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

[bluebell]

Christ is both. He clothed himself with humanity, for the purpose of taking all of our punishment on himself. He remained fully Spirit throughout his time on Earth, and is now also human with his dual nature.

This makes me wonder, how can the Son of God be so different from God the Father? How can the Son have something as part of His nature which the Father doesn't?

[danielwoods]

If Christ is "fully Spirit," even though His spirit is clothed in a human body, then on technical and theoretical grounds there should be no objections from non-LDS Christians when the Latter-day Saints say they believe God the Father is also "fully Spirit" while His spirit is also clothed in a body. If one member of the Godhead is a Spirit, even though He has a body, then that sets the precedent that God the Father could also have a body while still being fully considered to be a Spirit. So according to your own word, the Prophet Joseph Smith could rightly teach "God the Father has a body of flesh and bones" and not contradict Christ when he said "God is a Spirit."

 

Something else to consider: Because Christ said He did no other thing than what He'd seen the Father do before Him, it should not be surprising to any Christian that the Father could have taken upon Himself a human body before Christ took on His body, otherwise what did Christ mean when He said:

 

19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

 20 For the Father loveth the Son, and sheweth him all things that himself doeth: and he will shew him greater works than these, that ye may marvel. (John 5)

 

But LDS theology goes one step further by asserting that the reason why Paul declared Christ is a "quickening spirit" is because His earthly body was made "wholly spiritual" in nature by the resurrection. it's for this reason that at least one prominent LDS theologian (I forget his name) said one of the definitions of the word Spirit (with a capital "S,") is a glorified and exalted being with a resurrected "spiritual body" of flesh and bone. So not only was Christ's pre-earth nature a spiritual one, but now even hIs body is wholly spiritual in nature as well. Hence, as a resurrected being He is rightly called "a quickening spirit," or in other words a being with a wholly spiritual nature who has the power to to quicken (bodily resurrect) others and make them wholly spiritual beings as well.

 

Error comes in many forms. The Gnostics taught (now I'm hoping I'm remembering this right, wasn't it the Gnostics?) that physicalness was inherently evil, so Jesus became only Spirit after the resurrection, but flesh was evil. Which also isn't taught in the bible. And Jesus post resurrection, ate food, and appeared to many, just as any other man would appear. 

 

The reality is that we aren't taught all the details. So, if Joseph Smith claims that the Father has a physical body, that's fine, there simply is no justification to support such a teaching. The OT is full of anthropomorphic statements. "Earth is his foot stool…" etc. But, we shouldn't derive from those statements that the Father's physical feet rest on the Earth. 

Edited April 21, 2015 by danielwoods

[danielwoods]

This makes me wonder, how can the Son of God be so different from God the Father? How can the Son have something as part of His nature which the Father doesn't?

 

Mysteries abound. They are separate persons, so they have individual thoughts and feelings. How can Christ "turn off" his attributes he already has to become a baby? I don't know. I only think of it as analogous to closing one's eyes. We have eyes, and if we close them, we no longer see, even though we still have them. OR how does an all mighty, infinite, all knowing God feel pain? Hurt? Or Loss? We see through a glass darkly. We are given enough knowledge to connect to him in relationship. The concept described by CS Lewis as God experiencing all moments at the same time still has my mind spinning. 

 

The dialogue in Job (37?) makes it clear that God is far different from a finite human being.

[Paloma]

Mysteries abound. They are separate persons, so they have individual thoughts and feelings. How can Christ "turn off" his attributes he already has to become a baby? I don't know. I only think of it as analogous to closing one's eyes. We have eyes, and if we close them, we no longer see, even though we still have them. OR how does an all mighty, infinite, all knowing God feel pain? Hurt? Or Loss? We see through a glass darkly. We are given enough knowledge to connect to him in relationship. The concept described by CS Lewis as God experiencing all moments at the same time still has my mind spinning. 

 

The dialogue in Job (37?) makes it clear that God is far different from a finite human being.

 

Great response, Daniel!

[danielwoods]

Great response, Daniel!

 

Thanks!

[Paloma]

This topic has been spinning in my mind for the last several days.  And I've also been thinking about the bigger picture of how we relate to God, how we communicate with each other, etc.  Every tangent I go off on could be an exploratory topic in itself, which is probably part of the reason I don't write much on these boards, and why I'd love to sit down and chat in person over a long, leisurely time.

 

After mulling over some of the developments in this thread (and I haven't had opportunity to read every response, but I've seen things here and there in this and other threads), I am left with the thought that it's helpful when our theology (way of understanding God)  is descriptive rather than prescriptive ...  (descriptive being more open-ended and arising from personal observation and realization;  prescriptive being more factual and rigid and along the lines of "this is not only the way I see it, but the right way so you should see it too.")

 

This message board is named a dialogue and discussion board (concepts more compatible with "description"). When it turns into a debate board (more compatible with "prescription"), and when posters become more bent on strict interpretations and preachy, and sometimes stridently so, then misunderstandings and the sense of being condescended to, and even bannings, can and do occur.

 

 Even how we approach the term theology is significant to my thinking here.  I have taken both Systematic theology (more prescriptive) and Biblical theology courses(more descriptive).  And I'm so struck by the realization that any type of theological study is our best attempt at understanding God through our own human construct.  I've just pulled out my long-kept binders of notes and see that on the first day of my Systematic theology class I  wrote from my professor's words (based on 1 Corinthians 2: 6-16):  "Paul talks about knowing God;  says knowledge of God is WISDOM;  comes from the Spirit;  wisdom which is contrary to wisdom of the world.  God's secret, hidden wisdom appears as foolishness to the world ... a paradox, not accessible to reason alone;  not limited to rationality alone.  God has revealed wisdom to us by His Spirit. ... We have a provisional understanding.  Theology is an ongoing attempt to try to understand."   As I recall, my professor started the class with a comment about how we are all filled with a thousand heresies.  And i noted this comment at the conclusion of the class:  "Near the end of life, (noted theologian) Barth was invited to give a radio interview. ( He died two weeks later, in the midst of writing an exposition on his theological thoughts.)  in the radio interview he said;  The last word I have to say as a theologian is:  'simply Jesus Christ.  He is the first and last;  there is no salvation in any other name than this.' ".  I so appreciated that even within the more prescriptive discipline of Systematic Theology, our approach was one of humility and ongoing learning and revelation, and yes, even mystery where the best we can do is attempt to understand and explain God who has made Himself accessible, yet is still transcendently beyond our human, rational understanding.

 

So I come back to how to understand that Jesus Christ as the second person of the Trinity is and has eternally been God's Son.

 

And I find that I have to approach it through Jesus, who is not only the Son of God but also the Son of Man (divine human).  So many of his own statements and those elsewhere in the New Testament speak about how He is our representative, example, mediator, elder brother, forerunner etc.

 

Jesus' statements about Himself are descriptive, rather than prescriptive.  He is I AM.  He is the Bread of Life, the Light of the World, the Living Water, the Way, the Truth and the Life, the Good Shepherd.  He is the only beloved Son.  He spoke descriptively, whether in bold statements or in more veiled yet accessible stories and parables.  (By describing Jesus' statements as descriptive rather than prescriptive, I mean that He didn't frame His words in tight and rigid ways whereby we could measure our compliance and then beat up those who fell outside the lines.  His descriptive words were thought-provoking and life-giving rather than confining.  I'm not saying that His words lacked clarity and decisiveness, but they were affirming rather than invitations for judgementalism.)

 

From my reading of the Bible, I see that we access and are in relationship to God the Father through Jesus.  Galatians 3: 26 tells us that we are all God's children, through faith in Jesus  Christ. It's only through Jesus that we know the Father (Matthew 11:27).  And so I understand that my own identity as a child of God is mediated by Jesus Christ, and is an essential part of my identity with Christ and in Christ.   To me, this helps explain how and why Jesus is eternally the Son of God (as in "God sent forth His Son ... that we might receive the adoption of sons ... sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying Abba Father." ( Galatians 4: 4-6).  And Ephesians 1:5 says we have adoption as sons through Jesus Christ.

 

As I was writing the above paragraph, I was realizing that this both makes sense to me and has incredible meaning to me in a way that would make little or no sense to an LDS believer who sees oneself as a literal child of God.  Then, I assume, there would be no need for this idea of coming into God's family through Christ, and for the concept of spiritual adoption.  But for me, to know God within the deeper sphere of redemption (and not just as Creator, or First Cause, or as Sustainer and Provider of the Universe), is to know Him as Father, and it is Jesus the Son who makes the Father known to me, and through whom I, too, am a child of God.

Edited April 21, 2015 by Paloma

[bluebell]

 

As I was writing the above paragraph, I was realizing that this both makes sense to me and has incredible meaning to me in a way that would make little or no sense to an LDS believer who sees oneself as a literal child of God.  Then, I assume, there would be no need for this idea of coming into God's family through Christ, and for the concept of spiritual adoption.  But for me, to know God within the deeper sphere of redemption (and not just as Creator, or First Cause, or as Sustainer and Provider of the Universe), is to know Him as Father, and it is Jesus the Son who makes the Father known to me, and through whom I, too, am a child of God.

 

Thank you Paloma!  Great thoughts and I appreciate your sharing them.  I admit that because of my own theology some of what you have expressed makes less sense to me (which doesn't matter) but the bolded above is applicable to LDS because we do believe in the doctrine of spiritual adoption.

 

We do believe that when we covenant with Christ thru baptism that we become His sons and daughters-spiritually adopted.  We believe it is this adoption which makes it allows us to become Joint-heirs with Him.  

[Paloma]

Thank you Paloma!  Great thoughts and I appreciate your sharing them.  I admit that because of my own theology some of what you have expressed makes less sense to me (which doesn't matter) but the bolded above is applicable to LDS because we do believe in the doctrine of spiritual adoption.

 

We do believe that when we covenant with Christ thru baptism that we become His sons and daughters-spiritually adopted.  We believe it is this adoption which makes it allows us to become Joint-heirs with Him.  

 

Thanks for this clarification, Bluebell. How important dialogue is, if we're to understand each other! 

[Tacenda]

This topic has been spinning in my mind for the last several days. And I've also been thinking about the bigger picture of how we relate to God, how we communicate with each other, etc. Every tangent I go off on could be an exploratory topic in itself, which is probably part of the reason I don't write much on these boards, and why I'd love to sit down and chat in person over a long, leisurely time.

After mulling over some of the developments in this thread (and I haven't had opportunity to read every response, but I've seen things here and there in this and other threads), I am left with the thought that it's helpful when our theology (way of understanding God) is descriptive rather than prescriptive ... (descriptive being more open-ended and arising from personal observation and realization; prescriptive being more factual and rigid and along the lines of "this is not only the way I see it, but the right way so you should see it too.")

This message board is named a dialogue and discussion board (concepts more compatible with "description"). When it turns into a debate board (more compatible with "prescription"), and when posters become more bent on strict interpretations and preachy, and sometimes stridently so, then misunderstandings and the sense of being condescended to, and even bannings, can and do occur.

Even how we approach the term theology is significant to my thinking here. I have taken both Systematic theology (more prescriptive) and Biblical theology courses(more descriptive). And I'm so struck by the realization that any type of theological study is our best attempt at understanding God through our own human construct. I've just pulled out my long-kept binders of notes and see that on the first day of my Systematic theology class I wrote from my professor's words (based on 1 Corinthians 2: 6-16): "Paul talks about knowing God; says knowledge of God is WISDOM; comes from the Spirit; wisdom which is contrary to wisdom of the world. God's secret, hidden wisdom appears as foolishness to the world ... a paradox, not accessible to reason alone; not limited to rationality alone. God has revealed wisdom to us by His Spirit. ... We have a provisional understanding. Theology is an ongoing attempt to try to understand." As I recall, my professor started the class with a comment about how we are all filled with a thousand heresies. And i noted this comment at the conclusion of the class: "Near the end of life, (noted theologian) Barth was invited to give a radio interview. ( He died two weeks later, in the midst of writing an exposition on his theological thoughts.) in the radio interview he said; The last word I have to say as a theologian is: 'simply Jesus Christ. He is the first and last; there is no salvation in any other name than this.' ". I so appreciated that even within the more prescriptive discipline of Systematic Theology, our approach was one of humility and ongoing learning and revelation, and yes, even mystery where the best we can do is attempt to understand and explain God who has made Himself accessible, yet is still transcendently beyond our human, rational understanding.

So I come back to how to understand that Jesus Christ as the second person of the Trinity is and has eternally been God's Son.

And I find that I have to approach it through Jesus, who is not only the Son of God but also the Son of Man (divine human). So many of his own statements and those elsewhere in the New Testament speak about how He is our representative, example, mediator, elder brother, forerunner etc.

Jesus' statements about Himself are descriptive, rather than prescriptive. He is I AM. He is the Bread of Life, the Light of the World, the Living Water, the Way, the Truth and the Life, the Good Shepherd. He is the only beloved Son. He spoke descriptively, whether in bold statements or in more veiled yet accessible stories and parables. (By describing Jesus' statements as descriptive rather than prescriptive, I mean that He didn't frame His words in tight and rigid ways whereby we could measure our compliance and then beat up those who fell outside the lines. His descriptive words were thought-provoking and life-giving rather than confining. I'm not saying that His words lacked clarity and decisiveness, but they were affirming rather than invitations for judgementalism.)

From my reading of the Bible, I see that we access and are in relationship to God the Father through Jesus. Galatians 3: 26 tells us that we are all God's children, through faith in Jesus Christ. It's only through Jesus that we know the Father (Matthew 11:27). And so I understand that my own identity as a child of God is mediated by Jesus Christ, and is an essential part of my identity with Christ and in Christ. To me, this helps explain how and why Jesus is eternally the Son of God (as in "God sent forth His Son ... that we might receive the adoption of sons ... sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying Abba Father." ( Galatians 4: 4-6). And Ephesians 1:5 says we have adoption as sons through Jesus Christ.

As I was writing the above paragraph, I was realizing that this both makes sense to me and has incredible meaning to me in a way that would make little or no sense to an LDS believer who sees oneself as a literal child of God. Then, I assume, there would be no need for this idea of coming into God's family through Christ, and for the concept of spiritual adoption. But for me, to know God within the deeper sphere of redemption (and not just as Creator, or First Cause, or as Sustainer and Provider of the Universe), is to know Him as Father, and it is Jesus the Son who makes the Father known to me, and through whom I, too, am a child of God.

Ok, I need and want to go to the church of Paloma! Not to degrade my Saviour just that Paloma, you can preach to me anytime about my Saviour especially since my faith is on extremely low.

[Paloma]

Ok, I need and want to go to the church of Paloma! Not to degrade my Saviour just that Paloma, you can preach to me anytime about my Saviour especially since my faith is on extremely low.

 

The church of Paloma ... now that would by scary, and mostly for me who needs a lot of guidance!  

 

But seriously, I appreciate your comment, Tacenda.

 

(You do notice that you said, "my Saviour", right Tacenda?  And that's where your hope lies!)

 

For a long time, I've noticed your faithful journey, and I think that's something that God really honours.  Some of us struggle so much more than others, but He understands us all ... especially since He made us and knows us inside and out! 

[coolrok7]

Bluebell, what was the basis for the question you initially asked?

 

It to me seems to go to what I think is a major difference between what Joseph Smith taught (concerning the nature man in relation to Deity of the Godhead) and what Christianity, inclusive of the first century, has understood from recorded (Biblical) revelation.

 

I do like how Paloma explains things (she has done this before back on the faith alone discussion 9/19/2009 as I made a copy of the page).

[bluebell]

Bluebell, what was the basis for the question you initially asked?

 

 

 

I honestly don't remember!

 

It came to me after a conversation with one of the protestant members of the board, but I don't remember what it was exactly.

[teddyaware]

This topic has been spinning in my mind for the last several days.  And I've also been thinking about the bigger picture of how we relate to God, how we communicate with each other, etc.  Every tangent I go off on could be an exploratory topic in itself, which is probably part of the reason I don't write much on these boards, and why I'd love to sit down and chat in person over a long, leisurely time.

 

After mulling over some of the developments in this thread (and I haven't had opportunity to read every response, but I've seen things here and there in this and other threads), I am left with the thought that it's helpful when our theology (way of understanding God)  is descriptive rather than prescriptive ...  (descriptive being more open-ended and arising from personal observation and realization;  prescriptive being more factual and rigid and along the lines of "this is not only the way I see it, but the right way so you should see it too.")

 

This message board is named a dialogue and discussion board (concepts more compatible with "description"). When it turns into a debate board (more compatible with "prescription"), and when posters become more bent on strict interpretations and preachy, and sometimes stridently so, then misunderstandings and the sense of being condescended to, and even bannings, can and do occur.

 

 Even how we approach the term theology is significant to my thinking here.  I have taken both Systematic theology (more prescriptive) and Biblical theology courses(more descriptive).  And I'm so struck by the realization that any type of theological study is our best attempt at understanding God through our own human construct.  I've just pulled out my long-kept binders of notes and see that on the first day of my Systematic theology class I  wrote from my professor's words (based on 1 Corinthians 2: 6-16):  "Paul talks about knowing God;  says knowledge of God is WISDOM;  comes from the Spirit;  wisdom which is contrary to wisdom of the world.  God's secret, hidden wisdom appears as foolishness to the world ... a paradox, not accessible to reason alone;  not limited to rationality alone.  God has revealed wisdom to us by His Spirit. ... We have a provisional understanding.  Theology is an ongoing attempt to try to understand."   As I recall, my professor started the class with a comment about how we are all filled with a thousand heresies.  And i noted this comment at the conclusion of the class:  "Near the end of life, (noted theologian) Barth was invited to give a radio interview. ( He died two weeks later, in the midst of writing an exposition on his theological thoughts.)  in the radio interview he said;  The last word I have to say as a theologian is:  'simply Jesus Christ.  He is the first and last;  there is no salvation in any other name than this.' ".  I so appreciated that even within the more prescriptive discipline of Systematic Theology, our approach was one of humility and ongoing learning and revelation, and yes, even mystery where the best we can do is attempt to understand and explain God who has made Himself accessible, yet is still transcendently beyond our human, rational understanding.

 

So I come back to how to understand that Jesus Christ as the second person of the Trinity is and has eternally been God's Son.

 

And I find that I have to approach it through Jesus, who is not only the Son of God but also the Son of Man (divine human).  So many of his own statements and those elsewhere in the New Testament speak about how He is our representative, example, mediator, elder brother, forerunner etc.

 

Jesus' statements about Himself are descriptive, rather than prescriptive.  He is I AM.  He is the Bread of Life, the Light of the World, the Living Water, the Way, the Truth and the Life, the Good Shepherd.  He is the only beloved Son.  He spoke descriptively, whether in bold statements or in more veiled yet accessible stories and parables.  (By describing Jesus' statements as descriptive rather than prescriptive, I mean that He didn't frame His words in tight and rigid ways whereby we could measure our compliance and then beat up those who fell outside the lines.  His descriptive words were thought-provoking and life-giving rather than confining.  I'm not saying that His words lacked clarity and decisiveness, but they were affirming rather than invitations for judgementalism.)

 

From my reading of the Bible, I see that we access and are in relationship to God the Father through Jesus.  Galatians 3: 26 tells us that we are all God's children, through faith in Jesus  Christ. It's only through Jesus that we know the Father (Matthew 11:27).  And so I understand that my own identity as a child of God is mediated by Jesus Christ, and is an essential part of my identity with Christ and in Christ.   To me, this helps explain how and why Jesus is eternally the Son of God (as in "God sent forth His Son ... that we might receive the adoption of sons ... sent forth the Spirit of His Son into our hearts, crying Abba Father." ( Galatians 4: 4-6).  And Ephesians 1:5 says we have adoption as sons through Jesus Christ.

 

As I was writing the above paragraph, I was realizing that this both makes sense to me and has incredible meaning to me in a way that would make little or no sense to an LDS believer who sees oneself as a literal child of God.  Then, I assume, there would be no need for this idea of coming into God's family through Christ, and for the concept of spiritual adoption.  But for me, to know God within the deeper sphere of redemption (and not just as Creator, or First Cause, or as Sustainer and Provider of the Universe), is to know Him as Father, and it is Jesus the Son who makes the Father known to me, and through whom I, too, am a child of God.

 

You are mistaken if you think the LDS scripture teach men and women carry with them any residual spiritual light and power from the pre-mortal realm into this fallen mortal realm apart from the saving work of Jesus Christ. In one of the most famous chapters in the Book of Mormon, the Prophet Jacob (son of Lehi) makes it crystal clear that without the infinite and eternal sacrifice of Christ all men and women would be surrounded and filled with nothing but spiritual darkness and that not even a single good thought or impulse could exist within them; that we would unavoidably be drawn into hell where all would be as spiritually dead as the devil himself.

 

Most Latter-day Saints do not realize the Book of Mormon testifies the spiritual death that passes upon our preexistent spirits as a consequence of the fall is so complete and so final that without the atonement of Christ there wouldn't be even a single ray of spiritual light that could exist within us. And this total death of the spirit passes upon all men no matter how faithful and valiant they might have been when they existed as spirits in the premortal world prior to life on earth. It is for this reason that the Book of Mormon teaches us Christ is the light that illuminates the soul of every man and woman who enters into this world. There is no mention at all that we bring any spiritual light of our own into this fallen state apart from the atoning power of the great final sacrifice of Christ the Lord. And so we read...

 

 

 8 O the wisdom of God, his mercy and grace! For behold, if the flesh should rise no more our spirits must become subject to that angel who fell from before the presence of the Eternal God, and became the devil, to rise no more.

 9 And our spirits must have become like unto him, and we become devils, angels to a devil, to be shut out from the presence of our God, and to remain with the father of lies, in misery, like unto himself; yea, to that being whobeguiled our first parents, who transformeth himself nigh unto an angel of light, and stirreth up the children of men unto secret combinations of murder and all manner of secret works of darkness.

 10 O how great the goodness of our God, who prepareth a way for our escape from the grasp of this awful monster; yea, that monster, death and hell, which I call the death of the body, and also the death of the spirit. (2 Nephi 9)

 

And again...

 

 

22 For behold, God knowing all things, being fromeverlasting to everlasting, behold, he sent angels to minister unto the children of men, to make manifest concerning the coming of Christ; and in Christ there should come every good thing.

 23 And God also declared unto prophets, by his own mouth, that Christ should come.

 24 And behold, there were divers ways that he did manifest things unto the children of men, which were good; and all things which are good cometh of Christ; otherwise men were fallen, AND THERE COULD NO GOOD THING COME UNTO THEM. (Moroni 7)

 

So the Book of Mormon reveals that the spiritual death our spirits suffer as a consequence of the fall is so total, complete, final and otherwise-irreversible that without the atonement of Christ all mankind would be forever lost, and any spiritual growth and wisdom they achieved in the pre-earth life would avail them absolutely nothing.

Edited April 24, 2015 by teddyaware

[coolrok7]

Biblical teaching was already affirming the immediate spiritual separation of man from God (Genesis 3), initially, followed later by physical death (way before the BofM came on the scene in which we don't need in order to understand this).

 

There was already a promise made concerning the coming seed of a woman (only men having the seed in the sense of reproduction) to remedy the fall of man.

 

Genesis infers what we now know as the Virgin conception/birth (Luke chapter 1) which makes Him the only-begotten Son of God of John's Gospel. I believe this makes the most sense in that it is at this point in history where the physical form Jesus inhabited or tabernacled (already in existence as God, not a created being, not the Father/Holy Spirit) began in the womb of the Virgin Mary.

 

We as non-Mormon believers in Jesus do not accept the claims of the BofM along with the other works of Joseph Smith and view them as a part of the counterfeit working of Satan in men's lives open to his spiritual deception. This is why we don't see things the same way and disagree at major points of doctrine right down the line.

 

God (Jesus as both God, later becoming a man in order to suffer death to make the atonement) became a man to save man from an eternal punishment, not to make him "a god" (the purpose of the Mormon temple, not the purpose of the Jerusalem Temple which portrays the concept of a Righteous, Holy God whose presence before Jesus' sacrifice could only be approached in the Holy of Holies with the shed blood of animals sprinkled on the Ark of the Covenant on the mercy seat which pointed forward to the shedding of Jesus' blood due to the sin brought about disobedience to God's commands in the Garden of Eden).

 

At Jesus' death, there was an earthquake which tore the great veil in the Temple, signifying that God's requirement of broken Law was met in Jesus' obedience to the Law of God required of His creation. Jesus in our place obeyed that law perfectly for us. So those of faith now can claim His righteousness in the presence of a Holy God. This would include those who Paul points out in Romans 2, those who are a law unto themselves based on what they knew about God based on the creation itself.

 

Jesus death and resurrection deals with both the spiritual separation from God and physical death (separation of the spiritual from the physical) we suffer as the result of Adam and Eve's disobedience which got them kicked out of the Garden, followed up by physical death.

 

Along with the Mormon so-called "Scripture", the Hindu Vedas, Muhammad's Qur'an, Mary Baker Eddy's Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures, Charles Taze Russell's writings (the list goes on and on), all are a part of this spiritual deception warned about in the Bible.

 

What I said earlier to Bluebell, the topic concerning the nature of God and man, is one point where Joseph Smith twists/departs from the Biblical teaching, while affirming a lot of what is taught but ultimately denying the main thrust of the Biblical teaching.

 

This is what spiritual deception ultimately accomplishes, distorting the truth of God as it is in Jesus, the way, the truth and the life.

 

As Paloma made the point in what she had stated, the Bible is both descriptive as well as prescriptive. I believe that God has intended the Bible to inform what He requires of us regarding the matter of faith and how it leads to eternal life post this mortal life, on into eternity.

 

I appeal to Biblical  teaching not to be offensive but which will be to believing Mormons, here and elsewhere.

[Vance]

 In my view, God is not human, nor even close to being human, and never was human.

You creedals are so confusing.  From this statement I take it that either 1) Jesus was not God, OR 2) Jesus was not human.  Please let me know which.

 

The relationship they have is very close, and how would one communicate that?

As accurate as possible for people to understand.  Do not uses terms that mislead.

 

Further, they have different roles, or "jobs" or what have you, just as a husband and wife have different roles, though neither is greater than the other.

Different roles yes.  But you do know that Jesus taught "My Father is greater than I" See John 14:28

 

We seek to understand who God is, and what he's made of, how he functions, etc, etc… yet, this is similar to attempting to understand how gravity works, or any of the deep mysteries of the universe. So, while I share your passion for knowledge, I also understand that understanding such things about an eternal/infinite creator of all, is always going to be "seeing through a glass darkly."

 

What do you think Jesus is trying to teach to these simple men in this situation?

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

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

 

From this, why would anyone expect the Father to look/be different from the Son?

[bluebell]

 

I appeal to Biblical  teaching not to be offensive but which will be to believing Mormons, here and elsewhere.

 

It's not offensive at all when you quote scripture to support your beliefs.  Mormons don't disagree with the Bible; we disagree with your interpretation of it.  That's an important distinction.  

[danielwoods]

You creedals are so confusing.  From this statement I take it that either 1) Jesus was not God, OR 2) Jesus was not human.  Please let me know which.

 

 

 

As accurate as possible for people to understand.  Do not uses terms that mislead.

 

 

 

Different roles yes.  But you do know that Jesus taught "My Father is greater than I" See John 14:28

 

 

 

 

What do you think Jesus is trying to teach to these simple men in this situation?

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

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

 

From this, why would anyone expect the Father to look/be different from the Son?

 

It appears you didn't read the whole thread. 

 

The topic was about the dual nature of Jesus, as viewed by non-LDS. Sometimes he and scripture is talking about Jesus from the perspective of a man, and sometimes from the perspective of almighty God. It's important to understand which perspective is being used to interpret the statements you are quoting. 

[Vance]

It appears you didn't read the whole thread. 

 

The topic was about the dual nature of Jesus, as viewed by non-LDS. Sometimes he and scripture is talking about Jesus from the perspective of a man, and sometimes from the perspective of almighty God. It's important to understand which perspective is being used to interpret the statements you are quoting. 

Dual nature of Jesus???

 

Your statement

  In my view, God is not human, nor even close to being human, and never was human.

specifically denies the possibility of a person having a dual nature.

 

Either a person can be both human and God or a person can't.  You can't have it both ways.

 

It doesn't matter what has been discussed already.  You haven't and CAN'T resolve this contradiction.

 

BTW you dodged my questions.

Edited April 26, 2015 by Vance

[Vance]

"Why God is?" Get's us to logical questions of where did it all begin? Some posit an infinite regress (this god begat that god begat that…. and so on).

In the Bible it simply teaches that "In the beginning God…" He is, has been and always will be. He is the only being with this description.

????

 

That is a very sloppy interpretation.

 

"In the beginning God . . . " can NOT mean, in any way, that God has always been and "always will be".  Always has no beginning.  So the statement "in the beginning" can NOT be referring to always or eternity or eternal.

 

Once again the plain language of the scripture specifically destroys your interpretation of it.

 

So, if you ask me what my position is on this question, I refer to the Bible, and say that there is but one Eternal, infinite being, that has been forever, and forever will be. So, yes God the Father has always been and always will be the Father, and the same with the Son and the Spirit.

You have yet to provide a scriptural basis for this.  Your interpretation does not stand.

[Vance]

The other answer is anthropomorphic. The term Father and Son, is used to help us to understand their roles and relate to them. It doesn't indicate that the Father produced the son, in the way we procreate. 

You haven't and CAN'T support this supposition with scripture.  There are many other ways that God could have used to describe the relationship IF the relationship was only what you believe it to be.  You have no scriptural basis for your limitation of their relationship in the way you have done.

[Vance]

And yet John describes him as being Eternal, just as God the father is. 

Sorry, but the Gospel of John only uses the word "eternal" 9 times that I can find, and not one of them refers to a characteristic of Jesus.

• John 4:36 And he that reapeth receiveth wages, and gathereth fruit unto life eternal: that both he that soweth and he that reapeth may rejoice together.
• John 6:54 Whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day.
• John 6:68 Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.
• John 17:2 As thou hast given him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal life to as many as thou hast given him.
• John 17:3 And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.
• John 3:15 That whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal life.
• John 5:39 ¶Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
• John 10:28 And I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, neither shall any man pluck them out of my hand.
• John 12:25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

[Vance]

Indeed other passages do indicate his eternal nature.

 

Could you provide some of them?

 

The phrase is "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth…" In which case it is a reference to the beginning of physical creation, not a reference to when God began.

 

Then why did you misuse it to claim that it meant that God was eternal?

[Vance]

 

Eternal is defined (by theologians that I studied) as meaning no beginning and no end.

Ok, so you don't have any Biblical support for that presumption then, but have to go to some "theologians".

 

Got it.

 

So, we aren't eternal beings, only God is.

This conclusion could be false because it is based upon what could be a false presumption based upon what could be false interpretations of some "theologians".

 

Got it.

 

Basically, all of what you are saying could be false.

 

So, do I really need to go through this entire thread and pick your presumptions apart?

[thesometimesaint]

This on again off again resurrection thing has me really confused.

[halconero]

Depends on what "eternity" means. I consider an eternity to be a measure of dominion and authority, and that a plurality of these eternities exist. In that sense, I believe that Jesus has always been the Son of God in this eternity.