid solely on Christ and his atoning sacrifice. His blood was shed on the cross, and in that he took our punishment and that is what justifies us before God. The Law has been fulfilled by that act. Resurrection doesn't fulfill any law, only displays the fact that Christ has the power over sin and death.

So, the Romans 4:25 statement that Christ was raised again for our justification doesn't mean that his resurrection also saved us, but rather that he has the power over death and this resurrection power continues to work in us everyday. If there's one distinction between followers of Christ, and all other religions it's this. We have the power of the resurrection running through our veins! 

Edited June 7, 2015 by danielwoods

[Bobbieaware]

Again, Paul never states this. Rather it's the blood of Christ that cleans us.

All you have to do is quote where Paul states what you claimed: "Paul says his being the Son of God would have been to no avail unless he obtained a glorious bodily resurrection -- a change from a lower state to a higher one."

If we take this verse in isolation it could be argued that we are justified by him being raised from the dead. If this is your argument, then please tell me how exactly that works? How is one justified by Christ's resurrection.

Of course, taking verses in isolation only leads to error. So, let's look at the bigger picture. Let's look at what other verses in the same book say about our justification.Romans 5:8 But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.

Romans 5:10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life.

Romans 5:18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

What is clear in the greater context is that our justification is laid solely on Christ and his atoning sacrifice. His blood was shed on the cross, and in that he took our punishment and that is what justifies us before God. The Law has been fulfilled by that act. Resurrection doesn't fulfill any law, only displays the fact that Christ has the power over sin and death.

So, the Romans 4:25 statement that Christ was raised again for our justification doesn't mean that his resurrection also saved us, but rather that he has the power over death and this resurrection power continues to work in us everyday. If there's one distinction between followers of Christ, and all other religions it's this. We have the power of the resurrection running through our veins!

You just don't get it, or you just don't want to get it. If Christ had not risen from the dead, none of us would rise from the dead either and we all would remain in the grave as if there had been no redemption made. Christ came to save us from sin AND from the fallen state. Without the resurrection, we would forever remain in the fallen state,and after death our bodies would rot in the grave, never to stand at the right hand of God in risen glory. It is by the resurrection that the blessings of the atoning sacrifice are affirmed. In 1 Corinthians 15 Paul makes it perfectly clear that without the resurrection of Christ to eternal glory at the right hand of the Fathet, our faith in Christ would be in vain. One of the very verses you quoted above is used by non-LDS Christians of every stripe to PROVE that without the resurrection of Christ we could not be saved:

10 For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by his life (Christ's new life as a glorious resurrected being). Romans 5

Paul is saying we are saved by Christ's death, but that we are ALSO saved by the power of his resurrection. Without his glorious resurrection, Christ would not be standing at the right hand of God to bless us from a heavenly state of higher glory. Without his glorious resurrection, Christ's body would have rotted by now and the dust that once was his body would remain in this fallen state, unredeemed for ever. Fallen bodies of flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God, and that means without Christ's resurrection we could never enter into the presence of the Father. Can we be considered saved without ever having a hope of entering the presence of the Father?

I already looked it up, and I can now say there are hundreds of non-LDS scholars and commentators who teach the Bible says we're saved by Christ's resurrection as well as by his atoning sacrifice. (Do a search under the terms "saved by his life" and "resurrection" and read what all those non-LDS folks who agree with me have to say) So I guess that puts you on a polemical desert island somewhere out in the middle of nowhere. Enjoy your solitude...

Edited June 7, 2015 by Bobbieaware