Divine identity of Jesus - Oct 2019 GC

[jonah747]

Would someone clarify what I read in a General Conference talk - The Message, the 
Meaning, and the Multitude.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/10/11holland?lang=eng

What is the main difference in the way Jesus is considered one of many begotten 
of heavenly parents and the way Jesus is regarded as the only begotten of the 
Father?  Does the former mean within a marriage covenant and the latter is 
outside a marriage covenant? Or was Heavenly Father also involved in a marriage 
covenant with Mary as the father of Christ's physical body?

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, jonah747 said:

Would someone clarify what I read in a General Conference talk - The Message, the 
Meaning, and the Multitude.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/10/11holland?lang=eng

What is the main difference in the way Jesus is considered one of many begotten 
of heavenly parents and the way Jesus is regarded as the only begotten of the 
Father?  Does the former mean within a marriage covenant and the latter is 
outside a marriage covenant? Or was Heavenly Father also involved in a marriage 
covenant with Mary as the father of Christ's physical body?

Did not look at the talk yet but "begotten" means physically born, embodied.

We are all SPIRITS and children of Heavenly Father and Mother, but Jesus is the only one born in the flesh. They are the parents of our spirits.

I have never asked my physical parents how they made me, and I don't think we should ask God for such details.  It seems rather rude to me, quite frankly.

That's THEIR private business 

[CV75]

2 hours ago, jonah747 said:

Would someone clarify what I read in a General Conference talk - The Message, the 
Meaning, and the Multitude.

https://www.churchofjesuschrist.org/study/general-conference/2019/10/11holland?lang=eng

What is the main difference in the way Jesus is considered one of many begotten 
of heavenly parents and the way Jesus is regarded as the only begotten of the 
Father?  Does the former mean within a marriage covenant and the latter is 
outside a marriage covenant? Or was Heavenly Father also involved in a marriage 
covenant with Mary as the father of Christ's physical body?

Please explain how these 3 questions arose from your reading of the talk to better allow for a proper response.

Otherwise, the most simplistic reply is: Jesus is not considered one of many begotten of heavenly parents; no; there was a covenant -- although not specified as marriage -- suggested in the wording of Luke 2 and Matthew 1.

But rather than reply to this simplistic reply, please explain how your 3 questions arose from your reading of the talk.

[Pyreaux]

On 11/25/2023 at 9:38 AM, jonah747 said:

What is the main difference in the way Jesus is considered one of many begotten 
of heavenly parents and the way Jesus is regarded as the only begotten of the 
Father?  Does the former mean within a marriage covenant and the latter is 
outside a marriage covenant? Or was Heavenly Father also involved in a marriage 
covenant with Mary as the father of Christ's physical body?

The term "only" son means "most beloved" son. So, Abraham sacrificed his "only begotten son" (Heb 11:17, Gen 22:2), though he also had Ishmael. There were many miraculous "virgin" conceptions in the Bible, like Isaac, Samuel, Sampson, and John. The Bible has many "sons of God" in it, like the heavenly hosts, Adam, Melchizedek, Solomon and all baptized Christians. Angels and humans who were adopted, but according to the law of adoption, adopted sons are legally defined as "begotten" sons, also. Jesus is the Preeminent Son of God, a begotten firstborn son in the spirit long before he was born in the flesh (Heb 1).

Similar issues of singularity arise in the "denial verses". To say I am the Lord there is none beside me, is to say I am unlike any other, it’s not to say there are no others. Just as Isaiah when using them on Babylon was not saying Babylon the only city (Isa 47:10), he was saying it was incomparable, alone in comparison.

Isaac and Ishmael

Edited November 26, 2023 by Pyreaux

[Rain]

9 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Did not look at the talk yet but "begotten" means physically born, embodied.

We are all SPIRITS and children of Heavenly Father and Mother, but Jesus is the only one born in the flesh. They are the parents of our spirits.

I have never asked my physical parents how they made me, and I don't think we should ask God for such details.  It seems rather rude to me, quite frankly.

That's THEIR private business 

I've heard this kind of thing for a long time and I've had mixed feelings about it. There have many who have asked sincere questions and not out of idle curiosity and I think Heavenly Father is ok with that. But I sort of understood how people would feel private about it.

But you just blew it up for me.  Never would I ask my parents for a play by play of my conception, but if I found my birth certificate (or my brother's) with another father's name that wasn't my dad I would totally ask my parents about it. If they were open (like it seems Joseph and Mary along with the rest of the world is) about my dad not being my dad and that someone else was my father you better believe that would be some of my questions during those conversations. 

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, Rain said:

I've heard this kind of thing for a long time and I've had mixed feelings about it. There have many who have asked sincere questions and not out of idle curiosity and I think Heavenly Father is ok with that. But I sort of understood how people would feel private about it.

But you just blew it up for me.  Never would I ask my parents for a play by play of my conception, but if I found my birth certificate (or my brother's) with another father's name that wasn't my dad I would totally ask my parents about it. If they were open (like it seems Joseph and Mary along with the rest of the world is) about my dad not being my dad and that someone else was my father you better believe that would be some of my questions during those conversations. 

My objection is mostly based on the notion that present humanity cannot possibly have enough "intelligence" to comprehend any of this "as it is", ANYTHING we come up with would be as "accurate" as some story in Greek mythology.

It's just beyond our abilities to fathom.

Yet we persist.

[jonah747]

On 11/25/2023 at 1:14 PM, CV75 said:

Please explain how these 3 questions arose from your reading of the talk to better allow for a proper response.

Otherwise, the most simplistic reply is: Jesus is not considered one of many begotten of heavenly parents; no; there was a covenant -- although not specified as marriage -- suggested in the wording of Luke 2 and Matthew 1.

But rather than reply to this simplistic reply, please explain how your 3 questions arose from your reading of the talk.

My questions revolved around the part that said "Joseph beheld in vision his
Heavenly Father, the great God of the universe, and Jesus Christ, His perfect
Only Begotten Son".

[jonah747]

On 11/25/2023 at 5:57 PM, Pyreaux said:

The term "only" son means "most beloved" son. So, Abraham sacrificed his "only begotten son" (Heb 11:17, Gen 22:2), though he also had Ishmael

Ishmael was born after the flesh so that might explain why he wasn't considered
as the only-begotten.

[Pyreaux]

3 hours ago, jonah747 said:

Ishmael was born after the flesh so that might explain why he wasn't considered
as the only-begotten.

Sarah ("Princess", her new regal name) was a part of the royal everlasting covenant, that is what made Isaac the royal birthright son and heir of the promise, but he's not saying "only begotten son" to disregard Ishmael as a son. I don't think mere "sonship" itself is a matter of the manner birth. For thirteen years Ishmael was the "son of the house" (Gen 15:3) and regarded probably as the true heir before Isaac. I think the Greek for "only son" also implies to mean the "true heir". Isaac was certainly the only birthright son and religious pre-eminent son. Not literally the only begotten son, all in all, Abraham had begotten eight sons. Jesus is the true heir, but there are multiple adopted-begotten sons, even multiple-called the "firstborn", and joint-heirs. 

Edited November 27, 2023 by Pyreaux

[CV75]

5 hours ago, jonah747 said:

My questions revolved around the part that said "Joseph beheld in vision his
Heavenly Father, the great God of the universe, and Jesus Christ, His perfect
Only Begotten Son".

The way this quote is written, Jesus is regarded as God's "perfect, Only Begotten Son," a unique designation that "the great God of the universe" does not apply to His spirit children, except perhaps in the sense of "joint heirs with Christ" as taught in the New Testament, a function of covenant. But marriage or any other covenant is not mentioned in this quote. It is clear to me that Heavenly Father says He is the Father of Christ's physical body as the scriptures testify, and I consider what we call the Old and New Testaments a significant way in which the prophets proclaimed God's covenants. The marriage covenant is often used to teach important principles concerning the Jesus's covenant relationship with His Church, Israel, Zion, etc., and sometimes these names refer to the same thing, and sometimes not.

[jonah747]

On 11/27/2023 at 11:37 AM, Pyreaux said:

Isaac was certainly the only birthright son and religious pre-eminent son. Not literally the only begotten son, all in all, Abraham had begotten eight sons. 

What do you mean by Isaac being the only birthright son?

[jonah747]

On 11/27/2023 at 3:17 PM, CV75 said:

But marriage or any other covenant is not mentioned in this quote. It is clear to me that Heavenly Father says He is the Father of Christ's physical body

I heard that Heavenly Father is the Father of Christ's spiritual body through a marriage covenant
with His wife.  Is this not also the case with Mary for Christ's physical body?

 

[CV75]

23 minutes ago, jonah747 said:

I heard that Heavenly Father is the Father of Christ's spiritual body through a marriage covenant
with His wife.  Is this not also the case with Mary for Christ's physical body?

 

Some kind of covenant, anyway. Conceptualizing it as a marriage covenant or a marriage of sorts may be helpful for some as a step in appreciating both marriage and covenants. Christ Himself is The Covenant, which I think takes priority over whatever structures might be in place outside our personal lifetime.

[Pyreaux]

12 hours ago, jonah747 said:

What do you mean by Isaac being the only birthright son?

The family favorite son. For practical purposes the birthright son is the one after the father dies, or in the father’s absence, that assumed the father’s authority and responsibilities. The father could rescind the birthright and pass it on to a younger son. In cases where a husband might have more than one wife, the birthright went to the firstborn and could not be awarded to the son of a favorite wife without proper justification for doing so (Deuteronomy 21:15-17) or unless the mother was a concubine (Genesis 21:9-13; Judges 11:1-2). The birthright of a king’s firstborn son included his succession to the throne (2 Chronicles 21:1-3). King Rehoboam of Judah violated this tradition by passing the birthright to Abijah, his favorite son. However, to avoid trouble with the older sons, the king paid them off (2 Chronicles 11:18-23).

As New Testament Christians, we have an inherited “birthright” status through Jesus Christ who has the status as the firstborn Son (Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15; Revelation 1:5). But Christ promises to share with us His kingdom and inheritance (Romans 4:13; Galatians 3:29; Ephesians 1:18; Hebrews 11:16). Christians are warned not to imitate Esau who, on impulse, gave away his birthright for a bowl of stew (Hebrews 12:16-17; Genesis 25:19-34). Jesus has been the appointed heir of all things (Hebrews 1:2; Psalm 2:7-8; Matthew 28:18) while we, through His grace, are counted as joint heirs (Romans 8:17; Galatians 3:29; Titus 3:7).

[jonah747]

On 11/29/2023 at 10:49 PM, Pyreaux said:

As New Testament Christians, we have an inherited “birthright” status through Jesus Christ who has the status as the firstborn Son (Romans 8:29; Colossians 1:15; Revelation 1:5).

So only the heirs of God/joint-heirs with Christ (of Romans 8:17) and the kings/priests (of Revelation 1:5)
inherit this birthright status?

[Pyreaux]

On 12/1/2023 at 8:31 AM, jonah747 said:

So only the heirs of God/joint-heirs with Christ (of Romans 8:17) and the kings/priests (of Revelation 1:5)
inherit this birthright status?

Yes, those in the church of the firstborn are those written of in heaven {Heb 12:23}, like birthright son, these terms are used like the “firstborn son” has a second meaning in a religious context, when its the one chosen by God in some fashion.

The king-priests (Melchizedekian) and born-again-sonship go hand-in-hand. God fathered all our spirits but some spirits he made his angel-sons (Genesis 2:4 "These are the generations [begettings] of the heavens"; Psalm 104:4), these were a council of elohim-gods ("gods" by virtue of their sonship, "begotten sons" by virtue of adoption, assignment, designation) but only one was designated as his "firstborn" son ("designated", it maybe outside literal "birth" order, no source comes to mind right now, but I think Satan may have refused to bow to Jesus (Heb 1:6; LXX Deut 32:43) on the basis of being his Elder but clearly was passed over for the endorsement by being unworthy). Outside God's presence, The Son, Thee Son, was preeminent among those other sons, as He was made king over them (Job 1). This status carried over when he was born in the flesh, he was always his "only begotten", rather "most beloved" son, prior to being born in the flesh, though he's also the Son of God in various other ways too. His pre-incarnate identity, his miraculous conception, his first to be resurrected/reborn, his Royal High Priesthood initatory rebirth, the Son of God featured in OT scripture. Like, there are many anointed ones (christs/christians) in both the past and later, but what makes Jesus thee Christ, is he's the prophesied Christ in scripture to come, there had been no christs for 490 years since the fall of Solomon's Temple.

When we were born of humans, we are considered humans until we are adopted by Lord Jesus, just as the Lord did to human Kings in the past. (2 Sam 7;14; Psalm 2:7) and made born again king-priests (Psalms 110:4 "a priest after the order of Melchizedek"; LXX, Psalm 109:3 "this day I have begotten you"). And thus, the type of priests that Christians are of is the "royal priesthood" as that is the origin of it, their baptism is a priestly initiation rite to purify them, and symbolizes rebirth (Baptism=Womb Water, Confirmation=Quickening of the Body, Endowment=Incarnation of the Spirit, New Name=A name from birth). Just as in the past, the priesthood is the preparation everyone needs to enter God's house and stand in his presence and survive. Men cannot see God and live.  We become the new sons of God, we joined the genos of God, gods because we are sons of God. Though a human now, should they encounter God on earth, they'll transfigure as an immortal, a god, just to survive it. Though temporary, after the judgement the transformation will be permanent. That at least is what I see. The patterns, as above, so below.

Edited December 2, 2023 by Pyreaux

[jonah747]

@Pyreaux Thank you for that very thorough comment.

Edited December 3, 2023 by jonah747