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

[jackson20]

Bluebell, this is one of the reasons why so many Christians believe that the God of Mormonism is NOT the God of the Bible.

 

 

        The Bible teaches, that the universe including the earth did not exist until God created it out of nothing and on the sixth day created man.(Gen. 1:1-2, 25-31) God tells us that man did not exist prior to the sixth day and nothing existed prior to day one. On the sixth day of Creation, God made Adam from the dust of the earth and breathed into him life and Adam became a living soul.(Gen. 2:7) Thus, Adam being the first man was given life by God, and Adam, then being a living being, passed life on to his children and his descendants.

         Mormonism presents a much different picture of creation and this is a serious problem for them. Life, according to Mormonism, already existed in the universe before Adam as an "intelligence." Based on this teaching they believe that all humans existed somewhere in the universe without a body prior to being born on earth. First this "intelligence" received a spiritual body in heaven when a spirit child is sexually produced by its man-god parents in heaven. Next, this pre-mortal spirit person then received a physical body when he was born to human parents on earth. Now as a human being their god lived a faithful life obeying the Mormon gospel, and he then was allowed to go on to the Celestial heaven. Because of his faithfulness to the Mormon gospel, he was declared "worthy" and merited godhood. He then was exalted and become a god. This whole scenario is totally foreign to the Word of God, the Bible, and is one reason why biblical Christians totally reject Mormons as Christians. Their god is totally incomparable with our Creator the God of the Bible.

         LDS doctrine naturally leads to the conclusion that time has always existed and there was no beginning. However, that is totally illogical because the fact is that "time" exists , and by its nature had to have a beginning and it will have an end. That is essence of time. Without a beginning there could be no time. The existence of time which proceeds forward is evidence of a beginning and of a Creator.

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

Bluebell, this is one of the reasons why so many Christians believe that the God of Mormonism is NOT the God of the Bible.

 

 

        The Bible teaches, that the universe including the earth did not exist until God created it out of nothing and on the sixth day created man.(Gen. 1:1-2, 25-31) God tells us that man did not exist prior to the sixth day and nothing existed prior to day one. On the sixth day of Creation, God made Adam from the dust of the earth and breathed into him life and Adam became a living soul.(Gen. 2:7) Thus, Adam being the first man was given life by God, and Adam, then being a living being, passed life on to his children and his descendants.

         Mormonism presents a much different picture of creation and this is a serious problem for them. Life, according to Mormonism, already existed in the universe before Adam as an "intelligence." Based on this teaching they believe that all humans existed somewhere in the universe without a body prior to being born on earth. First this "intelligence" received a spiritual body in heaven when a spirit child is sexually produced by its man-god parents in heaven. Next, this pre-mortal spirit person then received a physical body when he was born to human parents on earth. Now as a human being their god lived a faithful life obeying the Mormon gospel, and he then was allowed to go on to the Celestial heaven. Because of his faithfulness to the Mormon gospel, he was declared "worthy" and merited godhood. He then was exalted and become a god. This whole scenario is totally foreign to the Word of God, the Bible, and is one reason why biblical Christians totally reject Mormons as Christians. Their god is totally incomparable with our Creator the God of the Bible.

         LDS doctrine naturally leads to the conclusion that time has always existed and there was no beginning. However, that is totally illogical because the fact is that "time" exists , and by its nature had to have a beginning and it will have an end. That is essence of time. Without a beginning there could be no time. The existence of time which proceeds forward is evidence of a beginning and of a Creator.

Foreign to the Book of Mormon also

Jacob 4:9 For behold, by the power of his a word man came upon the face of the earth, which earth was created by the power of his word. Wherefore, if God being able to speak and the world was, and to speak and man was created, O then, why not able to command the dearth, or the workmanship of his hands upon the face of it, according to his will and pleasure?

The Book of Mormon never agrees with Mormonism when it abandon's the Evangelic thought.

[JLHPROF]

The Book of Mormon never agrees with Mormonism when it abandon's the Evangelic thought.

 

Your understanding of the Book of Mormon's teachings is limited and colored by your evangelical experiences.  It does not teach what you claim it does.

Of course, neither does the Bible, but that never stops people misinterpreting it too.

[jackson20]

Your understanding of the Book of Mormon's teachings is limited and colored by your evangelical experiences.  It does not teach what you claim it does.

Of course, neither does the Bible, but that never stops people misinterpreting it too.

 

You are so correct about people misinterpreting the Bible throughout the ages.  Mostly because they used pretext instead of context.  I am all for context. 

[JLHPROF]

You are so correct about people misinterpreting the Bible throughout the ages.  Mostly because they used pretext instead of context.  I am all for context. 

 

To my mind there are two kinds of context.

The kind of context specific to each part of the Bible - how/why/when/by whom was it written, what did they mean and under what circumstances did they write it.

 

The other kind is equally important in my mind - the ability to take any part of scripture and place it in correct context in the gospel as a whole.  This is where Mormons and "traditional" Christians differ.  Not in the minutia, but in their placement of each teaching in the Bible into the big picture of the gospel.  We simply aren't looking at the same picture when we take a Bible teaching, even with all it's historical context intact, and make it fit into the gospel as we understand it.

 

We can take any scripture completely in context, but place its teachings completely incorrectly into the gospel of Jesus Christ.  It is like a jigsaw puzzle with two lakes pictured.  We can analyze each piece perfectly.  Recognize that that piece of water is absolutely part of a lake and see it in perfect context as representing water.  And then we put it in the wrong of the two lakes.

[bluebell]

Bluebell I hope you can continue to come up with such great topics in the future...much appreciated.

I have given a lot of thought to your responses----- I appreciate the time and thought you put into them. I woke up thinking that a lot of our responses  seem like putting the cart before the horse so to speak. 

 

It is my understanding that the LDS church teaches that their god is the God of the Bible, yet they teach he is a material god of flesh and bone who himself was born into the material universe which clearly pre-existed him. The LDS teaching is that their god is a product of an existing material universe not the producer of it (god of flesh and bone). The question that begs to be answered is " How could the god of Mormonism be born into the "universe" that pre-existed him and he be it's creator. In other words the LDS church teaches that their god created the universe that pre-existed him!

 

The LDS church teaches that the God of the bible is Jesus Christ (Jehovah).   He is the God which the children of Israel dealt with.  LDS don't believe that God the Father ever really directly deals with His children, except when He does so to introduce or bear witness of His Son.  Christ is our mediator with the Father in all things.

 

So, to be clear, we do believe the God of the bible has a physical body because we believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  We don't believe that Jesus had a physical body before His mortal birth though (just to clarify).

 

Speaking of God the Father, we do believe that He has a resurrected body of flesh and bone exactly as Jesus has.  Beyond that, the LDS church does not really teach much concerning God the Father's past.  There are certain things that are assumed because of our theology (that God was once a man-just as Christ was once a man, for example) but not much more than very limited assumptions are ever discussed.  It is NOT a teaching of the LDS church that our universe pre-dates God.

 

 

 

 

[bluebell]

Foreign to the Book of Mormon also

Jacob 4:9 For behold, by the power of his a word man came upon the face of the earth, which earth was created by the power of his word. Wherefore, if God being able to speak and the world was, and to speak and man was created, O then, why not able to command the dearth, or the workmanship of his hands upon the face of it, according to his will and pleasure?

The Book of Mormon never agrees with Mormonism when it abandon's the Evangelic thought.

 

You've already proven multiple times that you don't understand the Book of Mormon.

[teddyaware]

Bluebell, this is one of the reasons why so many Christians believe that the God of Mormonism is NOT the God of the Bible.

 

 

        The Bible teaches, that the universe including the earth did not exist until God created it out of nothing and on the sixth day created man.(Gen. 1:1-2, 25-31) God tells us that man did not exist prior to the sixth day and nothing existed prior to day one. On the sixth day of Creation, God made Adam from the dust of the earth and breathed into him life and Adam became a living soul.(Gen. 2:7) Thus, Adam being the first man was given life by God, and Adam, then being a living being, passed life on to his children and his descendants.

         Mormonism presents a much different picture of creation and this is a serious problem for them. Life, according to Mormonism, already existed in the universe before Adam as an "intelligence." Based on this teaching they believe that all humans existed somewhere in the universe without a body prior to being born on earth. First this "intelligence" received a spiritual body in heaven when a spirit child is sexually produced by its man-god parents in heaven. Next, this pre-mortal spirit person then received a physical body when he was born to human parents on earth. Now as a human being their god lived a faithful life obeying the Mormon gospel, and he then was allowed to go on to the Celestial heaven. Because of his faithfulness to the Mormon gospel, he was declared "worthy" and merited godhood. He then was exalted and become a god. This whole scenario is totally foreign to the Word of God, the Bible, and is one reason why biblical Christians totally reject Mormons as Christians. Their god is totally incomparable with our Creator the God of the Bible.

         LDS doctrine naturally leads to the conclusion that time has always existed and there was no beginning. However, that is totally illogical because the fact is that "time" exists , and by its nature had to have a beginning and it will have an end. That is essence of time. Without a beginning there could be no time. The existence of time which proceeds forward is evidence of a beginning and of a Creator.

 

In large measure, the Prophet Joseph Smith agrees with you:

 

 

"I am dwelling on the immortality of the spirit of man. Is it logical to say that the intelligence of spirits is immortal, and yet that it has a beginning? The intelligence of spirits had no beginning, neither will it have an end. That is good logic. That which has a beginning may have an end. There never was a time when there were not spirits; for they are co-equal [co-eternal] with our Father in heaven.

 

I want to reason more on the spirit of man; for I am dwelling on the body and spirit of man—on the subject of the dead. I take my ring from my finger and liken it unto the mind of man—the immortal part, because it had no beginning. Suppose you cut it in two; then it has a beginning and an end; but join it again, and it continues one eternal round. So with the spirit of man. As the Lord liveth, if it had a beginning, it will have an end. All the fools and learned and wise men from the beginning of creation, who say that the spirit of man had a beginning, prove that it must have an end; and if that doctrine is true, then the doctrine of annihilation would be true. But if I am right, I might with boldness proclaim from the house-tops that God never had the power to create the spirit of man at all. God himself could not create himself." (Joseph Smith)

 

By the way, these statements by the Prophet Joseph Smith were made very near the end of His life, amy years after the coming forth of the Book of Mormon.

Edited April 17, 2015 by teddyaware

[JLHPROF]

 

The LDS church teaches that the God of the bible is Jesus Christ (Jehovah).   He is the God which the children of Israel dealt with.  LDS don't believe that God the Father ever really directly deals with His children, except when He does so to introduce or bear witness of His Son.  Christ is our mediator with the Father in all things.

 

So, to be clear, we do believe the God of the bible has a physical body because we believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  We don't believe that Jesus had a physical body before His mortal birth though (just to clarify).

 

Speaking of God the Father, we do believe that He has a resurrected body of flesh and bone exactly as Jesus has.  Beyond that, the LDS church does not really teach much concerning God the Father's past.  There are certain things that are assumed because of our theology (that God was once a man-just as Christ was once a man, for example) but not much more than very limited assumptions are ever discussed.  It is NOT a teaching of the LDS church that our universe pre-dates God.

 

Thank you for specifically stating "the Church".  Some members have their own beliefs (myself included) that go beyond what you stated here.  There are several things I don't agree with, but the Church itself would agree with you completely.  And that should be what is represented to those of other faiths.

[HOLY CATHOLIC]

You've already proven multiple times that you don't understand the Book of Mormon.

So please give chapter and verse where Book of Mormon proves your points

[jackson20]

To my mind there are two kinds of context.

The kind of context specific to each part of the Bible - how/why/when/by whom was it written, what did they mean and under what circumstances did they write it.

 

The other kind is equally important in my mind - the ability to take any part of scripture and place it in correct context in the gospel as a whole.  This is where Mormons and "traditional" Christians differ.  Not in the minutia, but in their placement of each teaching in the Bible into the big picture of the gospel.  We simply aren't looking at the same picture when we take a Bible teaching, even with all it's historical context intact, and make it fit into the gospel as we understand it.

 

We can take any scripture completely in context, but place its teachings completely incorrectly into the gospel of Jesus Christ.  It is like a jigsaw puzzle with two lakes pictured.  We can analyze each piece perfectly.  Recognize that that piece of water is absolutely part of a lake and see it in perfect context as representing water.  And then we put it in the wrong of the two lakes.

 

 

Very well stated JLHPROF

I definitely agree with most of what you state.

However I agree with HOLY CATHOLICS statement "The Book of Mormon never agrees with Mormonism when it abandon's the Evangelic though". 

I think every LDS and non-LDS should have a good understanding of the differences. Here is a site that is easy to read and is in table form. The differences are NOT minor and are extremely significant. Google

 

The Book of Mormon contradicts ITSELF and the Bible!

www.bible.ca/mor-contradictions.

[JLHPROF]

So please give chapter and verse where Book of Mormon proves your points

 

 

However I agree with HOLY CATHOLICS statement "The Book of Mormon never agrees with Mormonism when it abandon's the Evangelic though".

 

 

 

Pick a single point you think Mormons teach and the Book of Mormon contradicts and we'll provide a scripture.  There are dozens and dozens of points on this thread.

I am not talking about teachings of Mormonism not contained in the BOM (we have other revelations as well).  But please show me any single contradiction between the BOM and Mormonism and we will address it.

Edited April 17, 2015 by JLHPROF

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

So please give chapter and verse where Book of Mormon proves your points

As a note there is more scripture than just the bible and the BoM. There is the D&C and the PoGP. Feel free to use any of them.

[bluebell]

Thank you for specifically stating "the Church". Some members have their own beliefs (myself included) that go beyond what you stated here. There are several things I don't agree with, but the Church itself would agree with you completely. And that should be what is represented to those of other faiths.

I was specifically thinking of you when I phrased it the way I did.

[bluebell]

So please give chapter and verse where Book of Mormon proves your points

Where the Book of Mormon proves that you don't understand it?

[Nosca]

I've been thinking about this this morning and am wondering, from a non-LDS Christian point of view, whether or not Jesus was the son of God before the earth was created?      Yes.  You need to understand the words "Son of God" as meant by the Church (the RCC Church - with which most Protestants/EV's will agree on this point) not by trying to understand their Greek roots or how you as LDS interpret them.  The link you see in post #2 is a good start. 

 

I know that for many non-LDS Christians the idea that Jesus was created by God-is God's spirit Son-is offensive.  Not so much offensive as un-Biblical and just ignoring a clear message from the Bible.  Since the time of the Israelites fleeing Egypt, through the rise of Judaism, through Jesus and the apostles and through the Church to today, one thing that is clear, unmistakable, and not chaning is God telling us that He is One - Hear O Israel God is one.  Not two gods, not multiple gods, not the god of the earth only and there are other gods ruling other planets.  So, based on what God has told us, He did not create a second, lesser, god by creating Jesus, and a third, lesser God by creating the Holy Spirit.  They are one God.  That's part of our understanding of the Trinity - a mystery we can never fully wrap our minds around and never fully capture with our language.

 

That would seem to imply that Jesus is only considered the Son of God because of his mortal birth as such.  No, it doesn't impy that.  From a RCC/Protestant/EV POV (at least most of them) Jesus is eternal, has always been, will always be, has always been with God and part of God and one with God.  His Incarnation as Jesus, as a man on earth, was a stupendous thing for which we whorship Him, in part.  But does not imply from a RCC/Prot/EV point of view that at His birth was when He bacame the Son of God - He has always been the Son of God.  Again, trying to parse the words "Son of God" through a LDS or "what do those words mean in English or Greek" filter won't get you there.  The words simply try to capture a mystery beyond our understanding of the relationship bewteen God and Jesus and are the best we can do - they are also what Jesus often called Himself - so we follow His example.

 

So before Jesus was born as the physical Son of God, what was His relationship with God the Father?  Why would you think the relationship changed?

[bluebell]

Yes.  You need to understand the words "Son of God" as meant by the Church (the RCC Church - with which most Protestants/EV's will agree on this point) not by trying to understand their Greek roots or how you as LDS interpret them.  The link you see in post #2 is a good start. 

 

Explain the words "Son of God" as your church means it then.

 

 

Not so much offensive as un-Biblical and just ignoring a clear message from the Bible.  Since the time of the Israelites fleeing Egypt, through the rise of Judaism, through Jesus and the apostles and through the Church to today, one thing that is clear, unmistakable, and not chaning is God telling us that He is One - Hear O Israel God is one. 

 

 

Yes, God is one.  LDS agree, we just disagree on what that means.  

 

No, it doesn't impy that.  From a RCC/Protestant/EV POV (at least most of them) Jesus is eternal, has always been, will always be, has always been with God and part of God and one with God.  His Incarnation as Jesus, as a man on earth, was a stupendous thing for which we whorship Him, in part.  But does not imply from a RCC/Prot/EV point of view that at His birth was when He bacame the Son of God - He has always been the Son of God.  Again, trying to parse the words "Son of God" through a LDS or "what do those words mean in English or Greek" filter won't get you there.  The words simply try to capture a mystery beyond our understanding of the relationship bewteen God and Jesus and are the best we can do - they are also what Jesus often called Himself - so we follow His example.

 

 

So, if i'm understanding you right, you're saying that yes, Jesus has always been the Son of God, though you have no idea how or why.  It just is what it is.

 

Why would you think the relationship changed?

 

 

If Jesus had not always been the Son of God, then that would mean that He was something else to God before His mortal birth.  

[danielwoods]

Actually, that verse says sons of God witnessed the creation, not Angels.

The bible teaches that we are the children of God. Even unbelievers are called the offspring of God.

And if you want to interpret the other verse to be speaking only about God's foreknowledge that's fine, but that's not what the verse actually says.

 

1) Angels were called sons of God in Job, not men (Job 1:6; 2:1).

Not wanting to derail it any further I will try and bring it back with this:

Speaking about Jesus:

John 1:3 "All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made."

Colossians 1:6 "For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him."

[jackson20]

Pick a single point you think Mormons teach and the Book of Mormon contradicts and we'll provide a scripture.  There are dozens and dozens of points on this thread.

I am not talking about teachings of Mormonism not contained in the BOM (we have other revelations as well).  But please show me any single contradiction between the BOM and Mormonism and we will address it.

Hi JLHPROF

OK   lets start with God the Father is a Spirit.  This is stated in the Bible Jn.4:24, Lk. 24:39   and BOM Alma 18:26-28, 22:8-11--------------Mormon doctrine contradicts this as states, God the Father has flesh and bones.

[JLHPROF]

Hi JLHPROF

OK   lets start with God the Father is a Spirit.  This is stated in the Bible Jn.4:24, Lk. 24:39   and BOM Alma 18:26-28, 22:8-11--------------Mormon doctrine contradicts this as states, God the Father has flesh and bones.

 

John 4:24 - The trickiest of them.  I'll refer you to the esteemed people over at "Fairmormon"

 

The context of this verse is that Jesus is explaining to a Samaritan woman how one must worship. Jesus teaches that the place of worship, whether Samaria or Jerusalem, is not important, but rather the way one worships. By teaching attributes of God, Jesus teaches how His children can and should relate to Him and worship Him. Latter-day Saints emphatically agree that God is indeed spirit, just as He is love 1 Jn 1:5, light 1 Jn 4:8, and a consuming fire Deuteronomy 4:24, but He is not only spirit, love, light, or fire.

The Greek language has no indefinite article ("a" or "an") and so the translator must decide whether to include that word in the English text. But for Latter-day Saints, the presence or absence of the article makes no difference. Latter-day Saints believe both that God is spirit (as an attribute) and that God is a spirit (as a statement of His nature). Similarly, Latter-day Saints believe that all people are also spirits, but spirits housed within a physical body.

In the chapter immediately preceding this scripture, in John 3:5-6 , Jesus says the following:

John 3:5 Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. John 3:6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. (NASB)

It is clear from the above verse that Jesus considered it entirely possible for a mortal human with a physical body to be spirit. Likewise, it is not inconsistent to believe that God the Father simultaneously has a physical body and "is spirit."

 

Luke 24:39 - Christ says he is not a spirit because he has a body.  The Father isn't mentioned.

 

Alma 18:26-28 - taken out of context

24 And Ammon began to speak unto him with boldness, and said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God?

25 And he answered, and said unto him: I do not know what that meaneth.

26 And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit?

27 And he said, Yea.

28 And Ammon said: This is God. And Ammon said unto him again: Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth?

 

Ammon did not call God a spirit.  He likened God to what King Lamoni's pagan style religion referred to as the "Great Spirit".  This would be like me likening the Father to "Allah" if speaking to a Muslim investigator or a Greek and a Roman comparing Zeus and Jupiter.  This was not a declaration that God is a spirit being with no body.  His body is never mentioned.

Alma 22:8-11 - same thing.

[jackson20]

 

The LDS church teaches that the God of the bible is Jesus Christ (Jehovah).   He is the God which the children of Israel dealt with.  LDS don't believe that God the Father ever really directly deals with His children, except when He does so to introduce or bear witness of His Son.  Christ is our mediator with the Father in all things.

 

So, to be clear, we do believe the God of the bible has a physical body because we believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  We don't believe that Jesus had a physical body before His mortal birth though (just to clarify).

 

Speaking of God the Father, we do believe that He has a resurrected body of flesh and bone exactly as Jesus has.  Beyond that, the LDS church does not really teach much concerning God the Father's past.  There are certain things that are assumed because of our theology (that God was once a man-just as Christ was once a man, for example) but not much more than very limited assumptions are ever discussed.  It is NOT a teaching of the LDS church that our universe pre-dates God.

 

 

Hi Bluebell

You claim that God the Father has a body of flesh and bones. Yet nowhere is this statement made in the Bible. Please don't support this statement with ---God made man in His image, which requires God to look like man------way too many problems with this interpretation.

 

You say " It is NOT a teaching of the LDS church that our universe pre-dates God."   What are you saying here.....by using "our" universe?    God is very very clear in His word that he is "omnipresent" and that he knows of no Gods before or after Him.

 

The Lord tells us this.... do you not believe Him?  Do you not thing an OMNIPRESENT God would know if there are other Gods???? He flatly says NO there no other Gods.....which commonsense  would tell us in this universe or any other universe. An omnipresent, all knowing God would know this.

 

• Isaiah 44:6-8: "This is what the Lord says — Israel's King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come — yes, let him foretell what will come. Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one.": "This is what the Lord says — Israel's King and Redeemer, the Lord Almighty: I am the first and I am the last; apart from me there is no God. Who then is like me? Let him proclaim it. Let him declare and lay out before me what has happened since I established my ancient people, and what is yet to come — yes, let him foretell what will come. Do not tremble, do not be afraid. Did I not proclaim this and foretell it long ago? You are my witnesses. Is there any God besides me? No, there is no other Rock; I know not one."

[jackson20]

John 4:24 - The trickiest of them.  I'll refer you to the esteemed people over at "Fairmormon"

 

Luke 24:39 - Christ says he is not a spirit because he has a body.  The Father isn't mentioned.

 

Alma 18:26-28 - taken out of context

24 And Ammon began to speak unto him with boldness, and said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God?

25 And he answered, and said unto him: I do not know what that meaneth.

26 And then Ammon said: Believest thou that there is a Great Spirit?

27 And he said, Yea.

28 And Ammon said: This is God. And Ammon said unto him again: Believest thou that this Great Spirit, who is God, created all things which are in heaven and in the earth?

 

Ammon did not call God a spirit.  He likened God to what King Lamoni's pagan style religion referred to as the "Great Spirit".  This would be like me likening the Father to "Allah" if speaking to a Muslim investigator or a Greek and a Roman comparing Zeus and Jupiter.  This was not a declaration that God is a spirit being with no body.  His body is never mentioned.

Alma 22:8-11 - same thing.

 

Jesus Christ stated quite clearly that God the Father is a Spirit:         God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (John 4:24) Does this leave the option that God as a spirit could also have a “body of flesh and bones?”     Here is how Jesus defined a spirit: Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Luke 24:39)     Therefore, Jesus left us no option to believe that God, in His Glory, exists merely as a body consisting of flesh and bones.  Elsewhere in the Bible are statements indicating that God is invisible, although humans are obviously visible: ...Christ... Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: (Colossians 1:15)

[Nosca]

Explain the words "Son of God" as your church means it then.   Start with the link in post #2 and let me know your understanding.  I'm happy to help but have no desire to get in a back and forth with you parsing language.  What the RCC understands the words "Son of God" to mean is easily found.

 

 

 

Yes, God is one.  LDS agree, we just disagree on what that means.  This is a good place to point out how LDS talk past Christians and why I don't spend lots of time here, because these threads inevitably devolve into nothing.  My aim is simply to try and explain things from a RCC viewpoint or, better yet point you to what the Church herself says.  For you to say we agree God is one, it's just that's He's really not One, He's three but they all agree with each other so He's really one, is non-sensical.  If he's three then he's not one.  And we believe that because of the Bible and Tradition coming from the Apostles.  I understand you can come right back and say, buy you say He's one but yet He's really three but you want to say He's one - so you're statement is non-sensical.  You may be fully aware of that, I just find many LDS are not.. What it boils down to, and I don't mean this in a bad way - it just is what it is - is do you believe the Church that Christ founded through Peter, or JS?

 

 

So, if i'm understanding you right, you're saying that yes, Jesus has always been the Son of God - Yes.  Though you have no idea how or why.  I didn't say that - you said that.  It just is what it is.  I didn't say that either.

 

 

If Jesus had not always been the Son of God, then that would mean that He was something else to God before His mortal birth.  Perhaps - but it's a moot point.  He's always been the Son of God so your "if" doesn't matter as far as He's concerned.  I get you're trying to either make a point or understand that Jesus could have been, was,in a different relationship to God before or after the incarnation.  What I'm trying to tell you Bluebell is that from a RCC/Prot/EV POV it's not that important - He's always been in the same relationship to God that He is now.  His incarnation and sacrifice on the cross may have heightened His esteem in God's eyes - I have no idea, I'm not God - but it didn't change the relationship - at least that I know of from Tradition or the Bible.  He wasn't once a spirit child, He didn't have the best plan so got picked by God over Lucifer - none of that happend (i hope it's understood I mean that in the eyes of RCC/Prot/EV - I'm not interested in arguing those beliefs with you) - so there was no change in the relationship after he was born on earth.

[JLHPROF]

Jesus Christ stated quite clearly that God the Father is a Spirit:         God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth. (John 4:24) Does this leave the option that God as a spirit could also have a “body of flesh and bones?”     Here is how Jesus defined a spirit: Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have. (Luke 24:39)     Therefore, Jesus left us no option to believe that God, in His Glory, exists merely as a body consisting of flesh and bones.  Elsewhere in the Bible are statements indicating that God is invisible, although humans are obviously visible: ...Christ... Who is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of every creature: (Colossians 1:15)

 

I gave you the explanation.

I showed you why there was no conflict between Mormonism and the Book of Mormon.

You are unable to see the possibility of a God other than the one you have already come to believe in (admittedly, I am in the same boat).

Simply put, our context for reading scripture is colored by the religion we belong to.  Neither of us is likely to be able to see God the way the other does, because that's not what we read in scripture.

[bluebell]

Start with the link in post #2 and let me know your understanding.  I'm happy to help but have no desire to get in a back and forth with you parsing language.  What the RCC understands the words "Son of God" to mean is easily found.

 

I did read it already when it was first posted.  It seems to say that according to Catholicism, Christ is both eternally the Son of God   and created by Him.

 

 

This is a good place to point out how LDS talk past Christians and why I don't spend lots of time here, because these threads inevitably devolve into nothing.  My aim is simply to try and explain things from a RCC viewpoint or, better yet point you to what the Church herself says.  For you to say we agree God is one, it's just that's He's really not One, He's three but they all agree with each other so He's really one, is non-sensical.  If he's three then he's not one.  And we believe that because of the Bible and Tradition coming from the Apostles.  I understand you can come right back and say, buy you say He's one but yet He's really three but you want to say He's one - so you're statement is non-sensical.  You may be fully aware of that, I just find many LDS are not.. What it boils down to, and I don't mean this in a bad way - it just is what it is - is do you believe the Church that Christ founded through Peter, or JS?

 

 And this is probably where we end.  I have no desire to talk to anyone who is only interested in making sure i understand their beliefs but has absolutely no desire to understand mine.  That's not a discussion, that's a lecture.

 

 

I didn't say that either.

 

 It was not meant as an insult.  If something is a mystery, then it's not known.  I

 

Perhaps - but it's a moot point.  He's always been the Son of God so your "if" doesn't matter as far as He's concerned.  I get you're trying to either make a point or understand that Jesus could have been, was,in a different relationship to God before or after the incarnation.  What I'm trying to tell you Bluebell is that from a RCC/Prot/EV POV it's not that important - He's always been in the same relationship to God that He is now.  His incarnation and sacrifice on the cross may have heightened His esteem in God's eyes - I have no idea, I'm not God - but it didn't change the relationship - at least that I know of from Tradition or the Bible.  He wasn't once a spirit child, He didn't have the best plan so got picked by God over Lucifer - none of that happend (i hope it's understood I mean that in the eyes of RCC/Prot/EV - I'm not interested in arguing those beliefs with you) - so there was no change in the relationship after he was born on earth.

 

 

Thanks for your answer.